Which ever, come what may, you see I need to know tonight…
Sometimes it seems like the questions I get on the Mo. Press Association hotline are the same over and over and over. (Makes my job easy. I can’t believe I get paid for this! Oh, wait… I guess I need to pay my blogsite bill.) Today was one of those days. The question that arose was related to the way a city issues its agenda for closed meetings. Apparently it is listing a closed meeting on EVERY open meeting notice, citing that the meeting will be closed pursuant to Section 610.021, subsections 1-21.
I had suggested to the reporter when we discussed this the day before that she talk to the city attorney and see if he or she might be helpful in correcting this misperception of the public body that this format was appropriate. Surely, I thought, the city attorney would be smart enough to realize that this was not a proper form to use to close a meeting.
Well, I was wrong. The reporter tells me today that not only did the city attorney tell her that he had decided that this was appropriate, but he said that he had been advised by the folks at Missouri Municipal League that this was correct, and that this was what they are advising cities in the state to do in regard to closed meeting notices.
Surely this is incorrect. I cannot believe that is a correct statement of MML policy. I disagree with those folks a lot, but Patrick Cronan and I often find that we are not too far apart in how we interpret the sunshine law on basic issues. I hope I don’t find that this is really what Pat is telling MML and that it is being communicated from them to its members.
The sunshine law is very clear on this issue. Section 610.022 subsection 2 states: “A public governmental body proposing to hold a closed meeting or voteshall give notice of the time, date and place of such closed meeting orvote and the reason for holding it by reference to the specificexception allowed pursuant to the provisions of section 610.021….” (Emphasis added by me.)
When you list all 21 exceptions (to be 22 after August 28, 2009), you are NOT referencing the “specific exception” for your meeting. Indeed, a number of the exceptions in Section 610.021 would never apply to a meeting. This type of fast and loose play with the sunshine law language is just typical of the way public bodies in the state interpret the sunshine law on a daily basis. Indeed, when the time comes in the meeting to vote to go into closed meeting, the law is even more specific — Section 610.022 subsection 1 states: “Thevote of each member of the public governmental body on the question ofclosing a public meeting or vote and the specific reason for closingthat public meeting or vote by reference to a specific section of thischapter shall be announced publicly at an open meeting of thegovernmental body and entered into the minutes.“
I bet 99 percent of these public bodies who use what I call the “blanket exception” language don’t do what this law requires — vote on closing a meeting under a specific exception.
it’s time for the Missouri Municipal League and its member attorneys (I guess that includes me, so here I am, folks, starting the process) to speak out and call out cities doing that. This is NOT what the law says cities are to do. I know there are many issues under the law about which MML and I will disagree If this is one, then it’s time the Missouri Attorney General’s office stepped up to the plate and dealt with this confusion.
Public bodies need some pressure to know what the law means and an incentive to follow it!