TWO FACES OF THE MML

10/09/2009
The Two Faces of the Missouri Municipal League
BJ Lawrence , Pacific

To The Editor:The Missouri Municipal League (MML) originated in 1934 as a concept to help smaller cities have a stronger voice with mutual concerns. MML is now 660-member cities strong. Each city pays $225 membership dues, plus 95 cents per person.
These dues are paid through taxpayer dollars.

Then along comes 2009 and
the second face of the MML is revealed. "Lawyers" hired by
the MML are working against the very taxpayers who fund the organization.
Lawyers, who accept funds from large corporations and use the good name of
the MML to fight citizens rights is the face of MML. Check for
yourself. Go to www.municipalfirm.com and you can see the lobbying they do
in Jefferson City and you will find they do not represent you, the average
Joe. They represent big business.

Now those lawyers are interfering with Citizens Constitutional Right to
initiative petition. They have repeatedly held up an Initiative
Petition (to limit the use of eminent domain) in court, which was approved
by the secretary of state (www.mo-cpr.org).

Citizens need to show concern regarding their rights being taken away at an
alarming rate. Make your voice heard at your next council meeting,
take the proposed resolution to your council to adopt and send to the MML.
It's time to stop the practicing of MML using our tax money against us
(proposition available at http://www.momunicipalleague.blogspot.com )

©Washington
Missouri 2009

10/09/2009
Pursuit of Sunshine (see MML abuse of power below in RED)

The Washington Park
Board violated the Missouri Sunshine Law when it held a closed executive
session last week during its regular meeting.
That is the opinion of attorneys versed in Missouri's open meetings
law but you don't really need a lawyer to reach this conclusion. The
Missouri Sunshine Law is pretty clear when a public body may close a
meeting. A meeting by a public body, which includes the park board, can
close a meeting for personnel reasons. But the law says that it must be for
"hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular
employees" when personal information about the employee is discussed
or recorded. The term personal information is defined by the law as
"information relating to the performance or merit of individual
employees."

The park board voted to
go into a closed executive session to discuss a dispute over management of
an annual softball tournament held in the spring. The dispute involved competing
organizations that have hosted the tournament in the past.

After the closed session, the park board recommended that the city's parks
and recreation department be the lead organization for the annual National
Softball Association Tournament in conjunction with the Washington Youth
Sports Association. During the closed session no one was hired, fired,
disciplined or promoted nor was any personal information about public
employees discussed.

The park board's decision to go into a closed session was an obvious
violation of the Sunshine Law. We would like to believe the park board
didn't intentionally set out to violate the law. But some of the
explanations given for going into the closed session demonstrate a profound
ignorance of the law. The fact that a number of city officials attended the
closed session and didn't raise any objections should raise a few eyebrows
and proves that more needs to be done to educate our city officials on
Missouri's Open Meetings Law.

That need was discussed at Monday's city council meeting when Councilman
John Rhodes questioned the park board's decision. Mayor Dick Stratman
suggested that the city draft an ordinance that would require any city
board to get advice from the city attorney before closing a meeting to determine
if it is legal. The idea has merit and would likely force compliance with
the law.

If that's what it takes, then we're all for it, as draconian as it appears.
But, it's really not that complicated. The Sunshine Law is simple enough to
understand if you just read it. The Missouri Attorney General's Office has
published a free pamphlet on the law which is readily available to public
officials. The Sunshine Law is pretty straightforward. You don't need a law
degree or even a college education to understand its principles which are
all based on common sense.

Given these facts, ignorance of the law really shouldn't be an excuse. But
it is when it comes to enforcement of the law, it is a de facto defense.
That's because of the way the law is written. Currently, anyone found by a
judge to have "knowingly" violated the Sunshine Law can be fined
up to $1,000, while those who "purposely" violate the law can
face fines up to $5,000. The "knowingly" legal standard is too
vague and too hard to prove, which is why so many violation go
unchallenged.

The park board's violation of the law is not an aberration. Government
bodies across the state routinely violate the Sunshine Law, which is why
efforts are made each year to try and put some teeth into the law. Last year,
a bill was introduced that would allow fines up to $500 for Sunshine Law
violations regardless of whether they are made "knowingly." It
would have created strict liability for breaking the law.

As in the past, the bill encountered stiff
opposition from a number of factions including the Missouri Municipal
League which is an organization that lobbies on behalf of cities. They
argued in essence that mostly part-time, underpaid city and county
officials shouldn't be subject to strict liability for ignorance of the
law.

Unfortunately this argument prevailed and the bill failed. What is
remarkable is that your tax dollars are used to pay dues to support the
Municipal League. That's right, your tax dollars are used, in essence, to
lobby against more openness in government.
It's time to recognize that it is incumbent on every public official,
whether they are volunteers or not, to educate themselves of what the
Sunshine Law requires.

If there was "stict liability," our guess is that public
officials would be more inclined to read and follow the law.

That's what taxpayers deserve. After all, what do they have to hide?

©Washington
Missouri 2009