St. Louis County voters could be on the hook to pay for 3rd District Councilman Dennis Hancock’s legal fees as he faces nepotism charges.

An emergency ordinance, which was discussed by the council on Sept. 17, would hire attorney Kimberley Mathis to represent Hancock in court.

Hancock was first elected to the council in 2022. The Republican represents the 3rd District, which includes Fenton and portions of Sunset Hills.

The county would pay $495 an hour for Mathis to represent Hancock. The bill falls on the county because Hancock is a sitting council member.

The councilman has been represented by Mathis since August when county Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell said that Hancock needed to be removed for violating the Missouri Constitution’s nepotism clause.

Hancock was supposed to submit a response to the county courts by Sept. 17, but a circuit court judge extended the deadline to give Hancock time to hire an attorney.

A status hearing is scheduled in St. Louis County court for Oct. 17.

According to court documents, Hancock appointed his stepdaughter, Hollie Galati, as his legislative assistant on Aug. 19, offering her a salary of $24.88 per hour, along with a $300 monthly vehicle stipend and additional benefits. Both Hancock and Galati acknowledged their familial relationship, which violates a provision in the Missouri Constitution that prohibits public officials from hiring relatives. Bell argued that this action triggered automatic forfeiture of Hancock’s office under state law. Despite this, another judge reinstated Hancock with full authority during a council meeting in August.

Sixth District Councilman Ernie Trakas, R-Oakville, introduced his own substitute bill that would have put Hancock on the hook for the attorney fees if his case ultimately fails. Trakas’ bill would provide for Hancock’s private attorney fees; if the court determines Hancock did not commit any wrongdoing, then the county pays for the fees. If the court decides otherwise, then Hancock would have to reimburse the county or cover the fees on his own under Trakas’ substitute bill.

“I do think it gives us an opportunity to do the right thing here … I think this is the way we should approach this issue, of paying for an official’s defense … as opposed to having county taxpayers foot the bill,” Trakas said. “I think it’s a reasonable middle ground that we can all get behind. It accomplishes the same goal.”

Hancock disagreed with Trakas’ proposal, claiming that it was not the “American way”

“This is going to be decided in court. I didn’t bring this action. This is an action that was brought against me in my official capacity. And I would like to remind all of you that the same thing could happen to you,” Hancock said. “This is not something I asked for … It will be decided by a court, and we’ll abide by that decision in court. But to effectively tie my hands and the type of defense that I’m entitled to … is certainly not the American way and certainly not the way that I would wish on anybody.”

Trakas countered that the one time he had a “quo warranto” case issued against him, he paid his own attorney’s fees. Former County Executive Steve Stenger had used a quo warranto case to try to force Trakas out of office when he was first elected in 2016 – the case would have disqualified him from serving.

“I’m fine with the county paying for Councilman Hancock’s attorney fees if he prevails. It’s his decision. If he wants to go forward, then you go forward and that’s fine. But … if the court sees it another way, I don’t think that the county should be required to pay those fees. That’s the point of the bill. It provides us with a vehicle to cover the expenses and if he prevails, great. But if he doesn’t, then I think it should be on him for making the decision to challenge the quo warranto based on the allegation that he’s violated the constitution.”

Council Chairwoman Shalonda Webb said that she did not want council members deciding when they get representation, “whether we lose or we win or if we are sued in our official capacity.”

“We should have legal counsel … regardless of whether a person wins or loses, if they are being sued in their official capacity, we should have the covering to have legal representation and it be taken care of it.”

Trakas argued that this quo warranto differed from ones in the past because a government official had violated the constitution, forfeiting their seat.

“If you’re going to challenge that as a sitting member or an elected official or government-appointed official, that’s fine, that’s your choice. But it shouldn’t be on the taxpayer’s dime if you don’t succeed. It’s not quite the same thing as saying simply because I’m an elected official or appointed department head, I get free lawyers … I think this is a more than reasonable and equitable compromise. It allows Councilman Hancock to receive counsel paid for by the county if he prevails. But if he fails and the court rules against him, I don’t think the taxpayers should pay for that for a case based on violating the constitution while in office.”

Trakas’ substitute bill failed to pass by a vote of 3-3. Second District Councilwoman Kelli Dunaway and 5th District Councilwoman Lisa Clancy, both Democrats, and Trakas were in favor, while Webb, 1st District Councilwoman Rita Heard Days and 7th District Councilman Mark Harder were opposed. Hancock abstained.

The original bill was in part sponsored by Hancock, and Trakas argued that he did not feel that it was approrproate for Hancock to take any action on it since he was the bill beneficiary financially.

“It involves him personally and directly. No different than your abesntations when Boeing is on the docket here,” Trakas said, referring to Webb’s employment with Boeing and her typical abstentions when bills related to the company come up before the council.

Hancock instead yielded to one of the bill’s co-sponsors on whether or not to move the bill forward. Harder moved to the hold the bill, with it set to be discussed again at the council’s meeting Tuesday at 3 p.m.