The St. Louis County Ethics Committee voted to recommend that the full County Council issue subpoenas for employees and contractors connected to licensing and inspection records at the county animal-control facility.

The committee’s action came at its June 3 meeting after members said information provided at an earlier Committee of the Whole had been incomplete. The recommendation asks the council to subpoena named individuals to testify under oath and to produce relevant books, records, photographs and recordings.

The committee chair, speaking at the start of the meeting, said the ethics panel would request emails and other communications about license inspections and repairs from the county IT department and would consider issuing subpoenas to ensure witnesses appear. Council Member Days supported calling witnesses not present at the prior hearing, and members identified specific people they want to question about licensing, inspections and decision-making at the animal-control facility.

Committee members identified a list of current and former staff and contractors they want subpoenaed, including Lee Jackson (whose name appeared on a license), Dr. Doug Pernicoff (the facility’s medical director, who the committee was told has resigned), Landrus Burris, Rebecca Rainwater, Sarah Javier, Kim Brown, a population manager to be identified, Dr. Marissa Bowers, Olivia Bennett and Matt Rold. The committee asked that those people bring any books, records, recordings or photographs that support their testimony.

Members discussed seeking testimony from Missouri Department of Agriculture inspectors and staff. The committee was told that Olivia Bennett was the inspector assigned to on-site inspections and that Matt Rold oversees the Animal Care Facilities Act program at the Department of Agriculture. Committee members said an outside inspector’s account could add detail to written inspection reports and help establish a timeline of inspections and when county officials were notified.

County counsel advised the committee that subpoenas require a “reasonable” period of notice and that a week to 10 days is commonly considered reasonable for committee proceedings; counsel said the committee could also set a date certain and keep the subpoena in force until the investigation concludes. Counsel noted enforcement remedies such as contempt are available but are a last resort.

At the meeting, the ethics committee moved to recommend that the full council issue subpoenas to the named individuals and require production of records and photographs. The motion was moved and seconded; a roll call recorded three ayes and no nays. The committee’s recommendation will be presented to the full County Council under the report of special committees, and the council will be asked to vote on an order to issue subpoenas.

The committee chair and members said the investigation will remain fluid: as evidence is reviewed, additional individuals may be added to subpoenas. Members also requested that subpoenaed witnesses be sworn when they appear before the committee. County counsel said witnesses who previously testified would be re-sworn if they appear again.

The committee did not set a specific date for the Committee of the Whole hearing at which subpoenaed witnesses would appear; Chairwoman Days was reported to be planning a Committee of the Whole meeting on June 12. The recommendation from the ethics committee is procedural only — the full County Council must approve and issue any subpoenas.