Quite simply, the state of Missouri has a “Sunshine Law” intended to insure that the public’s business is conducted in a manner that is open to the public. Is it just possible however that, within the government of the city of Branson, there is an unofficial unwritten “Cloud Law” that does just the opposite?
Section 610.011 of Missouri’s Sunshine Law states it is the public policy of the state of Missouri that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public and that any exception to that policy shall be liberally and strictly construed to promote this public policy. Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law states that just because there is an exception authorized does not mean that it shall be construed “as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon” that exception.
It gets even simpler and clearer. The website for Missouri’s Attorney General has a page entitled “Missouri’s Sunshine Law top ten things to know.” One of the first items that list mentions is that, “The Sunshine Law allows a public body to close meetings and records to the public in some limited circumstances, but it almost never requires a public body to do so. It also says, “When in doubt, a meeting or record of a public body should be opened to the public.” [Items in bold are bold in the list.]
On Aug. 14, 2006, a motion was made by one of the aldermen, in this case, Alderman Gass, to go into a “Closed Executive Session pursuant to 610.021.1 RSMo for litigation; 610.021.2 for real estate, and 610.021.3 for personnel.” These meetings are closed to the public, are the very type of meeting that the Sunshine Law encourages to be open to the public, and happen after the majority of Branson board of aldermen meetings.
According to the minutes of the meeting, the meeting was attended by only selected senior paid staff employees of the city of Branson and the Board of Aldermen. There were no other attendees. The minutes further indicate that only one item was discussed at the meeting, “Potential Litigation/Contract Negotiations.” Although “Contract Negotiations” might be an authorized legal exception under the Sunshine Law, the discussion of such, under the notice that was given in this case, appears to be in violation of not only the spirit and policy of the Sunshine Law but its legal notice requirements as well.
As relates to the topic, the entire minutes for the meeting are as follows: “The City Administrator discussed with the board the settlement agreement with the Pt. Royale POA. Pt. Royale will remit funds to compensate the city for maintenance of Pt. Royale drive and the city will transfer title of the street back to the POA. Discussion followed. The board agreed by consensus to move forward with the settlement agreement.”
Does an Ole Seagull care whether or not Pointe Royale Drive was sold back to the Point Royale Property Owners Association? Of course not, but the manner in which it was done and the way in which both the spirit and stated policy of Missouri’s Sunshine Law, if not the actual law itself, was manipulated and circumvented does cause him concern.
If the current administration of the city of Branson can “cloud” the Sunshine Law in this manner for something as simple and mundane as this how much more is the potential for abuse when millions of dollars are involved? Don’t the citizens, property owners, and businesses of Branson deserve elected and unelected officials who will adhere not only to the letter of Missouri’s Sunshine Law but its spirit and stated policy as well? Officials who will look for ways to give the public more access to meetings rather than ways to deny them access? For what it matters, an Ole Seagull believes that they do.
