Jess Rollins

jrollins@news-leader.com

After nearly a year in federal court, the city of Springfield has reached an agreement with a group seeking to decriminalize possession of marijuana.

Both sides of the agreement are remaining mum on the terms. If finalized, a settlement could end the suit, which sought monetary damages and a public vote on lesser pot penalties.

The details of the settlement, which is not yet final, will likely be made public in coming weeks.

City Attorney Dan Wichmer confirmed council members met in closed session April 15 and agreed to the terms of the settlement.

Today, settlement paperwork is traveling the country receiving final signatures from other parties in the case.

The suit, brought by local organizer Maranda Reynolds as well as nonprofit groups Show-Me Cannabis Regulation and American Victory Coalition, sought to force the public vote on a 2012 marijuana petition, which would have removed the possibility of jail time for first- or second-time offenders caught with up to 35 grams of marijuana.

That amount would roughly fill a sandwich bag and is generally considered to be the upper limit of what a person would carry for personal use.

In 2012, Reynolds had gathered enough signatures on the marijuana petition to force City Council to act.

Required by City Charter to either approve the bill as written or send it to a public vote, council members opted to pass it — only to repeal it in its entirety a few weeks later, avoiding an election. Supporters of decriminalization cried foul.

City officials defended the "pass and repeal" tactic as technically legal, but the lawsuit filed in July 2013 said otherwise, calling it "an illegal attempt to circumvent the intent" of the charter and arguing that council members "cannot do indirectly what (they) are forbidden from doing directly."

Reynolds declined to comment for this story, saying she would prefer to wait until the agreement became finalized.

Wichmer said he expected the settlement to be finalized in another 20-or-so days. He declined to describe the terms of the agreement until then.

The suit was scheduled to go to trial later this year but all court proceedings were put on hold April 17 — two days after council agreed to a settlement.