POKIN AROUND: You might expect transparency
But, oh, no, this is O'Fallon, city of intrigue
You know, transparency. Public input. Here's what we're doing; what do you think?
But, oh, no, this is O'Fallon, city of intrigue.On May 6, members of the O'Fallon Charter Commission voted 6-2 to go into a closed session to talk things over. And this was only their second meeting.
You might ask: Is this an inkling of things to come? Will the finished product be the Top Secret O'Fallon Politburo Form of Government? In which critics - by charter - disappear and end up on a work farm in St. Paul?
Commissioners Jim Pepper and Brent Stafford voted not to close the meeting. Commissioner Mary Laulo now says had she known the precise topic of discussion, she would have voted likewise.
No one on the commission suggested this closed meeting. It was proposed by Mayor Donna Morrow, who apparently didn't like the fact that Pepper was asking questions of city staff.
"Nobody has the right to interfere and tell me what I can and can't do," Pepper says.
Laulo accuses Morrow of trying to dominate the proceedings of what should be an independent body.
It should be noted that Laulo opposed Morrow in the 2005 mayoral race, finishing a distant fourth in a five-way race.
Morrow, who works as a flight attendant, was out of town and unavailable for comment, according to her assistant, Carl Maus.
City Attorney Kevin O'Keefe, who was present during the closed session, also was unavailable.
O'Keefe cited a section of the state's Sunshine Law that enables officials to discuss privately "confidential and privileged communications between the public governmental body and its attorneys."
The Missouri attorney general has issued a legal opinion that states a meeting can be closed if the governmental body is a "potential plaintiff or defendant, whether or not litigation already had commenced."
There's your rather large loophole: We might be sued.
Still, this seems a stretch. The commission has no power to do any of the things for which a public body generally is allowed to close its doors. It does not enter into contracts. It has no personnel. It does not purchase property. Can commissioners be sued for thinking they'd like to fire someone, if only they could?
John Young, commission chairman, said Monday he thought the discussion behind closed doors did, in fact, fit under "confidential and privileged communications." Not only is Young an attorney, he's the city attorney for Dardenne Prairie.
At this point Laulo and Pepper question whether O'Keefe should even be their attorney. They say he seems far more interested in doing Morrow's bidding.
City Councilman Mark Perkins, a commission member, believes the meeting was rightfully closed and the commission, as a new and rather unusual entity, needed the legal advice.
Perhaps at least part of the problem, Young says, is that the subject matter of the closed session did not fall under the commissioners' task of drafting a proposed charter.
Although Young agrees the commission's work should be transparent, in this particular instance, he says, O'Keefe and Morrow rightfully called for a private meeting to explain to commissioners the ramifications of what it means to be an elected official.
Pepper, a former mayor of the Village of Berdell Hills, which no longer exists, and a former Normandy city councilman, says in his experience, there clearly was no reason to close the meeting.
"Everything the commission does should be totally transparent," Pepper says.
So what happened in the closed session?
According to several sources, Morrow was upset that someone on the commission had given to a city employee, for review, a portion of another city's charter that dealt with grievances, complaints and dismissal appeals. The other city, unlike O'Fallon, had a review panel independent of elected officials.
In the closed meeting, Pepper acknowledged he was the commissioner who passed out the other city's law and he defended his action, pointing out that he did so before he was sworn in as a commissioner. Pepper also said he has the right to talk to whomever he chooses.
As if this weren't enough, some hinted to me that Commissioner Jim Tresler, a former city employee, might have a special interest in a revised grievance, complaint and dismissal procedure. Tresler, who had been the city's principal planner, left the city in August.
Tresler said Monday the fact he is a former city employee, who resigned, had no bearing on the closed-door discussion.
"I think people took offense that they were not made aware of the closed session ahead of the meeting," says Tresler, who thought closing the meeting was appropriate.
"The whole idea was to have our city attorney educate us on the Sunshine Law, what we can and can't do now that we are elected officials so that we don't embarrass ourselves on TV," Tresler says.
Wait a minute! Where does it say in the Sunshine Law you can close a meeting to discuss the Sunshine Law with newly elected officials? Why in the world would that be a closed discussion? What are these people being taught?
And the law specifically states that if you close a meeting, for example, to discuss privileged communications with your attorney, then that's the only topic you can discuss in closed session.
Finally, no matter how hard I look, I still can't find a provision to close a meeting so the mayor can chew someone out.
