BELLE — The city of Belle’s request for a partial motion for judgment in a Sunshine Law violation case brought by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office (AGO) was tabled on March 4 in Judge William E. Hickle’s 25th Circuit Court. Both parties agreed to join Hickle’s Webex at 9 a.m. on May 9 to set a trial date.

On Feb. 15, Nathan Nickolaus, the city of Belle’s attorney with Lauber Law Firm, filed a partial motion for judgment requesting a dismissal of Count 4 listed in the attorney general’s  petition.

The AGO says it provided sufficient facts regarding Count 4 as it relates to a Feb. 21, 2023, special session board of aldermen meeting they allege was improperly closed. The purpose of the closed session meeting was so the board could purchase a police dog from the Maries County Sheriff’s Office.

Nickolaus was present in the courtroom on behalf of the Belle Board of Aldermen.

Attorney Jason K. Lewis was present to represent Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s Office. The two each made short statements regarding whether Count 4 in the AGO’s petition against the city should proceed in future hearings.

Nickolaus argued that the AGO alleged 120 instances of Sunshine Law violations in its Dec. 19, 2023, petition. He said he was trying to narrow the allegations by arguing four points as a reason to request a motion to dismiss Count 4.

Hickle said it didn’t change much, aside from dismissing Count 4.

Lewis argued that not everything involving a contract needs to be discussed in close session. They needed to “check and see if there even was a contract.”

“It looks like on the surface the position might be well-stated,” Hickle said as he crossed his arms in thought. “I am reluctant to dispose. It’s not narrowing down hardly anything. I am going to take the motion with the case. I won’t plan on ruling on it at this early stage of litigation.”

Hickle asked both men if they were ready to agree on a trial setting.

“We need a status conference,” Lewis said. “Discovery has not been made.”

Nickolaus said there wasn’t very much to discover, adding that the case may result in a summary judgment before going to trial.

The judge asked if May 6 was a possibility as he was scheduled to be in Maries County. Lewis was unavailable.

“May 9 I will be in Phelps County,” Hickle said. “But Webex is open.”

Hickle confirmed that they would be sent invitations to the Webex.

Circuit Court Clerk Mark Buschmann said Monday afternoon that anyone can join the Webex with invitation information. The system is regularly used for out-of-county participants and prisoners.

Much of the argument Lewis made in court reiterated his response filed on the AG’s behalf on Missouri Case.net to the city of Belle’s partial motion to dismiss. Filed on March 1, the seven-page document alleges “numerous violations of the Sunshine Law were committed by the city of Belle. Each of those counts has far surpassed the pleading standards for bringing a Sunshine Law claim. The same is true for Count 4, which alleges that the city’s board of aldermen improperly closed a public meeting to buy a police dog.”

Lewis, who filed the AGO’s response, noted that, “granting the city’s motion at this state would only further shield the public from the city’s deliberations.” He notes there are, “disputed issues of fact that make it improper to resolve that claim on early motion practice.” He adds that the court should “adhere to the well-recognized standards for pleading Sunshine Law violations and all the claims should be litigated through discovery and trial.”

Lewis argued that Count 4 of the petition, “has been adequately pleaded to warrant discovery and further litigation. There are not sufficient admissions of fact in the record to entitle the city to judgment.”

The AGO also alleges that it followed the standard rules to bring a claim of Sunshine Law violations against the city, including:

• The body represented by the defendants is subject to the Sunshine Law.

• The body has held a closed meeting, record or vote.

Then, the burden shifts to the governmental body to prove compliance with the statutory requirements of the Open Meetings Law.

According to the AGO’s response, the city admitting it held a closed meeting to purchase a police dog is not the same thing as demonstrating that a violation took place. It is the city’s burden to demonstrate compliance with the Sunshine Law only once a party seeking judicial enforcement of sections 610.010 to 610.026 demonstrates to the court that the body in question is subject to the requirements of Sunshine Law, and has held a closed meeting, record or vote.

The AGO alleges it provided sufficient facts that the board’s Feb. 21, 2023, special session was an improperly closed meeting, that in closed session the board discussed the purchase of a police dog from the Maries County Sheriff’s Office. The board already held one meeting regarding the purchase and thought that acquiring a dog required shielding the public from the circumstances of the transaction, so it closed the meeting.

“At this point, it is the city’s turn to bear the burden of persuasion. That must be done through evidence,” according to the response. “The city conceding that the alleged facts by the AGO are true is not enough to entitle the city to judgment. It does not demonstrate that the closed meeting pertained to sealed bids and sealed proposals or any documents related to a negotiated contract which are the categories that authorize a closed meeting under Section 610.021(12).”

The AGO alleges some facts about what occurred during the closed meeting, but because it was a closed meeting, not all of the details are readily available, so they must be proved through discovery that none of those reasons under Section 610.021(12) are applicable. At no point during the pleadings have there been sufficient facts to ascertain at this early stage that the meeting did not relate to sealed bids and sealed proposals or any documents related to negotiated contracts.

The response further alleges, “there is no interpretative case law from the Missouri appellate courts on the scope and contours of Section 610.021(12). The only case law is the general principles of Sunshine Law interpretation, which squarely caution against holding closed meetings unless a subsection of section 610.021(12) is applicable.”

In conclusion,  the AGO alleges that the city “has not met its burden of persuasion to demonstrate that withholding information about buying a dog warrants opaqueness, persuasion to demonstrate that the dog was being purchased under a sealed bid, sealed proposal or negotiated contract. Even if it had, the purchase of any and all items cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 610.021(12). Purchasing almost everything in the modern area comes with a “contract” of sorts.”