BELLE — Filing its seven-page response on the April 24 deadline, the city of Belle fully or partially denied 27 of the 51 allegations and facts listed in former city clerk Frankie Horstman’s wrongful termination lawsuit. The city claimed it either lacked sufficient knowledge to respond, admitted certain allegations, or classified the remaining ones as legal descriptions. The city followed its answers with a two-page defense, request for dismissal and legal fees to be charged to the former clerk.

Over half of the Belle Board of Aldermen has been replaced since Horstman’s termination on Jan. 22, 2023, including former alderman Adam Padgett, who resigned following Horstman’s termination. Former alderman Emily Williams lost the April election to Alderman Jeanette Struemph. Former mayor Daryl White, Jr., did not run for re-election. Former Ward 2 alderman James (Pudd) Mitchell has been conducting the mayor’s duties since Belle City Hall was served with a search warrant on Dec. 20, 2023, and charges were filed against White on Dec. 21, 2023, for allegations of official misconduct and stealing. He triumphed in the election, replacing White. Alderman Barb Howarth is also a member of the board before April.

The new board consists of Mitchell, Ward 2 aldermen Steve Vogt and Kevin Guffey, and Ward 1 aldermen Struemph and Howarth.

City attorney Adam D. Hirtz with Jackson Lewis P.C. in St. Louis alleges that Horstman failed to state a claim where relief could be granted, so damages are barred.

Hirtz also alleges Horstman was terminated from the city’s employment for legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons, that the city did not discipline Horstman for exercising her rights under State Statute 105.055, RSMo, or for her good faith report of a violation of Missouri Sunshine Law.

“Missouri Revised Statute section 105.055 shall not be construed as restricting or precluding disciplinary action taken against a public employee if the disclosure relates to employees own violations, mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or endangerment of the public health and safety,” Hirtz alleged in Line F of his affirmative defense.

Further, he alleges Horstman cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that she reported a prohibited activity or a suspected prohibited activity and that even if she could, that is not why her employment was terminated.

The city asserts that Horstman was, at all material times, an at-will employee and was subject to discharge at any time, with or without cause, as long as the discharge was not unlawful. He adds that because no discovery has occurred in the case, the city reserves the right to assert further defenses as appropriate.

Hirtz finished by alleging the city fully answered Horstman’s petition for damages and asserted its affirmative defenses. The city requests Horstman’s petition be dismissed in its entirety, at Horstman’s cost, with an award to the city for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, and for further relief as the court deems appropriate.

According to the document filed by Hirtz, the city’s responses to Horstman’s petition are bullet pointed below by categories, including lack of sufficient knowledge, denies, and admits.

The city claimed it lacks sufficient knowledge to confirm the following allegations:

Where its previous 22-year employee (Horstman) lives;

On or about Dec. 18, 2023, Horstman disclosed to the Maries County Sheriff that she believed White was stealing city items for her personal use, and or using the city’s funds to purchase items for his personal use;

In or around June 2023, Horstman received an open records request from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, requesting meeting minutes, agendas, and notices;

In the course of responding to the Attorney General’s request, through written correspondence and verbal conversations, Horstman disclosed to the Attorney General’s Office that she reasonably believed the city and or the mayor and or the aldermen were violating or had violated the Missouri Sunshine Law;

The city denies the petition from the Attorney General in case 23MS-CC00100, which was based largely on information that had been disclosed to the Attorney General by Horstman; and

Horstman’s report to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office was a good faith report of violations of 610.010 to 610.030, RSMo. 

The city denies:

Knowing the clerk worked under the direct supervision of the mayor and board;

White was mayor since July 18, 2022 (It was July 21, 2022);

White continued to serve as mayor and or alderman and or continued to participate in board decisions after a pro-tem was appointed;

The attorney did not give a reason for Horstman’s termination and the attorney said the termination was not up for discussion;

Horstman had served the city loyally for approximately 22 years;

Horstman had a reasonable belief that the behavior she reported was occurring or had occurred and was unlawful or inappropriate, in that it was based on reliable information that had been reported to her by others, her own observations, statements that White had made directly to her or that were made in her presence, and on her knowledge that White had been removed from an earlier term as mayor due to similar allegations;

Horstman was terminated during a closed board meeting;

The search conducted at City Hall on Dec. 20, 2023, was a result of the plaintiff’s disclosure, the search was witnessed by a number of city employees, and the board was made aware of this action at the time it was occurring or within a short period thereafter;

A probable cause statement signed by Maries County Sheriff on Dec. 21, 2023, is redacted but references “a source” who made the initial report and several “witnesses” who provided corroborating information;

After Horstman disclosed information to the Maries County Sheriff, other city employees and aldermen threatened and harassed her and made statements that they knew or suspected that she was the person who reported White;

Horstman’s termination by the city on or about Jan. 22, 2024, was the result of her report to the Maries County Sheriff, and or was the result of the belief by the city that she had made the report to law enforcement;

Horstman’s termination by the city on or about Jan. 22, 2024, was the result of her disclosure of an alleged prohibited activity under investigation during the investigation into the complaint to the Maries County Sheriff’s Office.

Horstman’s termination violated State Statute 105.055.3(1), which prohibits a public employer from taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against a public employee for the disclosure of any alleged prohibited activity under investigation or any related activity, or for the disclosure of information which the employee reasonably believes evidences the violation of law, mismanagement, abuse of authority, violation of policy, and or wasting public resources;

As a direct and approximate result, her termination is invigilation of State Statute 105.055 RSMo, Horstman suffered and continues to suffer damages, including lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, and injury to her reputation;

In addition to these damages, Horstman is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 105.055.7(4), RSMo;

Horstman notified the city mayor and aldermen of the Attorney General’s request and timely provided a response to the request as required by Chapter 610. RSMo;

Horstman informed the board of the Attorney General’s request for information and requested certain documents that she did not have, but she was ignored;

Horstman had a reasonable belief that the behavior she reported was occurring or had occurred and was unlawful or inappropriate, in that it was based on Horstman’s personal observations and knowledge and on statements that had been made to her or in her presence;

The city denies that a Dec. 19, 2023, lawsuit filed by the Attorney General alleged that the city, and specifically Mayor White, had systematically violated the Sunshine Law, seeking to impose fines or other penalties on the city;

The city denies that multiple times during her employment, Horstman advised the mayor and board that she believed their actions violated the Sunshine Law in certain respects, including discussing issues that were not on the agenda and not posting the correct agenda or meeting information on occasions when she was out of the office. When she made these statements, she was ignored, yelled at, or mocked for raising concerns;

After she disclosed concerns to the Attorney  General’s Office, other city employees, the mayor, and board members threatened and harassed her. Eventually, Horstman was no longer allowed to take minutes or attend closed sessions even though this was part of her job;

Horstman’s Jan. 22, 2024, termination was a result of her report to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and was the result of her participation in the investigation;

Horstman’s termination violated State State 105.055.3(1) RSMo. which prohibits a public employer from taking any disciplinary action against a public employee for disclosure of any alleged prohibited activity under investigation or any related activity, or for the disclosure of information which the employee reasonably believes evidences the violation of law or policy;

As a result of her termination, Horstman has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including lost wages and benefits, emotional distress and injury to her reputation;

In addition to damages, Horstman is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

Horstman was terminated because of her report of violations of 610.010 to 610.030, RSMo, in violation of State Statute 610.028.3, RSMo; and

The city’s action is in violation of 610.028.3, RSMo, and is void, and therefore Horstman is entitled to reinstatement and back pay including lost benefits, from the date of purported termination.

The city admitted the following:

It is a municipality governed by a board of four aldermen;

James (Pudd) Mitchell was appointed Mayor Pro Tem to act in the mayor’s absence around August 2023, and has been acting fully as mayor pro tem since Dec. 21, 2023;

As of the date of the petition, White was still identified as mayor on the city’s website;

Horstman was employed at the city since 2002, except for a brief period of approximately one year;

Horstman’s termination was communicated to her on or about Jan. 23, 2024, by the city’s attorney;

Horstman was terminated on or about Jan. 22, 2024, by the city’s attorney;

On Dec. 20, 2023, the Maries County Sheriff conducted a search at City Hall;

On Dec. 21, 2023, the Maries County Prosecuting Attorney filed an information alleging counts of stealing and official misconduct against White in case number 23MS-CR00265;

The information was supported by a statement of probable cause signed by Maries County Sheriff on Dec. 21, 2023; and

On Dec. 19, 2023, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the city 23MS-CC00100.

Horstman requested a trial by jury moving forward. The city made a motion for a change of venue to Phelps County.