Charles, you're demonstrably ignorant of Sunshine Law statutes. As I've stated before, a record must be kept and made available upon request of any meeting relating to resolutions that must be ratified at a later date. To suggest there is a statutory exception here because this is a personnell issue is a stretch, as the exception clearly states this relates to employees and when personal details are to be discussed. Prior opinion has shown elected officials are not considered employees for purposes of interpretation of 610.021. This is not yet a legal matter, and I'm not sure why you believe real estate applies. Perhaps you know something we don't about what was discussed?

Caffeinated: I'm not ignorant of Sunshine Law statutes. I listed the three items that are commonly listed on the City's posting of the Closed Session meeting that typically takes place prior to the semi-monthly Council meetings. If anyone inferred that I was claiming that anyone was claiming that there were real estate matters involved here, I apologize.

And no, I don't know anything about what's been discussed than any other member of the public does. I'm speaking from my own opinion, informed by a decade of service to the City of Ellisville.

You stated three possible exemptions (of many) so I assumed that you were purporting have knowledge of the private proceedings.

You do acknowledge that Mayor Paul isn't considered an employee for reasons of Sunshine Law statutary exception?

Does not have to be a current legal matter just need to have the potential to be a defendant/plaintiff. A record must be kept and has to be released once the matter is resolved.

"Can a public governmental body close a meeting to discuss possible litigation with its attorney where a cause of action has not been filed?
Section 610.021(1) permits a meeting to be closed to discuss legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving the public governmental body and confidential or privileged communications between the public governmental body and its attorneys. Attorney General's Opinion No. 59-76 concluded a meeting could be closed to discuss causes of action where the public governmental body is a potential plaintiff or defendant, whether or not litigation already had commenced.

However, under Section 610.021(1), any minutes, vote or settlement agreement relating to legal actions, causes of action or litigation must be made public upon final disposition of the matter voted upon or upon the signing of the settlement agreement. A court can, however, order that a settlement agreement be kept confidential if it finds that the adverse impact on the plaintiff outweighs the policy of openness. Even then, the governmental body must disclose the amount paid under the agreement."

This came from the Missouri AG website: http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#header5a

Michael, that is true for pending litigation ("not filed"). Again, I would ask what was the topic of the meeting? They presumably met to discuss drafting a resolution that is to be ratified in a subsequent quorum meeting.

As such the following applies:

A public governmental body planning to hold a vote must follow
the notice procedures for a regular meeting set out in Section
610.020, adding that the meeting will be closed and citing the
specific exception allowing the closure (Section 610.022.2).

Furthermore:

Section 610.022.3 requires that the meeting be closed only to
the extent necessary to discuss the specific announced exception.

So, we know they discussed drafting the resolution and anything else is conjecture. The fact that we are even sitting here guessing points to a possible Sunshine Law violation.

Sorry Caffeinated I am not following your question. What do you mean "topic of the meeting" and why is that important? I thought this discussion was about if the council could meet in closed session regarding the request to remove the mayor and keep that information closed for the time being.

Also not sure of your meaning of "Pending Litigation". I take that as knowledge that litigation is about to commence. Sunshile Law allows for closed sessions if just the possibility of litigation exists. In this case there is no pending litigation although the possibility is pretty strong.

>>"Sorry Caffeinated I am not following your question. What do you mean "topic of the meeting" and why is that important?"

It's important because of the following:

"Section 610.022.3 requires that the meeting be closed only to
the extent necessary to discuss the specific announced exception. No other business should be discussed during the closed meeting."

>>" I take that as knowledge that litigation is about to commence. Sunshile Law allows for closed sessions if just the possibility of litigation exists."

A slippery slope that can be used to try to subert Sunshine Law statutes, which is why 610.022.3 specifically states that topics that are subject to statutory exception are to be sequestered. The resolution does *not* include discussion of possible litigation, and in fact is *public* business. Thus it is subject to Sunshine Law openness.

Mr. Pavlack suggested this was a personnel issue (and a few other possible exceptions as allowed) -which does not apply. The problem is, the council and the city attorney can't cover discussion of public resolutions with other business that is subject to exception. They must seperate the meetings according to topic in accordance with 610.022.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I do not agree that they have to specificlly state what they are discussing in closed session (would seem to defeat the purpose of a closed session) just that they met in closed session to discuss a legal matter, real estate matter, personel issue, etc... If a resolution is adopted from the closed session then they have to state that the board met in closed session to review ABC employees review and is now voting on a 2% pay increase or termination or what ever they decided. In this case it would be met and put forth a request for a resolution to remove the mayor. Which what they did after the closed meeting (from reading the articles).

I would think the resolution by it's nature could lead to legal action which (imo) qualifies for closed session review.

Yes, and eventually an expensive one at that.

That's fine.

quagmire, sand trap, La Brea Tar Pit

The conclusion from this is: Ellisville government works best under this regime when it doesn't work at all --- and they've just about gummed up the works.

Thank you Ellisville Shopper for that information. I'm on the same page as you as the most effective way to express my free speech, ever since the Citizens United decision was handed down.

Be prepared to donate to the Adam Paul Re-Election campaign. I bet Chet is drooling at the taxpayer funded payout he'll get with winning the civil suit against Ms. Murray, the Council, and Mr. Martin.

The ACLU might be interested in this. Has anyone contacted them? Basically the will of the qualified voters of Ellisville to elect a Mayor is being overruled under secret, subjective criteria by the individual Council Members.

The Council doesn't elect the Mayor, and the Mayor is not appointed by the Council.

Adam Paul Defense
Pleban & Petruska Law, L.L.C.
2010 S. Big Bend Blvd
St. Louis MO 63117
Phone 314-645-6666

And the beauty is that this isn't an election, so no campaign financing disclosure laws to worry about!