Sunshine in Missouri

I can't find the right words to say. My meaning's not quite getting through. The right words are so hard to say...

    Sometimes I find fascinating what folks who are members of public governmental bodies say about their meetings.  Do they ever listen to themselves?  It's one thing to argue they don't read the sunshine law to know what to do. But when they open their mouths and say one thing, when they argue they are doing another, well it's enough to make you wonder.

    For example, a city council in the state has held a closed meeting to talk about a personnel issue.  The issue relates to a city councilman.  But you cannot close a meeting to discuss the actions of a member of the council, so in order to try to fit within an exception, the situation has been couched as a discussion of a matter involving an employee and the councilman.

    "I cannot get into the facts of the situation obviously, but there was an employee issue brought to the attention of the Mayor ... that involved allegations regarding a councilman," is what they are saying.  Okay, so are they discussing the employee in the closed meeting?  Because, you'll remember, they can only close a meeting to discuss an employee matter if it is about one of four things -- Hiring, Firing, Disciplining or Promoting the employee.

    "The purpose for bringing the matter to the council was for multiple purposes: first because it involved a city employee and a councilman, the mayor ... can reasonably address concerns regarding the employee but as an elected official, ha[s] no jurisdiction over an individual councilman. Hence the redress is that the matter be taken to the council as a whole which affords the ...  councilman the opportunity to address the council body and for them to make what determinations they deem necessary or expedient," the city official said.

    Sounds to me like they are talking about two things -- the concerns regarding the employee and the concerns regarding the councilman.  If they really are planning to fire or discipline the employee, then that was proper for a closed meeting.  Since the councilman is NOT an employee, the part about the councilman did NOT belong in closed session.

    And the law is clear that "public governmental bodies shall not discuss any business in a closed meeting... which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced to justify the closed meeting...."  Since the part about the councilman's actions cannot be discussed in closed session, the speaker here has just announced in public that the body has violated the law.

    My Grandma always said God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason.  Sounds like this city official might want to think about closing that one mouth, after he or she has pulled his or her rather large foot out of it....

Take me out to the ball game... but this group's already got the Cracker Jacks...

    After two years of blogging, there are days it's hard to find something new to blog about.  How many times can a person complain about the same acts of public governmental body members, who repeat over and over the same violations of the law?

    But this is a slow Sunday and we're in the midst of legislative season, meaning there are distractions in Jefferson City that keep me from focusing as much on my blog as I'd like, so while I'm thinking about a call last week and have a few moments, perhaps it's worth sharing.

        The city council gathered, and certain members were unhappy with the local mayor.  Impeach her, they were thinking.  So the council called a closed meeting.  Under what exception?  The personnel one (610.021.3), of course.  Nevermind that the mayor is not someone who can be hired and fired by the city council.  Impeachment is NOT the same as hiring and firing.  The mayor is not an employee.  This is not a proper subject for a closed meeting under the sunshine law.

    And, of course, it turns out the city attorney, who apparently needs sunshine law lessons himself, condoned the action.  Get that man a sunshine law handbook.  Get him some training on the law.  This is not the kind of advice the city council needs.

    Oh, but there's more...   This same attorney told the city council members it was illegal to talk about what goes on in a closed meeting.  Well, if he doesn't know that impeaching the mayor is not legal, why would one expect him to understand that there is nothing -- not one word -- in the sunshine law that prohibits members of the body from talking about what goes on in a closed meeting.

    Two strikes. 

    And then, when the city attorney talks about this with the local reporter, he advises that he believes "it's a major concern about do the members understand the level at which a piece of information can be distributed or should not be distributed..."  Only problem is that there's nothing in the sunshine law regulating when information "should not be distributed."  I think this attorney is confusing his own opinion with the law.  I think he's decided that it's too difficult to explain the law to the city council members, so it's just easier to give them his opinion and to substitute that for the law.

    He is doing his clients no favors.  He is giving them bad advice as to what the law says and he is in some cases making significant errors.

    Perhaps it's time for a relief hitter here, before this city council strikes out...