I know it’s wrong, but I’m still holding on ….

    There’s a group of county commissioners struggling with sunshine law issues in the state.  It started when a closed meeting was held to discuss firing a county department supervisor.  While the closed meeting vote appears to have been properly done, the commissioners held a meeting a few days later with department employees to discuss the department status.  Unfortunately, they failed to give proper notice of that meeting.  It sounds like there was some question as to whether that constituted a meeting, but clearly it was a meeting involving a quorum of the commissioners at which county business was discussed — that’s squarly within the definition of a “meeting” under the sunshine law and therefore clearly they needed proper notice posted, along with an agenda.

    But wait — there’s more!  Now some of these same folks are talking about holding a closed meeting where the subject would be allegations of pushing involving a public official.   Does that fall under the language of Section 610.021 (3)?  Hardly — if we’re not talking about hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting an employee of the county, it doesn’t belong in a closed meeting under that exception. And an elected official is NOT an employee of the county. 

    It’s not sufficient that these matters — both of them — are subjects the commissioners (or at least some of them) don’t want to air in public.  They are not proper subjects for closed or un-noticed meetings.  These folks need to pay a little closer attention to what’s in that book they are sent by the Attorney General’s office when they take office.  Upholding the sunshine law is not just a suggestion; it’s an oath they swear to when they take office.  Some public officials would be well advised to take that oath a little more seriously.