Speaking Personally - I want it all in open session

“Personnel” is not a magic word that makes the press disappear. All boards and political entities that are taxpayer-funded must abide by Missouri’s Sunshine Law, the law that regulates public access to their records and meetings. 

 

This law was written to encourage transparency in taxpayer-funded doings, not to provide hiding places. In my experience, however, exceptions to the Sunshine Law have more often been used as a wall behind which boards hide anything slightly controversial, and almost always anything related to “personnel.”

 

Missouri law shields specific items from Sunshine discovery, according to RSMo. 610.021. The exceptions are exclusive, which means only the explicitly listed exceptions are allowed in closed sessions or are unavailable in the public record. Boards are required to cite which provision they are claiming to justify a closed session.

 

Yet, over and over, I receive agendas that say something like, “Closed session – Personnel.”

 

That’s not acceptable because there are two exceptions that could be broadly understood to mean “personnel” – exception (3) reads, “Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded,” and (13) reads, “Individually identifiable personnel records…” which specifically means documentation.

 

(3) means only those four things – hiring, firing, disciplining, or promoting – can be discussed in closed, and it does include the merit of individual employees. (13) refers specifically to documents. That’s it, folks. 

 

These exceptions are allowed in closed, not required by the Sunshine Law to be held there. There’s a choice to be made. Anything else related to “personnel” MUST be discussed in open session.

 

To contrast the power of open session versus closed, there is a good example near to hand. In the February meeting of the Willow Springs School Board, two controversial things happened. One – a group of parents who circulated a petition to reinstate the head football coach were ushered into closed session. They were not allowed to speak in open. Two - in open session, High School Principal Nick Schmitt outlined the district’s new phone pouch policy. 

 

The comparison begins and ends with the public response vis a vis the open and closed session. The phone policy is not a personnel issue, and there was never an attempt to conceal it in any way. 

 

What I’m hoping you will notice, however, is that the meeting took place on February 12, and the phone story sank without a trace, while the coach story was front-page news. 

 

Why? As the person who chooses what is front-page news, I’m going to let you know when I think any government-funded agency is doing something they shouldn’t. Unnecessarily closing meetings is something they shouldn’t do.

Changing a phone policy in an open, transparent matter wasn’t controversial until it hit the cesspool of social media last Monday. To be honest, my reporter didn’t even clock it as important. It seemed like a routine policy update to us, and we reported it that way. 

 

In the district’s defense, I did have a conversation with Superintendent Dr. Marty Spence about that particular closed session. He gave me his opinion, and the opinion of the Missouri School Board Association’s attorney – that if the school board was going to discuss hiring, firing, disciplining, or promoting, they should be in closed. The district did strive to do it the right way.

 

I gave him my opinion, and the opinion of the Missouri Press Association’s attorney - that the action had already been performed, and at very least, the parents should be heard in open session. 

 

Ultimately, we agreed to disagree. My considerable respect for Dr. Spence and for the individual members of the school board remains unchanged. The point of this is not to pick on Willow Springs Schools. The contrast between the open and closed session in this particular recent meeting serves my point succinctly. 

 

I have this argument with boards all over the county at least once a month. It is a systemic misunderstanding. 

 

When in doubt, I want it all in open session. Be more transparent. Share more with the public. If you’re taking a risk, why not choose the risk that invites more people to the table? Take away the controversy and hold it in open session.