EARL WATT
• Leader & Times
Those who filed a petition to recall Steve Helm have responded to his lawsuit.
Helm filed his case claiming he could not be recalled as an individual for approving restricted landfill funds that were used to pay Assistant County Administrator Brock Theiner since he was just one commissioner, and the action was taken by a majority of the commission.
According to his filing, “The Petition must fail as it equates the authority of the Board of County Commissioners of Seward County, Kansas, with an individual authority of a duly elected individual Commissioner.”
But petitioners Jim Rice, Mary Lauralynn Noblejas and Rick Madden responded through counsel that claiming to be insulated because multiple people committed the same infraction was not a suitable defense.
According to the petitioners for the recall, “ ... each commissioner is responsible for their own actions and if they have voted for lawful conduct they are protected but the breach of duty by voting for an unlawful act will not provide protection to the County Commissioner. (Helm) voted for paying the wages of an Assistant County Administrator from restricted Landfill funds which are trust funds. Such an action breaches his duty to the public and is the very definition of misconduct. Under Article 4, Section 3 of the Kansas Constitution and K.S.A 25-4301 through K.S.A. 25-4331, recall provisions apply to County Commissioners individually. Each Commissioner is an individually elected officer responsible for their own official conduct and vote, meaning a joint or majority commission vote does not immunize the Plaintiff from a targeted recall petition. Furthermore, the voters of District 5 cannot hold another Commissioner to account as the Petition only applies to District 5 sponsorship, signatures and votes. [f the responsibility for decisions could not be attributed to a Commissioner individually, then ‘failure to perform duties prescribed by law’ wouldn’t be listed as a reason for recall of a Commissioner, since each one is always an individual and it takes more than one person for Board action. Clearly, there is a critical nexus, that is, a connection, between the individual’s performance of his duties and the functioning of the Commission as a whole. The Commission as a whole cannot perform it functions as required by Statute unless the conduct of the individual Commissioners is in accord with the Kansas Statutes.”
Helm continued to claim actions taken by the board cannot be reflected on an individual commissioner by stating in his petition to try to get the recall petition voided by the district court, “K.S.A. 19-229 does not impose any specific duty on an individual Commissioner; instead, K.S.A. 19-229 imposes the duty upon the Board of County Commissioners as a whole.”
The petitioners responded, “(Helm) is attempting to narrowly read the Statutes of the State of Kansas by not applying all of the Statutes that effect a recall petition on the misuse of restricted landfill funds.”
Helm again reasserted his claim of not being able to be held responsible for his individual actions by claiming, “The recall petition does not outline any individual action taken by (Helm) which violated any of his duties as county commissioner. Instead, it only alleges failures of the Board as whole.”
But the petitioners again reiterated there is no shield for a commissioner by claiming the illegal action was a group activity.
“(Helm) is responsible for his own actions,” the petitioners responded. “He cannot use the vote of the Board of County Commissioners approving an unlawful act as a shield from individual responsibility.”
The petitioners also asserted the citizens of Dist. 5 cannot take action against other commissioners in other districts. Rather, it would be up to the people living in other districts to file recall petitioners.
However, because the three others commissioners who voted with Helm to use the restricted solid waste funds for a purpose other than the landfill, including John Mettlen, Clay Louderback and Jairo Vazquez, are facing an election, state law prohibits a recall effort within six months of an already-scheduled election. Helm is not up for re-election until 2028.
According to filings, three local judges have recused themselves form hearing the case, including Linda Gilmore, Clint Peterson and Brad Ambrosier.
The Kansas Supreme Court then appointed Judge Glenn Braun to hear the case.
