Latest news with #MissouriSunshineLaw
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Carthage, Dagnan reach $275,000 settlement in wrongful termination suit
CARTHAGE, Mo. — A wrongful termination lawsuit filed by the former city manager of Carthage against the city last year was settled Tuesday at a cost of $275,000 to the city's insurance carrier. The city announced in a statement posted on its website after a closed meeting of the council Tuesday that the lawsuit had been settled and the city's portion of the cost was its $1,000 deductible. The city released the settlement and its terms Wednesday after a Missouri Sunshine Law request was filed by The Joplin Globe. The settlement said the city, through its liability insurance carrier, Midwest Public Risk, would pay Greg Dagnan $275,000 with $136,948.53 going to Dagnan and $138,051.47 going to his attorney, Aaron Hadlow, from Aurora. As part of the agreement, the city makes no admission of wrongdoing. The settlement also says the city agrees to waive all claims against Dagnan 'including but not limited to recoupment of the severance monies paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's separation of employment with the city on or about June 3, 2024.' At that time, Dan Rife, then the mayor, ordered the city to pay Dagnan three months' salary, or $27,427.20 in severance, the amount agreed to in a letter signed by the Rife and Dagnan at the time of his promotion to city administrator. Dagnan spent 13 years as Carthage police chief before being appointed assistant city administrator in 2021 and then city administrator with the sudden retirement of longtime administrator Tom Short in 2022. Dagnan on Wednesday told the Globe his attorney advised him not to comment. Hadlow did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday. Putting it behind them Carthage Mayor Bren Flanigan told the Globe in a telephone interview Wednesday that the settlement was a step toward putting the chaos of the past year in the rearview mirror. He said the vote was unanimous to sign the agreement after discussions with the attorneys from Midwest Public Risk in Tuesday's closed session held prior to the regular City Council meeting. 'I think it was brought up several times last night by council members representing their ward, they had been told we need to get beyond this," Flanigan said. "There was passionate debate and good solid debate, and the council decided what they wanted to do, and the result was they told me sign the agreement.' The City Council attempted to fire Dagnan at its April 9, 2024, regular meeting — the first meeting after the April 2, 2024, municipal elections brought in five new council members. Four of the new members were supported by a political action committee called Carthage Citizens United. That group formed in late 2023 in the wake of a dispute between the council and the board of directors of city-owned Carthage Water & Electric in June 2023 over documentation of salaries of utility workers. Rife initially resisted the council's efforts to fire Dagnan and retained him as city administrator until the end of May 2024, following the advice of an attorney representing Rife in the effort to impeach him. Dagnan filed his lawsuit claiming unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination May 17, 2024, naming the nine council members at the time of his filing and Carthage Citizens United as defendants. Flanigan noted that most of the charges brought up in Dagnan's suit had been denied by the court judge, including those against Carthage Citizens United. 'I think it was right at a year ago Dagnan named 11 defendants and was seeking 36 separate allegations of violations that those 11 defendants had committed,' Flanigan said. 'In the course of the last year, 35 of those 36 have been dismissed or gone to court and decided against Dagnan." Flanigan said an attorney advised the City Council on Tuesday that dismissal of any remaining claim by Dagnan could take up to two years "and a lot of money, and the council I think wisely decided we're just going to get on with it. That's what they voted to do.' Matthew Gist, the attorney hired by Midwest Public Risk to represent the city, told the Globe he couldn't comment on the case when contacted Wednesday. 2 letters According to the statement released by the city on Tuesday, Midwest Public Risk told the council that it could have rejected the settlement offer but that if it did, the city could have been 'responsible for all further legal costs and any additional settlement amounts.' Midwest Public Risk, a not-for-profit insurance pool, had sent the city two letters regarding Dagnan's lawsuit and the city's liability insurance costs since Dagnan filed his suit. • In a letter dated Oct. 8, 2024, Midwest recommended that the city 'immediately adopt a formal policy of obtaining legal advice prior to making employment practice decisions, especially terminations by the council.' The letter also said the city could be subject to sanctions, 'which may include a deductible increase or even termination of your membership in Midwest Public Risk. Our goal is to ensure that all members are adequately managing risks, as this benefits both the city and the broader membership.' That letter cited the Dagnan lawsuit as a factor in its recommendations. • In a letter dated March 24, 2025, Midwest Public Risk announced it was raising the city's employment practices liability deductible from $1,000 in the 2024-25 fiscal year to $50,000 in the 2025-26 period and raising the law enforcement liability deductible from $1,000 to $5,000 over the same period.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
State auditor finds lacking transparency in Stone County Developmental Disability Board
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Stone County Developmental Disability Board needs to operate more transparently and improve compliance with state law, according to a report released Monday, April 28, by Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick. The audit gives the Board a rating of 'fair' and recommends improved compliance with the Missouri Sunshine Law. According to a news release from the state auditor's office, the audit report highlights that the Board's Operations and Finance committees 'did not always provide notice of the time, date and place of each meeting, and did not prepare or provide tentative agendas.' The report also says that without maintaining meeting minutes and providing public notice of Board committee meetings, the Board lacks an official record and there is no transparency regarding the actions taken during committee meetings. Missouri agencies warn of scam text posing as Missouri Department of Revenue Additionally, the report found the Board violated the Sunshine Law by discussing and voting to increase the Executive Director's salary from $90,000 to $125,000 annually in the December 21, 2023, closed meeting. 'It's disappointing to see the Board doesn't consistently comply with the provisions of the Sunshine Law and in doing so prevents the public from having an adequate level of access to, and knowledge of, Board committee decisions and actions,' said Fitzpatrick in the release. Fitzpatrick also said the Board disagreed with many of the report's findings, made an incorrect claim that it doesn't qualify as a political subdivision, and provided a response that seems to indicate the Board believes compliance with state law is not mandatory. In addition, the audit found the Board did not comply with state law when it procured a construction manager for the construction of a facility to house all Board operations. The Board solicited proposals from construction managers for the facility using the construction manager-at-risk method outlined in Missouri state law, and in March 2024, awarded a contract to a construction manager for a guaranteed maximum price of $2.75 million. 'Sharks' Helicopter Battalion reunion held in Branson However, Section 67.5050(2), RSMo, allows this procurement method only for building projects that exceed $3 million. According to the report, the Board disagrees with that finding and makes the claim that 'it is not a political subdivision and thus not subject to the relevant statute.' However, Auditor Fitzpatrick says by its own admission, the Board is clearly a political subdivision as it defines itself as such on its own official website. 'I hope this report shines some additional light on the operation of the Board for the taxpayers of Stone County and the numerous individuals who have questioned Board decisions in recent years,' said Fitzpatrick. The full audit report for the Stone County Developmental Disability Board is available . Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
More education is needed on Missouri's Sunshine Law
Sunshine Law is the foundation of government transparency in Missouri. The more we know, the better we can hold power accountable (Getty Images). Missouri journalists know the Sunshine Law because we use it every day. We push to keep government records and meetings open and accessible because it is necessary for our reporting. But what about the general public? Most Missourians don't realize they rely on the Sunshine Law just as much as journalists do. Whether checking school board minutes, reading a local crime report or watching a city council meeting, Sunshine Law ensures government transparency. Yet, many people — public officials and citizens alike — don't fully understand how it works, and that's why the Missouri Sunshine Coalition is committed to educating communities. In January, we co-hosted two free Missouri Sunshine Law training sessions in northeast Missouri — one in Edina (Knox County) and another in Palmyra (Marion County). These sessions were open to the public and drew a strong turnout, especially from local government officials who wanted and needed to learn more about the laws governing public records. The biggest takeaway? Basic Sunshine Law knowledge is not common, even among those required to follow it. Increasing Sunshine Law education statewide is a key part of the coalition's mission. Why? Because knowledge is power. The more local officials and citizens know about their rights and responsibilities surrounding public information, the better our society will be. And demand for this information is high. In Edina, the trainer, a former director of Sunshine Law compliance at the Missouri Attorney General's Office, noted it was the largest training session he had conducted in his two years in the role. In Palmyra, he said the turnout was among the biggest in the state. During our training sessions, we saw firsthand how public bodies struggle to fully understand Sunshine Law requirements. Officials expressed confusion over: When and how to legally close a meeting. What topics can and cannot be discussed in closed session. How to handle the public portions of closed meeting records. The good news? The training sessions made a big difference, with many officials left feeling more confident about fulfilling public information requests, and exit surveys showed strong support for making Sunshine Law training an annual event. For those outside of northeast Missouri, both training sessions — Edina and Palmyra — are available on YouTube (@TheEdinaSentinel). The videos run 70 to 90 minutes and are packed with useful, real-world information for journalists, government officials, and engaged citizens alike. Sunshine Law is the foundation of government transparency in Missouri. The more we know, the better we can hold power accountable.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missourians can face years-long waits for records requested from some state agencies
This is Sunshine Week, set aside each year to focus on open government and the public's right to know about the conduct of public business (Getty Images). When Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey took office in January 2023, he inherited a pile of more than 200 unfilled open records requests left over from his predecessor. Some of the requests had been languishing for more than a year before Bailey took over. It wasn't a good look for the state official specifically empowered to enforce the Missouri Sunshine Law. To tackle the backlog, Bailey assigned new staff to the problem and implemented a policy to work through requests on a first-come, first-served basis. It took more than two years, but in February Bailey finally could say he had cleared the backlog and was down to 75 recent requests still pending. But Bailey's office isn't the only Missouri state agency where the public sometimes waits years to receive requested records. This is Sunshine Week, set aside each year to focus on open government and the public's right to know about the conduct of public business. To test state government compliance with the Sunshine Law, The Independent sent an identical request for logs showing pending requests to 26 state departments and divisions and the five statewide elected officials inaugurated in January. The requests were sent in the third week of February. By Friday, every agency had provided its log — or reported that it did not maintain a formal log — except the departments of conservation, corrections and natural resources. The state agency where the public faced the longest delays getting access to government records was the Missouri Department of Social Services. The department received 988 records requests last year. As of last month, it had 54 still pending, including four from 2022 and five from 2023. Two of those longstanding requests were noted as 'pending legal review' and seven as 'time extension.' Seven of the long-standing requests are from news reporters and two are from individuals. All sought records regarding child abuse investigations, including at least one looking for department records for the Agape Boarding School, the Stockton-based Christian residential that closed in January 2023 while under scrutiny for alleged abuse of its students over decades.. There is no reason records requests should drag on so long, said Echo Menges, president of the Missouri Sunshine Coalition. Requesters should expect complex requests to take a reasonable amount of time, she said, but requests that linger unfilled for years smack of deliberate delays. 'They're basically being stonewalled and withholding information,' said Menges, editor of the Edina Sentinel. 'There's no way to gently explain that.' Dan Curry, legal adviser to the Missouri Press Association, said the public is entitled to ask for a specific date for producing records and specific reasons if the response is delayed. 'They should always make that request if they feel like they're being slow walked or or stonewalled in any way,' Curry said. 'Submit a written request demanding a detailed explanation, and the government body is required to provide a detailed explanation. A generic 'we just need more time' is not sufficient.' Other findings from The Independent's investigation: The Department of Transportation was the only other agency besides social services with pending requests received before Jan. 1, 2024. It had two, one from 2022 and another from 2023. There is no indication on the log provided of the nature of the records sought. The Missouri State Highway Patrol, which because of its work generates thousands of crash and arrest reports annually, provided a 968-page log of its requests for 2024 that contains approximately 30,000 entries. There were 171 open requests listed. There are 12 agencies that provide an online portal that requires registering an email address and creating a password to submit and retrieve records. The remaining agencies and officials handle requests through a dedicated email for the custodian of records. The Department of Conservation, in an interim response, said to expect a copy of its Sunshine log by March 7. The department's custodian of records did not respond to a message sent early last week seeking a reason for the delay and the date when the records would be available. The Department of Corrections sent the same formulaic response to two requests, one sent to the department's custodian of records and another sent to the Board of Probation and Parole. 'Due to the size of our agency and the volume of records we maintain, locating, reviewing and copying the records could take up to sixty working days,' the response stated. 'Should we find that we will not be able to get the records to you within sixty working days, we will contact you again to tell you the reason for the delay.' The Department of Natural Resources, in an interim response, said to expect a copy of its log by March 24. The department's custodian of records did not respond to a message sent early last week seeking a reason for the delay and the date when the records would be available. 'It is like an A-minus to me, state government as a whole,' Menges said when asked to grade the quality of the responses. 'Although graded on their own, natural resources still has some time, but conservation is an F.' When a public agency misses the date it has set for fulfilling a request, or does not set a specific date in a response stating it cannot provide the records immediately, requesters should demand a specific date — and the specific reasons for the delay, said Dave Roland, litigation director of the Freedom Center of Missouri. Under the Sunshine Law, every request 'shall be acted upon as soon as possible' with a requirement that the records, or a reason why they cannot be provided immediately, by 'the end of the third business day following the date the request is received.' When responding to ask for reasons, Roland said requesters should incorporate the statutory language requiring 'a detailed explanation of the cause for further delay and the place and earliest time and date that the record will be available for inspection.' 'Then you see what they say,' Roland said. 'If they do not give an adequate explanation or an adequate estimate as to when they're going to comply, then you can let them know, well, you're at risk of violating the Sunshine Law.' The Missouri Supreme Court, in a 2021 decision, ruled that then-Gov. Mike Parson's office violated the Sunshine Law by giving an approximate number of days rather than a particular date when records would be available. That decision was also notable because it barred public agencies from charging for time spent by attorneys reviewing records before release. The public's right to see government records is rooted in common law. The Sunshine Law, passed in 1973 to codify that right, wasn't the first statute to do so. In 1961, the legislature passed a law imposing criminal penalties on officials who interfere with the right to inspect public records and protecting the public's ability to make copies of those records. Under the Sunshine Law, every public agency from the largest state department to the smallest water district must have a custodian of records responsible for providing access. There is no requirement that a requester state a reason for seeking the records and no requirement that the requester be a resident of Missouri or the place where a local agency has jurisdiction. Agencies are not required to create new records in response to a request. And they are allowed to require payment for staff time needed to search for records and the costs of copying them. The costs are limited to no more than 10 cents per page for copying costs and by 'using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time.' High charges for public records have been found to be a violation of the law. In 2020, Boone County Circuit Judge Jeff Harris ruled that the University of Missouri had sought an excessive amount when it demanded $82,000 for records of dogs used in research. 'The cost estimate in this case was tantamount to a denial of the request,' Harris wrote. The general compliance by state agencies in their responses to a simple request isn't surprising, Menges said, because as the largest and most complex organizations subject to the law, they should set the standard. The most common violations, she said, are by local government agencies. Throughout Missouri, there are fire, hospital, water and other districts governed by part-time boards with members who have never been subject to the Sunshine Law before. The attorney general's office provides training, as do many state associations, but it is the responsibility of those board members to learn the law and make sure their agencies follow it, Menges said. 'On a local level, we have a huge education issue, which is people do not understand or know how to follow the Sunshine Law in public boards, public offices,' Menges said. 'It's rampant, especially in rural communities.' Failure to follow the law can be costly. A lawsuit to enforce the Sunshine Law means large legal fees even if the government agency wins. The Western District Court of Appeals is considering a case against the Western Cass Fire Protection District where a former board member accuses it of 46 violations at 11 different meetings. One of the meetings had an agenda item 'special considerations' with no other explanation; the intent was to remove two board members. The attorney general's office filed a brief in the case, supporting the accusations that the district violated the law. Agenda items must be written to describe what will be discussed, Assistant Attorney General Jason Lewis wrote in the brief. 'That means that a public governmental body cannot hide an elephant in a mouse hole by using vague or excessively broad terms to hide what the body intends to do,' Lewis wrote. 'The tentative agenda must be specific enough for the public to be able to make an informed decision about whether to attend the meeting.' In tiny Edgar Springs in Phelps County, Roland represented Rebecca Varney in a case where she was banned from city hall because staff became annoyed at her visits seeking city records. The city was found to have purposefully violated the Sunshine Law and ordered to pay $750 to Varney and almost $80,000 to Roland for his time. The city is appealing an order compelling it to turn over most of its available cash to pay the judgment, with interest accumulating since the 2023 ruling 'It really flows through not just publicly elected officials, but voters themselves,' Menges said. 'It's OK if you want to vote for someone who doesn't care to follow the Sunshine Law, but what that case has shown us is you're going to pay for it.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court rules Missouri attorney general did not violate Sunshine Law
Democratic candidate for Missouri Attorney General Elad Gross after filing in February 2024. (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). The Attorney General's Office did not violate the Missouri Sunshine Law when it refused to turn over records showing how it fulfilled a request, the Western District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In a split decision, a three-judge panel ruled that the office reasonably concluded the records being sought by St. Louis attorney Elad Gross were exempt from disclosure because of his threatened litigation. Gross was seeking records about then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt's participation in a U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the Republican Attorneys General Association's robocall efforts encouraging 'patriots' to participate in a march that ended on Jan. 6, 2021, with a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. Eric Schmitt denies involvement in call for Trump supporters to march on U.S. Capitol 'This case presents a unique question for which we have found no direct precedent – application of (Sunshine Law exemptions) to records created by a public governmental body in responding to a previous Sunshine Request where the threatened litigation concerns the public governmental body's handling of that previous records request,' Judge Edward Ardini wrote in the 2-1 decision. The Sunshine Law allows government agencies to close records about 'legal actions, causes of action or litigation.' That exception doesn't allow a record that should be open to be closed just because it might become evidence in a court case, Ardini wrote, but it does allow records created in contemplation of possible litigation to be closed. 'The nature of these records rendered them not merely discoverable or admissible in an enforcement action over the AGO's compliance with the Sunshine Law concerning its response to Gross's first request but go to the very core of such an action by disclosing the precise means utilized by the AGO to comply with its legal responsibilities,' Ardini wrote. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Alok Ahuja wrote that there was no prospective or actual litigation when the records were created, so they must be open. An 'open ended application' of the litigation exemption which 'authorizes the closure of any records which may 'go to the very core of' litigation threatened after the records' creation, would result in precisely the sort of 'extreme' consequences of which (an earlier precedent) warned,' Ahuja wrote. Since the lawsuit was filed in 2021, Schmitt has been elected to the U.S. Senate and replaced by Andrew Bailey, who defeated Gross, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, last year. In an email to The Independent, Gross said he would appeal the decision. 'Attorney General Bailey is wrong to prevent taxpayers from seeing what our government is doing with our money,' Gross said. 'We need transparency in our government.' Gross has sued over Sunshine Law questions in the past, losing at the trial court level before gaining a win on appeal. In 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled, in a case brought by Gross, that government agencies cannot charge for time attorneys spend reviewing public records are requested under the Sunshine Law. In the case decided Tuesday, Gross lost a summary judgment decision in Cole County. He raised 12 points in the appeal. Along with arguing the trial court made a mistake by allowing the attorney general's office to close some records, Gross sought to overturn the decision by claiming Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green made other errors. Gross argued Green wrongly terminated the discovery process, limited his ability to question staff witnesses in person, and allowed the attorney general's office to move the date promised for the delivery of records. The decision was unanimous except for Ahuja's dissent related to the question of whether the documents were related to litigation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
