Compliance with the “Sunshine Law?-The State Auditor says “thank God” as an Ole Seagull says “God help us!”
At State Auditor Claire McCaskill’s Audit Report presentation, on July 30, 2003, when referring to “Finding Number 9” of the report, entitled, “Board Meetings, Minutes, and Records,” covering the City’s compliance with the Sunshine Law she said, “If there was one finding I wanted them [Branson Board of Aldermen] to agree with it was this one and thank God they did.”As she made that statement and expounded on how important compliance with the Sunshine Law was an Ole Seagull’s reaction was not “thank God” but “God help us!”
The City’s exact and total response to Finding Number 9 was, “The Board will review the auditor’s comments and continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law.”Could someone enlighten an Ole Seagull, exactly what did the City “agree with?”Why is the State Auditor thanking God that the “Board will review the auditor’s comments?”Her report is filled with responses from the City for just about every Finding.Does she really believe they, including this one, were prepared and submitted without a review of the “auditor’s comments?”
Why would the City’s statement that they would “continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law” give either her, or anyone else, any comfort?Isn’t this the same legal advice that the City followed during the audit and led her to say, “I can’t think of an audit where the auditee [City of Branson] has been more uncooperative?
Like many in the community, the Ole Seagull had concerns about the number of “closed” or “executive session” meetings being held by the Branson Board of Aldermen, whether or not the topics discussed in those “closed meetings” were excepted from the “public meeting” requirement of the Sunshine Law, and whether or not the “notices” of such meetings were in compliance with the Sunshine Law.If the Audit Report is the last word, evidently there has been no reason for these concerns.
Item A. in Finding 9 of the Auditors Report states that, among other things, “The regular board minutes and the meeting agendas do not document the specific reasons for going into a closed session. The minutes and the agendas normally quote Section 610.021 RSMo., subsections 1, 2, and 3 which are three general reasons for going into closed session….”
Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law requires the City to state the reason for holding the closed session “by reference to the specific exception allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 610.021?”Doesn’t the very verbiage quoted above in the Audit Report itself establish that is exactly what the City did?
Finding 9 further states, “It is unclear how some items discussed by the Board of Aldermen during closed meetings are allowed under the provisions of the Sunshine law.” It then goes on to cite several examples of alleged “unclearness.”
What’s this “unclear” stuff?If the State Auditor, with the resources of the State of Missouri at her disposal, can’t make a simple determination as to whether or not the City was in compliance with the Sunshine Law then, “God help us.”What’s next?Speeding tickets being issued because it is “unclear” whether or not someone is speeding?
“Now simmer down Seagull, doesn’t Section 610.027 of the Sunshine Law contain a provision stating that, among others, Missouri’s Attorney General, may seek judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law?”Yes it does.”If the State Auditors Findings regarding Branson’s Sunshine Law truly indicate non compliance with the Sunshine Law regarding closed meetings, why doesn’t the Attorney General take some action?”
Now how would an Ole Seagull know the answer to that?Has anyone, including the State Auditor, even asked the Attorney General to take action?”If they did do you think he would accept the case?” No.”Why?”Well, to paraphrase the words of the State Auditor herself, because of “several weaknesses in Finding 9 of the Audit Report.”
