A lawsuit filed by Call Newspapers alleging the Mehlville School District violated the Missouri Open Meetings and Records Law should be dismissed because the Call’s claims “are frivolous and have no basis in law,” the school district contends.
The lawsuit, which names the Mehlville School District, Superintendent Tim Ricker and the Board of Education as defendants, alleges three “purposeful” violations of the Missouri Open Meetings and Records Law, also called the Sunshine Law. On each count, the lawsuit seeks a $500 fine per violation, the Call’s attorney’s fees and an order that the defendants “undergo Sunshine Law training.”
In an attempt to increase the public’s access to district information, the Call filed suit May 18 in St. Louis County Circuit Court against the school district, Ricker and the board — seeking the release of certain documents that have been withheld by the district, according to Call Newspapers President and General Manager Bill Milligan.
Instead of the district’s longtime law firm of Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, Thomas A. Mickes and Paul N. Rechenberg of Doster, Mickes, James & Ullom are representing all three parties in this case and last week responded to the Call’s suit by filing a variety of motions.
The Board of Education “has fully complied with the requirements of the Sunshine Act,” the district contends in its response to the Call’s lawsuit.
The Call is being represented by Mary Ann L. Wymore of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in the lawsuit, which alleges:
District officials violated the Sunshine Law by “purposefully and willfully” withholding from the newspaper a listing agreement with Lechner Realty for the St. John’s Elementary School property on the corner of Will Avenue and Lemay Ferry Road.
The school originally was intended to be razed to make way for a new early childhood center — the final project of the Proposition P districtwide building improvement program.
But administrators announced during a Proposition P Oversight Committee meeting Nov. 25 that constructing a school on that site would raise safety, access and aesthetic concerns.
District officials violated the Sunshine Law by failing to respond to the newspaper’s Sunshine Law request within 72 hours of an April 27 meeting of the Board of Education.
District officials violated the Sunshine Law by “purposefully and willfully” withholding from the newspaper written responses to questions posed by the public at a Feb. 24 Board of Education meeting.
Besides seeking the dismissal of the Call’s lawsuit and its attorneys’ fees, the district also asked the court:
To remove Ricker and the school district as defendants from the suit because neither are public governmental bodies, the motion asserts.
“School district and superintendent cannot be sued as defendants in an action to enforce the Sunshine Act, even assuming all facts as alleged by plaintiff are true,” contends the motion, which also states, “Although not admitting any liability, and denying any and all liability, the board is a ‘public governmental body,’ under the Sunshine Act’s definitions and, in theory, is a proper defendant in an action to enforce the Sunshine Act.”
The motion further states, “The school district and superintendent are unnecessary parties in addition to being improper parties.”
To grant its application for a change of judge.
To strike what the defendants deem to be “inflammatory portions” of the Call’s lawsuit.
Specifically, the district’s motion states that the petition makes “a number of inflammatory, immaterial, impertinent, inappropriate and/or scandalous allegations that do not relate to the substance of the claims asserted by plaintiff.”
The motion further contends, “The number of controversial allegations throughout plaintiff’s petition serve no purpose other than to inflame, incite and foster animosity by and between the newspaper and the school district. These inflammatory allegations do not advance the substantive claims of the plaintiff in any meaningful way.”
The motion asks the court to strike 11 paragraphs of the Call’s lawsuit on the grounds that they are “baseless, inappropriate, inflammatory and impertinent. This court should not serve as a forum for the plaintiff’s personal ‘anger’ with the Mehlville defendants.”
The motion contends, “By striking these paragraphs, plaintiff’s substantive claims will not be affected or diminished. The merits of plaintiff’s claims may still be addressed by the court in full.”
The majority of the paragraphs the motion seeks to remove include references to punitive measures that the Call alleges have been taken by Mehlville to hamper the newspaper’s efforts to obtain information about the school district.
The newspaper’s attorney disputes the district’s characterization of the allegations contained in the lawsuit, and views them as entirely proper and warranted.
The newspaper’s lawsuit contends, “Not only have defendants engaged in a pattern of improperly closing board sessions, failing to provide Call Newspapers with timely and accurate public information, and in some instances, failing to provide any information at all, but they also have taken punitive measures against Call Newspapers.”
Mehlville School District voters in November 2000 approved Proposition P, a nearly $68.4 million bond issue funded by a 49-cent tax-rate increase. However, the Board of Education last September adopted a revised budget for the Proposition P districtwide building program totaling more than $86.7 million.
The lawsuit asserts that after the Call began “raising questions and reporting about issues associated with defendants’ use and accounting of Proposition P funds and other controversial issues relating to the district … Call Newspapers began to experience and observe what appeared to be punitive measures by defendants to hamper and obstruct Call Newspapers’ ability to report timely or thoroughly regarding district matters.”
Among the punitive measures the Call alleges the Mehlville School District has taken are:
Banning the distribution of the Call at district schools, effective March 19, because the action violated a district policy, but permitting Louie Magazine to distribute its monthly magazine to district high schools.
Halting the district’s past practice since September 1995 of conducting regular weekly interviews with Call Newspapers to keep the publication apprised of district business. In an April 28 letter to the Call, Ricker stated that, effective immediately, neither he nor any member of the district staff would participate in any interviews with Call representatives because the Call “does not want to cover the district with a balanced journalist viewpoint.”
Prohibiting access to Board of Education meeting booklets to the public or the media before 9 a.m. the morning of board meetings. Historically, board booklets had been made available on the Thursday or Friday before the board’s meetings, which typically are conducted every other Tuesday.
“Upon information and belief, defendants’ change in practice is purposely designed to prevent Call Newspapers from receiving information pertaining to board meetings in sufficient time to meet its weekly Monday publishing deadline,” the lawsuit states.
Contacted for comment about the district’s response to the lawsuit, Ricker did not return telephone calls.
For a complete version of the Call’s lawsuit against the Mehlville School District, visit the newspaper’s Web site at www.callnewspapers.com and click on the “Mehlville lawsuit” link
