Missouri Ethics Commission v. Yolonda Fountain-Henderson
502 S.W.3d 70
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Yolonda Fountain-Henderson was elected mayor of Jennings (city <100,000) in April 2015; a citizen complaint alleged she failed to file required campaign committee disclosure and financial summary.
- The Missouri Ethics Commission (Commission) investigated and issued a subpoena duces tecum requesting campaign-related documents (bank records, receipts, contributor lists, etc.); Respondent produced no documents.
- The Commission filed an application to enforce the subpoena; the circuit court denied enforcement in a one-page order, finding the complaint did not allege facts showing the monetary thresholds that trigger committee or reporting obligations.
- The circuit court denied the Commission’s motion to reconsider; the Commission appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the subpoena should be enforced under the standard for administrative subpoenas (authority, definiteness, relevance) and whether the Commission abused its investigatory power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission had statutory authority to issue the subpoena | Commission: Statute expressly authorizes investigators to issue subpoenas in campaign finance investigations | Fountain-Henderson: Commission lacked authority (argued in circuit court) | Held: Commission has statutory authority under Section 105.961.8(4); inquiry falls within its mandate |
| Whether the subpoena was too indefinite | Commission: Subpoena lists specific categories (bank statements, cancelled checks, receipts, contributor lists) and is sufficiently specific | Respondent: Challenged sufficiency/particularity in circuit court | Held: Subpoena was sufficiently definite and specific |
| Whether requested information was relevant to investigation | Commission: Documents would show whether monetary thresholds in Section 130.016.6 were exceeded, requiring committee formation and disclosure | Respondent: Implicitly argued investigation not justified by complaint facts | Held: Records sought were reasonably relevant to determining whether disclosure duties applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Geier v. Mo. Ethics Comm’n, 474 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. banc 2015) (describing Commission’s role administering campaign finance disclosure laws)
- Impey v. Mo. Ethics Comm’n, 442 S.W.3d 42 (Mo. banc 2014) (statutory references and prior treatment of Ethics Commission authorities)
- Legends Bank v. State, 361 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard for reviewing statutory versions and references)
- Jackson v. Mills, 142 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (standard of review for enforcement of administrative subpoenas)
- Angoff v. M & M Mgmt. Corp., 897 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (three-part test for enforcing administrative subpoenas)
- Hein (In re Hein), 584 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (agency subpoenas enforceable when authorized by statute and not an abuse of investigatory power)
- Ferger, 781 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. App. 1989) (application of Hein to later administrative subpoena enforcement)
Conclusion: The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded, holding the Commission acted within statutory authority, the subpoena was sufficiently definite, and the requested records were relevant to the campaign finance investigation.