support@semo.net
1573 686-9114​​​​

Poplar Bluff Internet’s lawyer, Derrick Kirby, filed an additional count to the company’s petition as well as another “Affirmative Defense” claiming the City Council did not follow appropriate rules before, during AND after their August 6, 2012, Dispute Hearing. Part of the filing included:

[The City] failed to follow the applicable provisions of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act.  Specifically, [the City] violated the following provisions:

A.     [The City] failed to provide the statutory notice required §536.067 RSMo.;

B.     [The City] violated §536.083 RSMo. by permitting a hearing officer to also vote on the administrative appeal;

C.     [The City] violated §536.090 RSMo. by failing to provide Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law along with its purported decision;

D.     [The City] failed to file the record on appeal as required by §536.130 RSMo.;

E.     [The City] failed to provide [Poplar Bluff Internet] with a fair and impartial administrative appeal; [the City Council is both the defendant in the case and the arbitrator of the appeal]

F.     [The City] failed to acknowledge its conflict of interest in that [the City] had a financial interest and is/was a direct competitor of [Poplar Bluff Internet].

G.     [The City] generally failed to follow the applicable provisions of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act.

The case is currently set for hearing on May 17th at 9am before Judge Ligons.