Note: hyperlinks to Board of Aldermen meeting recordings are cued to the relevant timestamp where available.

1. How We Got Here: The 2023 Rezoning and the 2025 Election

On June 20, 2023, Raytown's Board of Aldermen voted 7–3 to rezone the property at 5348 Blue Ridge Blvd. from low-density residential to neighborhood commercial — approving a convenience store in the middle of an established neighborhood over the objections of residents who packed two public hearings that lasted 4 hours each. Among the approving board members are the same bloc that would later enable the events described below: Aldermen Emerson, Myers, Krizek, Scott, Hayden, Mims, and Van Buskirk voting yes.

The following municipal election was April 8, 2025. Latrice Thomas ran for Ward 3 Alderman on a platform of government transparency and local revitalization. She unseated incumbent Ryan Myers by a margin of 143 to 138 — five votes. Morris Melloy, a community advocate who had spoken against the Blue Ridge rezoning, also ran, to ensure that this election didn't go uncontested like before. Thomas was sworn in on April 22, 2025, and was present and voting at every Board meeting from that evening through June 17th.

2. The Silent Removal: July 2025

At the July 1, 2025 Board meeting, Latrice Thomas's chair was empty. Her nameplate was gone from the dais. Her name was not called during roll and does not appear in the meeting minutes as either present or absent. No public announcement was made. No vote was taken. No legal process was initiated. The meeting proceeded as though she had never existed. Two Ward 3 constituents spoke during public comments that evening. One of them — the reporter & writer of this very article — addressed the Board, noting that his elected representative was not in her seat and not available to hear urgent issues. That comment has yet to receive a response from any city official. The recording of that meeting begins in the middle of another constituent's testimony; there is no call to order, no pledge of allegiance, and no roll call audible at the start. The first public comment is clipped from the recording entirely.1

In August, Thomas's name was removed from the city's webpage of elected officials and from the official ward map. The city still made no public statement.2

If you are aware of any public statement issued by the City of Raytown explaining Alderwoman Thomas's removal prior to September 2025, please contact us. We have found none.

3. The Basis for Removal — and Its Problems

The city's justification, eventually disclosed through a reporter rather than a public announcement, rests on a letter dated June 10, 2025. That letter was mailed by the Missouri Department of Revenue to the Jackson County Election Board — not to the City of Raytown. On June 26th, the Jackson County Election Board's Republican Director scanned that letter and emailed it to the Raytown mayor and city clerk. The letter was not signed by a judge. The Mayor acted on it the same day it arrived, removing Thomas without a Board vote, without a hearing, and without due process.

The letter cited Missouri statute § 115.306, which governs candidate qualification. Multiple legal authorities, including a spokesperson for the Missouri Secretary of State's office, have stated publicly that § 115.306 provides for disqualification of a candidate — not removal of an elected official. The Secretary of State's Director of Communications, Rachael Ward, told the Lincoln County Journal in May 2025 that while state law is explicit about disqualifying candidates, it "isn't as clear as to how to remove a disqualified official who has been elected." Removal of an elected official requires either a quo warranto action through the Attorney General or County Prosecutor, or a formal impeachment proceeding with evidence and a hearing. Neither occurred in June 2025.

The MO SOS statement was in response to a similar situation that occured last year. On the same day Latrice Thomas was elected — April 8, 2025 — an alderwoman in Elsberry, Missouri, Danielle Rockwell, was re-elected to a third term while owing back taxes she did not pay until April 21st, thirteen days after the election. Rockwell acknowledged the delinquency and told the Lincoln County Journal she "typically pays her taxes after the deadline." She also reported not receiving a Department of Revenue notice giving her 30 days to pay. Rockwell kept her seat.* Thomas's situation differed in a critical way: she disputed owing the taxes at all — when she first contacted the Department of Revenue, she was initially told she owed nothing; amounts were later found under her husband's name and were subject to dispute. Yet Thomas was removed from office within hours of the mayor receiving a forwarded letter, while Rockwell — with an admitted delinquency — was not.

4. Nine Months of Silence, Then $30,000 and Articles of Impeachment

Between July 2025 and January 2026, Raytown did not issue a formal press release about the Thomas removal. Raytown's City Attorney told the Board at the November 11th and November 18th meetings that the matter had been referred to the Attorney General's office, and that the city was "at their mercy" waiting for a response. At the November 11th meeting, one alderwoman simplified the statute as "you have to have your taxes paid" and claimed this was an action by the Department of Revenue, ending her comment saying "So our hands are clean on that".

At the January 6, 2026 Board meeting, a resolution authorizing the city to spend over $30,000 on unspecified "City Attorney Services and Special Counsel Services" was placed on the consent agenda — a procedural track reserved for routine, uncontroversial items passed without discussion. Alderman Greg Walters pulled it from consent and asked for discussion, raising the concern that the resolution did not specify what the legal services were for. The resolution passed over his objection.3 At the February 3rd meeting, a follow-up resolution, also on the consent agenda, explicitly naming Graves Garrett Greim LLC and attorney Nathan Garrett as special counsel passed 8-0-1, with Walters abstaining.

On February 17, 2026, Garrett presented the Board with articles of impeachment. Each of the eight articles charges Thomas with "malfeasance" for official votes she cast between April 22 and June 17, 2025 — the period when she was unambiguously a sitting alderwoman. The theory is that because she was allegedly tax-delinquent on election day, her election was invalid, making every vote she cast "wholly beyond her authority."

At that same February 17th meeting, Garrett requested a 30-day postponement to March 17th, stating he wanted to give Thomas "an informal allowance… to provide me with information that may suggest one way or the other, whether the correspondence on which we are relying from the Department of Revenue is accurate." He then immediately added: "We have no reason to believe it isn't."

The city's own special counsel, in a single breath, acknowledged he lacked verified evidence — and dismissed the relevance of that fact.

5. March 17: A Meeting That Never Was

The March 17, 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting was scheduled as the second reading of the impeachment ordinance — the vote that would formally authorize an impeachment hearing. When the time came, only three aldermen were present: Aldermen Morales and Aziere in person, and Alderwoman Garza by Zoom. Six aldermen were absent, leaving the Board without a quorum.

Mayor McDonough opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., had the chaplain deliver a prayer, led the pledge of allegiance, and ordered the clerk to call roll. The clerk called "Alderman Thomas" for the first time since June 2025 and Thomas's nameplate was back on the dais, but her seat remained empty. After roll confirmed the absence of a quorum, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned and announced the Board would reconvene on April 14th. The entire meeting lasted 3 minutes and 17 seconds.

6. What Has Actually Been Established

Latrice Thomas won the election on April 8, 2025. She was sworn in, attended every meeting, and cast votes as a duly elected alderwoman for nearly two months. She was removed without a Board vote, without a hearing, and without a public announcement — on the basis of a letter not addressed to the city, not signed by a judge, and citing a statute that the Missouri Secretary of State's own office says does not authorize removal of an elected official. The city then spent nine months offering no public explanation, before authorizing more than $30,000 of public money for legal fees to pursue impeachment charges.

The articles of impeachment charge her with conducting official business as an alderwoman. The city removed her from that office, on a presumption of guilt,4 before she had any opportunity to respond to allegations. They are now pursuing charges while demanding that she provide the evidence needed to substantiate or rebut those allegations — evidence that special counsel admitted, on the record, he does not currently have.

7. What Happens Next — and What You Can Do

The April 14, 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting is scheduled as the impeachment hearing — granted enough aldermen show up this time. This is a public meeting. Residents have the right to attend, to observe, and to deliver public comment, and these actions are on the public record. Ward 3 residents in particular have a direct stake in the outcome — their elected representative has been absent from the board for nine months, and the proceedings now underway are the city's attempt to convert that illegal removal into a permanent removal.

take-action.txt

Take Action Before April 14

  • Attend the public meeting on April 14th at 7pm. Raytown Board of Aldermen meetings are held at Raytown City Hall, 10000 E 59th Street. Public comments are at the start of meetings. Come prepared with a specific question or statement — you have five minutes.
  • Contact the aldermen directly. If you are a Raytown resident, it is critical that you remind the city that your voice matters. Find contact information on Raytown's website, or click here to email the full Board asking them to formally address the public before April 14. If you don't live in Raytown but know someone who does, see the next item...
  • Share this document. The most powerful thing most people can do is make sure others know what is happening. This increases the number of people who are informed, which is very important as change happens with numbers.
  • Follow the coverage. People's Infrastructure is publishing ongoing reporting on this issue. Subscribe to the newsletter to receive updates directly.
footnotes.txt

1 The recording of the July 1, 2025 Board of Aldermen meeting begins in the middle of a constituent's public comment — there is no call to order, no pledge of allegiance, and no roll call at the start of the available footage. The meeting minutes list two people under Public Comments; the recording shows only one. The reporter's testimony — the first speaker — is not present in the recording. ↑

2 Archived snapshots document the removal from the city's official webpage. A July 18, 2025 snapshot still lists Latrice Thomas by name, though clicking her name produces a 404 error, indicating her individual page had already been deleted. An August 11, 2025 snapshot shows her name removed from the page entirely. No public statement accompanied either change. ↑

3 At the January 6, 2026 Board meeting, Resolution R-3781-26 was placed on the consent agenda with the description: "Staff is requesting permission to spend more than $30,000.00 with a single vendor for City Attorney Services and Special Counsel Services per the purchasing policy." The background section referenced Lauber Municipal Law (the existing city attorney) and unspecified "Special Counsel services," but did not identify the vendor, the matter being litigated, or the scope of work. Alderman Walters pulled the item from the consent agenda and asked what the money was for, stating that a matter of this significance deserved open deliberation rather than routine passage. A procedural dispute followed — including a dispute over whether a seconded motion could stand after the mover withdrew — that illustrated the resistance to open discussion about city expenses. The resolution ultimately passed. The February 3rd resolution (R-3785-26) explicitly naming Graves Garrett Greim then passed 8-0-1, with Walters abstaining. ↑

4 The presumption of innocence is a foundational protection derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any state from depriving a person of liberty or property without due process of law. It means that a person accused of wrongdoing is considered innocent unless and until guilt is established through a fair process — not assumed in advance and then contested after the fact. Here, Thomas was removed from office before any hearing was held, before she was formally charged through any legal channel, and before she had any opportunity to present evidence on her own behalf. The impeachment proceedings are being built around an assumption of the very fact they are supposed to establish. ↑

* Gregory Orear, "Elsberry Alderman's Eligibility to Serve Questioned," Lincoln County Journal, May 7, 2025. ↑

sources.txt

Public Record Sources