Elllisville City Attorney Explains Impeachment Role to U City, Other Officials in Letter

Ellisville City Attorney Paul Martin, one of the key players in the impeachment of former Mayor Adam Paul, explained his role in the community drama in a letter to the other cities where he serves in the same capacity: University City, Olivette, Rock Hill and Crystal Lake Park. 

During the recent impeachment of Ellisville Mayor Adam Paul, Martin's name was featured prominently in media coverage of the hearings. Ballwin-Ellisville Patch noted on March 20 that the spotlight fell on "."

Ballwin-Ellisville Patch reported that , of which $50,000 came from the Sansone Group.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Martin’s firm charges Ellisville a monthly retainer of $2,725 for his work as both city attorney and city prosecutor. He also charges an hourly rate of $175 for his work as city attorney, and $150 for any work as prosecutor.

Martin wrote a letter to the elected officials in U City, Olivette, Rock Hill and Crystal Lake Park dated April 9, explaining his role in the procedure. The letter was included as part of U City Mayor Shelley Welsch's weekly University City Bulletin Board email blast.  

In the email, Mayor Welsch notes, that Martin drafted his letter for the City Council.

"In his note to City Manager Lehman Walker he said that this letter is not a confidential document," Welsch wrote. "Specifically, Mr. Martin said, 'given that my attorney-client privilege with Ellisville has been held waived by the impeachment hearing officer, the information in the attached (letter) is not confidential. I am not violating any privilege by sharing this, not do I believe that the document is protected  by any privilege or is a closed record under the Sunshine Law.'"

Martin was embroiled in a small-scale controversy in University City in June of 2012, when Ward 3 Councilman Byron Price questioned the official minutes of a city council meeting not reflecting exactly what was said at the meeting. 

At the time, City Clerk Joyce Pumm told the council that after seeking a legal opinion from Martin, she streamlined the council meetings to only include information on action taken and not comments made.

Price said that the council's minutes have always included the conversations of council members and a change should not have been made without the consent of council.

Martin said he gave general legal advice about the state of the minutes. "It is much better to keep minutes factual and keep comments out," he said at the time.

Ellisville Impeachment

At the request of the Ellisville City Council, Martin compiled the 11 charges that were brought against Mayor Paul and form the basis of the case for his impeachment, Ballwin-Ellisville Patch reported.

Included in those charges were allegations that Paul tried to circumvent the city council and unilaterally remove Martin from his post.

In his letter, Martin wrote the following to elected officials:

Media reports have portrayed an unflattering description of my role in the impeachment of Ellisville mayor Adam Paul. While some of the details of those reports are accurate, the conclusions being reached are not. Now that the Ellisville City Council has acted, I am free to provide my own perspective.

The voters of the City of Ellisville adopted a charter in 1993. That charter puts the council, as a whole, in charge of city policy and reserves administrative and operative authority to the city manager. The city's voters adopted this type of government to curb abuses of power perpetuated by past mayors.

On April 8, the Ellisville City Council voted 5-1 to oust Mayor Paul from office. Ballwin-Ellisville Patch reported that ."

Martin's letter says the behavior in question began shortly after Paul took office in April 2012. Quoting from Martin's letter:

During this time, council members and city staff began questioning me about Mr. Paul's behavior, and because of those discussions, I started a computer file chronicling the incidents. When requested to do so, I used that information to enable the council to consider Mr. Paul's removal from office.

It has been suggested that I acted unethically. I believe the opposite is true. Rule 1-1.13 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct make clear that as the city attorney, I represent the municipal corporation that is the City of Ellisville and not the mayor or any member of the council.

Martin's letter said he believed he was acting in the best interests of the City of Ellisville. Quoting from the letter, "the choices I made in executing the duties of my office can always be second-guessed, and even criticized, but when making those choices I did not have the luxury of either precedent or hindsight."

The letter closes with the following statement:

Those of you who have known me for years have continuously expressed your support, and I am very grateful. For those of you have good-faith questions about this process, I hope this letter helps alleviate your concerns. For those who are swayed by negative publicity spoon-fed to the media by those who have nothing else to offer about whether, in fact, Mr. Paul violated the Ellisville City Charter, I can only reiterate what I have already said. I did my job, to the best of my ability under trying circumstances, and I believe I did it well. 

See our previous coverage:

• Mayor: Releasing Legal Documents Was an Error
• Council Accuses Mayor of Releasing Confidential Documents
• Swept Away: Street Sweeping Proposal Pulled
• Comments Scrubbed from Council Meeting Minutes
• U City to Replace John Mulligan as City Attorney

*Editor's Note: A PDF of Martin's letter to the various elected officials is attached to this story.