Last week, the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel – the disciplinary authority for attorneys in the state – held a trial against Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, examining an ethics complaint filed by disgraced former governor Eric Greitens.
After months of negotiations with the OCDC, Gardner agreed to an amended ethics complaint against her that referenced her failure to include several documents in a “privilege log,” a spreadsheet an attorney shares with opposing counsel that describes a confidential document without disclosing privileged information. “Privilege” in court can refer to the confidentiality between an attorney and their client, or an attorney’s work-product. Although Greitens’ defense team was not legally entitled to the documents referenced in the privilege log, Gardner was recommended to be reprimanded for not providing the identity of those two documents in the log that was given to Greitens’ attorneys.
While prosecutors have been shown to withhold important, innocence-proving evidence from defendants on a regular basis – an issue that even Gardner’s office has struggled with – that scenario does not accurately describe the legal ethics conflict between Gardner and Greitens. Rather, Greitens’ complaint transparently was political retaliation against Gardner for ultimately forcing Greitens out of the Governor’s Mansion in May 2018.
The basis of Greitens’ bar complaint differs from the average criminal defendant’s complaint for one glaring reason: Greitens’ complained that Gardner didn’t produce her own notes (typically protected by work-product rule and not shared with defendants), which may well have referenced the exploitative photo of his mistress that he and his attorneys publicly declared as nonexistent. While the victim seemingly did not have a copy of the photo that Greitens used to blackmail and exploit her (anyone remember Scott Faughn carrying a bag of $50,000 in cash to attorney Al Watkins as part of this scheme?), Greitens’ ex-wife, law professor Sheena Greitens, recently disclosed in a sworn affidavit to a Cole County family court judge that the photo existed and that Eric had threatened her to not disclose that fact.
For Gardner’s ethics complaint, the recommendation of a reprimand will be delivered to the Missouri Supreme Court, which holds the final authority to accept or reject the recommendation.
Another complaint filed by Republican State Representative Paul Curtman was dismissed by the OCDC.
Meanwhile, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 73 has found itself at odds with the City of St. Louis and the Public Safety Director Dan Isom’s office, after its leadership accused Isom personally of holding up promotions within the fire department. Although a backlog has existed since 2013 – during the administration of then-mayor Francis G. Slay, Local 73 – which backed Alderwoman Cara Spencer during the 2021 mayoral race – now insinuates political retaliation by Mayor Tishaura O. Jones’ office for the 8-plus year delay.
Per usual, the truth is less conspiratorial.
St. Louis City Fire Department Captain Percy Green III, a 22-year veteran of STLFD and chairman of Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality (F.I.R.E.), said that the push for promotions for captain and battalion chiefs from a 2013 list violates a settlement agreement that sought to address internal discrimination against Black and women candidates.
Missing from Local 73’s narrative is F.I.R.E.’s successful lawsuit against the City following the 2012 exam, and as part of a 2017 settlement, the City agreed that future exams for Fire Department promotions would meet a series of benchmarks that ensured a fair process for all candidates, did not discriminate against Black and women candidates, and promoted transparency during the examination process. Twenty-five candidates were promoted at the end of 2013, based on the 2012 exam. Green says those 25 positions were vacant for nearly 2 years before they were filled.
However, no new promotional exams have been administered since 2012.
The City agreed that all future fire department promotional exams with the new test criteria would begin in 2018 and be held every 3 years after that. To start the promotional exam process, then-Director of Personnel Richard Frank was required under the agreement to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to locate an exam administrator. He then was supposed to send a copy of that RFP to both Local 73 and F.I.R.E. Frank issued the RFP after the 2018 deadline passed – but to make matters worse, Frank didn’t send the RFP to the two firefighters’ unions.
F.I.R.E. learned that the RFP was issued but was not shared with them or Local 73, and Green said he called out Frank for circumventing the settlement terms. Frank not only stopped the exam process for that year, but never moved forward after that point to restart the promotions through his retirement on December 1, 2021.
“When it comes to promotions, F.I.R.E. is not against giving another promotional exam. We just wanted the Personnel Director to follow the settlement agreement,” Green told the EYE.
Promoting candidates from an 8 ½-year old list should be problematic for everyone, and Isom has expressed his concerns in doing so, too. But Local 73 has advocated for promoting from the 2013 list until a new exam is given – even going so far as to tell the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the 2017 settlement agreement says so.
Except, Frank never moved forward with additional promotions as required under that agreement and he even retained the power to cancel the 2013 list after 6 months, Green said.
The most noteworthy point missing from Local 73’s publicity campaign: two white mayors have held office since the 2013 list was issued, and both were endorsed by Local 73. However, it was not until Mayor Jones’ administration, that for the first time Local 73 raised the issue of promotions being stalled, leading to a number of questions.
