A lawsuit filed in late 2015 by current and former Jefferson County officeholders to clarify a clause in the county’s charter regarding whether they have been paid enough has finally been decided – maybe.
Associate Circuit Judge Rob E. Fulton of Fredericktown ruled Aug. 14 against the officeholders in their request for back pay.
However, an attorney who represents the former officeholders acknowledged that an appeal could be filed.
“We just got the judgment, and we’re evaluating it and deciding what we’re going to do,” said Hillsboro attorney Derrick Good, who, with attorney Kevin Roberts, represented the officeholders.
The Jefferson County Council was named as the defendant in the suit.
County Counselor Wes Yates said he would not comment on the judgment in case an appeal is filed.
Even Fulton recognized the possibility of an appeal. In his judgment, he wrote that during a May 22 hearing on the case, he encouraged attorneys from both sides to come to an agreement on exhibits in the case “to have a clean record for the probable appeal(s).”
To date, the County Council has spent about $173,000 defending itself in the case, Yates said.
Good and Roberts filed the suit on Dec. 31, 2015, on behalf of Bruce King, who was the county’s public administrator from 1998 to 2012.
In the suit, King claimed he and all county officeholders have been underpaid since 2010, according to the county charter.
Other plaintiffs in the case include current Public Administrator Steve Farmer and Collector Beth Mahn, as well as the following past officeholders: county commissioners Chuck Banks and Patrick Lamping, Recorder of Deeds Marlene Castle, Treasurer Linda Nees, Auditor Dorothy Stafford, County Clerk Wes Wagner, Assessor and County Clerk Randy Holman and the late Mark Abel, the former treasurer who is being represented by his estate.
Current County Clerk (and former County Executive) Ken Waller and former Assessor Terry Roesch also had joined the suit, but later withdrew.
The suit sought to recover more than $29,000 in back pay for King, but depending on their length of service, some of the others could have recovered more than $60,000 each.
Background
Jefferson County residents voted in 2008 to adopt a charter form of government. After a two-year transition period, the new form of government was fully implemented in January 2011 with the swearing-in of the new seven-member council and the county executive.
The suit revolves around a stipulation in the charter that the county’s elected officeholders are to be paid at least what their counterparts in a non-charter, first-class county in Missouri are paid, but not more than 110 percent of that amount.
Good, who was a chairman of the bipartisan group that developed the charter and brought it to a vote, and Roberts said in the suit that the charter was meant to specify “the highest-paid” counterpart.
The suit alleges the officeholders should have been paid at least as much as their counterparts in Boone County, which includes Columbia. That county was identified as the highest-paying, first-class county without a charter.
In his ruling, Fulton said the case revolved around a single phrase in the charter: “the equivalent office in a first-class, non-charter county.”
Fulton acknowledged that Good and Roberts argued that the word “equivalent” was meant to modify both “office” and “first-class, non-charter county,” meaning that Boone County salaries would be the measuring stick, but ruled that “equivalent” modifies only “office,” meaning that any first-class, non-charter county could be used as comparison, and many of the 13 other counties that fall into that category do not pay as much as Jefferson County does.
At the time the suit was filed, Roberts said the suit was meant to settle a simple question.
“This (the suit) was filed to reflect the intent of the Charter Commission,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any question, if you speak to members of the Charter Commission, that when they were in the process of developing the charter, they wanted to see to it that if we were going to be a first-class, charter county, that our elected officials should be compensated at a sufficiently high enough rate to attract attractive candidates, regardless of party.”
However, Fulton ruled that he found no ambiguity concerning the meaning of that phrase and would not consider statements offered by those who drafted the charter concerning their intent when they wrote it.
What seemed like a simple issue, however, has stretched into a court battle that has lasted more than three and a half years and involved three different law firms defending the County Council.
Paying the tab
An outside attorney, William Hellmich, was hired to represent the county after the suit was filed because current elected officials were parties to the suit, and Yates said it would be a conflict to represent both sides.
Hellmich billed the county $12,250 when he withdrew from the case, claiming he had a conflict after Waller, who was then County Executive, joined the suit.
The County Council then hired the Cunningham, Vogel and Rost law firm in Kirkwood to represent it in both that suit and another one Waller brought against the council in March 2017 asking the court to settle a dispute over whether the county executive or the County Council had the authority to replace members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. That case later was dismissed.
Arguing that the Cunningham firm was not hired properly under the charter, Waller refused to authorize payment of the firm’s bills, which totaled $178,180.72.
With the bills mounting and no payment imminent, the Cunningham firm bowed out.
After negotiating with that firm, the county agreed to pay it $130,308 for its work on the two suits; there is no breakdown of how much money went to each case, officials said.
A third law firm, Sandburg Phoenix and von Gontard of St. Louis, then was hired to replace Cunningham. To date, it has billed the county $95,896 for its work on the pay suit.
Good had a simple explanation why the pay suit has dragged out for 44 months to settle what seemed to be a simple issue.
“I’d say it was the attorneys on the other side,” he said.