In a letter addressed to the city clerk and administrator, the attorney general’s office found several Sunshine Law violations related to the formatting of its agendas and minutes.
The letter states that closed meetings held in 2023 on Feb. 6, Oct. 12, Nov. 6, Nov. 20 and Dec. 7 did not identify a time or place of the meetings on any of the minutes provided. Section 610.020.7, RSMo, states, in part, “The minutes shall include the date, time, place, members present, members absent and a record of any votes taken.”
Additionally, the office stated that the meetings were held pursuant to Sections 610.021(1), 610.021(2) and/or 610.021(3).
“We were not able to discern from the tentative agendas which items were considered in open session and which items were considered in closed session,” wrote the attorney general’s office.
The letter goes on to state that to hold a closed meeting, “1) a public governmental body may vote, by an affirmative public vote of a majority of a quorum of the body, to close a meeting; or 2) a public government body may give notice of its intention to hold a closed meeting and cite a specific exception from subsection 610.021.”
The first procedure outlines that of an open session adjourning into a closed session, the second outlines that of a standalone closed session.
“Regardless of which method above is applicable to a given meeting, we write to put the City on notice of these authorities and to consult with legal counsel about whether the City can draft meeting notices to contain some additional specificity about closed sessions (beyond simply citing to a subsection in Section 610.021) without revealing a great deal of closed information. Doing so would not likely violate the Sunshine Law, as the Sunshine Law simply authorizes but rarely requires information to be closed, and may build additional trust and transparency with citizens.”
The office said that it is prepared to close the complaint under the condition that the city undergo mandatory, free Sunshine Law training by the attorney general’s office in the near future. A number and email were provided to the city to schedule the training. A court would have the ultimate decision-making power if the city would be required to attend training.
The attorney general’s office did not say what prompted the review.