A "unique" situation

Former Reporter Wade preemptively defends Marta. ;-)

 By Gretchen Garrity

Springfield News-Leader reporter Marta Mieze has written a slanted article about the current lawsuit against the majority of the board members of the Christian County Library Board of Trustees.

News-Leader reporter Marta Mieze

Briefly, the lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2024 without authorization by the Library District, but on behalf of the District and Trustee Janis Hagen. The Library Board’s own attorney, Harry Styron, sued (at the behest of former Trustee Allyson Tuckness and current Trustee Hagen) board members Diana Brazeale, John Garrity, and Echo Schneider. 

 They were sued in their capacity as board members although Trustee Hagen has alleged otherwise. Mr. Styron and Hagen allege violation of Missouri’s Sunshine law as well as a violation of the board’s bylaws pertaining to elections.

 Reporter Mieze starts off her screed insinuating there was something amiss when the board members—acting in their official capacity as a publicly-appointed board—hired legal representation over the lawsuit. Mieze:

“The board’s recent decision to use library funds to pay for a defense attorney and attempt to hire another attorney to represent the library district in a lawsuit has raised several questions.”

Let’s unpack that. But first, note what Attorney Styron advised the board members as he communicated to them (as a whole) the lawsuit he had filed:

Mr. Styron urges his clients, aka the defendants to get counsel

Here is the state statute pertaining to governing bodies in Missouri:

610.028. Legal defense of members of governmental bodies, when — written policy on release of information required — persons reporting violations exempt from liability and discipline. — 1. Any public governmental body may provide for the legal defense of any member charged with a violation of sections 610.010 to 610.030.

Instead of researching and citing any pertinent statutes, Reporter Mieze asks the question, “Is the board allowed to use public funds for [a] defense attorney?”

She then rehashes old news that is designed to build another narrative, even bringing in the county commission’s decision to vet library board candidates and to clarify their position regarding the relationship between the commission and the library board.

Sigh.

Reporter Mieze then writes, “Legal experts noted the uniqueness of the situation…”

Yes, it is a rather unique situation when an attorney sues his own clients on behalf of his other clients--who did not have board authorization to bring a suit. And one of the individuals who “authorized” the suit abruptly quits. And then the attorney is “booted” (to quote Mieze) and no longer represents the Library District, leaving the District stranded in the “unique” situation between one trustee who is purportedly suing as a private citizen(!!) and the defendants having to retain an attorney as Mr. Styron counseled them to do—while still representing them as the board attorney.

It is noteworthy that Mieze only partially quotes attorney Adam Sommer regarding this issue. Sommer has advised the Missouri Public Library Directors (MPLD). The verbiage gets confusing and wordy, but Mieze finally has to come to the conclusion that while “using public funds for the defense of board members is likely not improper, the selection process for Spurlock could be questioned.”

Moving On

The library board refused to pay Mr. Styron for suing them. Later a motion for sanctions was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Hagen. John Spurlock, attorney for the three board members responded:

“Procedurally, Plaintiff is attempting to use a motion for sanctions to “prove[]” a critical fact prior to trial, which Rule 61.01(c), on which Plaintiff relies, does not provide for...Plaintiff further implicitly asks this Court to accept that the RFA Statements can be “prove[d]” within the meaning of Rule 61.01(c) by unauthenticated evidence, and without any jury nor any waiver of the right to a jury trial.”

Further on, the response compares the allegations against the three board members with actual facts pertaining to the plaintiff:

“In contrast, Plaintiff took action on behalf of the CCL Board without having a quorum at all (and presumably also without noticing a meeting). Plaintiff’s actions are a grosser violation of appropriate procedures that Plaintiff has alleged...Plaintiff lacked not only notice, but also lacked a quorum, and yet she, apparently still took “official” action and authorized suit be brought on behalf of the CCL District.”

Regarding the fact that the library board refused to pay Mr. Styron for suing them, the response states:

“Finally, at the end of the motion, Mr. Styron claims that it “should raise eyebrows” that the CCL District is funding Defendants’ litigation costs and, he presumes, would pay any sanctions imposed. He does not clearly connect this to any relief he has asked for and Defendants believe it reflects his own discontent that the CCL Board would not pay his bill for the unauthorized lawsuit he brought.”

In conclusion, the response states:

“Not only is Mr. Styron seeking two bites at the apple for trying these facts, but he also effectively seeks sanctions because Defendants’ responses to one request for admission to each Defendant were not what he believed they should be, when the RFA Statements were false or alternatively ambiguous. But the answers were truthful, so this utterly fails.”

Mr. Styron Throws In The Towel and New Counsel for the Plaintiff Enters

Attorney Christiaan Horton

 On April 10, 2025, Mr. Styron withdrew from the case to avoid an “appearance or perception of impropriety.” Attorney Christiaan Horton is now representing Trustee Hagen and a hearing date has been set for May 14, 2025 at 9 a.m.

Reporter Mieze then continues her investigation by comparing legal costs between former board attorney Styron and current board attorney Robert Petrowsky. Attorney for the defendants, John Spurlock, has yet to invoice the board, but the board approved paying his legal fees in February. Reporter Mieze misstated that Spurlock had charged fees for work that board attorney Petrowsky had performed.

It should be noted that not a penny of extra money would have been expended if the lawsuit had never been filed in the first place. Allyson Tuckness, one of the authorizers of the lawsuit, quit soon after the lawsuit was filed. The bylaws were amended for clarity (background HERE), and the board members assert the sunshine law pertaining to public meeting notices was not broken.

Meanwhile, a library board subcommittee is looking at revising the bylaws and policies to better reflect the library's governance under state law. Also, a subcommittee has been formed to clarify the library's budget and bring greater transparency. And, the field for potential new executive directors has been narrowed to five candidates who will soon be interviewed.