Edgerton resident Dr. Kimberly Twente and a handful of others presented a petition to the City of Edgerton in July asking for a vote on a proposed data center in the Johnson County city of 1,900. For their efforts, Twente and another petition organizer have been sued by the city.
The city claims a proposed ordinance presented with the petition was illegal and “factually deficient”:
City officers noted that the introductory statements contained claims to information that the City did not have and to actions the City did not perform, nor had the ability to perform. Further, the Ordinance made statements that “…. the Governing Body finds….” where the following information had not been considered or determined by the Governing Body. This included unsupported statements regarding the effects of data centers that did not provide a basis for such as a determination of the Governing Body. Further, the Ordinance was administrative in nature, and thus prohibited under Kansas law. For these reasons, the City Council did not adopt the Ordinance in the Petition, nor did it set the matter for an election. Instead, the City Council approved the filing of this action to determine the validity of the Petition and the incorporated ordinance.
The petition containing the ordinance was approved by Johnson County election officials, as having the required number of signatures, so the issue is the proposed ordinance.
Dr. Twente’s reaction to being sued by the city she supports with her taxes:
“This situation has been very disappointing. No citizen should ever have to be worried about getting sued by their government for exercising their First Amendment rights. This move seems to be a retaliatory, bullying movement in efforts to silence us. We started this effort because the City of Edgerton has, on numerous occasions, listened to the public majority express that they were against a certain project and pass the project anyway. There appears to be a clear pattern of the city supporting corporations over their own constituents – the ones they were voted in to represent. In the case of these data centers, numerous studies have shown that they result in poor health implications as well as environmental damage to the areas where they are placed. There are not enough safeguards in place and data center operators are not required to be transparent in their operations. The citizens in the communities where these are going deserve to know these details. Because Edgerton has ignored their citizens so often already, a petition was circulated. This petition requested that either an ordinance go into place preventing future data centers or allow the citizens to vote. The city will not allow them to have a voice in meetings that they actually listen to so this would allow them to have a voice otherwise. Citizens deserve a vote. Petitioning is a First Amendment right. The City Council, on the recommendation of the city attorney opted to send the petition to the Johnson County Courts to determine “legality.” What actually happened is that citizens were sued.
Dr. Twente charges city officials with misrepresenting the case to the public:
“The city has twisted the narrative on the City of Edgerton website to say that we were sued because we ‘have an obvious interest in what happens in court and we wanted to make sure they were notified and involved in that process.’ Essentially the city is trying to say that they are suing us as a favor to us. Is it ever a favor to hand someone a lawsuit?
“It is also important to mention that on the FAQ page on the city website, one of the questions asks if the city is trying to stop the petition from going to a vote. Their answer is ‘NO’. They are simply asking the court to determine whether the proposed ordinance is legally eligible to proceed through the petition process established by Kansas law. They are blatantly lying to the public with this statement, as the petition clearly states under COUNT II – PERMANENT INJUNCTION, WHEREFORE, (C): A permanent injunction against the passage of the Petition Ordinance, and prohibiting the submission to a vote of the City electors. This shows what sort of leadership we have in the City of Edgerton. They are willing to post lies to their residents and hope that no one sees that they are openly lying. How can we trust anything else that they do?”
Carrie Schmidt is a Gardner resident, and the other defendant who decries the “bullying tactic” of the city’s lawsuit:
“This situation is bigger than just Kim and myself. Suing petitioners and asking the Court for relief through “costs, interest, and other charges” for following a statutory procedure to petition the government is a retaliation and bullying tactic used to scare and silence lawful government petitioning. I am in this lawsuit for one reason, I exercised my right to circulate it and I spoke out. You don’t have to agree with the ordinance to care about the right to petition.”
Attorney for Edgerton residents cites First Amendment violation
Attorney Linus Baker represents the pair. He sees a First Amendment violation in the city’s suit.
“If the city needed an injunction against the entity capable of passing the ordinance or calling the election, it should have sued itself: City of Edgerton v. City of Edgerton. Instead, they targeted Carrie Schmidt, Kimberly Twente, and a non-profit entity to be defendants subject to monetary loss. The city and its outside attorney act as though they did a favor in suing my clients — and is willing to extend that ‘favor’ to any other Edgerton resident who wants to be sued. And it’s rich that the city is using taxpayer dollars to sue individuals exercising their constitutional rights to petition government.
“The statute gave the city two choices — either pass the petition ordinance or submit it to a vote. The city council made up a third option which was to sue the petition organizers so that a judge would rule they wouldn’t have to follow the statutory requirements. The city should submit the petition for a vote of its registered voters and let them decide. We are asking the district court to strike the claims made against the three defendants (including their non-profit entity) and for an award of attorney fees in obtaining that relief.”
