Council discussed making city prosecutor an appointed position

The John G. Christy Municipal Building in downtown Jefferson City is pictured in this Dec. 1, 2016 photo.
The John G. Christy Municipal Building in downtown Jefferson City is pictured in this Dec. 1, 2016 photo.

Several Jefferson City Council members expressed concerns Monday night regarding a proposed city charter suggestion that would change the city prosecutor position from an elected office to an appointed one.

The City Council heard five different bills regarding proposed changes to the city charter, and they will potentially vote on the bills at their next meeting, Aug. 20.

The council created the Jefferson City Charter Review Advisory Committee earlier this year to review the charter and recommend changes to it. The committee finalized most of its recommendations in June.

If the council approves the recommended suggestions, residents may vote on the proposed changes as soon as Nov. 6.

The potential change receiving the most push-back is a recommended change to make the city prosecutor position an appointed position instead of elected.

Under the proposed change, a selection committee would nominate someone to the city prosecutor position. That nomination would go to the City Council for approval, and if approved, the individual would serve a four-year term until a successor is appointed.

The selection committee would be made up of two members appointed by the Cole County Bar Association and one member appointed by the mayor.

Ward 5 Councilmen Jon Hensley and Mark Schreiber, Ward 2 Councilman Rick Mihalevich and Ward 4 Councilman Carlos Graham said they did not feel comfortable making the city prosecutor position an appointed position.

"My default is keeping the responsibility and accountability to the voters to decide who should serve as our city prosecutor and municipal judge," Hensley said. "Moving to an appointment process is creative and interesting but for me, personally, the importance (is) allowing the voters to decide and this position be accountable to the voters."

Graham and Schreiber said they were worried about City Council influence, and thought keeping the city prosecutor office an elective position would allow the city prosecutor to be accountable to voters.

If voters approved the proposed change and the position did become an appointed office, City Counselor Ryan Moehlman said, the city prosecutor would be accountable to the City Council.

Ward 3 Councilman Ken Hussey said he would be "open to the possibility" of making the city prosecutor position an appointed position.

"There are some pros and cons to both sides on that particular one," he said. "If it holds the position more accountable to the duties and such, maybe an appointed position as the city charter committee presented makes sense, but I'm certainly sensitive to the concerns of those who would like to keep it an elected position."

Originally the city charter committee voted to keep the city prosecutor position an elected office but it later reversed its decision.

The bill also suggests adding language that would allow the City Council to remove the city prosecutor from office for just cause, such as if he or she were convicted of a felony, lacks the qualifications of the office during the city prosecutor term or neglects the duties of the office. The council would need a two-thirds vote to remove the city prosecutor from office.

Brian Stumpe currently serves as the city prosecutor and was not present at the meeting.

The City Council has discussed making the city prosecutor position an appointed position for more than a year.

In a second bill, the committee recommended the mayor be limited to two consecutive full terms, instead of eight years. City Council members would be limited to four consecutive full terms instead of an absolute eight-year limit.

Under the proposed change, once a mayor serves two consecutive full terms, he or she must wait a full four-year mayoral term before being eligible to serve as mayor again.

For council members, the proposed change would require they take a two-year term service break before being eligible to serve on the council again.

"It's to create breaks in service and not have a permanent incumbent and to allow people to run for office but not impose a lifetime ban on service," Moehlman said.

A third bill adds language that would prohibit a city official from voting on contracts with other political groups or nonprofits if the city official sits on a governing body related to the political subdivision or nonprofit. This does not apply if the city official is serving on the political organization or nonprofit as a city official or employee.

The fourth bill recommends council members, the mayor, city administrator, city clerk, department directors and Jefferson City Parks and Recreation Commission can't be publicly-elected members of a Missouri political subdivision, Missouri General Assembly or hold a statewide elective office while serving in their city-elected positions.

"These offices are deemed to be incompatible and the acceptance by a council member or mayor of any such incompatible office shall be deemed a voluntary resignation of such person's City office," the charter recommendation states.

The exception is if a city official is serving in the public office in their capacity as a city officeholder.

This bill also recommends former council members and mayors wait at least two years after leaving office before they can accept compensated appointed positions with the city.

The last bill relates to minor and general changes to the city charter.

If the City Council places the suggestions on the ballot, the committee will be terminated.

The city charter committee is still debating the Jefferson City Parks and Recreation Commission's role and powers but committee members last month said they hope to finalize this debate today.

Also on Monday, the City Council approved a resolution that authorizes the execution of a settlement agreement between Jefferson City and TracFone Wireless, Inc., a nationwide prepaid wireless provider. TracFone filed a lawsuit against Jefferson City in April 2013, asking the Cole County Court to decide whether the company should remit a telephone utility license tax to Jefferson City.

In May 2012, Jefferson City contacted TracFone about paying the license tax for conducting business within Jefferson City. Headquartered in Miami, Florida, TracFone stated in the lawsuit it was not subject to Jefferson City's license tax.

TracFone will pay $250,000 "in compromise of taxes allegedly due and owing through" April 30, according to the settlement.

TracFone will provide prepaid retail sales receipts in the tax base so the city can calculate future business license tax payments, the settlement states. It will also remit Jefferson City's business license tax monthly on its prepaid retail sales sources to Jefferson City.