(Getty Images).
From March 16-22, journalists, news and media organizations, civic groups, libraries, watchdogs, schools and open government advocates across Missouri will recognize Sunshine Week because, as James Madison once said, “government works best when it’s being watched.”
For the most part, I think many media outlets have established a working relationship with public officials in their communities, but occasionally, those relationships go sideways and our only recourse are open records law to shine light on the situation. In Missouri, this is the Sunshine Law.
Since 2022, I have been using the state’s Sunshine Law (RSMo. 610) to gather information in the city of Belle. I began working as a newspaper reporter in Belle in 2016, and after six years of good relationships with the Belle Board of Aldermen, a newly appointed mayor made information harder to obtain.
I learned of meetings after they took place and struggled to find out what was on the agenda because none were posted or available when requested. I noted the potential Sunshine Law violations in subsequent articles. I printed the times and dates of people I contacted for information and the questions to which I couldn’t find or get answers.
Every source turned into a brick wall as local officials declined to take my phone calls Eventually, the board said they only had to provide documentation — not answer questions. Instead of a fully open four-man board, plus a mayor willing to go on the record, I was sent directly to the mayor as the spokesman for the board and the city. The information was convoluted, and I was regularly accused of inaccurately quoting them, though I could prove the articles were correct.
In every conversation, the mayor questioned my motivation. Why did I not care about the city? For what reason do people need to know about the information I am requesting? Would I ruin their chances to do this or that by printing the information?
Eventually, the city of Belle was turned in for allegations of breaking Sunshine Law. In June 2023, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office asked officials to respond to the allegations and fulfill a Sunshine Law request.
When I asked the mayor if his response to the allegations would be completed by the Attorney General’s deadline, he said, “I’ve got (expletive deleted) people like you breathin’ down my neck ready if I do somethin’ wrong. It needs to be done properly, don’t ya think?”
The mayor was approaching his first anniversary in office and The Advocate staff had attended board meetings to express concerns about the wrong information or no information posted in meeting notices at Belle City Hall.
One time the meeting notice wasn’t posted at all, and another time the meeting was posted with the wrong date. Mostly a notice would be posted to call the meeting with no agenda, violating State Statute RSMo. 610.020.1 — all government bodies should give notice of the time, date and place of each meeting, and a tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of matters to be considered.
Despite requesting to be informed about meetings at the same time as the board, as state law says, I was informed that the notice was posted on the door. Sometimes notices were posted at the end of the work day for a meeting the following day. I began checking the door in the morning and afternoon, taking pictures regardless if there was a notice.
I would request meeting minutes and correspondence records from the clerk, a competent woman who was struggling with the lack of information coming from the mayor. She would provide them promptly or right away. Eventually, she was not informed about the meetings or asked to leave a closed session, making minutes even harder to obtain depending on who took notes.
I fought over RSMo. 610.022.2 — naming the specific reason for closing a public meeting or vote by reference to the specific section of the chapter, which should be announced publicly at an open meeting and entered into the meeting minutes. Personnel was always the reason. Mostly there was no action in closed session according to the minutes. Sometimes several actions took place other than personnel.
Receiving records in the format in which I request them (RSMo. 610.023.3) is still a battle. I ask for them to be sent electronically. Due to threats to withhold the minutes for three days or not being able to complete them sooner, I’ve even requested to take pictures of the clerk’s written minutes before leaving a meeting as they count as legal records.
Should the clerk deny a media representative’s request to take pictures of their notes at the end of the meeting, according to RSMo. 610.023.4, if requested, they must provide a written reason explaining why.
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office on Dec. 19, 2023, filed five counts of Sunshine Law violations against the city. They settled out of court in June 2024.
In April 2024, an alderman was elected to the mayor seat and two former city officials won aldermen seats.
The alderman-turned-mayor continues to act as the board’s spokesman. The previous clerk was terminated, and her replacement doesn’t have an established understanding of Sunshine Law. The Advocate is charged for time, research and copy fees for all documents, including the board’s meeting packets, correspondence, and bids. It is difficult to gather information from past meeting packets.
In a recent situation, the board voted via text message between meetings to trade or give away roughly $33,500 worth of equipment. The newspaper acquired copies of the text messages via a Sunshine Law request, which they willingly provided and entered into record at the following city meeting.
Ideally, the first line of communication takes place between the government and the media, and the Sunshine Law allows us to double-check facts. In situations where the press is being pushed out, the Sunshine Law becomes a lifeline to holding government agencies accountable.