This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, April 8, 2013 - In proceedings that his attorney called a “lynch mob” and a “sham,” the Ellisville City Council voted Monday to remove Mayor Adam Paul from office.
But the beleaguered leader of the small west St. Louis County municipality said his fight will move from the council to the St. Louis County Circuit Court, a venue where he and his lawyer predicted he would win his job back.
“It’s time to go to a real court,” Paul said. “Not this proceeding where [the council] is the judge, executioner and jury.”
At a special meeting at St. John’s Lutheran Church, the council voted 5-1 to remove Paul from office. Only Councilwoman Linda Reel voted against the resolution.
The council didn't pick a replacement for Paul on Monday. Councilman Matt Pirrello -- a former Ellisville mayor -- said the incoming council will make the selection.
Paul's detractors accused the mayor of misusing his power in dealing with city employees, such as asking the police chief if the mayor gets a badge and a gun. Among other things, opponents also objected to Paul's actions to order police to remove two residents from a council meeting.
Pirrello told reporters after the hearing that he had “wished that it had not come to this, but again we would have not spent one time had the mayor comported himself to the confines of the charter.
“The testimony we heard I thought was pretty clear,” Pirrello said. “Based on the information that we had – self-incriminating e-mails – it was pretty straight-forward for me.”
Adam Paul talks to reporters before he was removed from office.
But the mayor and his lawyer contend the real issue is that Paul opposes tax breaks for a planned Wal-Mart. He told reporters that the entire impeachment saga was a scheme to replace a mayor who opposed tax increment financing with somebody more amenable to the incentives.
“People in the region are sick of TIFs,” Paul said. “They’re sick of forking (over) and fitting the bill for these retail developments. And that’s what it comes down to. I’m a staunch of opponent of that.”
But Pirrello stressed that the impeachment was not a deliberate attempt to remove him because his views were different from the rest of the council.
“His views and differences – he’s entitled to that,” Pirrello said. “But operating outside the boundaries of the charter is not.”
Before the council voted on removing Paul from office, both Pleban and Ellisville prosecutor Keith Cheung made 15-minute closing arguments. Cheung contended that Paul had run afoul of Ellisville’s charter, which necessitated his removal from office.
“The charter and the laws governing the city of Ellisville compose a lot of responsibilities and a lot of obligations,” Cheung said. “And it requires every elected official to carefully and thoroughly carry out those fulfillments. It’s not good enough to say well we’re close enough or no not this time. You have to give it your best every single time you make a decision. And that applies to everybody on the council.”
Cheung and Pirrello also questioned why Paul decided against testifying on his own behalf.
“He had a chance to say whatever he wanted, but he decided not to take the stand,” Chung said. “He decided not to clarify, explain or maybe shed some light on why he did what he did. We’ll never know that at this point.”
In response, Pleban – who spoke directly to the audience for most of his closing argument – said that Paul would speak before an “unbiased tribunal, not a lynch mob.”
He then admonished the five members who ultimately voted to remove Paul for “not respecting Adam Paul and for not respecting the people that he represents.”
“What you’ve done in this case is not fair to Adam Paul, certainly,” Pleban said. “He’s sitting up here. He’s in the hot seat. But what you’ve done is not fair to the people back there.”
When he was through with his remarks, Pleban said that his time was better spent watching the National Championship basketball game between Louisville and Michigan. Pleban and Paul then packed up their things and walked out.
“I’m not going to sit here and watch them self-serve themselves with why I should be removed from office,” Paul said to reporters.
Paul said he would file a lawsuit with the St. Louis County Circuit Court as soon as his attorneys get his transcripts and the official forms. He said the fight over his job “hasn’t even started to begin as far as I’m concerned.”
One other wrinkle is the fact that current council is set to be replaced on April 17. Pleban said at an earlier meeting that Pirrello and his allies had rejected Pleban's proposal "from Day 1" to delay the impeachment proceedings until the new council members were sworn into office. Pirrello has dismissed such assertions.
Asked if the new council could overturn Paul’s impeachment, Pirrello said, “I suppose that’s a possibility.”
“I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on TV,” he added. “I’ll have to leave that to the legal people to make those determinations.”
At least two incoming members of the council -- Michael Cahill and Gary Voss – told the Beacon they would be for reinstalling Paul if it were possible to reverse his removal.
Voss called the council's decision “the saddest thing I’ve ever seen in my life.”
“We didn’t need this. This is not healthy for the city,” Voss said. “That’s not healthy being on the front page. This is a small town. Those are part-time politicians that don’t have any training whatsoever to be a politician.”
Paul added his saga is “about democracy – it’s about America.”
“I’m a duly elected official that took almost half the vote in a four-candidate race,” Paul said. “And six people who say that their feelings are hurt are trying to thwart the vote of the people and railroad somebody out of town who didn’t fit into their agenda. Essentially what it comes down to is it’s a 32 year old standing in front of $30 million of tax subsidies for a developer.”
“It’s an incredible story,” he added. “It’s a truly David-versus-Goliath story.”
