![[SeMissourian.com]](/images/nameplate.gif)
|
Marketplace
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Post comment
 Share link
Judge rules against Purcell in lawsuit versus Cape Girardeau County CommissionFriday, October 24, 2008
Text of the judgment Associate Commissioner Jay Purcell on Friday lost on almost every legal point in his case alleging Sunshine Law violations by the Cape Girardeau County Commission. In his rulling, Associate Circuit Judge Stephen Mitchell of Stoddard County declared that he found no purposeful or knowing violation of the Sunshine Law when the commission went behind closed doors on April 17. And while commissioners did discuss matters that they should have aired in public, Mitchell ruled that those actions were not enough to impose any penalties on the commissioners. During the closed session, commissioners discussed possible litigation by female employees over Auditor David Ludwig’s Internet usage and the possibility of a lawsuit over a road easement that was notarized and recorded years after it was signed. In the 13-page ruling, Mitchell found that the meeting notice, the announced reasons for going into closed session before the vote and the matters discussed all comply with the requirements of the Sunshine Law. "However, it is also clear to the court that the discussions held in closed session wandered off of ‘potential litigation’ to a large degree especially during the county auditor portion of the discussions," Mitchell wrote. "All public bodies should establish procedures and practices for closed session that would limit the rambling engaged in by this body on April 17, 2008, while in closed session." In evaluating each member of the commission’s actions, Mitchell noted that Purcell "varied from appropriate subjects of closed session" but did not knowingly or purposefully violate the law. Presiding Commissioner Gerald Jones participated in the off-limits discussion but sought to bring the talks back around to the correct matters, Mitchell noted. "The court finds that he both participated with Commissioner Purcell in varying widely from the appropriate subject or subjects of the closed session and acted as a shepherd attempting to bring the group back to the proper subjects," he wrote. As for Associate Commissioner Larry Bock, "the court finds that he said the least of all the members of the commission at the April 17, 2008, closed session." Mitchell ordered Purcell to bear all the costs of the lawsuit. For more information, check back at semissourian.com or read the Saturday Southeast Missourian.
Related Links
Comments  The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, use the exclamation point icon beside the comment to send a report to the webmaster.
Respond to this story You are not logged in. Please login or create an account.
|
Headlines
Most viewed
Yesterday's most read news stories
Last week's most read news stories
Most discussed
Yesterday's most discussed
Last week's most discussed
advertisement
National News
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
89
The beauty of truth can be seen by all that choose to see it. The opinion of the judge is not the truth, but merely his opinion of it.
Every citizen who has an opinion of the truth, can cast a vote and decide how your government will view the truth in the future.
Purcell wasn't "guilty" of anything in terms of this suit. The only guilty party here is the nabob judge who either isn't qualified to do his job, or was not impartial when considering the merits of Mr. Purcell's suit. It will be VERY suprising if this ruling is not overturned on appeal.
Purcell Intends to Appeal Ruling
Friday, October 24, 2008
In a dispiriting blow to open government, Judge Stephen Mitchell ruled this afternoon that the Cape Girardeau County Commission did NOT violate Missouri's Sunshine Law during its April 17, 2008 meeting. The Court has excused the Commission's behavior because it found that the Commission did not intend to violate the Sunshine Law.
The Court acknowledged that the Commission's meeting Notice did not comply with section 610.022 and cited statutes that do not exist, but found that the Commission did not intend to violate the law. This finding was made even though intent was not alleged in Mr. Purcell's lawsuit and intent is not a factor in determining whether the Sunshine Law was broken. Intent or motive in violating the Sunshine Law is only relevant where civil penalties are at issue. Mr. Purcell did not ask for civil penalties in this case.
The Court also focused solely on intent in finding that the Commission did not violate the Sunshine Law in the closed portion of the April 17, 2008 meeting. Despite finding that the discussions in closed session concerned matters not relating to "potential litigation," the Court held that there was no intent to violate the law, and thus, no violation of the Sunshine Law. Again, intent should not matter in a strict liability case under the Sunshine Law.
In other words, folks, the Court seems to acknowledge that the Commission's Notice was deficient and that it discussed inappropriate matters in closed session, but gives the Commission a pass on the violations because it did not "intend" to violate the law. This is a misapplication of the Sunshine Law and Mr. Purcell has informed me that he intends to appeal the matter to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mr. Purcell's goal during all of this Sunshine Law controversy has been to shine a light on back-room politics and to make County officials follow the law. Open government advocates may be very disappointed by this ruling, but the fight for open government is not limited to one case in one county during one meeting. The only way to hold our elected officials accountable is to make them follow the law every day. That means showing up at meetings, making records requests, and holding officials who fight against open government accountable at the ballot box.
--
JP Clubb
The Clubb Law Firm, LLC
400 Broadway, Suite 326
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Phone: (573) 651-1900
Fax: (573) 651-1902
www.theclubblawfirm.com
NOTE: The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all Missouri lawyers to notify all recipients of e-mail that (1) e-mail communication is not a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it goes from sender to recipient, (3) persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even some computer unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passes through. I am communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive communications via this medium. If you change your mind and want future communications to be sent in a different fashion, please advise me AT ONCE at 573-651-1900.
www.theclubblawfirm.com
Maybe we now know who Jones was having to report back to
Obviously this was a conspiracy. The "good 'ol boy" network must have got to this judge first and implanted their mind control device in the judge's brain. You can see it protruding from his ear slightly if you stare at the picture hard enough..
So if you go up against the "good ole boy" network you will pay. Since when did we get a "loser pays" system in this country. We need transparency in government. Jay Purcell was correct and right in what he did. Just because a pompus _ _ _ in a black robe says things were on the up and up does NOT mean that was the case. Jay Purcell should be re elected for his testicle fortitude.
That $50.00 tape recorder is about to cost him $320,000.00 in salary, and 4 years health insurance coverage.
Wow, that's great news for we all knew that he was guilty. He must pay the price now and be defeated in the election. "Stupid is as stupid does"