Manchester Attorney Defends Diehl and Clement

Manchester alderman John Diehl, who was sanctioned by the Missouri Ethics Commission for so-called campaign finance violations in his April 2010 candidacy, and at the Dec. 5 board meeting, found support in the council meeting Monday night.

(Read Previous Article: 

Patrick Gunn, city attorney, said he investigated the allegations, and during a time in the meeting set aside for public comment, read a statement defending Diehl.

The following is exerpted from Gunn’s comments:

At the Dec. 5 meeting of the board, a citizen read a statement regarding complaints that had been filed by him and others against three residents of Manchester and three former or current aldermen of Manchester.

The citizen commented that his comments were not political, but just the plain truth to protect the public.

In his comments however, the citizen used the words, “convicted” and “guilty.” When describing actions taken by the Missouri Ethics Commission on these complaints.

Quite candidly, I have only a passing familiarity with the guidelines of the Missouri Ethics Commission, since I have virtually no involvement in its process.

Because of these statements, however, and the use of the words, “guilty” and “convicted,” words, which I found concerning, I took it upon myself to conduct a simple investigation into the statements made by the citizen.

What I found, is that regarding the six complaints to which the citizen referred, there was no conviction, nor a finding of guilt of any kind. It is clear that the words of the complaining citizen were an attempt to convey some message to the public, which was unfounded and untrue…

The last comment from the citizen relates to a complaint against Alderman Diehl. While I have not discussed this comment with Alderman Diehl, and I apologize for using your name in these remarks, I thought it important to point out that the complaint against Alderman Diehl relates to his filing of reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission which were filed in one instance, 10 days late, and in a second instance, four days late.

Again, completely satisfying all the regulations of the Missouri Ethics Commission, except a slight delay in the process. It appears the commission also felt Alderman Diehl had filed the wrong type of report, although he corrected that error a short time later. The records show that Alderman Diehl paid, again, a fee of $100 to the commission.

I thought it be important the record be clear that the city is not being run by a bunch of hooligans, as was suggested. But rather by dedicated people who comply with complicated statutes as best they can, and who might occasionally file a report a few days late, or read a complex statute in a way that differs from the reading given to it by attorneys of the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Gunn also defended Alderman Clement, who was found by the Missouri Ethics Commision to be during last year's elections. He said it was discussed in considerable detail in a previous council meeting. Gunn said the complaining citizen should read those minutes, because surrounding the complaint much better than he could.

Guinn read Monday night:

I could only assume that the citizen complaining either wasn't present for those comments of Alderman Clement, or chose to ignore them. In my reveiw of the minutes, it seems that the compaint against Alderman Clement was much ado about nothing.