Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Impeachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to sign subpoenas for Aug. 26 impeachment hearing; adopts ordinance naming hearing officer
Summary
City aldermen agreed to sign subpoenas that request documents and witnesses for an Aug. 26 impeachment hearing and approved an ordinance to appoint a hearing officer to preside over the proceeding. Lawyers at the meeting emphasized the accused official’s right to due process and subpoena power.
The Carl Junction Board of Aldermen on Aug. 19 agreed to sign subpoena requests tied to an impeachment hearing scheduled for Aug. 26 and approved an ordinance to designate a hearing officer to preside over the proceeding.
City legal staff explained two statutes authorize the council to issue subpoenas and said the notices request records and witnesses; staff said many requested items are already public records but the subpoenas ensure witnesses will appear with documents if needed. One council member asked why the city should issue subpoenas for records that can be requested under the Missouri Sunshine Law (FOIA); staff replied that subpoenas compel witnesses to appear with original documents and provide a procedural safeguard for the hearing.
An attorney appearing for the accused official argued for the subpoenas as a due‑process right. “You all have filed an action to try to remove my client from office. He’s entitled to due process of law. Due process of law includes his right to subpoena those documents,” the attorney said, urging the council to follow statutory steps so the hearing proceeds without later court challenges.
The council also approved an ordinance to permit a non‑voting hearing officer to handle objections and manage evidentiary matters at the hearing; the ordinance clarified the board retains final authority and may overrule the hearing officer. The council put that ordinance on final passage during the meeting and recorded it as Ordinance No. 25 29.
City staff said they would attempt to provide requested documents ahead of the hearing to minimize on‑the‑record disputes, but staff and attorneys acknowledged some requested items may not exist or may be held by parties rather than the city clerk’s office. Council members chose to sign the subpoenas (or authorized signatures) so the hearing process could proceed in compliance with the statute.
The actions on subpoenas and the hearing‑officer ordinance were procedural steps to ready the council for the scheduled Aug. 26 impeachment hearing; the board did not resolve merits of any underlying allegations during the Aug. 19 meeting.
