support@semo.net
1573 686-9114​​​​

As I’ve consistently said, the City doesn’t want to go to jury trial on this case. This part of the case is about the disputed portion of our bills from September through May. We paid those bills based on the amounts required by Missouri Law and then submitted a dispute letter for the remaining balance in accordance with the City’s dispute policy. 

When the city sued us for the disputed portions of the bill, we knew that the city had no case because they had not follow their own policy. I believe the City finally realized that their “not following the dispute policy” would be devastating to their case, which is why they have asked the Judge to set the jury trial aside to allow them to finally follow the policy. Here’s a recap of the policy:

• Someone files a dispute with City (and at that time the amounts due are no longer held as owing until the dispute process is completed)
  • City responds to the dispute via written letter within 5 days
• The person can appeal the decision within 10 days
  • The City has a public hearing with the Municipal Utilities Advisory Board where you can call witnesses to support your reason for dispute. The board makes a ruling.
• The person can appeal the decision within 10 days
  • The City has a public hearing with the City Council where you can call witnesses to support your reason for dispute. The Council has the opportunity to accept or deny the dispute.
• If the dispute is denied, at that time the bills become due and owing as if first credited against you. (Which is why we hold that we currently don’t owe the City anything because those unpaid portions are in dispute.)

If both the MU Board and Council deny the dispute, a new date for jury trial will be set and the city will be allowed to claim they have followed their policy. I don’t think that the city should be allowed to go back and “fix” their mistake, but that wasn’t up to me.

The good news is we now have the opportunity to finally state our case to our utility board, and possibly city council, and show them the false information that was presented to them by Mr. Bach. Namely, how he set Open Access rates based on a fictitious set of numbers (which is the term Mr. Bach used under oath).

The MU Advisory Board Public Hearing of Dispute is tentatively scheduled for later this month but we will post the where and when once it is finalized. The term “public” probably doesn’t mean anyone will be allowed to speak, but you are definitely allowed to attend and hear the evidence for yourself.