2014-02-10 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

interchangeably by the courts. Mr. Crow questioned whether they were typically used in election cases. Ms. Forster stated that domicile and residency are used interchangeably. Mr. Crow stated that the letter purports to be premised on the authority of the Charter; however neither of these phrases is delineated in the Charter. Ms. Forster stated that the City Charter does require residency and also uses the term “residency for three consecutive years prior to the date of election”. She stated that she had referenced “being a citizen of the City” in some of her correspondence to Ms. Pumm, who had simply reiterated the same in her letter to the candidate. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had supplied the language contained in the letter. Ms. Forster stated that she would have to read the entire letter before she could answer that question. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had received a copy of the letter dated January 31, 2014, from the law firm of Dowd Bennett. Ms. Forster stated that she had. Mr. Crow then asked for an explanation of the actions that were taken once the letter was received. Ms. Forster stated that in accordance with the statute Dowd Bennett filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus asking the Court to issue an order affirming that the City Clerk’s actions were correct or that the City Clerk and the St. Louis County Election Board should place the candidate back on the ballot. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had discussed the Petition with anyone else. Ms. Forster stated that since the Petition contained a litigation hold she had forwarded a copy to the City Clerk and the City Manager. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had discussed this issue with any members of Council. Ms. Forster stated that she had not. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she had met with Mr. Hales’ lawyers as suggested in their letter. Ms. Forster stated that while she did respond to the Petition, she had not responded to their letter requesting a meeting to discuss this matter for several reasons. One, because the ultimate decision would be left up to the Court, and two, because in an election case there is a very short timeframe between the issuance of an order on the challenge and the printing of the ballots. So her goal was simply to make sure that Mr. Hales was granted enough time to get his name on the ballot should the Court rule in his favor. Ms. Forster stated that Darrold Crotzer, an attorney from her firm had reached out to Mr. Hales’ attorney to provide him with information about how the process worked. Mr. Crow asked Katie if the candidate was suing both the City and the City Clerk. Ms. Forster stated that the City is named as the actual Defendant, and the City Clerk had been named as the individual to whom the order would be addressed to. Mr. Crow stated that he was curious to know how she had been retained to represent Ms. Pumm since she reports to City Council and not the City Manager. Ms. Forster stated that once she is retained by the City her representation automatically extends to the City Clerk, who was named in her official capacity as the election authority, pursuant to the statute and City Charter. Mr. Crow stated that while he would generally agree with that statement Council has been down this path before and the bottom line is that no one with the authority to do so has granted approval for Ms. Pumm to be represented by the City’s attorney. Ms. Forster stated that based on her understanding as the City Attorney, her responsibility is to represent the City on all matters that involve the City. Mr. Price asked City Manager Mr. Walker if Ms. Pumm was considered as one of his employees. Mr. Walker stated that she was not. Mr. Price asked if Ms. Pumm reported directly to the City Manager. Mr. Walker stated that she did not. Mr. Price 6