Nevada City Council, come into the Sunshine!

We're deeply concerned about the way Nevada City Council members seem to be conducting business.

Each week, now, for several weeks, items have appeared on the council's agenda and been brought up in meetings and voted upon in open session with little discussion and it's obvious that some council members have discussed these items amongst themselves at length outside the public forum.

The termination of the Adams and Associates contract relating to the Nevada Municipal Airport Terminal Building is one example. Not only was this not discussed publicly prior to the city manager's notifying the architectural firm's principal Jim Adams that the firm was being fired, it was a move councilmember Bill Edmonds was unaware of until Oct. 3.

Later, Mayor Jim Rayburn said they'd discussed the matter during the Sept. 26 special meeting. However, Edmonds was present for those meetings, including the executive session, so if that's true, then did the other council members discussed the matter outside the meeting entirely, even one or two at a time, which violates the spirit if not the letter of the state's Sunshine Laws? Minutes of the Sept. 26 meeting make no mention of such a discussion, but refer to the council's being presented with an ordinance proposing changes in architectural and engineering services. On the possibility that the issue was discussed in closed session, that could also a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Council members are apparently attempting to hide behind the protection of Sunshine Law provisions relating to legal and personnel issues.

Here's what the Missouri Attorney General's office had to say about closed meetings:

"A public governmental body is permitted, but not required, to close its meetings, records and votes when they relate to certain issues listed in Section 610.021. When a public body relies on one of these exceptions to close a meeting or record, it should bear in mind that the exceptions are to be read narrowly under Section 610.011.

Matters that may be closed include:

* Legal actions, causes of action or litigation (except that votes, minutes and settlement agreements must be opened to the public on final disposition, unless ordered closed by a court).

* Leasing, purchase or sale of real estate where public knowledge might adversely affect the amount paid in the transaction.

* Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting a particular employee.

* Welfare cases of identifiable individuals.

* Software codes for electronic data processing.

* Individually identifiable personnel records.

* Records related to existing or proposed security systems.

* Records that are protected from disclosure by other laws.

The contract with Adams and Associates does not appear to meet any of these criteria. The council could, for example, discuss with its attorney the ramifications of ending the contract, but should not make a decision outside the open meeting.

The council did vote on the matter in the open forum, at a later meeting.

Adams is not an employee of the city but a contractor, so the personnel matters exception would not apply, either.

It's important to note that the Sunshine Laws don't REQUIRE the council to close meetings for any reason, yet this council -- whose members ran on a platform of openness -- seems to choose to conduct as much of its business as possible in secret.

Here's another example: The decision to turn over Lyons Stadium to the Nevada R-5 school district.

A short discussion did take place in open session about this at the last council meeting, but councilmember Russ Kemm's ready answer to questions from the public indicated that someone, somewhere, had discussed the issue at length, but had chosen not to share that information in the public forum. If folks talked about it as individuals, that information should have been shared with the public. That points to even more likely violations of open records laws. Has a subcommittee of the parks board been meeting without posting notice?

This also doesn't appear to be an issue that meets the requirements set forth by the Sunshine Law allowing a closed discussion. It's not a case in which sharing this information would have adversely affected the cost of the lease of Lyons Stadium, for the city or for the schools, so it does not meet the Sunshine Law's criteria.

Not involving the parks board in an open discussion about it is not illegal but it was rude at best and leaves an appearance of both a bullying mindset and underhanded scheming toward an as yet unapparent end.

Such behavior is extremely harmful to the community and is putting its future in peril. Who would want to do business with a city council that behaves this way?

Cities deal in the public trust, a commodity that is quickly disappearing in Nevada, but there is still hope. Trust can be regrown, but only in an environment where there is plenty of Sunshine.

Herald-Tribune