Latest news with #Dimmitt
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supervisors split in reimbursing Jefferson Sheriff
FAIRFIELD — The county will reimburse the legal expenses incurred by Jefferson Sheriff Bart Richmond, after the sheriff tangled with the Jefferson County Attorney's Office in court over his placement on a list of officers with questionable credibility. The list is known as the Brady/Giglio list, named after two U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding information prosecutors must provide to defendants in criminal trials. If an officer is on the list, it means prosecutors would need to disclose information about what led to the placement to defense counsel if the officer is listed as a state's witness. A district court judge in February found Richmond did not lie and thus his placement on the list was not warranted. After the ruling, Richmond asked the county to reimburse his legal fees to date. County Attorney Chauncey Moulding has filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. The issue first came to the board two weeks ago, but was tabled as supervisors looked into the legality of a potential reimbursement and to see if the county's insurer would cover the cost. On Monday, Jefferson County Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Dimmitt said the payment couldn't be covered under the county's insurance policy, but he did believe supervisors could approve the expenditure given Iowa Supreme Court opinions regarding public fund expenditures. The Iowa Constitution requires expenditures to be for a public purpose, but Iowa's top court has held that purpose should be broadly defined. The longstanding precedent cited in multiple cases that finding an expenditure doesn't meet a public purpose must be so "clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind at first blush." Dimmitt believed that precedent gave the supervisors room to legally reimburse Richmond's legal fees to date. "I do believe in reading that, we have some flexibility regarding how we define it as a public purpose — or if we define it as a public purpose," Dimmitt said. "I would also add that if public funds were expended ... to remove the ability of the ... sheriff ... to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office, therego it would seem we could use public funds to restore the ability of the sheriff to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office. I don't think they are mutually exclusive of each other in those terms." Supervisor Joe Ledger reiterated his calls for the "hours and dollars spent on this issue' be presented by the county attorney's office, and said he felt it was important to support Richmond. "At this time, I'm in support of Richmond — we've got to get behind our county employees," Ledger said. "And this is just a place where if we don't support our county employees how many more is gonna wanna pull out because we don't have support." The vote to approve the reimbursement was 2-1, with Supervisor Susie Drish opposed. "There's no statute to authorize payment of these fees under current law," Drish said as she voted no. Dimmitt acknowledged the county's budgetary challenges, and worried what would happen if legal expenses continued to climb. Supervisors have no authority to stop Moulding's appeal as long as he stays within his office's approved budget. "Evidently, County Attorney Moulding feels strongly enough about this — whether I agree or disagree — to move forward with it," Dimmitt said. "I can't stop it. I wish that I could, but I can't." Moulding was not at Monday's meeting. The supervisors had pondered whether to make it a one-time reimbursement, or to cap the amount they will reimburse. The final motion was simply to approve the request before them now. "This is a very difficult decision for me to make, anyway, because I can see both sides of the equation,' Dimmitt said. "I'm not willing, personally, to look at an unknown quantity. I can't do that. And the reason I can't do that is because we just talked this morning about not filling a position out at the roads department. ... "What if it goes to $100,000, where am I supposed to get it? Out of [the sheriff's] budget? Does that cost a deputy his job or her job? Those are not hypotheticals here. If we were to have to find $100,000 somewhere, that is a difficult search to have." Ledger said the taxpayers he's spoken to in recent weeks have indicated broad support for the reimbursement to Richmond. "Over the past two weeks, I've been in contact with numerous county taxpayers who believe that we should support Sheriff Richmond," Ledger said. "Several comments were that this appears to be a personal attack on the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department." The Iowa Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear Moulding's appeal, and their timetable for making that decision is unknown. Moulding has previously challenged the constitutionality of the process Richmond used to challenge his placement on the Brady/Giglio list, which used a new law that took effect July 2024 to establish a judicial review process. Moulding placed Richmond on the list in June 2024 for what he dubbed an obstruction into a use of force investigation. Judge Jeffrey Farrell said that while Richmond could have been more responsive, he was not dishonest and the conduct did not rise to the level necessary to warrant placement on the Brady/Giglio list. "There is no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth," Farrell wrote. "The problem is that he was nonresponsive to Moulding's emails and hesitant to provide information to the Keokuk County Attorney during her investigation. "The court has no doubt this entire case could have been easily avoided if Richmond had simply provided basic and professional responses to Moulding's emails." Federal and state cases have generally "required a showing of deceit, deception, or dishonesty," Farrell wrote. Additionally, Farrell noted details about Richmond's conduct would not likely change a jury's decision if disclosed.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri mayor warns of police layoffs if state grocery tax ends — senator calls tax on food and diapers 'regressive'
Missouri is one of around 10 states across the U.S. that tax groceries. Soon, that could change. Republican state Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman from Jefferson County is calling for the state to eliminate the tax it currently collects on food and diapers, and to prohibit local counties and cities from taxing those items (eight states across the U.S. allow this type of local taxation, reports KMOV First Alert 4). The senator's bill, which would immediately eliminate the 1.225% sales tax charged by the state, would phase out local taxes on groceries over the following four years. 'There's nothing more regressive than taxing necessities of life,' Coleman told First Alert 4. @placement The bill has received bipartisan support, as state residents look for relief from high grocery prices. However, not everyone is on board. 'This is one of the main things that keeps me up at night,' David Dimmitt, mayor of the St. Louis suburb of Brentwood, told First Alert 4. 'Because of how devastating it would be for every municipality across the state of Missouri.' If the tax on groceries were eliminated, the typical family of four in Missouri would save more than $60 per month, reports First Alert 4. It could have an especially positive impact on some of the state's poorest residents, believes Coleman, telling the Missouri Independent, 'I still think that this is the right solution, to create this carve-out, because our poorest citizens are having to pay regressive taxes.' Swiftly, a retail technology provider, found that an estimated 70% of people nationwide struggle with grocery affordability. Reducing costs by $60 a month could provide some breathing room for these individuals — and especially for the 13% of state residents who lie below the poverty line in Missouri. @placement Unfortunately, the relief to individual families could come at the cost of the stability of municipalities around Missouri, says Mayor Dimmitt. Dimmitt told First Alert 4 that the city of St. Louis would lose around $22 million in annual revenue, while Brentwood would lose $4 to $5 million or around 16% of the total revenue that the city currently collects. "You talk about defunding the police, you would see it in action because we would have to lay off police officers,' Dimmitt said. The mayor also says that layoffs would happen citywide, among all workers, that city projects would need to be delayed and that the city would have to start charging a real estate tax, if it lost the grocery revenue it collects. While there may be valid reasons for concern, Coleman thinks they might be overblown. Families who save money because of the grocery tax elimination would likely put that money back into the economy, she says, with other sales taxes making up the shortfall. 'Those municipalities would be able to make that offset,' Coleman said. For now, the legislation is under consideration and a long way from passage, so there's no guarantee the mayor's fears will come to fruition. However, if they do, families who benefit from the grocery savings will hopefully feel the promised relief — without facing the prospect of job cuts or new municipal taxes. @placement This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
