Nepotism is more than hanging someone on a cross for having a good heart. At an August 13 meeting in the Taney County Commission Office, the “special prosecutor” assigned to investigate charges of nepotism against Presiding Commission Chuck Pennel said, “All I could find was the appearance of an impropriety and not an impropriety itself.” He went on to state, based on his investigation of the charges, nepotism had not taken place and he would not be taking any actions to have Pennel removed from office.
The charge of nepotism against Pennel was alleged by Bob Schanz in March of this year. Because of relationships and to avoid any appearance of impropriety county officials asked Christian County Prosecutor Ron Cleek to act as a “special prosecutor.” Cleek outlined the steps he took which included, among other things, interviewing county personnel working at the animal shelter, as well as Chuck Pennel and Renee Pennel and reviewing pertinent documentation.
He found that Renee Pennel had often worked with Chuck Pennel during the weekends and off hours in assisting sick and injured animals. He found the work was performed voluntarily, without pay and not by virtue of any appointment to public office or other county employment created by Chuck Pennel using his position as presiding county commissioner. Cleek said, “I don’t think that Mrs. Pennel should be hung out on a cross, so to speak, because of a good heart.”
In the specific case Cross determined that Renee Pennel, who operates a dog kennel, had voluntarily, in her own vehicle, at the request of Chuck Pennel, taken a distressed animal they believed had the extremely infectious disease “Parvo,” to an emergency veterinary clinic in Springfield. It was determined the dog had Parvo and Renee Pennel used her own personal credit card to pay the $112.00 for the dogs examination and euthanasia.
Cleek determined at the time of the payment Renee Pennel did not know whether or not she would receive reimbursement from the county for the expense. Discussion at the meeting indicates that Chuck Pennel submitted a claim for reimbursement and that such reimbursement was probably made.
He cited the applicable provision in Article VII Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution which states, any, “public officer or employee in this state who by virtue of his office or employment names or appoints to public office any relative within the fourth degree, by consanguinity or affinity, shall thereby forfeit his office or employment.” In expressing the crux of what is necessary for nepotism Cleek said what would be necessary is a situation where Pennel had used his office [position] “to provide a place or location or provide a job for someone else, in this case his wife. I don’t think he did that.”
Cleek went on to say, “You could read into it that nepotism occurred.” He went on to say nothing that was done by Mrs. Pennel or the Presiding Commissioner [Pennel] was done to benefit her in any way.” After expressing his opinion the situation should have been handled the way it is currently being handled, with paid county employees on call 24/7 for animal emergencies, and stating his belief that his investigation “went the extra mile” to find out what happened Cleek said, “I don’t believe there’s nepotism there.”
Bob Schanz, who had presented the initial charges of nepotism in March, appeared to be dissatisfied with Cleek’s decision particularly his interviewing of the Pennels. He said, “I feel that you went to the fox to ask the fox if it ate the chickens.” Cleek disagreed.
One lady in the audience asked if there was any way his decision could be appealed. While Cleek was attempting to answer she interrupted and said, “You are the judge, jury, and executioner.” While Cleek was attempting to continue his response her cell phone rang loudly. She answered and commenced a conversation in the middle of his response.
At that point Western District Commissioner Ron Herschend said, “I think that’s true in any case going in front of a prosecutor.” He pointed out normally it’s within the prerogative of the prosecutor whether or not a case goes to trial, not the judge or anyone else. Cleek agreed indicating even under the lower standard of proof in the civil Quo Warranto case, “a simple preponderance of evidence” as opposed to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for criminal cases, there was not enough evidence to prove nepotism if the issue went to trial. He said, “Quite honestly, I don’t think I would win.”
Reprinted with permission of the Tri-Lakes Tribune, a free newspaper published and distributed three times weekly, Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Please call 417-336-NEWS (6397) for classified and display advertising opportunities.
