The Reporter covers Miller, Morgan and Camden County in Central Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks and is published once per week on Wednesdays.
Published June 13, 2018
Federal judge rules in favor of commissioners
CAMDEN COUNTY - The lawsuit between Rowland Todd and Presiding Commissioner Greg
Hasty, Commissioners Beverly Thomas and Don Williams is over.
Todd was claiming the commissioners violated his First Amendment rights of
Freedom of Speech because he spoke out against what he felt was the county
wasting money in the hiring of a new Human Resources Administrator and also
claims that Hasty publicly called him a thief in that he “stole records” from
the Human Resource Department.
Todd was suing as an individual against the individual commissioners and not
Camden County Clerk vs Camden County Commission.
Federal Judge Brian C. Wimes issued a 16 page ruling last week in favor of the
commissioners due mainly to the decision that elected officials speech is not
protected by the First Amendment and Todd’s letter sent to the press was not
from him as an individual but from him as County Clerk.
Wimes was appointed as District Judge on the United States District Court for
the Eastern and Western District of Missouri by President Barack Obama in
September of 2011 and he was sworn in on April 30, 2012.
A press release from the County Commission (written from the Pleban Law firm)
explained their take on the judge’s ruling.
“‘The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri has now
entered a summary judgment in favor of Commissioners Hasty, Thomas and Williams
on all claims and allegations brought by Todd. The trial was scheduled to begin
on August 6 in Jefferson City.
‘A summary judgment means the court made a finding that there was no genuine
issue of material fact and as a matter of law the defendants Hasty, Thomas and
Williams were entitled to a judgment in their favor. In other words, there was
nothing for a jury to decide and therefore, no need for a trial,’ Chet Pleban,
one of the attorneys representing the Commissioners, said.”
But a careful reading of the actual judgment handed down by Wimes doesn’t say
the commissioners are innocent or guilty in regards to Todd’s claims but that
the alleged retaliation by Hasty for the letter is a moot point because the
letter is from Todd as Clerk and not as an individual.
And since the letter (according to the judge) is from an elected official then
it is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
After that is accepted, all other points of Todd’s claims are irrelevant and
would not be something a jury would need to consider and “therefore, no need for
a trial,” as Pleban stated.
The judge explained the matter in one section of his ruling.
“The concerns expressed in Plaintiff’s letter arise from Plaintiff’s role as
Clerk, and his inside knowledge of the internal county office functions. The
letter discusses the Clerk’s role in discharging its duty to supervise county
payroll, and the obstacles presented by the introduction of the separate HR
office. The concerns and criticisms raised point to HR’s interference with the
Clerk’s efficient discharge of official duties. Moreover, under the
uncontroverted facts, the letter reflects the same concerns about HR that
Plaintiff expressed to Defendants in the time leading up to February 2017.
Additionally, Plaintiff said he would have provided a copy of his letter in
response to a Sunshine request, which suggests Plaintiff considered the letter
to be subject to public disclosure as an official county document. Therefore,
the Court concludes the letter owed its existence to Plaintiff’s official role
as the Camden County Clerk.
“Even if the letter includes matters of public concern, as well as matters of
personal interest relating to Plaintiff’s official role as Clerk, the content,
form, and context of letter establishes that Plaintiff was acting primarily as
an employee. Bailey, 451 F.3d 15 518. Because the record establishes that the
letter was mostly intended to further Plaintiff’s interests in his ability to
fulfill his role as Clerk, the concerns expressed in the letter are not
protected speech, even if the public may have a general interest in the concerns
presented. Id. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
letter does not amount to speech from Plaintiff as a citizen speaking on a
matter of public concern. Because there is no genuine issue material that the
letter is not speech from a citizen on a matter of public concern, Plaintiff
does not have a viable First Amended cause of action based on Defendants’
reactions to the letter as a matter of law,” said Wimes in his ruling.
(It should be noted that elected officials are not employees of the county, like
a janitor, but are hired by and are employees of the people in the county that
elected them).
The judge’s ruling also stated in the uncontroverted facts section that Todd did
not do anything wrong.
“On March 17, 2017, the Investigation Report was released publicly, based on the
investigating attorneys’ recommendation. Defendants were advised not to read or
review the report before its release, and they did not. The Investigation Report
ultimately concluded there was no hostile work environment that could predicate
a viable claim for employment discrimination against Camden County. The
Investigation Report also concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Plaintiff (Todd) committed a crime, failed to perform duties as the
county Clerk, or violated any privacy laws by responding to the Sunshine request
for Christensen’s payroll records.”
It is unknown how much money the suit cost Todd (who used his own funds) or the
county (who has insurance for lawsuits).
Both Todd and Hasty are up for re-election in August and both face challengers.
All content is Copyright 2018 by Reporter Publishing, L.L.C. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited without written permission.