Attorney Stephen Paulus, on behalf of the Bourbon Fire Protection District (BFPD) Board of Directors and Fire Chief Tim Ware, filed a motion June 28 to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them on May 8 by Mayor Sky Huddleston.

In Huddleston’s petition, he cited Missouri Sunshine Law RSMo 610.020, which says that all public governmental bodies need to give notice of meeting details, such as time, date and place, and provide the agenda. This state statute adds that, unless it is impossible or impractical to do so, these details must be provided at least 24 hours prior to meetings, excluding weekends and holidays.

Huddleston claimed that the board has a policy that requires it to provide meeting information with at least 48 hours’ notice, which he attached a picture of. He provided 12 alleged instances between May 2025 and April 2026 in which the board failed to provide 48 hours’ notice of its monthly meeting agenda.

He claimed that at each meeting, the board didn’t discuss or vote on changing the policy

In the petition, Huddleston mentioned he had a “contentious relationship” with the BFPD following a prior lawsuit against them over Ordinance 21-01, adopted in February 2021. The ordinance adopted the 2018 International Fire Codes with some amendments and additions, including amending the types of permits, adding a door numbering system and requirements for Knox Boxes.

The lawsuit was dismissed on April 15, and the BFPD made a press release on June 12 saying that due to learning that a 90-day waiting period was required and missed, Ordinance 26-01 would repeal Ordinance 21-01.

Huddleston said that the May 8, 2025, meeting had been postponed, and claimed that when he went to get the agenda on May 13, for the rescheduled meeting on May 15, Ware appeared and replaced the displayed policy.

According to court documents from Huddleston, “On information and belief, the delayed (May 2025) meeting and unilateral change in notice was based on that contentious relationship, and for the purpose of frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts to remain involved and aware of the actions of the Defendants.”

He asked that the defendants pay $5,000 for purposefully violating the Sunshine Law or $1,000 for knowingly violating it in May 2025, $11,000 for knowingly violating it in the months afterwards, paying his attorney fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit and any other orders that the Crawford County Circuit Court deemed just and appropriate.

In response, Paulus filed the motions to dismiss on behalf of both the board of directors and Ware.

Paulus claimed that through Sunshine Law, RSMo 610.020, they are only required to give at least 24 hours’ notice of meetings, which they have been.

“Plaintiff claims that the district violated RSMo. 610.020(2) by complying with its very provisions. This is nonsensical. In order to state a cause of action, the plaintiff must state that the defendant violated a specific provision of the sunshine law,” Paulus wrote. “Taking everything in the petition as true, the plaintiff alleges that the board violated its own policy, i.e. by providing 24 hours’ notice instead of 48. Taken at face value, the allegations set out in the petition only assert a violation of a Board policy and not any actionable violation of any provision of 610.020.”

Paulus continued to say that if the allegations mentioned in the petition are presumed true, then the board, at most, violated its own policy and not the Sunshine Law, so there is no statutory violation, and therefore, “no valid cause of action has been asserted against the district.”

For Ware, Paulus wrote Huddleston only addressed the board violating the Missouri Sunshine Law by conducting meetings without providing notice.

As appointed fire chief of the district, Ware doesn’t control the agenda, schedule or call meetings to order, vote in them or have any responsibility for posting notices, as those are duties of the board of directors. This means that none of the allegations about violating RSMo 610.020(2) in the petition were directed against Ware.

“Even if all the allegations set forth in the petition are presumed true, the petition still does not state a claim of action against Defendant Ware for violating the Sunshine Law,” Paulus wrote. “Timothy Ware could not conduct a meeting of the board as he is not on the board and lacked either the actual or apparent authority to conduct such meetings. As such, no valid cause of action is asserted against Timothy Ware in his individual capacity.”

The motion hearing is scheduled at 9 a.m. on Sept. 22 before Judge Michael Randazzo’s 42nd Circuit Court in Crawford County.