A Jefferson County judge will decide what closed meeting minutes the city of Arnold must turn over to the Missouri Auditor’s Office.
The Auditor’s Office claims that the city has withheld information from closed meetings that the state agency has requested as part of its audit of the city and two transportation development districts related to the abandoned Arnold Parkway road project.
Arnold City Attorney Bob Sweeney has argued that the information the city has not given to the agency has nothing to do with the way the Arnold Retail Corridor Transportation Development District (ARC TDD) and the old Triangle Transportation Development District have operated or the way the city has operated in connection with those TDDs and the road project, which was abandoned not long after it was proposed.
Attorneys for state Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick have argued that Arnold does not get to decide what information is relevant to the audit, and the office is entitled to review any documents it requests.
On July 17, Jefferson County Div. 2 Judge Ed Page heard arguments from Bob and Allison Sweeney, whose law firm represents Arnold, and Robert Tillman and Leslie Korte, who represent the Auditor’s Office, in a civil case Arnold filed on April 2 against Fitzpatrick seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction to deny the Auditor’s Office request for unredacted closed meeting minutes.
Page suggested that he review the unredacted closed meeting minutes and decide what information was protected as private by law and should not be turned over to the Auditor’s Office. He also said he would order any redacted information not protected by law to be given to the Auditor’s Office.
A case management conference has been scheduled for 9 a.m. Aug. 5 in the Div. 2 Courtroom at the Jefferson County Courthouse, 300 Main St., in Hillsboro, according to court documents.
The Sweeneys and Auditor’s Office attorneys agreed to let the judge decide what information from the closed meetings were relevant to the audit, which began in November 2024.
Allison Sweeny said the city planned to provide the closed meeting minutes to Page on Monday.
“The judge’s decision makes practical sense in this situation,” Sweeney said. “The judge will decide if the information contained in the minutes is relevant to the audit. If it is, he will direct the city to turn over the information, and the city will comply. It is the same solution we offered to the Auditor’s Office approximately a year ago when this all began.”
Fitzpatrick previously lambasted Arnold officials for denying his office access to all the unredacted closed meeting minutes it requested from eight closed meetings held between Oct. 6, 2022, and Sept. 5, 2024.
“We will reserve comment on the judge’s decision until he issues a signed order, but we do expect Judge Page will adhere to the rule of law and respect the well-established statutorily authorized and case law-supported practice of our office to access and review unredacted closed records as a part of our audit work,” Fitzpatrick said.
Audit dispute
The Auditor’s Office is investigating the handling of the scuttled Arnold Parkway project, a proposed $75 million, 2-mile, two-lane road that would have connected Hwy. 141 and Richardson Road. The proposed road project would have required the acquisition of 38 homes, multiple businesses and a portion of the Water Tower Place Shopping Center.
State representatives Phil Amato and David Casteel requested the audit, and the Water Tower Place Shopping Center owners filed a lawsuit against the city to stop the project. In addition, Arnold residents gathered signatures in an attempt to force recall elections for all city officials, but that effort was abandoned before the required signatures were obtained.
The Auditor’s Office sent a Nov. 7, 2024, letter to then-Mayor Ron Counts announcing that it planned to conduct the audit after receiving multiple complaints from its Whistleblower Hotline about Arnold’s oversight and operation of the ARC TDD and old Triangle TDD.
Bob Sweeney previously said the city complied with the auditor’s initial requests, turning over thousands of pages of documents, spending many hours responding to information requests and dozens of hours in face-to-face meetings with Auditor’s Office representatives. However, when the Auditor’s Office requested closed meeting minutes, Sweeney and city officials balked at handing over information about everything discussed in those meetings.
Sweeney told Page that city staff members believe the closed meeting requests were beyond the scope of the audit.
When the audit was announced, the Auditor’s Office identified three potential issues that could constitute improper government activity – ownership of property located outside the boundaries of the TDDs; high-level city officials serving as TDD officers and financial statements indicating the TDDs had paid off their debts and should be closed but remain open.
The Auditor’s Office also said there could be more issues.
Sweeney told Page that the Auditor’s Office did not clearly show it was entitled to all closed meeting minutes, saying city officials believe Arnold should not have to turn over closed meeting minutes that would violate city employee’s privacy rights and information protected by attorney-client privilege.
Sweeney told Page the city has willingly provided information needed for the audit, but it should not be forced to turn over information about personnel issues, unrelated litigation or confidential information related to Arnold residents that have nothing to do with the abandoned road project or TDDs.
“The city is obligated to protect sensitive and privileged information, such as personnel matters,” Allison Sweeney said.
Tillman told Page state statute allows the Auditor’s Office to “examine all books, accounts, records, reports or vouchers of any state agency or entity subject to audit, insofar as they are necessary to conduct an audit.”
He also told the judge that the Auditor’s Office has protections in place to not reveal protected information when it produces its final report from an audit. If the office’s employees release information protected by law to be private, the employee could be charged with a felony.
In addition, Tillman said the auditor feels Arnold is trying to dictate how the agency conducts its audit.
When Page asked the Auditor’s Office attorneys if they had evidence Arnold was trying to hide damning information in the redacted closed minutes, Korte said no.
Bob Sweeney and Korte said in court that Page’s decision could set precedent on how audits are conducted in the future.
Bob Sweeney said if the judge forced Arnold to turn over all closed meeting minutes, it would allow the Auditor’s Office unfettered access to all public records, including those protected by privacy laws.
Korte told Page that his decision to review the documents and decide what could be withheld might force the Auditor’s Office to have to start going to court to gain access to records, clogging the court system.
On July 18, Fitzpatrick could not say when the audit is expected to be completed.
“Auditors continue to evaluate the information available to them and are working toward the audit’s completion,” he said. “The audit report will communicate our findings and recommendations.”