SEMO.net has compiled this general timeline from Sunshine documents received, DAR reports and personal conversations:

Monday, April 15 – City Clerk Kearbey improperly, and possibly illegally, conducted the Mayoral election. Read earlier post.

Monday, April 16 - Brannum tells City Manager Bagby he intends to make a motion at the May 6 meeting to fire Kearbey for her improper actions during the mayoral election.

Monday, April 22 – Attorney Danny Moore mails a letter addressed to Brannum saying his client, a City employee, is “very concerned about his actions and demeanor toward her.”

Tuesday, April 23 @ 8:50 am - Don Schrieber, Editor in Chief of the Daily American Republic, goes to City Hall and makes a Sunshine Request for “Any files relating to either term Johnny Brannum served on the P.B. City Council.”

• City Clerk waives research and copying fees for DAR.
  • – I was charged for these documents
• City Clerk waives typical 3-day waiting period for requests to DAR.
  • – I received these documents after three day wait
• Schrieber was handed photocopies of the documents immediately. Documents were 1) an undated, former employee submitted,  handwritten letter from “Johnny”; 2)
• front of a business card of Councilman Brannum; 3)
• back of a business card with handwritten message.

Tuesday, April 23 afternoon – Brannum received his copy of the Attorney Moore letter

Wednesday, April 24 @ 9:00 AM - City Council is notified of a special closed meeting to be held on April 26 at noon.

Friday, April 26 @ noon - An emergency Closed Meeting of the City Council was held. The City Clerk did not attend a large portion of this meeting. It is my opinion that these sexual harassment charges were discussed in this meeting.

Monday, April 29 @ 9:20 AM- Don Schrieber made, essentially, the same sunshine request as six days prior “All Records Pertaining to Councilman John Brannum.” Schrieber was given two pages. Schrieber did not pay for these records (again, I was charged for these records) and received them immediately (I had to wait three business days for my copies):

1. letter from Attorney Moore to Brannum
2. a typed letter describing incidents between a current employee of City Hall and Brannum

It is my opinion that both of these documents were closed records under the Sunshine law. City Ordinance prohibits public disclosure of closed records and disclosure is an offense under the City Code. The offender is subject to termination.

Tuesday, April 30 @ 12:45 PM – Brannum emails Bagby and resigns from City Council.

Tuesday, April 30 @ 2:00 PM – City sends out agenda for Special Meeting on May 1

Tuesday, April 30 @ 7:00 PM – Brannum email Bagby and Mayor DeGaris and recants his resignation

Wednesday, May 1 @ 11:00 AM – DAR has front page expose’ regarding sexual allegations against Brannum, Brannum’s resignation and recantation emails printed in full.

Wednesday, May 1 @ 4:30 – At the Special Meeting of City Council it becomes public information that City Clerk Pam Kearbey was the “current” employee who complained about Brannum.

Friday, May 3 - City posts Agenda for next Council Meeting and includes “E. City Council will review a contract for the City Clerk”

Sunday, May 5 – Schrieber writes DAR editorial and states Brannum is an embarrassment and should resign and calls me a “Disgruntled Malcontent Misfit.”

Monday, May 6 – I made a Sunshine Request for:

• Copy of ALL  “Sunshine Requests” made by the Daily American Republic During April or May of 2013
• Copy of Police Reports and/or Employee Complaint Filed against Brannum

Thursday, May 9 - City Clerk stated once in person and twice by email that There are no police reports.

Tuesday, May 14 - City Clerk Kearbey writes, “there is NO police report filed on any of the complaints.”

Wednesday, May 15 – I requested by Sunshine Request a copy of the City’s protocol and procedures for Employee complaints of Sexual Harassment.

So here are my questions:

1. How did the “Letter from Attorney Moore” and “Personal Statement/Complaint of City Clerk Kearbey” become public record since there was no police report and no employee complaint?

   1. It can only be given by the Clerk to the DAR if it is a public record
   2. There is no police report so it didn’t become a public record that way
   3. I believe those records are “closed session records.” I asked Pearson if she had seen either of the two documents and was told she could not discuss anything from a closed session.

2. What happens if the City did provide Closed Meeting documents to the Daily American Republic?

   1. Our own PB Ordinance 7321 states that any employee of the City who discloses any closed record shall “be guilty of an offense under the ordinances of the City” and upon eviction therefore may be punished as provided by law and “subject to termination.”
   2. Our City Clerk is the Custodian of Records and has apparently violated this ordinance.

3. Who tipped off Don Schrieber to go make those requests and what was their motive?

   1. Schrieber was at City Hall asking for documents nearly 10 hours before Brannum got the letter from Attorney Moore.
   2. Schrieber went back after six days and requested the same documents. How did he know there was something new in Brannum’s file?

4. How did the DAR get a copy of the resignation email submitted to the City Manager?

   1. The DAR did not make a sunshine request for that information.
   2. The resignation letter was emailed from Brannum to Bagby. That email, I believe, was also transmitted to all the council members.
   3. Leaking emails of this nature to the press, in my opinion, is unethical
   4. I have made Sunshine Request for any emails sent from City employees to the DAR – I will report the findings.

5. How can there be a “sexual harassment” issue when no Police Report or Employee complaint has been filed?

6. How can the DAR report 9 separate times that the Police were involved in an investigation when no police report was ever filed?

   1. DAR stated “this letter was held by the Poplar Bluff Police Department…”
   2. DAR stated “a current city employee provided a complaint to the police”
   3. DAR stated “names of the victims have been withheld by the police”
   4. DAR stated “the police case file, which has been closed, also states….”
   5. If they have any respect for their community and the ideal of Journalism, THE Daily American Republic should print a front page retraction!

7. Why now? After twelve years of employment, why is it now necessary to provide a contract to the City Clerk?

   1. The contract provides: “termination shall be effective upon twelve (12) months written notice”
   2. The contract actually states that if the City Clerk is ever fired she sticks around for a full year at full pay. LUNACY!
   3. Annual salary is $56,656 plus benefits and proportional raises

It is my opinion that there is enough reasonable concern of foul play for our community to request that the Attorney General’s office commission an investigation of how all of these events transpired.

Proudly written by a Disgruntled Malcontent Misfit!

I’ve always wondered about the expense of our electric bill and how much it appears to be higher this year than the year before. I went back to the MU website and found that their rates page hasn’t changed since May 2006.

However, we all know that our bills keep going up. The reason? The “Fuel Factor” charge which is on our bill. The “Fuel Factor” is an additional charge per kilowatt hour on top of your normal rate. Right now, the Fuel Factor is 2 cents. So when the City claims their rates are around 6 cents per kilowatt hour, that doesn’t include the Fuel Factor so it’s actually 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

I’ve looked back on past bills and in 2011 our Fuel Factor was 0.85 cents (so not quite a penny). In 2012 it went up to 1.55 cents and then this year it went up to 2 cents.

I contacted the Public Service Commission about the Fuel Factor and they said they don’t have any jurisdiction over a municipality’s charges. That means there is absolutely NO oversight to the “Fuel Factor” charge. That made me realize: Bill Bach probably calculates the Fuel Factor…and we all know that Bach’s accounting skills leave much to be desired.

Taken from the City’s utility website on the Electric Rates page, this is the City’s description of the Fuel Factor that appears on our Electric bill.

I went back and read the wording for the Fuel Factor and found that if the city buys or generates power for more than 3.84 cents per kilowatt hour, they are to charge a fuel factor of the overage. But if their purchased power is less than 3.84 cents then they actually are to give us a negative fuel factor. Wouldn’t that be awesome?

Earlier in the week I crafted a sunshine request for public records requesting the most recent invoices for purchased power by Municipal Utilities. Today when I received those documents, I certainly can’t see how the City can justify 2 cents.

The invoice for April from Grand River Dam Authority is the largest bill representing 22,290,000 kWh for $1,157,695.40. That comes out to 5.194 cents per kilowatt hour which would only justify a 1.354 cent Fuel Factor.

As you can see by the image at the top of this post, the City is required to calculate the “Fuel Factor” every six months. In an effort to get a better understanding of this situation, this afternoon I requested via the Sunshine Law to view the last four calculations made by the City for their “Fuel Factor” charge.

I will release those when I get them.

Legal Battle Has Been Waged

Update: Here is the petition filed: CSE v City of PB. They will add the citizen’s name to the petition in the coming days. They also hope to have the injunction hearing next week.

At Monday night’s (4/15) meeting, Utilities Manager Bill Bach stood before City Council and said the bids for the EPA-mandated Catalyst/Silencers for the City’s generators had been evaluated and requested the Council disregard the low bid. Bach went on to explain that the second lowest bid was the one he recommended the city accept.

Bach said that the low bidder, CSE Enterprises – a Missouri-based company from Rolla, had designed the access panel 10 foot in the air and could be a safety issue. He reinforced his selection by stating that the second lowest bidder, a Wisconsin-based company, already had a good, longstanding, working relationship with the city. Are you kidding? Any company will be your friend if you give them an extra $250,000 in profit over their competition.

Nick Barrack of CSE Enterprises stood before Council and stated Mr. Bach was not giving them the full story. (Where have I heard that before? Becker Pleads With City Council Not To Trust Bach’s Financials – July 2010) Barrack had already informed Mr. Bach by phone and letter that the drawing was a generic drawing and there would be no additional costs to put the access panel at ground level if that is what the city wanted.

Barrack said that the bid request was for a specific set of specifications at the lowest price. His company, he said, had met all specifications and was the lowest price by a quarter of a million dollars and should be awarded the contract.

The council had to decide: believe Mr. Bach or Mr. Barrack.

Councilman Matthews said that the metal on the second bid was thicker. But Barrack pointed out that if the city had wanted a specific thickness of metal they should have put that in the bid spec.

Matthews asked, “But thicker will last longer, don’t you agree?”

That’s a stupid question. You can’t determine that thicker is better any more than thinner is better. After all, thicker metal is less flexible which creates other consequences. That is for ENGINEERS to calculate, not for COUNCIL MEMBERS to speculate!

This really is a simple problem to solve:

One bid was $735,000
One bid was $983,000
Both bidders say they satisfy the specs
Both bidders have a great reputation

So what did our council do? The council voted 4-3 to award the bid to the Wisconsin-based Fairbanks Morse company and overpay by $250,000.

But the story doesn’t end there.

CSE Enterprises and a local Poplar Bluff Citizen have filed an injunction against the City of Poplar Bluff asking a Judge to stop the contract from being signed. Their lawyer argues that awarding the bid to the second lowest bidder “is an arbitrary, capricious and wrongful abuse of official discretion, lawfully promotes favoritism and collusion” while being “unsupported by an objective factual basis.”

CSE Enterprises is being represented by Scott Robbins of Kennedy, Kennedy, Robbins and Yarbro.

I personally am glad CSE Enterprises is pushing back. This city seems to do whatever they want whenever they want. They give extra money to people they “have a good relationship with” and they deny those who aren’t part of their club.

One citizen wrote:

All of us who pay for electric in Poplar Bluff will be affected by this waste and abuse. Electric bills will go up at some time. With the council’s action on Monday, it will be sooner rather than later. When our bills do go up, we can be happy to know the extra amount we pay for the first couple of months is going to somebody’s friend.

I agree, this will affect our energy bill either by a rate increase or an even higher “Purchase Power Adjustment” charge.

Hopefully our city will realize they are wrong rather than dig in and fight this and spend even more money in legal fees in hopes that a judge will side with them.