Kim Buchanan
SALINE CO. – The ongoing backbiting and sniping that’s passed back and forth between Saline County Clerk Kim Buchanan and members of the county board and attendant individuals surrounding it has ground to a screeching halt with a July filing of Defamation against Buchanan.
Saline County Board Secretary Helen Dunn, represented by attorney Morgan Scroggins of Granite City, filed the claim against Buchanan on July 13, proving A – that a government official can be sued for such a thing and B – a government employee can indeed be slandered and libeled, and so can take action if he or she perceives that such a thing can happen.
The basis of the lawsuit came about when, Dunn alleged, Buchanan “made an unsubstantiated accusation against Dunn” by claiming Dunn “committed fraudulent activities by misrepresenting” Buchanan.
This, the documents show, came about when Buchanan said that Dunn should be investigated for creating a fraudulent email using Buchanan’s name, and this statement happened in front of the public, the media, and Dunn’s co-workers.
Documents show that the comments were made at a county board meeting March 15 of this year.
As a result of the accusation, Dunn claims, she has received numerous phone calls from the public asking for the basis of the fraud accusations, which is causing problems for Dunn.
Further, Dunn claims, Buchanan has been intimidating her as well as other employees to the point that Dunn is fearful, and which makes the working environment at the courthouse intolerable, in violation of the Respectful Workplace Corporate Policy Resolutions.
Damages
The first count is the factual statements as listed above; Count 2 is Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, under which it’s claimed that the actions alleged in the first count/factual statement were “intentional and meant to damage Dunn’s reputation and cause emotional distress,” as well as caused Dunn’s reputation to suffer.
A third count, that of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, indicates that the emotional distress Dunn has suffered and is suffering by Buchanan was “serious and severe,” and injured Dunn.
A fourth count, of Punitive Damages, claims that Buchanan’s conduct was “wanton, reckless and willful…done with reckless disregard to Dunn’s job and reputation…and have caused injury to Dunn’s reputation.”
A fifth count, that of Damages, reasserts all the previous statements and claims that as a direct and proximate result of Buchanan’s actions, Dunn has “been forced to take precautions to avoid the harassment and intimidation” inflicted by Buchanan, as Dunn “has become fearful of her surroundings at work.”
Under these counts, Dunn is asking for a judgment of an amount in excess of $50,000, damages, and legal fees plus costs of the suit.
Libel following publication
However, that’s not all Dunn is alleging.
Because the defamatory remarks, Dunn claims Buchanan committed Libel when, knowing the statements about the emails she made were false, Buchanan nevertheless acted intentionally by causing them to be published in the board’s minutes from the March 15 meeting.
As such, Dunn said in the documents, Buchanan was “negligent or acted recklessly in failing to determine whether the statements contained in the minutes were true before publishing.
“The minutes published by the County Board have been further published by many internet sites and will likely continue to be published in the future,” the documents state. “The statements made by Buchanan have been seen and heard by persons other than Dunn, namely friends, relatives and co-workers of Dunn and members of the public…and have had conversations with Dunn concerning same.
“As a proximate result of the described publication, Dunn has suffered loss of her reputation, shame, mortification and injury to her feelings, all to her damage in the amount in excess of $50,000.”
Because Scroggins is so thorough, he took care of any “out” Buchanan might have with the defamation/slander/libel by noting in the next paragraph: “The publication (of the false statements – ed.) was not privileged because it was published by Buchanan with malice, hatred and ill will toward Dunn and the desire to injure Dunn in that Buchanan had expressed a desire to ‘get’ Dunn.”
The documents don’t show when or where Buchanan may allegedly have made such a statement of intent, but the likelihood that there were witnesses and that it was thoroughly recorded and provable is a good one, as Scroggins doesn’t allow his clients to make such a claim frivolously or errantly.
Because of the alleged “malice” aspect on Buchanan’s part, Dunn is seeking punitive (punishment) damages (which generally come in over and above a regular award) in an amount exceeding another $50,000.
Further, Dunn demands judgment against Buchanan of compensatory damages according to proof, punitive damages, interest as allowed by law, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
There’s been no court date set due to the case only recently being filed; generally speaking, these kinds of cases are allowed a lot of negotiation time, some of that being offered at the outset of the case, so it might not make it to courtroom presentations for several months.
Truth v. fiction
Detractors of the situation say that Dunn has become overly sensitive and is overreacting to Buchanan’s brusque method of conducting business. The prevailing sentiment seems to also be that Dunn, as a taxpayer-supported individual, cannot be defamed; that she is open to the same kind of criticism that any other taxpayer – including another public official, as Buchanan is – and that “slander” (spoken untruth) and “libel” (written untruth) would not apply in this case.
However, supporters of Dunn’s court move point to the truth of the matter: That under the circumstances of “malice” (with intent to inflict harm, even if it’s just emotional harm), an untruth becomes eligible for the category of defamation, slander and libel.
In other words, it’d be one thing if Buchanan were just spewing, and was making random comments about Dunn that were negligibly false. It’s quite another thing for her to, as alleged, make deliberate false statements, knowing they’re untrue, with the intent to cause Dunn some kind of harm, to the woman herself, or to her reputation.
In a defamation case, the burden of proof falls upon the person who made the defaming statements.
In other words, if Buchanan claimed that Dunn created an email account using Buchanan’s name in an effort to pass herself off as Buchanan for whatever reason, Buchanan now, as of the filing of the lawsuit, has to prove that Dunn made the email account. Dunn doesn’t have to prove she DIDN’T make the account, because truth is its own defense and Dunn stands on her word. By filing a defamation case, she is now forcing Buchanan to prove that Dunn DID make and use an email account in Buchanan’s name.
That Dunn added in her suit that the matter is causing harm for her at work is a stroke of Scoggins genius: In a defamation case, if the defaming statements (lies) begin to affect the job, income, or ability to make a living for the person who was defamed (lied about), that ventures into a tortious interference issue. Generally, “tortious interference” is when deliberate defamation has a negative impact on a person’s business, or their reputation as a businessperson or a person who holds a position within a company. That the person holding a position is a public official matters little if the lies are deliberate and malicious. But when they begin to negatively impact the way a person is able to make a living, that’s tortious interference – the lies are interfering with the person’s ability to perform their job effectively and make a living, due to no fault of their own; or are lies about a person’s business that keeps people from frequenting that business in any form.
The threshold generally tends to be high for defamation cases, and few succeed…but the elements are there in this one and Dunn is moving forward with it.
Updates will be presented here in the print version of Disclosure, with the next issue available August 23.