No dry “writ” at the courthouse
Judge Craig Carter dismissed without prejudice Ernest O’Gaffney’s writ of mandamus against the county commissioners trying to force them to turn over county records to the custody of the county clerk.
According to court documents, the judge ruled that O’Gaffney, the relator in the suit, had no legal standing on which to seek remedy via a writ of mandamus. The judgment and order does not speak to the issue of whether the county commission is or is not complying with the statute that makes the county clerk the legal custodian of the county’s records.
The judge ruled that O’Gaffney did not meet the requirements cited in Moynihan v. Gunn (Mo. App. E. D. 2006) those including “pecuniary loss attributable to the challenged action…
“…(N)owhere has the Relator either alleged or proven that he has or will suffer any of the elements stated in Moynihan as a result of the Respondents’ actions,” the order said.
And he agreed with the county’s position that O’Gaffney had another legal remedy available in suing the county for violating the Sunshine Law, which he is doing.
“Accordingly, the Court holds that the Relator has no standing to bring the present case,” the order said.
Attorneys in the case argued in court Oct. 23 and Carter, coming in from Douglas County, took it under advisement. O’Gaffney said he may take the decision to the appellate court.
In a news release from the county Oct. 30, Presiding Commissioner John Grubaugh said the judgment vindicates the county’s position.
“This is a complete win for the county, and this lawsuit should never have been filed in the first place,” he said . “I hope this clears away the smoke screen of baseless and politically motivated allegations, so the citizens can see the real accomplishments in Christian County.”
Grubaugh then seizes the opportunity in the news release to cite six county accomplishments—including taking credit for the implementation of county-wide building codes. As one county resident put it: “We did everything but hold a gun to his head to get building codes in the county.”
He did not, however, take credit for the Chadwick ball field parking lot.
Explore posts in the same categories: NewsTags: Christian County, legal, O'Gaffney, Writ
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
October 30, 2007 at 5:07 pm
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAW
October 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Get ready for Episode of the O’Gaffney – Osborn Show. Really Earnie let it go and stop wasting taxpayers money.
November 1, 2007 at 10:52 am
Kind of sad that our county commissioners have to “seize” the opportunity to have good things published. Perhaps Donna had her milk out of bowl before writing this.
November 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Grubaugh shows his ignorance once again.
November 1, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Skeagle:
You got that right. The county paper should publish both sides of Christian County Government, not just their own agenda.
Anyone can see that the paper is very biased. Just pick up a paper (better yet read it on line) and see the slant they put on every article about the Christian County Government. There is politics written all over it. Look at who they quote and who they follow around. (None other than Huff and Grubaughs election opponents.)
Donna/Karen/Kay/Ernie/Ronnie/Birds of a feather flock together.
This paper aggravates me. I’m getting tired of reading this junk. We deserve better.
November 2, 2007 at 8:26 am
These are the days of our lives. First, on the legal issue of standing, which is an esoteric legal standard for determining who has the right to have a court hear his/her case, the county was successful. This is more a procedural victory than substantive, and I think it was pretty bush for the editor to add the last statement.
What victory? Now your county clerk is still prohibited from keeping the records for the public that she should? Wow, Grubaugh is celebrating his ability to deny the public access to information about how their county is being run. Well, I guess a win is a win if you are Grubaugh.
As far as a newspaper’s duty to be fair, I couldn’t agree more, however, this story has probably sold them a lot of newspapers. Stop buying it if you don’t like it, and tell all your friends and family to stop buying it, and stop patronizing business that advertise in it. Money will talk.
The next round of legal proceedings will likely have a different result. I wonder when someone will take responsibility for their actions/inactions?
November 2, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Shame on Bill Barnett! Instead of being supportive of the position he holds and of his fellow commissioners he is just another member of the O’Gaffney/Matthews/Brown/Cleek parade of clowns who cry everytime they don’t get their way. Then throw in Donna Osborn the newspaper editor that slants everything in their favor and gives O’Gaffney press every time he sneezes. They continually try turn to make mountains out of molehills of anything Grubaugh and Huff say or do, hoping to get some press. All this just because they can’t order office supplies from wherever they want or some other issue that doesn’t give them control and power. From what I understand, Matthews has never had to work a day in her life before taking the treasurer job so maybe she doesn’t understand the concept of teamwork and people dealing with each other on a daily basis in the workplace. I’m ashamed that my tax dollars are paying the salaries of these goons. Hopefully at the next election someone will run against them. Let Huff and Grubaugh do their jobs and Bill Barnett–you need to get some kahunas and think for yourself!
November 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Turkey…
Obviously you do not know the difference in leadership and arrogance. Mr. Grubaugh should have responded to the judges decision and informed the citizens of his ruling. It was a win for the county —- winning the law suit Mr. Ernest O’Gaffney filed against the citizens of Christian County. Mr. Grubaugh represents the citizens and it was a good thing the judge threw Mr. O’Gaffney’s law suit out.
November 4, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I hope that no one is under the impression that all the lawsuits have been thrown out. In fact, there are more pending, and this was only one of the smaller legal issues facing the “citizen’s representative” and his associates. In fact, the only reason this was dismissed is that the clerk did not join the lawsuit. If she decided to join the lawsuit, then this suit could be filed again tomorrow. Was he the “citizen’s representative” when he was a part of the alleged forging of a county document? Was he the citizen’s representative when he allegedly refused to hand over public records required by the Sunshine Law? Was he the “citizen’s representative” when he allegedly hired/consulted criminal defense counsel? Was he the citizen’s representative when he obstructed countywide building codes? How much taxpayer revenue could have been saved, if the the citizen’s representative would have just followed the letter of the law?
Wilful ignorance is a plague of the stupid.
November 4, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Ben,
You sound like a sore loser.
November 4, 2007 at 6:46 pm
BEN: ME AND MY HUSBAND SUPPORT JOHN GRUBAUGH AND TOM HUFF 100%. THEY HAVE PUT UP WITH MORE THAN ANY HUMAN SHOULD HAVE TO. PERSONALLY I AM GETTING TIRED OF THESE PEOPLE HARRASSING THEM. THE COUNTY CLERK AND TREASURER NEED TO GET BACK TO WORK AND THE ONES THAT RAN AGAINST TOM AND JOHN NEED TO DO THE SAME.
MARGARET
November 5, 2007 at 7:22 am
Annoyed
All Huff & Puff had to do was to give Kay the records & some of your tax money would have been saved. Now let’s see what Puff does Monday morning with his newfound power.
November 5, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Ann and Margaret:
I certainly don’t want to be a sore loser. I really don’t have any horse in this race, but I wanted to provide some perspective to the issue. I do admit being frustrated at the petty bickering that goes on between the office holders, and the folks on this blog. The bigger picture is that the citizens are losing either way. If O’Gaffney bows out, then the usual way of running government continues, and I don’t believe that everyone would agree that it is the most efficient or even the most lawful way to conduct business. The commissioners have taken a defensive position when their practices and actions were called into question. I don’t doubt that this is the exact reaction 99% of us would have to the circumstances.
At some point, the citizens, should extract the exact issues causing the problems, and decide what is the best way to proceed with governing in Christian County. I would argue that the Commissioners at issue are trying to do what they think is best, however, not everyone agrees with their view nor do the always follow the letter of the law in the performance of their job, allegedly. I also think that the Commissioners took evasive action to hide some of this information from the citizens, allegedly. Was the information that damning or important, not really. Why not just let it out? Because they didn’t want to be questioned or face the criticism from their decisions, or more specifically O’Gaffney making a spectacle. With the use of hindsight, would it not have been more pragmatic and cheaper for the county if the commissioners would have just complied with the law and performed their duties. Absolutely. Do they deserve the vilification by the media? Absolutely not. But they are public officials, and this is the cost of doing business when you run for public office and the taxpayers pay your salary.
As for Kay Brown. What has she done? Stir the pot? Seriously, I do not understand what she has done to draw the ire of the commissioner’s supporters. It sounds like she is doing the job she was elected to the way she believes is right, and the commissioner disagrees with her. What is the big deal of letting her keep the records that she is supposed to have? I am mystified about the attacks against her. I will admit I am not her biggest fan, but in this mess, she seems to be the least culpable, except for the fact that by accident or on purpose she is aligned with a “foreigner”. If she is the one pushing this scandal, then I certainly think she should also be held accountable.
O’Gaffney, well, I guess the Commission is glad they got him angry. I get tired of hearing him on the radio all the time. He often sounds smug and pretentious, but in the end, he was clearly wronged with the issues he dealt with his own home, and he merely wanted the county to consider or put building codes in front of the voters. Who knows where we would be if they would have listened to his requests in the beginning.
Yeah, I guess I am just a sore loser, OR just a person who wants those in public office to take responsibility, end this feud, and go back to work.
November 5, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I think if Kay Brown and Karen Matthews hadn’t tried to take over the county commission, none of this would have happened. Karen and Kay are just using Mr. O. to do their dirty work. The county clerk before her did not take over the minutes of the county commission. The county commission secretary took them. The county clerk before her did not try to run the county commission.
Obviously you have no idea what is really going on. This group (heck maybe you are one of them) sits in the county clerk’s office and tries to figure what pot to stir next. They just pick, and pick, and pick at petting things. Just ask some of the employees in the courthouse. They are sick of this.
November 5, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Donna Osborn’s blog that began this discussion is so biased. It appears she has an ax to grind with John Grubaugh and Tom Huff. I don’t remember seeing anywhere or hearing from anyone that these two men said they were against building codes. I believe this was the perception of a few (Donna, Karen, Roy, Tom C., Bill B., Kay, Judy) and a way for them to try and drag these two commissioners through the mud.
Fact is I’ve talked to the commissioners and they did tell me they didn’t think building codes would pass if the citizens were not educated. That is why they held so many public meetings to explain what these codes would mean for the county.
I do not appreciate the slant this blog writing gives.
I don’t know Ms. Osborn but politics are written all over this. Do I smell a democrat?
November 6, 2007 at 10:00 am
Past Employee : Did you realize that it is the clerk’s statutory duty to either take the minutes or provide that the minutes are taken for each meeting of the county commission. Look at Missouri Statute 51.120. No, really, I am with you, the county office holder’s should continue to ignore their statutory duties, and the commission should be allowed to do all of the jobs of the other elected officials. Dang that Kay, trying to do her job according to the law. What a trouble maker! You understand that the county government is organized in such a way as there are checks and balances. Why is that the Commissioners are so hell bent on keeping this information and duty away from the clerk?
I think Osborn is probably a Dem, but more than that, she is a sensationalist. If you review her articles for the past couple of years, you will find her again and again trying to blow a story out of proportion. I don’t believe she is a good fit for this newspaper, and I believe she constantly creates crisis when there is no crisis. Oh, what is the tool for fighting this issue? Quit buying her paper and patronizing its advertisers, and complain to her supervisor.
This blog is so biased. Nine of the fifteen comments on this page are pro Grubaugh and Huff or anti-Osborn. I only write to try and give some balance and perspective on this mess.
November 6, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I read them.. Statues do not say she takes the minutes. It says she keeps them. There is a difference. This means she keeps a copy of the minutes for Sunshine Law requests. Read it again
The biased comments were targeted at the supposedly professional reporter/editor that should be held accountable. Not the other bloggers.
November 6, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Don’t worry. I do not buy the local paper.
November 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I can see why. Reading this blog is enough to turn a person off if they want to know the positive things that are going on in Christian County.
Why is it that every blog that Donna Osborn writes has a slant to it against the County Commissioners Huff, Barnett and Grubaugh?
November 6, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Disgruntled: I disagree with your understanding of the statute. I believe that “shall keep” includes both taking the minutes during the meetings and keeping the minutes for public access. If you have reviewed the statutes, then you will know that the issue of minutes, referred to as proceedings, is only addressed in the County Clerk statutes. There is no mention of minutes in the commission statutes. I wonder why? Maybe the legislature knew that the fox ought not to be guarding the hen house.
Even if you assume you are right, what is the commission’s problem with having open meetings with the clerk taking minutes? Certainly, they do not think that her taking minutes is a means to secretly control the minds of each of them so that they are unable to make decisions for themselves? In most rural counties, the clerk takes the minutes for during commission meetings. This function does not interfere with the meetings, only helps to have an objective memorialization of the meeting.
Yeah, I think it is a great idea for the commission to control all the information occurring during their meetings. That hasn’t turned out bad for them at all. It is simple, if there is nothing to hide, then let the Clerk do her job.
November 6, 2007 at 8:07 pm
It appears you have spent a lot of time studying the statutes. Interesting.
I still stand by my interpretation that keeping doesn’t mean take. If you are a keeper, you keep them. If you take them, you write them down as they occur. Simple.
How come it was okay for past secretaries of the county commission to take the minutes (was okay with the commissioners at the time), but now these same commissioners (EX-COMMISSIONERS) say are breaking the law?
I do not believe I’ve seen or heard where the commission is trying to hide a thing. However, I have read and heard that there are a few that keep saying that to try to give the county commission a bad reputation. This is what I call POLITICS.
Yep. There is an election right around the corner.
November 6, 2007 at 8:56 pm
.I have to agree with Ben, The statute is as clear as the knot on your head. But just for fun zees lets take a deep look into what actually happens with John and Tom being in charge of the minutes.
Go up to the clerk’s office and ask to see the raw minutes and listen to the tape of any meeting. Then ask to look at the “official” minutes that John has altered (changed) , deleted (redacted) and signed.
If this doesn’t convince you that the clerk (a disinterested party) has to take the minutes, then, May God bless you and find a spot in his heart for you before you graduate from your special education classes.
The facts are clear ,if only you take a break from this blog and go seek out the truth. Remember the truth is stranger than fiction.
November 6, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Ben the expert at everything…. Correcting grammar and incomplete sentences is not altering the motions and decision made in the commission chambers. Would you want to sign incomplete sentences and minutes with grammatical errors. I certainly would not!
I am surprised the minutes have anything in them at all, since the “taker” (the county clerk) consistently falls asleep while taking them. All I know is that’s what I heard. I was not there, but that is the “latest” rumor. You might check that out while you are spending time in the courthouse…..
Reminder: Statute says KEEP. Keep means keep, not take.
November 6, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I guess it is all in the interpretation of the law. Keep means keep, take means take.
As far as what you think Tom, Bill and John are doing to the minutes is ridiculous. There are no finer, nor more honest men…. Quit trying to play politics in this blog. The people have spoken. Get a life, somewhere else.
Quit using Bill Barnett. He doesn’t deserve this. I heard he wasn’t even going to run for re-election. How sad…..
November 6, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ben, Buzzard, Turkey…..
Why was it okay for the past commissions to keep their records and their office take their minutes, and it is now (according to you) AGAINST THE LAW for the current commission to do so?
November 7, 2007 at 8:24 am
Speaking of sleeping. It seems that you must have been asleep during my last comment.
I don’t care if Kay Brown falls asleep during the meetings. She was smart enough to go out and hire the Eveready Bunny and it just keeps recording while John turns red and shakes himself to death.
As far as Bill Barnett is concerned, he is a great man dedicated to serving the people.
Don’t do him a disservice by including him in with the other two yahoo’s under investigation as he is not.
Oh Yeah! he also doesn’t give away gravel or pave roads in conflict of interest or use county employees to put up tents.
Just go to the clerk’s office and listen to the tapes and then read the official minutes.
“All truths shall be self evident”.
November 7, 2007 at 9:26 am
I am no expert, however, I do try to read and understand before I speak. I guess that would make me an expert at reading?
To “keep or not to keep”? Go to an ordinary dictionary and see if “keep” does not include in its definition the sub-definition – to set down regularly in writing; maintain (a continuous written record). Oh well, lets just ignore common sense, and answer another question, if the commission is responsibile for “taking” the minutes, which are the public record of their meetings and hearings, then why did the legislature not give them the duty of “taking” the minutes.
As for past regimes of clerk’s and commissioners, I cannot honestly say why they had not read the statutes, and followed them the same way these elected officials decided to read and follow them. Tradition is a good, but so is change. What is the big deal with doing things differently, especially if this is how the law intends them to be done? Why such a fight… POWER AND CONTROL? The Commission believes the Clerk is trying to take something away from them, and does not like the fact that they are losing control of that piece of the public information pie. What they have failed to realize, is that with a third party keeping the records, including taking the minutes, they are afforded additional protection from those who would attack. The Commission can do its job without keeping the minutes, regardless of the definition. The Clerk is mandated to keep the minutes, so it part of her job.
Hey Researcher, if I am “keeping”a journal, am I just holding a journal or am I writing a record in my journal?
November 7, 2007 at 2:22 pm
More of that same investigative work. Birds of a feather flock together…..
November 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm
It appears to me that the county clerk is trying to take the files that belong in the commission office away from them….. It’s not about being able to do her job better. If she had a clue of her job she would have known that Saddlebrook folks could not vote on the building codes. For God’s sake, it is even listed the main county webpage Did her elections staff not know that? And if she didnt’ know, why did she just not do the right thing and ask…. Oh no, she had to make a mountain out of mole hill.
Don’t you see. It’s all a part of the well orchestrated plan to upset the county commission (which does include Mr. Barnett, like it or not.
November 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I think everyone needs to stop this type of harsh blogging and do something constructive. The bible says not to judge others, and all of us need to live by that.
Try reading Matthews 6 & 7.
November 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Oh yeah Mr. Barnett is really leading county. In his speech at the Nixa State of the Community, if you followed that, everything he mentioned that had been accomplished had been accomplished by John Grubaugh and Tom Huff. Heck, the bridge wasn’t even in his part of the county.
November 8, 2007 at 8:36 am
Ben,
What a breath of fresh air to read something intelligent on this page! Unfortunately, most of these people won’t listen to any viewpoint other than their own.
What is wrong with open & honest government people? Really, that’s all we’re asking out of the commission.
November 8, 2007 at 11:47 pm
To keep or not to keep, to take or not to take that is the question. But as with this last election you can see by Voter Turn out only a few people in this county really care. Can someone tell me why it took the clerks office this long to do something? Wait, wait oh yeah she did not do anything the Gadfly did.
51.010. In each county of this state there shall be an office of clerk of the county commission to be styled “The Office of the Clerk of the County Commission”. Should would discuss what this means. I am sure there are a number of opinions. But let me have fun and say that title appears that Clerk works for the County Commission. Have fun.
November 16, 2007 at 1:47 pm
The Clerk does not work for the Commission.
If you look at the Revised Statutes you would see that she only answers to the Govenor and to the people come election time.
So have fun……..