You rage at their transparency and total insincerity….

    The blog has suffered from the beginning of the legislative activity in Jefferson City and all the to-do over the change in administration, both there and in D.C.  Much excitement.  Oh, and the settlement of the former Governor’s e-mail lawsuit.  How disappointing we spent more than million dollars and have no court of appeals reportable decision that defines “knowing” and “purposely” for us.

    And the lack of sunshine outside mirrors the lack of sunshine seen in at least one public body in the last few days.  A city council sat in closed session to discuss hiring the new municipal judge.  Candidates were interviewed in closed session and questions were answered for the council members.  Can’t exactly fault that, although one newspaper editor in the state says that it seems that the public might actually benefit from having candidates for such an important position be a little more open about their positions regarding issues discussed with the council.  “We deserve to know the personal values and commitments of the candidates we are going to consider for this powerful position. Instead, what we saw, was the council voting yea or nay on one specific candidate with no required explanation as to why that candidate was selected above any other,”  the newspaper editor opined.

    Well, actually that’s not the whole story.  Apparently the city council claims it took the vote to hire the successful candidate in open session, where a motion was made to hire one candidate and a unanimous vote ensued.  Did that candidate simply blow away his or her opposition?  Was that candidate so clearly better than the others that no other vote was taken?

    Or is the truth that a vote was taken among the three names in the closed session and the council members determined which candidate had the most votes, then a decision was made to submit only that one name at the open meeting?

    Well, if that happened, I’d say that was a violation of the law, in that no such vote was reflected in the announced results of the closed meeting.  Rather, no vote was taken, the minutes say.

    Which is right?  The minutes of the meeting?  Or the obvious assumption one reaches by applying clear logic to this situation?

    That’s transparency, if you ask me….