January 23, 2025, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

I attended the January 23, 2025, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Gohagan and Dougan were present.

Prosecuting Attorney Richelle Grosvenor and Sheriff Edgar were also present. A quick check of the agenda didn’t reveal any topics they might be involved with.

Every now and then, I see a meeting agenda that looks like it’s going to be a real snoozer and when I get to the actual meeting, it turns out to be pretty spicy. This would be one of those meetings.

The first agenda item was “Missouri Bell Telecom annual service agreement.”

This was an annual service agreement with Missouri Bell Telecom for maintenance of the county’s telephone service. The contract was the same as last year’s contract.

The Commission approved this contract unanimously.

The second agenda item was “Sewer Board appointment – Chrissie Messina.”

The Commission unanimously appointed Messina to a 4-year term on the Sewer Board.

The final three items were for surplus funds requests. There were three requests for $27,184.53, $33,829.90, and $71,293.07.

The requests were approved by the Commission unanimously.

In Public Comment, Prosecuting Attorney Grosvenor asked if she could speak to the Commission.

It became clear that she was at the meeting to discuss the current controversy involving the license plate readers.

I’ll offer a quick summary for those who aren’t familiar with this topic.

On January 18, 2024, the Camden County Commission passed an ordinance banning the use of all license plate reader cameras (“LPR”) on public property in Camden County. The Camden County Commission sent a letter to the Missouri Department of Public Safety that notified them that the LPR installed on Highway 54 was in violation of this ordinance and should be removed. The Department of Public Safety did not remove the LPR.

Mere hours before the end of 2024, Camden County Presiding Commissioner Skelton climbed a ladder and removed the license plate reader himself. An employee from the Camden County Maintenance Department was even holding the ladder.

Only in Hooterville.

As he was removing the camera, a Missouri Highway Patrolman who works on the LANEG drug task force pulled up and asked Skelton what he was doing? Skelton explained himself. The trooper did not arrest Skelton. He was probably desperately thumbing through his MHP manual to find the section on Hooterville ordinances.

The Missouri Highway Patrol later met with Skelton and asked for the return of the LPR. Skelton gave them back their LPR.

The Camden County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office both recused themselves from this incident because it involved an elected county official. The Missouri Highway Patrol subsequently conducted an investigation into the removal of the camera. I can only imagine that it must have been the quickest investigation in law enforcement history since the incident happened right in front of one of their officers.

According to Prosecuting Attorney Grosvenor, the Highway Patrol’s investigation is complete and they are going to submit the case to a special prosecutor to make a criminal filing decision. A new LPR has since been installed back in the same location as the first LPR.

At this Commission meeting, Grosvenor stated that Presiding Commissioner Ike Skelton was speaking on a radio show on damradio.com the night before and he made certain comments that she felt required a response. She was angry that a commissioner would, in her opinion, mislead the public about the role of her office in the county.

She said that her job was to enforce the state’s laws. It is the responsibility of the local State Representative to make state laws.

Grosvenor had listened to an entire conversation during the radio show concerning the Prosecuting Attorney’s “supposed responsibility” to advise the county about the legality of its license plate reader ordinance. In her opinion, it is not her job to advise the county about the legality of its ordinances. That is the responsibility of the County Attorney.

Grosvenor said she would not stand by and allow Commissioner Skelton to state that he was not advised by anyone regarding what would happen if he decided “independently” to remove the license plate reader himself. She said that was a lie. When the Commission passed the ordinance and ordered the State to remove the license plate reader within 30 days, she was contacted by the State of Missouri. Grosvenor then held a meeting with the County Attorney and she explained that it would be a criminal act if anyone attempted to remove the license plate reader on their own. (She later told me that Commissioners Gohagan and Skelton were present at this meeting.)

She also believed there was a Commission meeting where County Attorney Jeff Green stated that if the State did not remove the license plate reader, there were civil legal avenues that could be pursued if necessary.

Grosvenor explained that Camden County is a 1^st Class County which authorizes it to have a County Attorney. In other counties, the Prosecuting Attorney serves as the County Attorney. Her office also has a prosecutor who is assigned to handle ordinance violations. There is no procedure that allows the party who passes the ordinance [the Commission] to also be the party that enforces the ordinance.

The commissioners asked Sheriff Edgar if he would like to add anything? Sheriff Edgar explained that he felt the correct way to handle the enforcement of this ordinance was through the court system. Sheriff Edgar flatly refused to enforce any ordinance that might violate state statute.

Grosvenor added that she resented any implication that the budgets of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office or the Sheriff’s Office would be impacted because of their decisions to “faithfully do their job.” She felt that any idea that her office or the Sheriff might look the other way explained exactly why it was necessary to refer this matter to a special prosecutor for review.

Grosvenor confirmed that she told Commissioner Skelton that there would be criminal consequences if anyone removed the license plate reader. She clarified that she supports the responsible use of license plate readers. She objected to the way the LPR was removed and the division she feels that Skelton’s actions have created within the county.

Grosvenor also asked her Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Steven Kretzer, to speak to the commissioners because he has a great deal of experience as a prosecutor at both the county and the state level. Kretzer clarified that their office only prosecutes cases that are investigated by the county’s local law enforcement agencies. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office does not seek out crimes to investigate on its own. He spelled out the role of the county prosecutor’s office in the criminal justice system and gave a detailed summary of the division of authorities and powers therein.

Commissioner Gohagan asked what governmental agency makes the determination that a political official should be investigated for ethical issues? Kretzer explained that the voters ultimately make that determination when they vote for their elected officials.

Sheriff Edgar concluded by stressing that he did not start this investigation and will not interfere with the ongoing investigation. His sense of ethics would not allow it.

Prosecuting Attorney Grosvenor acknowledged that the county does not currently have a County Attorney. She advised that the commissioners should seek legal counsel and listen to that attorney’s legal advice. She was concerned that on the aforementioned radio show, she had heard Commissioner Skelton declare that “this second camera coming up will not stand.” (referring to the new license plate reader).

Commissioner Gohagan asked Sheriff Edgar if his department would have removed the license plate reader if the Commission sent him an order to remove it? Edgar responded that he would not violate a state law.

Commissioner Gohagan asked Prosecuting Attorney Grosvenor if she thought a restraining order from the Commission to the Department of Public Safety would have been effective? She responded that the Commission had received legal advice from their attorney on this issue. She reiterated that she had explained to the Commission that going onto Highway 54 (state property) and doing anything to that license plate reader could be handled criminally.

She offered that if Commissioner Skelton’s issue with the license plate reader was a philosophical objection than why not pursue the matter through the correct legal channels?

And that was that.

It was really too bad that Presiding Commissioner Skelton wasn’t able to attend this meeting since so much of the discussion mentioned him. Hearing his response to the comments would have been interesting.