Kellerman says mayor has committed more violations
The Parkville resident who filed a complaint calling for Mayor Nan Johnston’s removal from office due to ethics violations believes the mayor’s written rebuttal, replete with what the resident calls “false statements,” offers no defense against the charges. Instead, the document has the opposite effect.
Elaine Kellerman, whose initial letter of complaint launched an investigation by the city’s ethics commission, said the mayor’s response–intended to clear her name–instead solidifies Kellerman’s claims that the mayor behaves unethically and in violation of Parkville’s ethics laws.
In Kellerman’s rebuttable letter to the commission, reacting to Johnston’s response, she countered: “The mayor’s written response to this ethics complaint itself violates the Ethics Code and is grounds to recommend the mayor’s removal.”
Kellerman charges that the mayor took an already long list of unethical behavior and “lengthened that list by making false statements and, in an effort to preserve her office, breached a substantial contract (the suit’s terms of settlement) on the city’s behalf.”
Johnston’s 10-page response to the Parkville Ethics Commission investigation can be read at: plattecountylandmark.com/2021/12/01/nan-johnston-response-to-ethics- complaint/.
In her response, Johnston states that allegations that she attempted to censor the media are “absurd.” However, later in her own response, Johnston admits that she requested that Park University and other business officials refrain from advertising with The Landmark and providing any news content.
In her rebuttable letter to the commission, Kellerman has responded by saying, “It should be of great concern to this commission that the mayor continues to display no regret for her unethical conduct” and that “Mayor Johnston has admitted she took action, as mayor, to cause economic harm to a local media publication because of her personal views. The intent of her actions would bring about the chilling effect of censorship by forcing local news publications to refrain from any news reporting that she may view negatively. Her admitted conduct is a violation of the Parkville Code of Ethics § 107.010, 107.020, and 107.050(d).”
Johnston’s response also repeatedly describes Jason Maki’s attempts to retrieve public records through use of the Sunshine Law from the city as a form of “harassment.” However, Johnston’s characterization of the use of Missouri’s Sunshine Law as a form of “harassment” violates the terms of a Platte County civil court settlement in which Maki won a $195,000 judgment against city officials for not fulfilling his requests for information under the Sunshine Law, which is designed to create government transparency.
One of the primary terms of the settlement prohibits Parkville city officials from using “harassment” to describe Maki’s fight to obtain public records from the city. Due to the mayor’s statements, the City of Parkville may face further legal action by Maki for breaching the terms of their settlement agreement.
Elaine Kellerman filed her original ethics complaint in October, activating the city ethics commission, created to investigate alleged improprieties by city officials.
Johnston’s response provides further proof that the mayor’s actions do not signal “the highest standards of morality” and is counter to the city code of ethics for officials, which calls for actions that are “above reproach,” Kellerman’s second rebuttable letter to the commission states.
Johnston further explains her use of the term in her response letter to the commission: “I see nothing wrong with characterizing his (Maki’s) behavior as harassment. I am entitled to my opinion, it is the truth, and not unethical,” she continued.
Johnston also argues that while the Missouri Ethics Commission could have fined her up to $5,000 for her numerous 2019 campaign finance violations, they instead assigned a lower amount, which Johnston claims is an indication that her breaches were “honest mistakes.” Records obtained from the MEC show Johnston accepted seven corporate donations in the amount of $6409.55, all of which are prohibited under Missouri state law. The illegal corporate contributions included one in the amount of $5,000 from a Parkville developer which was not reported until after the election was over, another violation of Missouri law.
Records also show Johnston failed to report additional political donors until four months after the election was over. Critics claim that Johnston’s failure to disclose her political donors as required by law denied voters of information about who was really funding her re-election. Johnston, in addressing a driving under the influence (DUI) charge she received in 2020, states that she apologized for her actions that led to her arrest and said that her cell phone call to Parkville Police Chief Kevin Chrisman during the arrest was nothing more than a call for moral support.
“At no time did I ever ask him to get me out of the predicament nor did he offer,” she said.
In her response, Johnston attempts to claim that Maki, a private citizen, has also has been charged with DUI stating, “Mr Maki has also been arrested for driving under the influence. I wonder if the members of his strategy group are aware of that.”
Kellerman’s rebuttal argues that the mayor’s attempt to smear a private citizen highlights her ethical unfitness to hold the office of mayor of Parkville, stating, “These false, defamatory statements about Mr. Maki (who is not the subject of this commission’s inquiry) does not aid the mayor’s defense; it further demonstrates her ethical unfitness for office.
Public records obtained by The Landmark show that Johnston and the City of Parkville engaged in a taxpayer-funded investigation of Maki by private investigators which included attempts to use the the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice, the state auditor, the Missouri Ethics Commission to possibly gain leverage on Maki during the Maki vs. Parkville lawsuit.
An email to Johnston asking for her to provide specifics supporting her allegations of a “driving under the influence” by Maki, including where she found the information, was not answered by the mayor.
This is not the first time the mayor has threatened to have citizens she disagrees with investigated. Other public records show that in September of 2020, Johnston responded to a citizen who had been critical of her DWI by threatening to have him investigated by a state regulatory agency. In her response she copied the entire Parkville Board of Aldermen. The mayor’s actions in this regard are currently part of the ethics complaint made against her. In another example, an apparent grudge match over policy and membership of a local Community Improvement District, the mayor sought to petition the Missouri Attorney General and Missouri State Auditor to investigate the board members with the mayor going as far as calling on the state attorney general to “investigate and punish” members of the board.
Johnston also incorrectly stated that Maki claimed city officials were in for “many sleepless nights ahead,” referring to Maki’s eventual suit and agency investigations into city officials’ activities. However, Maki did not make the comment. Instead, the comment was made by a separate Parkville citizen during a public meeting.
Johnston’s rebuttal further addresses media coverage of city hall events by stating that television and print media frequently were aware of Maki’s charges of impropriety before she and other city officials were contacted. She stated that “headlines and news coverage. are among the strategy group’s numerous successful attacks on my character.”
But Kellerman argues the mayor’s actions indicate a clear pattern of attempting to deflect attention from her breaches of the ethics code to alleged missteps by others, including Maki and Citizens for a Better Parkville. Kellerman argues that Johnston’s conduct is “wholly unbecoming of her office; it is the very essence of unethical behavior by a public official; and sets a poor example for our children and this city.”