Thursday 11/14/2013
You'da'thunk the City of Watonga had a BIG court case going on over at the Blaine County Courthouse on Thursday. All of the city bigwigs (except Leroy Lage) were present and they even brought reinforcements. City Clerk Harriett Nitzel brought her husband Terry Nitzel; ex-mayor Dale Green was present, current Mayor Clay Loosen and his girlfriend Nicole, and of course Dan Webber, City Attorney were present. There was no reason for ANY of them to be there. The issue at hand was on a legal technicality and it was not a hearing on the facts of the case. The defendant's motion to dismiss would be decided from the written briefs and attorney arguments, not testimony by either party. Nonetheless, the city officials took an hour and a half off from their work to sit quietly in the lobby. None of them were in the courtroom except for Dan Webber when the case of LINDA BARRETT vs. CITY OF WATONGA was called for hearing on the Motion to Dismiss filed by the City's liability insurance carrier. The matter was heard by a visiting Judge. Dan Webber was permitted to sit in as an "observer".
The basis of the motion to dismiss was that Ms. Barrett, the plaintiff, had not filed her lawsuit "timely". Under state law, a person with a claim against a municipality cannot file a lawsuit until and unless specific pre-suit requirements are met under statute. The claimant MUST give notice of his/her claim to the government agency (the City) by a specific written notice with specific content to the City Clerk, and wait 90 days for the City to consider it before the claimant can file a lawsuit. Then any lawsuit must be filed within a certain time after the expiration of the 90 days. According to the law, the written claim MUST be given to the City Clerk (not the Mayor, not a councilman, not the city attorney).
Prior to filing suit, Ms. Barrett had made several attempts to resolve her dispute with the City for wrongful termination (the basic facts are public record in plaintiff's petition) by correspondence with the Mayor and city councilmen and discussions with city council members about her claim prior to her formal notice to the City Clerk in November 2012. During this time period, the City was in turmoil over the resignation by Dale Green and his subsequent refusal to honor that resignation; the issue being brought up that any action taken by him or by city council while Mr. Green presided at city council meetings after his written resignation were of no effect; and the preparation of a complaint to be filed with the Oklahoma Attorney General to enforce Mr. Green's resignation and stop him from presiding over city council meetings. On June 5, 2012, Clay Loosen presided over the council meeting as temporary mayor, and at that gathering Loosen announced to the public that he wanted "anyone who has a problem" with the city to try to work it out with the appropriate city department head and if a resolution couldn't be accomplished, then to come to him before bringing matters to the city council. [The official minutes of City council meetings generally document only the "action" taken on agenda items and how each councilmember voted. The official minutes of the June 5, 2012 meeting do not reflect the Mayor's statement but a recording of the meeting does. The City Clerk and Mayor claim that they do not have a recording of that meeting in 2012 because they do not keep recordings for more than three months.] Following the then-sitting mayor's instructions, Ms. Barrett communicated with the Mayor, as the mayor had requested of the public and in an effort to avoid negative publicity for the City. [ As anyone can read in the plaintiff's petition, the allegations of conduct by the City Clerk are not pretty and specific evidence that would be presented at a trial would not put a good light on the city official(s).] When the Mayor did not respond in any way to letters and phone calls, Ms. Barrett proceeded with a formal notice to the City Clerk, as required by statute, which was received by the Clerk on November 26, and then proceeded to file the lawsuit.
At the hearing on Thursday, plaintiff's attorney argued that" strict compliance with the statute" was required and followed with the November 26 notice to the City Clerk. The defendant's attorney argued that the earlier written and verbal communications to the Mayor constituted "constructive notice" to the City , that "strict compliance" with the statute requiring notice to the City Clerk was not required; therefore the lawsuit itself was not filed timely. None of the facts of the case or the allegations of wrongdoing by the City Clerk were brought up. The Judge ruled in favor of the defendant's argument and the case was dismissed on the technicality of using the dates of earlier communications instead of the formal notice of November 26 as the beginning of the timeline. The plaintiff's attorney gave notice that a motion to reconsider would be filed.
Another hearing will be scheduled.
No comments:
Post a Comment