Recall Efforts Collide with City Attorney’s Legal Opinion

West Plains City Attorney Charles Cantrell has responded to the Petition Committee organized to recall Mayor Jack Pahlmann. In an advisory opinion dated December 3, Cantrell says the Committee’s affidavit, “does not properly provide the necessary basis for the City Clerk to issue petition forms for the gathering of signatures.”  

 

According to Section 9.1(c) of the City Charter, municipal office holders in West Plains can only be recalled for, "reasons of misconduct in office, incompetence or failure to perform duties prescribed by law".

 

According to Cantrell’s advisory opinion, “The Affidavit filed by the Petitioners' Committee states that the committee ‘cannot ascertain whether [Mayor Pahlmann’s] actions stem from incompetence or misconduct’. In my opinion, none of the reasons stated in the Affidavit constitute incompetence or misconduct as required by the Charter. Disagreeing with an elected official's actions or decisions does not by itself constitute misconduct or incompetence on the part of the official.”

 

Because Cantrell’s letter, “states that the Petitioners' Committee has not complied with Section 9.1(c) of the City Charter...petition forms which must be issued by the City Clerk have not been issued pursuant to Section 9.3(d)(3) of the City Charter,” wrote City Clerk Mallory Snodgrass on December 7. 

 

Cantrell’s letter goes on to object to the premise of a recall action, explaining, “The concerns expressed by the Petitioners' Committee appear to be over the recent passage of the ordinance requiring face-coverings by individuals under certain circumstances within the city limits of West Plains. If citizens are concerned with the content of an ordinance or the manner in which it was enacted, Article IX of the West Plains City Charter provides for a Referendum process to attempt a repeal of a specific ordinance,  A Referendum would have been the appropriate remedy in this case.”

 

Snodgras said in an email December 4 that Cantrell’s opinion, “...stops [the recall effort] in its tracks. All signatures would be invalid.”

 

Josh Spurlock, spokesperson of the Petition Committee, told Howell County News in a phone interview on December 6 that his group has no plans to halt their efforts to recall Mayor Pahlmann and the two City Council members who voted in favor of the masking ordinance, Josh Cotter and Jessica Nease. 

 

He referred to Section 9.2(d) of the City Charter which reads in pertinent part, “Since the legal opinion... [is] advisory only, the Committee may inform any potential signer and the public at large that the Committee disagrees with...the legal opinion...”

 

In a rebuttal letter addressed to the City Clerk and dated December 4, the Petition Committee defended their decision to recall City Council members instead of seeking to repeal the ordinance.

 

“It was clear that the mandate was not supported by the public and was clearly not wanted by the majority in the city. Had there been a large consensus of the electorate supporting this mandate, there would have been no need to create an ordinance because you would have had few people not doing so willingly. It was made clear by the mayor and others on the council that they feel they are here to protect us from ourselves and will not consider the vast number of citizens that came out in opposition to ordinance. They clearly understood that it was not wanted but they did not want to hear the repetitive nature of the people standing up against it,” reads the letter. Spurlock said the group is committed to moving forward with the recalls and plans to proceed with signature collection efforts immediately. 

 

“We don’t believe this is dead in the water,” he said. 

 

Spurlock says his group has long term plans to effect change in West Plains. Fully aware they may miss the deadline of January 19 to file their recall petition for the mayor for the April 2021 municipal ballot, the group intends to place the recall efforts before voters in 2022, and may pursue a referendum action to repeal the ordinance as well. 

 

“We are just common people, not lawyers, just concerned citizens,” said Spurlock, “There’s no downside to trying. It’s better than nothing.”