West Newsmagazine 6-13-18

FACEBOOK.COM/WESTNEWSMAGAZINE
WESTNEWSMAGAZINE.COM
June 13, 2018
WEST NEWSMAGAZINE
I NEWS I 11
Chesterfield City Council splits over mayoral appointments
By JIM ERICKSON
What appeared to be a routine appointment
and reappointment to positions in
Chesterfield turned out to be a brouhaha
that took up the major portion of the City
Council’s almost 90-minute meeting June 4.
At issue were the reappointment of
Chesterfield Municipal Judge Richard
Brunk and the appointment of city resident
Gene Schenberg to the planning commission.
However, a third appointment, Ferne
Wolf’s nomination to the Human Rights
Commission, was quickly approved.
As required, all the appointments were
made by Mayor Bob Nation, subject to the
council’s approval.
When Nation noted his reappointment
of Brunk during an agenda review session
before the formal council meeting, Councilmember
Ben Keathley [Ward 2] said he
felt the nomination should go first to the
Public Health and Safety Committee for
consideration and an interview of the candidate.
Keathley, who chairs that committee,
repeated his view during the council
meeting.
Nation said a committee vetting of new
appointments was appropriate but it has
not been the council’s practice to send
reappointments to committee for review.
Brunk, who was at the meeting, has
served as Chesterfield’s municipal judge
since 1994 and earlier was the city’s prosecuting
attorney for six years.
Councilmember Tom DeCampi [Ward
4] said he and his colleagues should have
received notice of the reappointment earlier.
In effect, the council was “blindsided”
by the reappointment and that the process
was “like a country club,” he said. However,
Nation noted that the agenda and
other meeting materials were posted May
31 and Brunk’s three-year term of office
and his last reappointment are matters of
public record.
Keathley then introduced an amendment,
to an earlier motion to confirm Brunk’s
appointment, that would have referred
the matter to the Public Health and Safety
Committee first. That amendment lost on
a 3-5 vote, with DeCampi and Councilmember
Michelle Ohley [Ward 4] joining
Keathley in supporting it while other councilmembers
voted against it.
Before the vote, though, Keathley grilled
Brunk on potential conflict of interest situations
due to Brunk’s private practice in
addition to his being a municipal judge.
Brunk declared he is aware of the potential
for conflicts of interest and strictly avoids
such situations.
Although it wasn’t mentioned at the
council meeting, both Brunk and Tim
Engelmeyer, Chesterfield’s prosecuting
attorney, recently asked to be recused from
a case involving a speeding ticket given
by Chesterfield police last November to a
DeCampi family member. Presiding Circuit
Court Judge Douglas R. Beach agreed
with Brunk and Engelmeyer that they faced
potential conflicts of interest and appointed
an outside special prosecutor and municipal
judge to handle the case.
Asked about the current status of that
case, Engelmeyer said he hasn’t kept track
of it since Beach’s April 6 order. However,
the matter probably still is pending, Engelmeyer
said. He doesn’t believe the outside
prosecutor and judge have come yet to
Chesterfield to take charge of the case.
In a written response to a question about
whether the status of the speeding ticket
affected his views about Brunk’s reappointment,
DeCampi stated, “As I said
multiple times Monday, the appointment
of a judge should involve public scrutiny
equal or greater than any other appointee.
My reason for voting against Brunk was
simply based on a lack of opportunity for
proper vetting and nothing to do with any
particular case.” He added that his position
is consistent with a campaign pledge to
oppose “rubber stamping” of appointments.
Keathley also was asked about the issue
because a partner in his law firm initially
had taken on the speeding ticket case on
behalf of the DeCampi family member.
“My vote against Judge Brunk has nothing
to do with any single case outcome,”
Keathley replied. “I asked the judge about
possible conflicts because he stated that
he himself actively represents criminal
defendants while simultaneously serving
as a judge. It disappoints me that a
majority of the council refuses to take its
responsibility of confirming appointments
seriously. The fact that requesting that the
council properly research issues is itself
controversial should worry everyone in
our community.
“The nomination and reappointment of
Judge Brunk was [sic] rushed, glossed over
and forced without the proper deliberation
that it deserves. … The council was never
informed of the mayor’s nominee until the
agenda was published. No information of
Judge Brunk’s qualifications were [sic]
shared with council, nor was anyone else’s
opinion sought. Judge Brunk may very
well be a qualified and outstanding judge,
but now our residents will never know
because of a sham appointment process. …
I am demanding better for our city.”
As the discussion wore on at the council
meeting, tempers appeared to fray. Nation
ruled DeCampi out of order when the Ward
4 alderman attempted to make a point and
to answer a question without being recognized.
When the vote on the main motion
to confirm Brunk finally came, Keathley,
DeCampi and Ohley voted against it while
councilmembers Dan Hurt and Michael
Moore [both of Ward 3], Mary Ann Mas-
See CHESTERFIELD, page 17
Manchester aldermen vote to remove city attorney on mayor’s recommendation
By BONNIE KRUEGER
The city of Manchester has a new mayor.
Soon it will have new legal counsel representation,
too. At the Board of Aldermen
meeting on June 4, Mayor Mike Clement
recommended the removal of Patrick
Gunn, who has served as the city’s attorney
for the past 42 years.
In his address to the board, Clement said
it is not usual for a change in counsel under
new mayoral and aldermanic leadership.
“I certainly don’t want to discount the
significant contributions Pat Gunn has
made to the city of Manchester for over
four decades. But I also think fresh starts
are often necessary and very healthy for an
organization.” Clement further said that a
change in counsel is part of the evolution
of municipal government and that this was
the right time to seek other legal counsel.
The legal agreement with the city attorney
states that the mayor, with the consent of
the majority of the board of aldermen, may
remove him at any time. Acting on the mayor’s
recommendation, Alderman Nelson
Patrick Gunn [right] with former Manchester
Mayor Dave Willson in 2016 [File photo]
Nolte [Ward 1] made the motion to remove
Gunn, and Alderman Paul Hamill [Ward 1]
seconded the motion. The motion carried
4-0 with aldermen Benjamin Tobin [Ward
3] and Marilyn Ottenad [Ward 2] absent.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Gunn
addressed the board and citizens in the
audience.
“It has become clear to me over the last
few weeks that soon I will no longer be the
city attorney for the city of Manchester. I
understand this process better than most
and I accept it,” Gunn said.
Gunn may have known this was a possibility
earlier this year, leading up to the
April election, in which Clement unseated
longtime mayor Dave Willson.
In one of Clement’s campaign flyers
mailed to Manchester residents, it stated,
“The city attorney’s current legal retainer
agreement is $34,000 per year. Actual billings
to the city over recent years have been
around $90,000 per year. Per some assessments,
the city attorney exercises too much
oversight over all city departments. This
issue needs a fresh set of eyes.”
“I do not believe, however, that the removal
of an appointed official or employee should
be based upon his or her age. That, however,
is a discussion for a later date,” Gunn said.
“What I can say with absolute certainty is
that I love this city and its people. I have
been in the practice of law for 45 years and
for 42 of those years, I have been privileged
to be the city attorney in this great city.
“It is important for me to emphasize that,
in my opinion, the greatest asset the city of
Manchester has is its employees. From the
city administrator to the newest employee
of one the city’s departments, the employees
of the city are its life blood.
“Over the years, people have often asked
me, during times of political strife in the
city, why I was so committed to staying
with the city. In every instance, I replied
that I stayed because of the employees
whom I love and respect. To those employees,
I say thank you for allowing me to
work with you over these last 42 years.
To all the mayors and aldermen with
whom I have served, I also express my
thanks for tolerating me at times when
tolerance may not have been easy. I can
only hope and pray that what little impact
I have had upon the city has been positive
and that I might be remembered as a loyal
and dedicated public servant.”
While Gunn will no longer serve as legal
counsel for Manchester, he plans to continue
working as partner at his law firm
Gunn & Gunn.