Three-Day Hearing Ends With City Manager's Testimony

Updated 4/4

After 14 hours and several marathon session, Ellisville Mayor Adam has heard in full the slew of allegations that prompted city council members to launch a hearing to consider his impeachment.

There’s still one thing missing, however: a decision.

That will not come until April 8 at 6 p.m., when the city council meets to publicly deliberate over the evidence and arguments presented during the lengthy hearing. 

The proceedings began on Monday in front of a school gym packed with around 400 residents, mostly Paul supporters sporting homemade badges with slogans that changed daily.

By Wednesday, the hearings had moved to a smaller venue, St. John Lutheran Church, and the lawyers arguing his case were playing for a smaller crowd.

When it all finally ended, Paul reflected on what he described as three days filled with many difficult moments that caused him a lot of inner turmoil. 

"Me sitting there and listening to that testimony is emotionally draining," he said. "There is so much more than was in the allegations, like how I was provoked and how I was treated."

(Read more stories on Mayor Adam Paul's impeachment hearing here)

The allegations leveled against Paul were broad, but all essentially charged that he overreached or abused the authority of his position under Ellisville’s charter as a “weak mayor” system of government. Some of the specific allegations discussed during the three days of testimony state Paul:

• Exceeded his authority in several ways, such as replacing the city attorney without the council's knowledge and contacting a representative of a developer who had a pending petition before the city. 
• Interfered with the city manager's ability to perform his jobs by giving orders to city employees, such as demanding law enforcement remove individuals who disagreed with him from public meetings. 
• Directed the city clerk to perform actions contrary to the law.
• Failed to make himself available for a deposition requested with a subpeona from Cheung. 

Fact vs. Fact

Paul’s attorney, Chet Pleban, used his cross examination to repeatedly undermine the argument that Paul willfully violated his role as the charter lays it out. Instead, Pleban’s said and his questions suggested that Paul and the city staff and council simply had different points of view.

The hearing to remove Paul from office was motivated not by any violations of the charter, Pleban’s defense argued, but was instead fueled by their personal disagreements and feelings concerning the mayor.

“This is not a fair and impartial proceeding,” Pleban said near the end of the hearing.

Unsurprisingly, the city’s prosecuting attorney, Keith Cheung, and Pleban often used the same witness to present two contrasting explanations for what had happened.

Pleban sought to portray Paul as a young mayor trying to find his way who never received any help from city staff while Cheung painted him as a man who repeatedly rebuffed their suggestions and advice.

One of the more serious examples was covered by the third day’s lone witness, city manager Kevin Bookout, and involved Paul’s contact of a representative of the Sansone Group, the developer behind the city’s controversial Walmart project.

In an email, Paul had asked Bookout about the possibility of talking to a woman with the relocation company involved in the development. At the time, Paul was concerned some residents might not be receiving fair compensation in exchange for being forced to move.

Bookout’s reply told him there was “no reason” to contact her since she would execute the agreement as laid out by state statute.

“Why did you advise him that?” Cheung asked.

“The Sansone group had a petition before the city and she was working for them,” he said. “The charter says you can’t do that.”

One Email, Two Views

Pleban took up this same exchange on his cross-examination and instead argued that Bookout could have acted to help Paul and instead hindered him.

If he was concerned Paul might do something to violate the charter, why didn’t he share it with the mayor, Pleban asked. Bookout’s reply was simple.

“I didn’t feel it was necessary,” Bookout said.

Pleban also asked Bookout why he didn’t file his own complaint and instead brought the manner to the city attorney, Paul Martin. Despite repeated queries, Bookout again kept his reply simple.

“I don’t know,” he said.

Pleban’s mention of Martin referenced a part of his defense that has alleged Martin helped conspire to oust his client. Emails obtained by Pleban have previously shown the city attorney had been keeping notes on possible charter violations committed by the mayor since shortly after he took office.

Pleban deposed Martin over the course over several days in the week before the trial and his testimony was cited throughout the hearing. However, Martin himself never made an appearance during the three-day trial.

Pleban said his office had been unable to locate him since last Thursday and therefore could not issue him a subpoena to appear.  

Did the three days of hearings leave you with a lot of questions? Ask them in the comment stream below and Patch will look into finding some answers.