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 whicha 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…