The Birmingham Water Works Board has won one legal battle, as a judge threw out a lawsuit from two members who alleged that they were penalized for refusing to sign a “loyalty pledge.”

Jefferson County Judge Javon Patton last week dismissed a lawsuit initially brought by board member Lucien Blankenship and joined by George Munchus over the board’s refusal to pay them their $1,000 monthly board stipend.

Patton’s order is a single paragraph and gives no details on why she tossed the case.

“We are pleased with the court moving quickly to dismiss this case,” said Tereshia Huffman, the chair of the board, in a statement. “Our board is committed to being held to the highest ethical standards, and that is the basis of our directors’ pledge.”

Munchus said he was denied the stipend for more than a year because he refused to sign the board’s self-governance policy.

Munchus said he supports some items in the policy, such as ongoing ethics training, but that he objects to portions that limit the public’s right to know, aspects of the policy that are designed to mute board members.

Munchus has noted that he already complied with the principles of the pledge, including ethics training.

Richard Rice, attorney for Munchus, said he would seek another legal avenue to continue the case.

“We believe the stipend is being withheld in a retaliatory fashion because Blankenship and Munchus have dissented in some of the decisions of the chairwoman and they’ve demanded transparency,” Rice said.

Munchus and Blankenship are often the only no votes during board meetings.

Huffman in an earlier interview with AL.com said the pledge is an attempt at transparency and accountability to customers.

“We know what the customers are saying, and we want them to know that not only are we committed, but we’re willing to sign our name to this. It was an effort to unify us as one voice, one team committed to do the right thing by our customers to promise and assure that our customers are getting what they deserve because they felt like they were not getting what they deserved.”

Meanwhile, another lawsuit from Munchus that alleges that the board refuses to disclose detailed information regarding the utility’s attorney’s fees, remains in Jefferson County Court.

Munchus maintains that invoices paid for with public money from a public agency are public documents for all to see.

The board’s meeting agendas list the name of the law firm and how much the utility is paying, but they do not provide details about the legal services or cases.

Munchus said approvals are made without adequate information because board members are voting on totals, while details of the bills are kept under lock and key.