Parkville Sunshine lawsuit settled, for now

Last week, the City of Parkville announced it had entered into a settlement agreement with county resident Jason Maki, but Maki says the matter is far from settled.

On Wednesday, July 21, the city issued a press release stating the civil lawsuit filed in 2020 regarding “all current and future claims that could have been brought arising from the multiple Sunshine Law records requests that formed the basis of the lawsuit” was resolved.

Maki told the Citizen last week that he learned the city had accepted the settlement via the press release, but for him the city’s statements left much to be desired.

From 2018 to 2021, Maki filed 43 requests in 142 categories of open records, regarding public projects and city decisions involving the Creekside development and other matters.

According to the release, the city responded to the requests and produced more than 110,000 public records during that time. Maki filed suit in 2020 over alleged violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

In the release, the city called the suit “ongoing, expensive and contentious, but has now been resolved between Mr. Maki and the City.”

The city states, “In settling the lawsuit, the city believes it complied with the records requests and continues to deny any liability for the actions alleged in the lawsuit. Further, the settlement agreement specifically provides the city’s agreement does not constitute an admission of any liability. In considering the lawsuit’s dismissal, the city agreed to make a one-time payment to Mr. Maki for $195,000. Additionally, as part of the settlement agreement, Mr. Maki stated that the city’s custodian of records properly fulfilled its obligations and did not violate the Missouri Open Records Act.”

Maki says this passage is misleading.

“First, the press release incorrectly indicates that I made the statement in the agreement, when the agreement language is the city’s own acknowledgment,” Maki said. “Second, the press release’s use of ‘its’ instead of ‘her falsely indicates some agreed understanding or statement that the city itself (rather than Ms. McChesney) complied with its duties under the Sunshine law. I did not agree to that.”

Maki is speaking of city clerk Melissa McChesney, who Maki said he sought to protect from any retaliation regarding the Sunshine Law violation allegations. He said he believed McChesney was doing as she was told by higher authorities in the city.

In the settlement agreement itself, this passage states “at Mr. Maki’s request, the city acknowledges that the custodian of records for the City of Parkville properly fulfilled her obligations and did not violate the Missouri Open Records Act and that the occurrence not be negatively reflected in her employment file.”

According to city officials, settling the lawsuit was in the best interests of the citizens, both financially and operationally.

“The taxpayers’ costs for continued litigation including the future legal expenses associated with depositions, a trial and potential appeals (even with a successful result for the city) are projected to exceed the settlement agreement payment,” the release reads. “The litigation could have lasted several years with continued disruptions negatively impacting the city’s officials and staff’s work in providing the highest level of public services. For these reasons, the city believes it makes economic sense to move on for the benefit of the city taxpayers.”

Maki said he still maintains that the city violated the Sunshine Law.

The city, in the release, said it recognizes the importance of Missouri’s Sunshine Law Act and shares a commitment to openness in government.