Ellisville Council Vote Moves To Fire City Manager

Ellisville's City Council voted and approved by a 4-3 margin Wednesday night a preliminary motion that would remove City Manager Kevin Bookout from office. The motion directs the city attorney to prepare legislation to make the change. 

The move came at the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting and was not on the agenda. Councilman Mick Cahill introduced the measure, which was seconded by Councilman Gary Voss. Councilmembers Matt Pirrello, Roze Acup and Cindy Pool voted in the minority.

When Pool asked for a reason for the motion, Mayor Adam Paul said it wasn't a matter that could be discussed in open session.

Following the vote, Bookout left council chambers without talking to reporters. Bookout's critics, including Mayor Paul, have long pointed to his perceived involvement in the lead-up to the impeachment proceedings brought against the Mayor earlier this year.

When Paul was reinstated by a St. Louis County Judge earlier this summer, he proclaimed that "Winter is coming," with a vow to make changes. Soon after, City Attorney Paul Martin, another key figure tied to the impeachment process, was relieved of his duties. Wednesday, the council moved to fire Martin from his role as the city's prosecutor as well, once a replacement is hired. 

"He has been ruling like as if he was the only man in charge and not having to hear what the council said," Cahill said of Bookout, who he alleged shared information with some council members but not others. "He wasn't listening to us, and doing so I think it was time for change, been here for 11 years. I think a new officer in his position will see it more clearly," he said. Mayor Paul would not be specific when asked by reporters what led to his vote Wednesday, but said it was part of fulfilling campaign promises of opposition to Walmart and new leadership in the city.

According to Cahill's interpretation of the city charter, Bookout now has five calendar days to request a private hearing in front of the full council where essentially, both factions can present their case.

Wednesday's motion was made citing Chapter 5.2 of the Ellisville City Charter which says as follows:

The Council may remove the City Manager from office at will in accordance with the following procedures: 

(1) The Council shall adopt by an affirmative vote of a majority of all of its members a preliminary resolution for removal without stating the reasons for such removal. Such resolution may suspend the City Manager from duty, with or without pay, for a period not to exceed forty-five days. A copy of the resolution shall be delivered promptly to the City Manager. 

(2) Within five days after a copy of the resolution is delivered to the City Manager, the City Manager may file with the Council a written request for a closed meeting with the Council to discuss the resolution. This meeting shall be held during a closed Council meeting not earlier than twenty days nor later than thirty days after the request is made. The City Manager may file with the Council a written reply not later than five days before the meeting. 

(3) In the event a closed meeting has not been requested by the City Manager, the Council may adopt a final resolution of removal, without stating the reason for such removal, any time after five days from the date when a copy of the first resolution was delivered to the City Manager. An affirmative vote of a majority of all the Council Members is required to make the resolution effective. A removal may be made effective immediately. If a closed meeting is requested by the City Manager, the Council may consider a final resolution at any time five days after the date the requested closed meeting procedures are completed. The City Manager shall continue to receive compensation until the effective date of a final resolution of removal. Since the City Manager serves at the will of the Council, not by virtue of any right, the action of the Council in suspending or removing the City Manager shall not be subject to review by any court or agency. 

The new city attorney, George Restovich, declined comment on matters related to Bookout Wednesday night.

Restovich was also directed Wednesday to research legal opinions regarding the possibility the city may rescind its redevelopment agreement with the Sansone Group for the Walmart project. The developer, faces a midnight Thursday deadline to begin construction after having a building permit for part of the project issued Wednesday. That came after the city won an appeals court verdict last Friday upholding the process used to grant the Conditional Use Permit for the Walmart development last year.

Restovich told Patch he didn't believe the developer's work to obtain the building permit automatically extended the life of the conditional use permit. Patch will have more reporting on the Walmart situation Thursday. A company spokeswoman said there was nothing to update when reached earlier Wednesday. A Sansone Group spokeswoman did not respond to messages seeking comment.