Latrice Thomas Impeachment Hearing
This coming Tuesday, August 25th, 2026
6:30 pm.
at Raytown City Hall.
This is the first time in 76 years since Raytown was incorporated in 1950 that there has been a formal call for impeachment by an elected official. This is an open meeting. The Public is welcome to attend.
We can share the following information with the public with facts of the actions before the Board of Aldermen.
In that election there were three candidates who ran for Ward 3 Alderman. The vote totals were as shown.
MORRIS MELLOY.................….91 VOTES
RYAN MYERS............................138 VOTES
LATRICE THOMAS...............….143 VOTES
The Jackson County Election Board conducted a recount of the ballots. The totals remained the same as the original count. The Jackson County Election Board certified the vote count as accurate and declared Latrice Thomas as winner.
On April 22, 2025 Mayor Michael McDonough swore in Latrice Thomas and four other candidates for the office of Alderman who were elected in the other four wards.
Under Missouri State Law, the only group that can sit in judgment on the question of impeachment is the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor does not have a vote in the decision unless there is a tie vote.
The meeting will be called to order at 6:30 on Tuesday, August 25th, at Raytown City Hall located at 10000 East 59th Street, Raytown, Missouri 64133.
Comments
Some chain restaurants, bars, and franchises do factor local smoking laws into their expansion and site-selection strategies, though how it affects them usually depends on the specific type of establishment:
* Why some businesses avoid a city that allows smoking: Major family-friendly chain restaurants (like Applebee's, Chili's, or fast-casual brands) often enforce strict company-wide smoke-free policies to protect brand image, appeal to families with children, and reduce employee turnover. If a particular municipality still permits indoor smoking (while neighboring towns have banned it), corporate real estate teams may intentionally skip that city. They worry that allowing smoking will alienate the majority of their customer base or that retrofitting ventilation systems to isolate a smoking section is too costly.
* Why others might move toward it: Conversely, certain independent bars, taverns, or gaming/pool halls might specifically target a city that does allow smoking if their core clientele consists of smokers. They know that if surrounding cities have banned smoking, smokers from the neighboring towns will drive over to patronize their establishment.
* The "Border Effect": Real estate analysts frequently study how businesses behave at city or county borders. When one municipality bans smoking and an adjacent one does not, hospitality businesses often flock to the permissive side of the border to capture the "spillover" market of smokers, or conversely, stay away if they want to appeal exclusively to the non-smoking demographic.
Ultimately, corporate chains prefer consistency across all their locations. If a city's laws clash with a brand's operational model or target demographic, expansion teams will readily bypass that specific town in favor of neighboring communities with friendlier regulatory environments.
1. Roberts v. University City (2016)
* The Case: A resident, Andrew Roberts, attempted to speak during a city council meeting's public comment period to oppose a resolution targeting a city council member. The mayor, Shelley Welsch, interrupted him, accused him of personal attacks, cut him off, and ordered police officers to remove him from the building and ban him from future meetings. The ACLU of Missouri filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.
* Outcome: The city entered into a consent judgment. University City was required to issue a formal public apology, acknowledge that it violated the resident's First Amendment and due process rights, and ensure meeting rules were reformed.
* Financial Impact: While the municipality and taxpayers paid for the legal defense and settlement costs typical of such civil rights actions, individual elected officials like the mayor are typically indemnified by municipal insurance for actions taken in their official capacity, meaning the financial blow fell directly on the city's budget rather than the mayor's personal bank account.
2. Hunt v. Wentzville (2018)
* The Case: A resident, Sally Hunt, signed up to speak during the open forum of a Wentzville Board of Aldermen meeting to criticize the placement of a large religious display on the council dais. Mayor Nick Guccione interrupted her, argued with her, and ordered police officers to remove her from the building. The ACLU of Missouri filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf.
* Outcome: The city settled the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, the Wentzville governing body had to pass and publicly read a formal resolution affirming its commitment to the First Amendment, update its municipal code to prevent viewpoint discrimination, and train police officers that they have an independent obligation to uphold the Constitution rather than blindly following a mayor's unlawful removal orders.
* Financial Impact: Again, the city absorbed the financial costs through its insurance and municipal funds. However, the political fallout was swift: high-profile lawsuits carrying public reprimands and mandatory policy overhauls often carry heavy political costs for the officials whose actions triggered them.
Would you like to review the specific legal standards for how municipalities handle indemnification and insurance coverage for elected officials?
All eyes are on Raytown.
Dangers to the City for Approving Zoning Early
* Spot Zoning and Arbitrary Decision-Making: If a city grants a zoning change or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a use that is fundamentally unfeasible under state health codes, the decision can be challenged by neighboring property owners as "spot zoning" or an arbitrary use of municipal authority.
* Creating a Nonconforming Use Dilemma: If the zoning change is tied to the property rather than strictly to the specific applicant, the city may be left with a commercially or institutionally zoned residential parcel even after the senior care plan collapses. This can permanently alter a residential neighborhood's character.
* Premature Municipal Reliance: Municipalities are expected to ensure that approved land uses are lawful and viable. Granting local approval before state clearance short-circuits the coordinated safety net meant to protect vulnerable populations.
The Core Problem: State Standards vs. Local Zoning
In Missouri, senior care facilities (such as Residential Care Facilities or Assisted Living Facilities) are strictly governed by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) under state regulations.
* Physical Plant and Square Footage Rules: State health regulations mandate strict minimum square footage per resident for sleeping rooms, alongside clear accessibility, egress, and common space requirements.
* The 10x10 Room Issue: A 10x10 foot room (100 square feet) generally falls short or barely meets strict single-occupancy minimums under various state health care codes. Attempting to house two individuals in it—even a married couple—frequently triggers state licensing denials due to crowding, lack of personal clearance space, and inadequate bathroom-to-resident ratios (especially in a house with only two bathrooms, one being inside a master suite).
* The Mismatch: Cities evaluate land use, traffic, and parking; the State evaluates health, safety, and resident quality of life. If the city approves the zoning, but the State denies the license because the physical layout violates health codes, the applicant is left holding an approved zoning designation for a business they legally cannot open.
Mitigating the Risk (Best Practices for Cities)
To protect Raytown from these exact scenarios, municipal planning bodies typically utilize conditional safeguards:
* Condition CUPs on State Approval: Any conditional use permit or zoning ordinance amendment for a specialized care facility should explicitly state that the zoning change is contingent upon and will not take final effect until the applicant provides proof of final state licensure from Missouri DHSS.
* Inter-Departmental Scrutiny: Requiring building and code officials to review physical layout issues (such as bedroom dimensions and bathroom counts) during the planning and zoning phase—rather than viewing the vote purely through a standard land-use lens—prevents unviable projects from receiving municipal endorsement.
It is easy to sit behind a desk at City Hall and treat a business license as a simple financial transaction just another fee collected, another form stamped. But when a local government prioritizes revenue over rigorous enforcement, people pay the ultimate price.
I know this firsthand. I lost someone I loved dearly because a local community looked the other way. They allowed a building to operate, collected their fees, and let the paperwork slide while basic life-safety standards and proper fire inspections were ignored or treated as someone else's problem. They cared more about keeping businesses happy and the revenue flowing than ensuring the people inside those walls could walk out alive.
When cities treat safety compliance as an afterthought while aggressively tracking down licensing fees, it isn't just bureaucratic inefficiency—it is a dangerous failure of duty. A piece of paper that says a business paid its dues means nothing if the building is a death trap. Local leaders need to stop treating public safety like a separate department and start treating it as the primary reason government exists in the first place.
I hope the hearing is swift and just. This will be an interesting one to watch.
Under RSMo Section 79.240, which governs fourth-class cities in Missouri, an alderman is an elective officer. The statute explicitly states that an elective officer can only be removed from office for cause shown, and it requires specific protocol: either the mayor acting with the consent of a majority of all members elected to the board of aldermen (after a hearing/impeachment proceeding), or by a two-thirds vote of the board independently of the mayor.
An alderman cannot simply be fired or removed by the mayor unilaterally.
What This Means for the City Attorney's Advice
If a city attorney advised a mayor that they could bypass the board and ignore Section 79.240, that attorney gave legally unsound, fundamentally incorrect, and dangerous advice.
Whether it could cost the attorney their license depends on why they gave that advice:
* Incompetence vs. Intentional Misconduct: If the attorney simply gave shockingly bad, negligent legal advice due to a failure to know the law, that is standard legal malpractice. While it can result in a civil lawsuit or being fired by the city, it rarely results in losing a law license on its own unless the incompetence is gross and systemic.
* Bad Faith or Conspiracy: If the city attorney knew the removal was completely illegal under Missouri law, but intentionally fabricated a legal justification to help the mayor unlawfully oust a political opponent (such as to tilt the balance of power on the board), that crosses into unethical conduct and fraud.
The Fallout of Such an Action
When a mayor removes an alderman without statutory authority:
* The Removal is Void: The action has no legal weight. The ousted alderman is still legally holding office.
* Quo Warranto Action: The removed alderman (or the state via a prosecutor) can file a legal action called quo warranto in court to challenge the mayor's authority and immediately force the city to reinstate them.
* Liability: The city—and potentially the officials involved—can face lawsuits for violating civil rights or open-government/due-process laws.
We demand to know the truth Tuesday night.
If the mayor was given wrong legal advice why is the city still using the same law firm?
I watched as grown men played music with lyrics that spoke of them watching porn so they could figure out new tricks use on their mate that evening.
Our parks are turning into a cesspool of vice. Time for city hall and the park department to remove the blinders they have on their heads for so long.
City ordinances specifically ban amplified music. The police take an oath to fulfill a pledge to uphold those laws. If something is not done we may as well close the park down.
Oh, by the way. Those are local Raytowners causing all the fuss. When they finally do leave you will see all of the cars turning to the west and exiting on to Blue Ridge Cutoff.
Raytown people. We really deserve better than what we are receiving from City Hall when it comes to keeping our parks safe.
When is the special counsel going to talk to the board? As a whole about the constitution and how they keep violating it. And the cost to the city that could be adding up.
So the other questions that need to be answered are, who decided to I remove thomas. Was it the city attorney? If so, why is she still employed. Did you provide the citizens with the proof avu? And what was actually said meaning, is there anything in writing. Why is the mayor and more? So why is the city clerk who already has cost the city thousands of dollars? Not familiar with chapter seventy nine. Why is the city clerk still employed?
The whole eyes of Missouri were upon us. Just as one of the aldermen said and we are angry. And we are tired of the city officials wasting tax. Dollars, or allowing city staff to do it. And slapping them on the back and telling them what a professional job they are doing.
When is the special counsel going to talk to the board? As a whole about the constitution and how they keep violating it. And the cost to the city that could be adding up.
So the other questions that need to be answered are, who decided to I remove thomas. Was it the city attorney? If so, why is she still employed. Did you provide the citizens with the proof avu? And what was actually said meaning, is there anything in writing. Why is the mayor and more? So why is the city clerk who already has cost the city thousands of dollars? Not familiar with chapter seventy nine. Why is the city clerk still employed?
The whole eyes of Missouri were upon us. Just as one of the aldermen said and we are angry. And we are tired of the city officials wasting tax. Dollars, or allowing city staff to do it. And slapping them on the back and telling them what a professional job they are doing.
The Story of a Mayor, a Banner, and Broken Public Trust
In Raytown, a simple community Facebook post about a misplaced Festival of Trails banner at 53rd and Raytown Road quickly unraveled into a telling display of how leadership handles public critique.
The conversation unfolded in this order (excluding outside comments):
* Mayor Michael McDonough's First Comment: Responding to a frustrated citizen, the Mayor wrote that he had removed the banner for proper placement. However, instead of just addressing the logistics, he lashed out at the public, stating: "A simple notification to me via messenger would’ve fixed the whole problem instead of being so nasty by some of these people."
* Crystal Patrick's Reply: Crystal called out the Mayor's defensive tone, pointing out that citizens were simply exercising free speech and opinions rather than being "nasty," noting that the Mayor's own tone could use improvement.
* Mayor Michael McDonough's Second Comment: Closing out his participation, the Mayor doubled down on his stance, writing: "thanks for your input and your use of your freedom of speech. I too shall use mine. Have a great rest of your day!"
A Concerning Pattern of Behavior
This social media exchange is not an isolated incident; it mirrors a broader, concerning pattern of behavior seen during official Board of Aldermen meetings. Citizens have noted that Mayor McDonough frequently attempts to have the last word, interrupts public comments, and argues with residents who come before the board—routinely skating close to or crossing lines regarding First Amendment rights and statutes like 79.240.
When an elected official treats public input as a personal attack rather than public accountability, it creates a toxic dynamic. Instead of fostering collaboration, it projects a thin-skinned leadership style focused on control rather than service.
The Cost to Raytown: Why Citizens Hold Back Funding
This kind of behavior does more than just hurt the Mayor's personal image—it paints a terrible picture for the entire city of Raytown.
When residents witness their mayor arguing with constituents online, policing their tone, and dismissing public concerns, it erodes trust in local governance. People begin to feel that their voices do not matter and that city leadership is adversarial rather than responsive.
This deep-seated frustration directly explains why citizens hesitate to approve funding or support tax increases requested by the city. When trust is broken at the top, taxpayers naturally question writing a blank check to a government administration they feel doesn't respect them, listen to them, or value their constitutional right to speak out.