BELLE — Belle Mayor Pro Tem James (Pudd) Mitchell said on Tuesday morning that he has not viewed Lauber Municipal Law’s Jan. 24 response to the Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s Office (AGO). He alleges the former city clerk’s termination has nothing to do with the case. However, the response by the city’s attorney alleges the former clerk, “actively concealed from the board and mayor” a response to the AGO confirming all records requested had been produced.

“Not that I know of,” Mitchell said when asked if the former clerk’s termination had anything to do with the city’s response. “I haven’t seen what was sent to the Attorney General for our part. That’s why we hired the attorney, he is a Sunshine Law attorney and the guy that’s handling this is the guy that wrote Sunshine Law. They said its best to let them handle it because they know what to say and what to do.”

When asked if the city was aware of the June 16 letter from the AGO and Mayor Daryl White, Jr.’s responding July 20 letter to the AGO, Mitchell asked “was (White) responding.

“Did he respond? I’m hearing two sides,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell told The Advocate in July 2023 that White was taking care of the letter to the AGO. White also told the board during the July 11 board meeting that he wanted to have the former city attorney Amanda Grellner review the letter before he sent it.

“(White) said he was (handling it), but was he?” Mitchell asked. “I didn’t get a copy of (the letter).”

When asked if the letter sent to the AGO last year on behalf of the city was from the city, Mitchell said he didn’t write anything and didn’t read anything written up.

“The only thing I’ve seen is the letter we signed for on all the violations,” Mitchell said.

He added that he has not asked White to see the response that the mayor sent to the AGO on July 20, 2023, and that he hasn’t spoke to White.

Mitchell added that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources contacted him on Friday about the city’s compliance status with its water. When he returned the call, the state employee was surprised because previous attempts to reach out had not been returned.

“He said (DNR) had been asking for a response and for some reason (they) couldn’t get it,” Mitchell said. “There’s a lot of stuff I ain’t seen.”

Mitchell said he can’t say that White’s letter was or wasn’t sent to the AGO, and he has never looked through the former clerk’s binder that contained correspondence requested in regards to the case. When asked why he still has not looked, Mitchell said it was gone.

“It’s not here, the lawyer took it to give to the guy that’s handling our case so he could go through it all, is where it’s at,” Mitchell said, adding that he doesn’t know how the city responded in the Jan. 24 document to the allegations by the AGO, sent on the city’s behalf. “I haven’t got anything from (the attorney) yet, I haven’t seen anything.”

When asked if the city would have to sign off on anything sent to the courts by the attorney, Mitchell said he doesn’t know.

Aldermen voted on Jan. 22 to terminate former clerk Frankie Horstman. The city’s attorney Todd T. Smith traveled from Jefferson City on Jan. 23 to terminate the clerk. The board’s new Sunshine Law attorney Nathan Nickolaus, also with Lauber Municipal Law, was hired with a “roll call vote, all in favor,” according to Jan. 22 draft meeting minutes. Nickolaus submitted on Jan. 24 a seven page response on the city’s behalf to the AGO. The response include denial, confirmation, and unable-to-respond answers from the Belle aldermen.

Information regarding communication between the clerk, mayor and AGO could not be independently verified as a public binder containing information about the case was removed from City Hall on Jan. 23 by the City Attorney Todd T. Smith. The 500-page packet can be purchased for $79.50 by the general public.

In the city’s response on Jan. 24 to a Dec. 19 petition by the AGO of allegations that Belle aldermen violated Open Meetings (Sunshine) Law, the board denies it “committed systematic and pervasive violations of Open Meetings Law in 2023” and further alleges that officials were aware a letter was received from the AGO, “however, it was actively concealed from the board and mayor by the clerk.”

The city denies that, “Mayor Daryl White, Jr., has failed to ensure that the Missouri Open Meetings Law has been complied with; it failed to post notices of board of aldermen public meetings in accordance with the Open Meetings Law’s requirements; properly identify sections of the Open Meetings Law that authorize a closed meeting; include reasonable specificity of topics on meetings agendas; discuss items of business limited to the posted agenda items; and keep meeting minutes as required by the Open Meetings Law.”

The board of aldermen denied the following allegations in Count 1 - Failing to provide notices of public meetings:

• For at least three public meetings in 2023, the city failed to provide sufficient public notice for board of aldermen meetings. Each of those meetings were a “public meeting” as defined in Section 610.010 and all  four aldermen were present.

• Members of the public who saw (a July 31) meeting notice would not have known that the board was to meet on July 31, as the meeting notice did not have the  correct date. And at the time the city did amended the meeting notice to state the correct date, there were approximately two hours before the meeting would occur;

• The city violated Section 610.020.1 and .2 because it did not provide notice of the time, date, and place of either or both of all three public meetings identified above within 24-hours of the meetings;

• The city, White, and the board have known that public meetings must be posted to the public no sooner than 24-hours in advance of the public meeting;

• The city exhibited a conscious design, intent, or plan to violate the Open Meetings Law; and

• The city was aware that consequences exist for violating the Open Meetings Law.

The Board claimed a records request was “concealed from the board and mayor by the city clerk. It also alleges it lacks knowledge to be able to admit or deny what copies of meeting notices, minutes, or agendas were provided to the AGO. The board alleges” it was the clerk’s job to post notices and agendas” regarding meeting notices and agendas for May 30 and June 6  when the clerk was on vacation.

Belle officials’ deny the following in to Count 2 — Violations of Section 610.020.1 for discussing items of public business not on meeting agendas:

• The city knew or reasonably should have known in advance of an April 24 meeting what the agenda would include;

• That several items of public business on the April 11 agenda were not included when it was posted on Nov. 17, 2022, but an agenda was followed;

• That “department head reports” listed on the April 11 agenda did not contain enough information to reasonably inform the public;

• That a Feb. 21, 2023, special meeting with the only agenda item listed as “police department” does not sufficiently inform the public that funds may be used to purchase a K9 dog, but the city should have reasonably known in advance of the meeting that the focus would be on the purchase of a K9 dog and “police department” was too broad a topic.

• That a Feb. 13 meeting with “accept resignation” is not an agenda topic that sufficiently informs the public of the matters to be considered, as the agenda items does not identify the employee, official or title that is being resigned. Furthermore, the city knew or should have known that an alderman would be considered for appointment;

• That the city, mayor and board have known that public meeting agendas must be reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters considered at a public meeting or that the city exhibited conscious design, intent, or plan to violate Open Meetings Law;

In Count 3 — Violations of Section 610.020.7, the city denies:

• That it knew about an AGO request for public records that the custodian of records completed and confirmed were produced in full. The city did not provide minutes from a March 23 (Active Living Plan) open meeting; A May 11 Board of Adjustments meeting, or a May 30 aldermen meeting. They city denied it posted a special meeting notice for March 23 for Active Living Plan or the May 11 rezoning meeting for 203 Lenhoff Dr;

• That they failed to maintain the meeting minutes from those meetings and violated Section 610.020.7, and that the board knew they had to keep open and closed meeting minutes or that there were consequences for failure to do so;

In Count 4 — Violations of Section 610.022.3, the city denies:

• That a Feb. 21, 2023 special session closed meeting vote to purchase a K9 was not authorized by Section 610.021 or that a public meeting can only be closed for reasons under that section;

In Count 5 — Violations of Section 610.022.1, the board denies:

• That it has held closed session meetings without properly recording in the minutes the reason for closing, by reference to specific sections of Open Meetings Law, or that they did not include reasons or sections for closing ten different closed session meetings.

In conclusion, the city attorney’s affirmative defenses include “all claims set forth in the plaintiff’s petition are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and reserves the right to supplement affirmative defenses during the course of discovery.