Charles Moser has amended his complaint against the City of Humphrey.
The Humphrey man, while still seeking to nullify the ordinances that created the comprehensive plan and zoning and subdivision regulations, is asking the Platte County District Court to reexamine its earlier dismissal of open meetings violations based on new evidence.
Moser filed his amended complaint Nov. 15 after Judge Robert R. Steinke declared Oct. 25 that the one-year limitation on filing a complaint on the Open Meetings Act had passed. The judge also asked Moser to organize his other complaints against the city.
Moser is contending that Tony Miller cannot hold two offices as police chief and chairman of the planning commission, and he is seeking enforcement of all violations — criminal and otherwise — against the mayor, council, planning commission members and board of appeals.
In the amended court document, Moser states the attorney general and county attorney are to handle Open Meetings Act complaints, but county attorney Carl Hart told him to talk to Frank Daley of the Accountability and Disclosure Commission (ADC), because it might be a conflict of interest if he investigated the claims.
Moser alleges there are open meetings violations that fall under the 120-day window from the first day he had contact with Hart on May 15, 2019, and should be included in his complaint.
In his Oct. 25 filing, Steinke had written some of Moser’s open meeting violation claims were filed too late.
According to state statute, “Any motion, resolution, rule, ordinance, or formal action of a public body made or taken in violation of the public meetings statutes shall be declared void by the district court if the suit is commenced within 120 days of the meeting of the public body at which the alleged violation occurred. Any such motion or other action taken in substantial violation of the public meeting statutes shall be voidable by the district court if the suit is commenced after more than 120 days but within one year of the meeting of the public body in which the alleged violation occurred. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within one year of the action.”
Moser filed his case Aug. 13, 2019, and many of the meetings took place Sept. 21, 2017, and before Aug. 13, 2018.
It further states, “The attorney general and the county attorney of the county in which the public body ordinarily meets shall enforce the provisions of the open meetings statutes.”
Moser also is seeking an investigation into a conflict of interest because most of the members of the planning commission and board of adjustment are in the same real estate investment club(s) and/or business partners.
He is seeking protection from county law enforcement as a whistleblower “because over the last 24 months my house has been attempted to be broken into and/or vandalized. There have been numerous trespassers on my property at all hours of the night. On these occasions when I have recorded a license plate number I was told by our local law enforcement the vehicle checked out OK, but what about the people inside? My personal vehicle has been targeted in the last four months by someone who flattened a new tire and destroyed the ignition switch.”