fitzgerald v. city of maryland heights 796 s.w.2d 52, 64 (mo. ct. app. 1990)

7/23/2019 Fitzgerald v. City of Maryland Heights 796 S.W.2d 52, 64 (Mo. CT. App. 1990)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fitzgerald-v-city-of-maryland-heights-796-sw2d-52-64-mo-ct-app-1990 1/16

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.·796 S.W.2 !2 "Mo. Ct.

App. #99$%&'T()E*A+D . C'T- & MA*-+A/D 0E')0TS

+A**- D. &'T()E*A+D, 1ET'T'/E*A11E++A/T, . C'T- & MA*-+A/D 0E')0TS,

M'SS3*', ET A+., DE&E/DA/TS*ES1/DE/TS. /. !7#24. M'SS3*' C3*T

& A11EA+S, EASTE*/ D'ST*'CT, D''S'/ T0*EE. A3)3ST 2#, #99$. A11EA+&*M T0E C'*C3'T C3*T & ST. +3'S C3/T-, 5AMES *. 0A*TE/AC0, 5.

!8!8

Michael A. Turen, +eslie Ann roo:e, St. Charles, for petitionerappellant.

&ran Sus:an, Cla;ton, for efenantsresponents.

!4!4 !!!!

SAT(, 1resiin< 5u<e.

1etitioner, Mr. +arr; D. &it=<eral, a for:er :a;or of the Cit; of Mar;lan

0ei<hts, appeals his i:peach:ent >; the Cit; Council of that thir class cit;. The

Ma;or petitione the circuit court for revie? of the Cit; Council@s ecision, oinin<

>oth the Cit; Council an the iniviual Council:en as responents. The courtaBr:e the Council@s ecision. We lie?ise aBr: that ecision.

Section 77.84$# authori=es the i:peach:ent of the Ma;or for cause sho?n.2

The Ma;or ar<ues this statutor; lan<ua<e is unconstitutionall; va<ue an,

therefore, the statute is voi. We isa<ree.

#.

All statutor; references are to *SMo. #96, unless other?ise state.

2.

Section 77.84$ provies in pertinent part

The :a;or :a;, ?ith the consent of a :aorit; of all the :e:>ers electe to the

cit; council, re:ove fro: oBce, for cause sho?n, an; elective oBcer of the cit;,

such oBcer >ein< Frst <iven opportunit;, to<ether ?ith his ?itnesses, to >ehear >efore the council, sittin< as a court of i:peach:ent. An; elective oBcer



:a;, in lie :anner, for cause sho?n, >e re:ove fro: oBce >; a t?othirs

vote of all the :e:>ers electe to the cit; council, inepenentl; of the :a;or@s

approval or reco::enation. . . . "e:phasis ae%

The voiforva<ueness octrine ste:s fro: the Due 1rocess Clauses of the

#4th A:en:ent, 3nite States Constitution, an Art. #, G #$, MissouriConstitution. These clauses reHuire that statutes ?hose enforce:ent :a; result

in a eprivation of li>ert; or propert; >e ?ore ?ith precision suBcient to

ena>le reasona>le people to no? ?hat conuct is proscri>e so the; :a;

conuct the:selves accorin<l;. )ra;ne v. Cit; of *ocfor, 4$ 3.S. #$4, #$

#$9, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 22999, 88 +.E.2 222, 22722 "#972%I State eJ rel. Coo

v. Sa;nes, 7#8 S.W.2 2!, 26$ "Mo. >anc #96%. This reHuire:ent of reasona>le

precision is also irecte to those ?ho :ust appl; the statutes an, thus, :aes

ar>itrar; or iscri:inator; la? enforce:ent less liel;. '. ; focusin< on ?hether

the for cause sho?n stanar in G 77.84$ provies precision consistent ?ith

ue process, >oth parties i:plicitl; acno?le<e that the Ma;or ha aconstitutionall; protecte propert; interest in retainin< his oBce until the

eJpiration of his ter:. Therefore, ?e onl; ecie ?hether the for cause sho?n

stanar in G 77.84$ is suBcientl; precise to pass constitutional :uster.

KTLhe e<ree of va<ueness that the Constitution tolerates as ?ell as the

relative i:portance of fair notice an fair enforce:ent epens in part on the

nature of the Kchallen<eL enact:ent. illa<e of 0oN:an Estates v. &lipsie,

0oN:an Estates, 'nc., 4!! 3.S. 49, 49, #$2 S.Ct. ##6, ##98, 7# +.E.2 862,

87# "#92%. There is <reater tolerance of noncri:inal la?s >ecause theconseHuence of i:precision is Hualitativel; less severe. '. +an<ua<e ?hich

reasona>le people can unerstan is not i:per:issi>l; va<ue :erel; >ecause it

reHuires interpretation on a case>;case >asis. Sa;nes, supra, 7#8 S.W.2 at

26#. !6!6

The parties have not cite, nor has our research isclose, an; Missouri case

aressin< the precise constitutional issue of ?hether a statutor; for cause

stanar is voi for va<ueness. 'n the conteJt of G 79.24$, ?hich authori=es the

i:peach:ent of :a;ors of fourth class cities, this Court, in icta, has construethe phrase for cause sho?n to :ean a le<all; suBcient <roun or reason, the

eter:ination of ?hich necessaril; epens upon the facts of the particular case.

State eJ rel. 0all v. Wolf, 7#$ S.W.2 8$2, 8$8 "Mo.App. #96%. This eFnition is

consistent ?ith our Supre:e Court@s interpretation of ?hat for cause :eant in

a preecessor to G 4.#!$, ?hich per:its re:oval of police oBcers

for cause :eans le<al cause. 't :ust >e one ?hich speciFcall; relates to an

aNects the a:inistration of the oBce, an :ust >e restricte to so:ethin< of a

su>stantial nature irectl; aNectin< the ri<hts an interests of the pu>lic.



McCallister v. 1riest, 422 S.W.2 6!$, 6!7 "Mo. >anc #96%.

ther courts confronte ?ith challen<es to the constitutionalit; of a for cause

stanar have unifor:l; hel that this lan<ua<e is suBcientl; precise to pass

constitutional :uster. E.<. /apolitano v. War, 8#7 &. Supp. 79, # "/.D.'ll. #97$%

Sarisohn v. Appellate Division, Secon Dept., 26! &. Supp. 4!!, 4!!9 "E.D./.-.#967%I &rie:an v. /e? -or, 24 /.-.2 !2, 8$# /.-.S.2 44, 492, 249 /.E.2

869, 877 "#969%. See also +eh:an v. Ala>a:a oar of 1u>lic Accountanc;, 268

3.S. 894, 89!, 44 S.Ct. #2, #29 6 +.E. 8!4, 8!! "#928%. These courts eFne

the ter: for cause in lan<ua<e si:ilar to that use in Wolf, supra, 7#$ S.W.2

at 8$8, an McCallister, supra, 422 S.W.2 at 6!7. More i:portant, accorin< to

these courts, the pri:ar; si<niFcance of a for cause stanar is to create a

constitutional ri<ht to a hearin< at ?hich speciFc cause :ust >e e:onstrate.

E.<. /apolitano, supra, 8#7 &. Supp. at # "the ?ors Kfor causeL connote the

necessit; for a hearin<%I Sarisohn, supra, 26! &. Supp. at 4! "the phrase

e:plo;e is onl; a practical :eans of proviin< OeJi>ilit;%. ase on theseinterpretations, these courts have hel that a for cause stanar is not voi for

va<ueness. We Fn their reasonin< persuasive.

't ?oul >e practicall; i:possi>le an sociall; unesira>le to enu:erate in a

statute all conceiva>l; vali <rouns for re:ovin< a pu>lic oBcial. See, e.<.,

&rie:an, supra, 8$# / -S.2 at 49#, 249 /.E.2 at 876. The inevita>le

inco:pleteness of an; list of speciFc causes for re:oval ?oul >e etri:ental to

the pu>lic ?elfare, ?hich <overn:ent e:plo;ees in <eneral an electe oBcials

in particular, are o>viousl; suppose to serve. The for cause stanar proviesthe OeJi>ilit; necessar; for assessin< the perfor:ance of pu>lic oBcials, ?hile

also creatin< a constitutionall; protecte propert; interest. The oBce holer can

>e eprive of that propert; interest onl; upon notice of the speciFc causes for

his propose re:oval an after an opportunit; to >e hear. See, e.<. Sarisohn,

supra, 26! &. Supp. at 4!.

An aitional factor causes us to aopt an even :ore precise eFnition of the

for cause stanar, as eFne in McCallister, supra, in the conteJt of a statute

authori=in< the re:oval of political oBcials. 1olitical oBcials o>viousl; :ae anu:>er of political ecisions, the ?iso: of ?hich epens upon one@s political

perspective. Electe political oBcials are ans?era>le to their constituents for

such ecisions, either at re<ularl; scheule elections or special recall votes. G

77.6!$. Cit; councils shoul not su>vert the electorate@s ?ill >; i:peachin<

:a;ors for purel; political reasons. Therefore, the appropriate :eanin< of the

for cause stanar for i:peach:ent of the electe Ma;or here shoul not onl;

speciFcall; KrelateL to an KaNectL the a:inistration of KhisL oBce, an . . .

>e . . . of a su>stantial nature irectl; aNectin< the ri<hts an interests of the

pu>lic, McCallister, supra, 422 S.W.2 at 6!7I it shoul also >e li:ite to

o>ective reasons ?hich reasona>le people, re<arless of their politicalpersuasion, coul a<ree ?oul rener an; :a;or@s perfor:ance ineNective. Such



cause ?oul inclue acts of :isfeasance, the i:proper !7!7 perfor:ance of

so:e act ?hich :a; la?full; >e one, :alfeasance, the co::ission of so:e act

?holl; >e;on actor@s authorit;, an nonfeasance, the failure to perfor: a

reHuire ut;. See, State eJ rel. 1o?ell v. Wallace, 7# S.W.2 !4!, !49 "Mo.App.

#96% an Wolf, supra, 7#$ S.W.2 at 8$4$!.

The Ma;or neJt ar<ues that even if G 77.84$ is not unconstitutionall; va<ue, the

>ill of i:peach:ent on ?hich he ?as trie ?as so ineFnite it violate the notice

reHuire >; proceural ue process. We isa<ree.

':peach:ents of thir class cit; :a;ors are re<are as a:inistrative

proceein<s, ?hich o not reHuire that char<es >e levie ?ith the precision of a

cri:inal inict:ent or infor:ation. Wallace, 7# S.W.2 at !4 "Mo.App. #96%. A>ill of i:peach:ent ?hich fairl; apprises the char<e part; of the factual

alle<ations for ?hich his re:oval fro: oBce is sou<ht is suBcientl; precise to

satisf; constitutional reHuire:ents. '.

This Court in Wallace hel the :a;or i:peache in that case ?as <iven suBcient

notice >; char<es that he faile to :ana<e the police epart:ent co:petentl;,

:isle the cit; council an the :eia a>out the eJtent of the cit;@s Fscal

pro>le:s, an lace the a:inistrative a>ilit; to perfor: his pu>lic uties. All

nine char<es in the >ill of i:peach:ent in the present case, are :uch :orespeciFc each alle<ation refers to speciFc acts or o:issions alle<el; co::itte

>; the Ma;or on speciFc ates. See AppeniJ. The Ma;or ?as thus aeHuatel;

apprise of the factual reasons for ?hich his re:oval ?as sou<ht.

The Ma;or also contens that he ?as eprive of proceural ue process

>ecause the Cit; Council, sittin< as a oar of ':peach:ent, refuse to co:pel

the Cit; to respon to the Ma;or@s interro<atories an reHuest for prouction of

ocu:ents. We isa<ree.

The onl; statutoril; authori=e :eans of iscover; in an a:inistrative

proceein<, such as the i:peach:ent of a pu>lic oBcial, are epositions, G

!86.$78, su>poenas an su>poenas uces tecu:. G !86.$77I lan v. Cit; of

Trenton, 6# S.W.2 48, 448 "Mo.App. #9#%. Methos of iscover; not

speciFcall; per:itte >; statute are eJclueI therefore, neither iscover; of

ocu:ents >; reHuest or :otion, '.I Macchi v. Whale;, !6 S.W.2 7$, 7!

"Mo.App. #979%, nor interro<atories, /ational Avertisin< Co. v. State 0i<h?a;

Co::ission, !49 S.W.2 !86, !4# "Mo.App. #977%, are allo?e.



A #9! a:en:ent to G !86.$78 unerscores our )eneral Asse:>l;@s intent to

restrict iscover; techniHues in a:inistrative proceein<s. 1rior to #9!, G

!86.$78 consiste solel; of the para<raph ?hich no? constitutes G !86.$78.#.

Section !86.$78.# provies in pertinent part that

in an; conteste case >efore an a<enc; . . ., an; part; :a; tae an use

epositions in the sa:e :anner, upon an uner the sa:e conitions, an upon

the sa:e notice, as is or :a; hereafter >e provie for ?ith respect to the tain<

an usin< of epositions in civil actions in the circuit court . . .

A secon su>section ?as ae to the Statute in #9!. The ne? su>section, in

pertinent part, provies

in aition to the po?ers <rante in su>section # an ?hen a hearin< is provie

for >; Chapter 62#, *SMo K?hich concerns hearin<s >efore the A:inistrative

0earin< Co::issionL "#% An; part; :a; o>tain iscover; in the sa:e :anner,

upon an uner the sa:e conitions an upon the sa:e notice an other

reHuire:ents, as is or :a; hereafter >e provie for ?ith respect to iscover; in

civil actions >; rule of the supre:e court of Missouri for use in the circuit

court. . . . G !86.$78.2 "e:phasis ae%.

ur )eneral Asse:>l;@s eli>erate ecision to per:it the full ran<e of civil

iscover; :ethos onl; in hearin<s >efore the A:inistrative 0earin<

Co::ission reinforces the continuin< valiit; of the proposition that iscover; inhearin<s conucte pursuant to Chapter !86, the A:inistrative 1roceure Act

"A1A%, is li:ite to :ethos speciFcall; authori=e >; that Act. The A1A thus i

not reHuire the Cit; to co:pel !! responses to the Ma;or@s interro<atories

an reHuest for prouction of ocu:ents.

'f the A1A oes so restrict iscover;, the Ma;or contens that G !86.$78 of the

Act constitutes a eprivation of proceural ue process. This issue ?as not

properl; preserve.

The constitutionalit; of a statute is ?ithin the per:issi>le scope of uicial revie?

of an a:inistrative ecision. G !86.#4$.2"#%. A state le<islature :a; not

conclusivel; eter:ine the a:ount of process ue in connection ?ith the

eprivation of a propert; ri<ht or li>ert; interest create >; state la?. Clevelan

. of Eucation v. +ouer:ill, 47$ 3.S. !82, !4#, #$! S.Ct. #47, #498, 4

+.E.2 494, !$8 "#9!%.



0o?ever, there are four :anator; prereHuisites to preservin< a constitutional

issue for revie? after an a:inistrative ecision. The part; challen<in< the

constitutionalit; of a statute or orinance :ust P#. . . . raise the constitutional

Huestion at his Frst availa>le opportunit;I 2. . . . esi<nate speciFcall; the

constitutional provision clai:e to have >een violate, such as >; eJplicit

reference to the Article an Section or >; Huotation of the provision itselfI 8. . . .state the facts sho?in< such violationI KanL 4. . . . preserve the constitutional

Huestion throu<hout for appellate revie?.@ 1ere= v. We>>, !88 S.W.2 6!$, 6!!

"Mo.App. #976%.

The Ma;or@s Frst :eanin<ful opportunit; to challen<e the constitutionalit; of the

A1A restriction of iscover; techniHues ?as in his petition for uicial revie?.

Su>ect to eJceptions not applica>le here, uicial revie? of an a:inistrative

ecision is conucte upon the petition an recor Fle. Section !86.#4$.#.

Circuit an appellate court revie? of a:inistrative ecisions is therefore li:ite

to :atters raise in the petition for revie?.

The Ma;or i not clearl; challen<e the constitutionalit; of G !86.$78 in his

petition for revie?. 'n that petition, the Ma;or referre to the oar of

':peach:ent@s failure to co:pel ans?ers to his interro<atories an to co:pel

the prouction of the ocu:ents onl; in a para<raph ?hich invoe a

s:or<as>or of le<al <rouns

. . . the actions an ecisions of the oar of ':peach:ent an Cit; Council

?ere in violation of the Due 1rocess an EHual 1rotection Clauses of the

Constitution of the 3nite States "3.S.C.A. Const. A:n. !, #4%, in eJcess of the

statutor; authorit; an urisiction of sai oars, not supporte >; co:petent

an su>stantial evience upon the recor as a ?hole, unauthori=e >; la?,

a<ainst the ?ei<ht of the evience, ar>itrar;, capricious, unreasona>le, >ase

upon unla?ful proceure, :ae ?ithout a fair "sic% trial, involve an a>use of

iscretion, a<ainst the ?ei<ht of the evience an i not constitute <rouns for

i:peach:ent . . .

The petition i not specif; ?hich of these le<al <rouns ?as the >asis for the

Ma;or@s clai: that the oar of ':peach:ent@s refusal to co:pel the reHueste

iscover; ?as i:proper. The Ma;or therefore has not aeHuatel; preserve for

uicial revie? his attac upon the constitutionalit; of G !86.$78. Moreover, the

Ma;or has not cite an; authorit; or other?ise evelope his challen<e to the

constitutionalit; of G !86.$78 >e;on a conclusor; alle<ation in his >rief to this

Court. E.<., os?ell v. Steel 0aulers, 'nc., 67$ S.W.2 9$6, 9#2 "Mo.App. #94%.

&urther:ore, he has not inclue copies of his interro<atories an ocu:ent

prouction reHuest in his +e<al &ile on appeal. ase on this recor, ?e cannot



Fn that G !86.$78 faile to provie suBcient process to protect the Ma;or@s

propert; ri<ht in his oBce.

The Ma;or also ar<ues that he ?as eprive of proceural ue process >ecauseseveral of the council:en ?ho sat on the oar of ':peach:ent ?ere not

i:partial. 1rior to the introuction of evience at the i:peach:ent hearin<, the

Ma;or Fle :otions to have four of the ei<ht :e:>ers of the Cit; Council

isHualiFe for >ias a<ainst hi:. ne challen<e council:an voluntaril; re:ove

hi:self fro: the oar of ':peach:ent. The re:ainin< seven council:en vote

not to re:ove an; of the other three council:en challen<e !9!9 for >iasI the

vote in all three cases ?as 6$, ?ith the challen<e council:an a>stainin<.

The proceural ue process reHuire:ent of fair trials >; fair tri>unals applies toa:inistrative a<encies actin< in an auicative capacit;. Withro? v. +arin, 42#

3.S. 8!, 46, 9! S.Ct. #4!6, #464, 48 +.E.2 7#2, 728 "#97!%. A:inistrative

ecision:aers :ust therefore >e i:partial. '. /ot onl; is a >iase

ecision:aer constitutionall; unaccepta>le >ut Pour s;ste: of la? has al?a;s

eneavore to prevent even the pro>a>ilit; of unfairness.@ '.

A:inistrative ecision:aers are eJpecte to have preconceive notions

concernin< polic; issues ?ithin the scope of their a<enc;@s eJpertise. 0ortonville

5oint School Dist. /o. # v. 0ortonville Eucation Assoc., 426 3.S. 42, 498, 96S.Ct. 28$, 28#4, 49 +.E.2 #, 9 "#976%. &a:iliarit; ?ith the auicative facts of

a particular case, even to the point of havin< reache a tentative conclusion prior

to the hearin<, oes not necessaril; isHualif; an a:inistrative ecision:aer,

Wilson v. +incoln *eevelop:ent Corp., 4 &.2 889, 84248 "th Cir. #978%, in

the a>sence of a sho?in< that Kthe ecision:aerL is not Pcapa>le of u<in< a

particular controvers; fairl; on the >asis of its o?n circu:stances.@ 0ortonville

5oint School District, 96 S.Ct. at 28#4. Conversel;, an; a:inistrative

ecision:aer ?ho has :ae an unaltera>le preu<:ent of operative

auicative facts is consiere >iase. ecause of the ris that a >iase

ecision:aer :a; inOuence other, i:partial auicators, the participation ofsuch a ecision:aer in an a:inistrative hearin< <enerall; violates ue

process, even if his vote is not essential to the a:inistrative ecision. State eJ

rel. ro?n v. Cit; of @&allon, 72 S.W.2 !9!, !9 "Mo.App. #97%.

To evaluate the evience of >ias properl;, ?e :ust Frst eter:ine the

appropriate stanar for our revie?. We nor:all; presu:e the correctness of the

ecision >; a cit; council sittin< as a >oar of i:peach:ent an uphol that

ecision if it is supporte >; co:petent an su>stantial evience, ?hich ?e vie?

in the li<ht :ost favora>le to the council@s eter:ination, isre<arin< allcontrar; evience. Wallace, supra, 7# S.W.2 at !4. A part; challen<in< the



i:partialit; of council:en sittin< on a >oar of i:peach:ent :ust Frst

overco:e the presu:ption in favor of the honest; an inte<rit; of those servin<

as auicators. '.

Conceel;, all three council:en ?ho: the oar of ':peach:ent ecline to

isHualif; for >ias insiste that the; ha for:e no opinion concernin< ?hether

the Ma;or shoul >e re:ove an that the; coul set asie their personal

feelin<s to?ar the Ma;or an their previousl; eJpresse vie?s re<arin<

various alle<ations in the >ill of i:peach:ent. This testi:on; of these

council:en, ho?ever, cannot constitute su>stantial evience of their i:partialit;.

/either la? nor lo<ic ?arrants per:ittin< a:inistrative ecision:aers

conclusivel; to esta>lish their o?n i:partialit; si:pl; >; testif;in< to that eNect.ur nor:al stanar for revie?in< a:inistrative ecisions reOects eference to

a:inistrative a<encies@ eJpertise. 0o?ever, a:inistrative ecision:aers are

no :ore eJpert at eter:inin< their i:partialit; than u<es are at eter:inin<

theirs. Since G 77.84$ places cit; council :e:>ers in the position of u<es,

:ain< Fnin<s of fact an conclusions of la?, the council :e:>ers@

eter:ination of the eJistence of their i:partialit; shoul >e revie?e usin< the

sa:e stanar use to revie? a u<e@s eter:ination of his or her challen<e

i:partialit;.

A trial u<e :ust consier challen<es to the u<e@s i:partialit; on the ?hole

recor, an not solel; on the >asis of the u<e@s conviction of his o?n

i:partialit;. 'n re Marria<e of urrou<hs, 69# S.W.2 47$, 474 "Mo.App. #9!%.

The relevant inHuir; is ?hether a reasona>le person ?oul have factual <rouns

to ou>t Kthe u<e@sL i:partialit;. '. A trial u<e@s eter:ination of his or her

alle<e >ias is revie?e for a>use of iscretion. '. We 6$6$ use this a>use of

iscretion stanar for our revie? here.

The three council:en ?ho: the Ma;or sou<ht to isHualif; :a; have eJpresse

preu<:ents of auicative facts. ut, for our purposes here, ?e shall assu:e

the; i not. 0o?ever, even ?hen a:inistrative ecision:aers have

eJpresse no preu<:ent concernin< auicative facts, eJperience teaches

that the pro>a>ilit; of actual >ias on the part of the . . . ecision:aer is too hi<h

to >e constitutionall; tolera>le Kin situationsL incluin< . . . KthoseL . . . in ?hich

the auicator . . . has >een the tar<et of personal a>use or criticis: fro: the

part; >efore hi:. Withro?, supra, 9! S.Ct. at #464.



A contentious at:osphere can >e eJpecte in :an; a:inistrative hearin<s.

Therefore, an Kauicator@sL attitue closel; >orerin< on partisanship or even

hostilit; Kas reOecte in eJchan<es >et?een the auicator an the char<e

part; at the hearin<L oes not in an of itself prove that the ecision:aer ?as

>iase. TeleTrip Co. v. /ational +a>or *elations oar, 84$ &.2 !7!, !# "4th

Cir. #96!%. ut, vituperative criticis: of an auicator >; a char<e part; priorto the Flin< of a:inistrative char<es :a; present an unaccepta>l; hi<h ris of

creatin< >ias on the part of the auicator.

'n the present case, all three council:en challen<e for >ias ha >een the o>ect

of pointe personal criticis: fro: the Ma;or. 'n a letter to the St. +ouis Count;

1rosecutin< Attorne;, the Ma;or accuse all three council:en of unethical

>ehavior, incluin< the follo?in< alle<ations one Council:an ha a conOict of

interest >ecause he serve on a council co::ittee ?hich ?rote the Cit;@s soli

?aste orinance at the sa:e ti:e that he for:e an infectious ?aste haulin<

>usinessI the sa:e Council:an resiste arrest ?hen stoppe on suspicion of

rivin< ?hile intoJicateI the letter i:plie that another challen<e Council:an

atte:pte to have a speein< ticet issue to his >rother FJeI the thir

Council:an challen<e for >ias ha a conOict of interest ?hen he ?ore for the

Cit;@s health insurance carrier ?hile servin< as >oth Cit; Treasurer an

council:an. The Ma;or ha even reHueste one Council:an@s resi<nation

>ecause of the council:an@s alle<e ticetFJin<. These council:en@s

protestations of i:partialit; not?ithstanin<, the fore<oin< evience, ?e >elieve,

?oul lea reasona>le people, ?illin< to presu:e the council:en@s inte<rit;, to

Huestion the council:en@s i:partialit; at the i:peach:ent proceein<s. The

appearance of >ias create >; this evience shoul have >een avoie if

possi>le.

0o?ever, isHualif;in< the three challen<e council:en ?oul have isa>le the

oar of ':peach:ent, ?hich coul onl; act upon the vote of t?othirs, or siJ,

of its ei<ht electe :e:>ers. G 77.84$. Due process consierations o not

reHuire a >iase a:inistrative a<enc; to fore<o :ain< a ecision ?hich no

other entit; is authori=e to :ae. 3ner such circu:stances, the socalle *uleof /ecessit; per:its an auicative >o; to procee in spite of its possi>le >ias

or selfinterest. Wallace, supra, 7# S.W.2 at !4.

The Ma;or contens the *ule of /ecessit; is unconstitutional. We isa<ree. oth

the 3nite States Supre:e Court an our courts have recentl; trace the lon<

linea<e of the *ule an e:phaticall; reasserte its valiit;. 3.S. v. Will, 449 3.S.

2$$, 2#4#6, #$# S.Ct. 47#, 4$#, 66 +.E.2 892, 4$!$6 "#9$%I arer v.

Secretar; of State@s Bce, 7!2 S.W.2 487, 44$4# "Mo.App. #9%.



The Ma;or also ar<ues that the *ule of /ecessit; i not prevent the

isHualiFcation of at least one of the challen<e council:en. The Ma;or is

correct. The necessar; siJ council :e:>ers ?oul have >een availa>le to vote

on i:peach:ent if onl; one council:an ha >een isHualiFe. Citin< ro?n,

supra, 72 S.W.2 at !9, the :a;or contens that this error ?as preuicial. We

isa<ree.

'n ro?n, the *ule of /ecessit; i not reHuire the participation of either of the

onl; t?o :e:>ers of the >oar of aler:an ?ho ?ere challen<e for >ias.

*e:oval of the t?o alle<el; >iase aler:en coul thus have resulte in a

totall; 6#6# i:partial oar of ':peach:ent in that case. 'n the present case,

ho?ever, the *ule of /ecessit; reHuire the participation of at least t?o of the

three Council:en ?ho: the Ma;or challen<e for >ias. There ?as onl; har:less

error in allo?in< all three council:en to serve on the oar of ':peach:ent,

rather than onl; the t?o council:en ?hose participation ?as reHuire >; the

*ule of /ecessit;.

The Ma;or neJt ar<ues that ?e shoul at least aust our stanar of revie? to

reOect the fact that so:e :e:>ers of the oar of ':peach:ent ?ere >iase.

We a<ree.

't :aes no sense to sho? the eJtre:e eference of vie?in< the evience in theli<ht :ost favora>le to an a:inistrative >o; ?hich is not co:pletel; i:partial.

'n arer, supra, the Court aopte the su<<estion :ae in 8 Davis,

A:inistrative +a? Treatise, G #9.9 "2 E. #9$%, that

P. . . ?a;s can so:eti:es >e foun to relieve a<ainst the inustice Kof per:ittin<

a >iase a:inistrative ecisionL. Whenever the rule of necessit; is invoe an

the a:inistrative ecision is revie?a>le, the revie?in< court, ?ithout alterin<

the la? a>out scope of revie?, :a; an pro>a>l; shoul revie? ?ith special

intensit;.@

7!2 S.W.2 at 44#.

As the arer Court stresse, our revie? is not e novo. '. We o not su>stitute

our u<:ent for that of the a:inistrative a<enc;, ?hich, thou<h >iase, retains

eJpertise for ?hich ?e shoul sho? so:e respect. ur stanar of revie? shoul

therefore >e eferential, >ut it shoul also co:pensate for the possi>ilit; that

>ias :a; have tainte the a<enc;@s eJercise of its eJpertise. Accorin<l;, the

ecision of a >iase a:inistrative a<enc; actin< uner the *ule of /ecessit;shoul >e uphel if the evience presente at the a:inistrative hearin< ?oul



have entitle an o>ective ecision:aer to reach the sa:e conclusion. We use

this stanar to revie? the Ma;or@s Fnal contention, ?hich is that, constitutional

consierations asie, he co::itte no i:peacha>le oNense.

As inicate earlier, eter:ination of ?hether cause for i:peach:ent eJists

:ust >e :ae on a case >; case >asis. Wolf, 7#$ S.W.2 at 8$8. Even ?hen a

:a;or is i:peache for several, inepenent acts, an; one of the alle<ations, if

supporte >; co:petent an su>stantial evience, :a; >e suBcient to sustain

the Ma;or@s re:oval. 1o?ell, supra, 7# S.W.2 at !49. We consier t?o of the

char<es.

'n Alle<ation /o. # of the ill of ':peach:ent, the Ma;or ?as accuse of

violatin< G 77.#$$ >; refusin< to isclose to the Cit; Council an the Cit;Attorne; the :a;or@s no?le<e re<arin< a ?ron<ful ischar<e suit ?hich,

pursuant to 42 3.S.C. G #98, t?o for:er Mar;lan 0ei<hts 1olice Co::issioners

ha Fle a<ainst the Cit;, the Ma;or, an iniviual council:en. After nu:erous

infor:al reHuests to the Ma;or for hi: to inicate ?hat his testi:on; ?oul >e

at trial, the Council ha the Ma;or serve ?ith an orer to :ae such isclosure.

The Ma;or refuse, an the oar of ':peach:ent conclue that this refusal to

o>e; the Council@s orer constitute cause for the Ma;or@s re:oval. We a<ree.

Section 77.#$$ authori=es the cit; council of a thir class cit; to co:pel theattenance of ?itnesses an the prouction of papers relatin< to an; su>ect

uner consieration in ?hich the interest of the cit; is involve . . . The Ma;or

correctl; o>serves that the statute literall; reHuires onl; the attenance of

?itnesses, an not their testi:on;. 0o?ever, the :ere appearance of ?itnesses

>efore a cit; council ?oul onl; inconvenience the ?itnesses, ?ithout proviin<

an; useful infor:ation to the council. Therefore, the onl; sensi>le interpretation

of this statute is that cit; councils have the po?er to co:pel nonprivile<e

state:ents fro: su::one ?itnesses.

The Ma;or ar<ues that he ha no o>li<ation to o>e; the Cit; Council@s orer

>ecause the Council i not co:pl; ?ith G 6#$.$2$.# of the Sunshine Act. This

section reHuires <overn:ental >oies to <ive notice of the ti:e, ate, an place

of 6262 each :eetin<, an its tentative a<ena, in a :anner reasona>l;

calculate to apprise the pu>lic of that infor:ation. This ar<u:ent is

:isirecte an, thus, :isses the :ar.

An; failure of the Cit; Council to co:pl; ?ith the reHuire:ent of notice of atentative a<ena i not eJcuse the Ma;or@s isre<ar of the Council@s orer that



he appear an isclose ?hat his testi:on; ?oul >e in the la?suit Fle >; the

t?o for:er police co::issioners. Section 6#$.$2$ is intene to provie the

pu>lic a reasona>le opportunit; to atten :eetin<s of <overn:ental >oies. The

Ma;or ?as in attenance at the Council :eetin< at ?hich his testi:on; ?as

sou<ht.

We also reect the Ma;or@s contention that he ?as prohi>ite >; a cit; orinance

fro: ivul<in< the infor:ation sou<ht >; the Cit; Council. *ule 7 of G 248 of the

Mar;lan 0ei<hts Municipal Coe provies that an; person in attenance at an

eJecutive session is honor>oun not to violate the conFentialit; of the

iscussion tain< place urin< the session, eJcept as to an; portions thereof

?hich :a; clearl; trans<ress the Sunshine Act. K*SMo 6#$.$#$ et seH.L The

:inutes of the Cit; Council :eetin< at ?hich the Ma;or@s state:ent ?as for:all;

reHueste sho? that the Council ha previousl; solicite the Ma;or@s planne

testi:on;. The Cit; Attorne; testiFe that the Ma;or ha :ae it o>vious that

he ?asn@t <oin< to participate in an eJecutive session iscussion of his

testi:on;. The Ma;or certainl; ?oul have violate no conFence >; isclosin<

in a su>seHuent eJecutive session infor:ation receive at an earlier eJecutive

session of the Cit; Council. Therefore, the cit; orinance i not eJcuse the

Ma;or@s iso>eience of the Cit; Council@s orer to reveal his planne testi:on;.

The Ma;or@s violation of his ut;, uner G 77.#$$, to isclose his planne

testi:on; to the Cit; Council constitute nonfeasance, the failure to perfor: areHuire ut;. This is ineJcusa>le in an; :a;or, re<arless of political

consierations. '<norance of ?hat the Ma;or@s testi:on; at trial ?oul >e

aversel; aNecte the Cit;@s trial preparation. The precise eJtent of the

inconvenience ?hich the Cit; eJperience as a result of not no?in< ho? the

Ma;or ?oul testif; is ispute. 0o?ever, the Ma;or@s violation of G 77.#$$ in

an of itself constitute an i:peacha>le oNense, re<arless of its conseHuences

an inepenent of the other <rouns on ?hich the :a;or ?as i:peache.

Also, Count ! of the ill of ':peach:ent char<e the Ma;or ?ith violatin< hisoath of oBce >; circu:ventin< the Cit; 1olice Chief@s eNorts to enforce G

!72.$8$, *SMo. #96, ?hich prohi>its the pro:otion of <a:>lin<. The oar of

':peach:ent ecie that the Ma;or@s conuct in this :atter constitute a

separate cause for his re:oval. We a<ree.

The Ma;or@s oath of oBce reHuire hi: to support the provisions of all la?s of

KMissouriL aNectin< Cities of the Thir Class. . . . We construe this oath as

o>li<atin< the Ma;or to enforce state statutes in a reasona>le :anner. A :etho

of enforce:ent ?hich tens to uner:ine police authorit; is o>viousl;unreasona>le.



The <a:es in Huestion occurre at a fun fair sponsore >; the Mar;lan

0ei<hts Athletic Association. The Cit;@s 1olice Chief infor:e the Association

presient that certain <a:es ha to >e iscontinue >ecause the; involve

ille<al <a:>lin<.8 The <a:es ?ere shut o?n, an the 1olice Chief so infor:ethe Ma;or. Shortl; thereafter, the Ma;or tol the Association@s presient that the

<a:es coul >e reopene. The 1olice Chief i not no? of the Ma;or@s

intervention until the follo?in< afternoon, at ?hich ti:e the Chief a<ain orere

the <a:es to >e close. 6868

8.

Section !72.$#$"4% states . . . a person en<a<es in P<a:>lin<@ ?hen he staes

or riss so:ethin< of value upon the outco:e of a contest of chance or a futurecontin<ent event not uner his control or inOuence, upon an a<ree:ent or

unerstanin< that he ?ill receive so:ethin< of value in the event of a certain

outco:e. . . . The Cit; Attorne; testiFe that the <a:es at issue constitute

ille<al <a:>lin<. n appeal, the Ma;or oes not ispute that there ?as ille<al

<a:>lin< at the fair.

*e<arless of the propriet; of suspenin< enforce:ent of G !72.$8$ for the a;

of the fair, the :anner in ?hich the Ma;or arran<e for the nonenforce:ent of

that statute ?as unreasona>le an, thus, i:proper. *ather than supportin< statestatutes, as he ha taen an oath to o, the Ma;or uner:ine respect an

support for the la? >; tellin< a private citi=en to isre<ar orers fro: the Cit;@s

Chief of 1olice. This ?as an i:peacha>le oNense.

5u<:ent aBr:e.

SM'T0 an )*'MM, 55., concur.

A11E/D'Q

'++ & 'M1EAC0ME/T

T +A**- D. &'T()E*A+D, MA-* & T0E C'T- & MA*-+A/D 0E')0TS,M'SS3*'



1ursuant to Missouri *evise Statutes, G 77.84$, an other applica>le statutes,

;ou are here>; notiFe that, as the char<e part;, ;ou shall >e the su>ect of

i:peach:ent proceein<s to eter:ine ?hether or not ;ou shoul anRor shall

>e re:ove fro: the oBce of Ma;or of the Cit; of Mar;lan 0ei<hts, Missouri"hereafter Cit;%.

Sai i:peach:ent proceein<s, >ase upon the >elo? state nine nu:>ere

char<es, shall >e co::ence on Tuesa; evenin<, Septe:>er 6, #9,

co::encin< at 7$$ p.:. at the Mar;lan 0ei<hts Cit; 0all, 2#2 Mill?ell Drive,

Mar;lan 0ei<hts, Missouri 68$48, or at such later ate an ti:e as :a; >e

necessar;. Sai i:peach:ent proceein<s shall continue fro: ti:e to ti:e

thereafter until co:plete.

#. n or a>out Ma; #9, #9, an contrar; to Missouri *evise Statutes, G

77.#$$, an other applica>le state statutes, ;ou refuse to cooperate ?ith the

Cit; Council an the Cit; Attorne; >; refusin< to isclose ;our no?le<e of an

intene testi:on; as to the factual circu:stances relative to the clai:s of

plaintiNs an the efense of efenants in the :atter of State of Missouri, eJ rel.,

*ui=, et al. v. +;nch, et al., >ein< cause nu:>er !46#26 in the St. +ouis Count;

Circuit Court. -our refusal necessitate the retention >; Cit; of aitional counsel

to represent efenants in sai cause, at :uch eJpense, inconvenience an

eopar; to the Cit;.

2. n or a>out Ma; ##, #9, ;ou si<ne as Ma;or of the Cit;, a letter aresse

to the oBces of the St. +ouis Count; 1rosecutin< Attorne;. *e<arless of the truth

or falsit; of the alle<ations therein, sai letter ?as contrar; to the letter an

intent of Cit; rinance /o. #82, Missouri *evise Statutes, G 77.8!$, an other

applica>le Cit; orinances, state statutes, anRor Cit;@s personnel policies an

proceures. Sai letter unnecessaril; anRor reclessl; eJpose the Cit; to

lia>ilit;, clai:s, an suit >; those iniviuals accuse of ?ron<oin<s in sailetter. Without proper authorit;, ;ou si<ne sai letter in ;our position as Ma;or

of the Cit;.

8. n or a>out Ma; 9, #9, ;ou Fle an appeal ?ith the Waste Mana<e:ent

Co::ission of St. +ouis Count;, Missouri, relative to proceein<s involvin< the

&' of St. +ouis, 'nc.@s lanFll ?ithin the Cit;@s >ounaries. 'n this re<ar, ;ou

use Cit; letterhea an si<ne the sa:e as Ma;orI all ?ithout proper authorit;

an contrar; to the eJpress ecision of the Cit; Council not to participate in sai

proceein<s. Sai appeal ?as also contrar; to the eJpress avice of the Cit;



Attorne; an eopari=e the Cit;@s ri<hts relative to sai lanFll. -our appeal

pu>licl; :isrepresente the position an esire of the Cit; in sai proceein<s.

4. n or a>out 5une #6, #9, ;ou violate Missouri *evise Statutes, GG 77.2!$an #$!.4!4"8%, as ?ell as custo:ar; an usual ethical conuct >; ;our veto of

Cit; ill 446, Cit; rinance /o. 42$, althou<h havin< a personal interest in

the outco:e of the le<islation then uner consieration.

!. Durin< or a>out 5une, #97, ;ou violate ;our oath of oBce an Missouri

*evise Statutes, >; circu:ventin< eNorts of the Cit;@s Chief of 1olice to enforce

the <a:in< an <a:>lin< la?s of the State of Missouri. 6464 6. Durin< or a>out

/ove:>er, #97, ;ou violate ;our oath of oBce an Missouri *evise Statutes,

G 77.8!$ >; irectin< the Cit;@s Chief of 1olice not to enforce Cit; rinance /o.62#6.

7. n or a>out Ma; 27, #9, ;ou violate Cit; rinance /o. #82, other Cit;

rinances, anRor Cit; personnel policies an proceures >; ;our letter

aresse to all Cit; 1olice Depart:ent personnel.

. n or a>out Dece:>er 24, #96, an Dece:>er 8#, #96, >; letters

aresse to Cit;@s Chief of 1olice, ;ou orere sai Chief personall; to

rei:>urse the Cit; for purporte :issin< funs, ?ithout an; authorit; or ust

cause for such orer.

9. Durin< or a>out 5anuar;, #9, ;ou orere the Cit;@s 1olice Depart:ent

personnel to arrest Mar Co:fort, ?ithout pro>a>le cause or <oo reason,

contrar; to the reasone an eJperience opinion of sai Cit;@s 1olice

Depart:ent personnel. &urther, ;ou ?ron<full; an unustl; cause a :e:o of

insu>orination to >e place in the personnel Fle of Cit;@s Chief of 1olice for hisatte:pt to act la?full; an reasona>l; in this :atter.

Councilperson

Councilperson

Councilperson

Councilperson

Councilperson



Councilperson

Councilperson

Councilperson Date 5ul; 2#, #9

fitzgerald v. city of maryland heights 796 s.w.2d 52, 64 (mo. ct. app. 1990)

Documents