Though a hearing had been scheduled for July 23, the new judge on the case, Stephen Carlton, did not waste any time, denying the motion for a writ of mandamus and saying that the Jasper County Commission did nothing wrong in the methods it used to discuss potential appointments and then to make those appointments.
In fact, Carlton's decision, which is printed below, does not address any of those points
On this date, before the Court is Relators' Petition for Writ of Mandamus, wherein Relators are requesting that the Court enter an Order rescinding the Respondents' appointment of three Directors to the Joplin R-8 School Board, (herein after School Board). The Court has reviewed the Petition along with the Suggestions and Exhibits filed.
The Court questions the standing of Relators to bring this action, although Relators cite cases in their Petition that suggest they have standing, the Court's review of those cases provide little guidance on the issues presented in this type of case.
Assuming arguendo that Relators have standing, this Court finds that in Case No. 15AO-AC01025, Judge Hensley found that there were three vacancies on the SchoolBoard. This Court agrees with and adopts the findings in that case.
Once there are three vacancies o n the School Board, Section 162.261 RSMoapplies.
Section 162.261, in pertinent part states: "The government and control of a seven-director school district ... Any vacancy occurring in the board shall be filled by the remaining members of the board; except that if there are more than two vacancies at any one time, the county commission upon receiving written notice of the vacancies shall fill the vacancies by appointment. The person appointed shall hold office until the next municipal election, When a director shall be elected for the unexpired term."
Section 162.261 is unclear as to how or by whom the commission is to receive written notice of the vacancies. The Court finds that based on the publicity of the turmoil on the School Board and the vacancies, the commission was aware of the three vacancies on the School Board.
The Respondents announced on June 10, 2015 that they would fill the School Board vacancies on June 12, 2015.
The Court finds that on June 12, 2015, at a public meeting, the Respondents appointed Gary Nodler, Ron Gatz and Sallie Beard to serve as Directors of the Joplin R-8 School Board. That the appointees were present and sworn in during the open meeting.
The Court does not find that the School Board appointments by the Respondents were unlawful or exceeded their jurisdiction. Their actions were in accordance with section 162.261.
The Court does not find that actions of the Respondents violated Section 610.010 et seq. when making their appointments to the School Board.
Wherefore, Relators' Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied.
So here's a judge that just certified that the Sunshine Law doesn't matter....just like elections.
ReplyDeleteTo be more be more specific, Carlton said citizens of the district don't matter. He sidestepped the issue of the Sunshine law, as well as his oath to uphold and defend the law, by dismissing the Relators as having no standing.
DeleteFor us hillbillies, that means this legal feller says we ain't got a dog in this fight.
I wonder if any of these people on or off the school bored that are arguing one way or another with so much anger and force even remember what they're fighting for?? Not one of the actions that has happened since April has benefited 1 single kid in the Joplin school district. And Core. How the heck does that benefit a kid at all?? Based on those scores, Joplin schools MIGHT get money? And what will that money even go for? CJ Huff's everlasting paycheck? Fans for the chubby wubby ones in the admin building?? And Lynda Banwart. Holy Cows. She actually seems like a fairly upstanding and generous human outside of all this. Why in the world is she being so crazy?? For what? I just don't get it. I bet if we sat all these people down and actually asked them what they are fighting so hard for, not one of them would be able to answer. This is just a crazy circus and anybody that is watching this show from the outside probably thinks Joplin Schools is the last place on earth that is beneficial for a child. It's just heartbreaking. :(
ReplyDeleteTactic:
DeleteProject impartiality and absence of bias by anonymously or by pseudonym declaring each side equally deplorable.
Intent:
Cast dispersions on the good side.
Create doubt as to the true nature of the bad side.
Cause supporters to give up in desperation.
Create a smokescreen for untoward actions.
This reminds me of how the mafia could operate with carte blanche for so long. They OWNED the police, judges, and politicians.
ReplyDeleteJoplin was once known as "Little Chicago" for the corruption. How times have changed.
I'm really coming to despise those who look at the current state of cleaning up Huff's mess and hold themselves above the fray, declaring a pox on both houses. If you refuse to recognize the distinction between those trying to clean it up and those who want the gravy train to last just a little longer, or at least posture as such, I have to wonder who's side you're really on.
ReplyDeleteYes. Those of us who voted for the three and against the old guard feel exactly the same way. The ploy is to rub as much of their filth on the good three in order to create confusion and blur the lines. We know for whom we voted and we know why.
DeleteWe know who you are. The Turner Report and other sources are shining more and more light into your dark corners. We will not be detered. We will flush your kind from the system. Just as Japan mistook the "apathy" of the American people, you too have awoken a sleeping tiger. Your days are numbered. The question is how many of your hidden puppetmasters will be exposed and disposed along with you.
Joplin a wannabe Steubenville?
ReplyDeleteJoplin almost as good at it as Cicero Illinois?
Looks like a disservice was done to the taxpayers by School attorney Rouse, which had a domino effect that cannot now be undone. 1. He did not advise the Board that Mr. Kimbrough had, in fact, been duly elected at the May meeting. 2. He stopped the swearing in of Mr. Kimbrough prior to the County action. 3. He did not declare HIS nor Ms. Banwart's conflict of interest until AFTER the meeting that catapulted the matter to the County. Now, I understand, the Board intends to extend Rouse's contract with the School. (Not to mention continue implementing and spending on Common Core, which was clearly voted against in the last election.)
ReplyDeleteHe more than likely made up his mind a few days ago while having cocktails at Twin Hills country club with the rest of the gang.
ReplyDeleteThe judicial system is corrupt. There are too many people with too many secrets.
ReplyDeleteLook:
ReplyDeleteYou don't like the judge's decision? Well, either file an appeal or refuse to vote for higher taxes or for the county commissioners or county judge. And yes, the current judicial and political system is corrupt, as is the witless anbd degenerate population. Corrupt rulers over an Idiocracy.
What I don't see is how you Turner rabble are any improvement. In fact, you probably are far worse than the current lot. I notice that none of you want to show your snouts either.
The bill for this nonsense will come due quick enough. Most of us hold both sides in contempt, as well we should.
Mighty big words for someone also not showing their snout. Now shut up and sit down superman.
DeleteYes, your rant is much more helpful.
DeleteEthics?
ReplyDeleteJasper county has its new Tammany Hall.
ReplyDeleteTheir right voters don't count.
Why did Pat Waldo question Jeff Koch? Why didn't the school lawyer advise him it was perfectly legal to swear in Kimbrough? Our lawyer sucks. First thing we do is replace his useless arse. We're so glad Banwart is happy. Such an inappropriate emotion for this situation. She is no better than Landis.
ReplyDelete>>>Our lawyer sucks.<<<
ReplyDeleteDepends what the measure is.
4:16 PM: The explanation here, which sounds correct to me, is that without amending the minutes of the meeting with the 3-2 vote for Kimbrough, Kimbrough hadn't been officially voted in. So the only question about the board's lawyer is that his interpretation that such votes needed a majority of the total seats on the board.
ReplyDeleteIf he'd allowed it, then the court case would be about that impropriety, and we'd still lose.
Move on. Anyone trying to extend the chaos of the last month doesn't have the best interests of the school district in mind. No matter what side you are on, continued courtroom distractions are not good.
ReplyDelete