Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Missouri Sunshine Law requested by Ms. Carr and Mr. Crow <br />Ms. Carr read the revised Missouri Statute 610.020: <br />“All public governmental bodies shall give notice of the time, date and place of <br />each meeting and its tentative agenda in a manner reasonably calculated to <br />advise the public of the matters to be considered.” <br />She noted that it said, “Reasonably calculated to advise”, not to misrepresent. <br />She stated she believed that is what happened two weeks ago. Ms. Carr said <br />she objected three times to the misrepresentation, not to the fact that Mr. Kraft <br />wanted to read a prepared speech that lasted eleven minutes and twenty-two <br />seconds or because he wanted to talk about how what she said did not quite fit <br />with his concept of the Charter or policy. The point was that he misrepresented <br />the topic from which he was talking. Ms. Carr noted that Mr. Kraft said he was <br />going to talk about Council Rules and Procedures and the talk was about his <br />views on how she did not represent the Charter correctly. She said she did not <br />trust Mr. Kraft and was not sure if she even trusted the Mayor anymore. This is a <br />Missouri Statute. She noted Rule 1 of Council Rules stated that Council was to <br />follow the Missouri Statutes and stated that Council did not. Ms. Carr stated that <br />no one present misrepresented it, only Mr. Kraft did and the Mayor allowed him to <br />go on in spite of the fact that she said she was uncomfortable with the <br />misrepresentation. She said this needed to be addressed by Council. Ms. Carr <br />did not know if she could ever be open to have Mr. Kraft add something to the <br />agenda again. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that what Ms. Carr has said was serious and thought it spoke to <br />the credibility of a least a couple of the members of Council. He said that he <br />clearly knows this was known ahead of time with the preparation and the folks <br />that vote together, at the end of the day, was it that important that notice could <br />not have been given to his colleagues? Mr. Crow said there was enough time to <br />do all of the research and then candidly, Madam Mayor had the opportunity to <br />stop it completely. He said when folks ask Council why they have problems with <br />the vision thing of the bike path; it is because of the credibility of the <br />implementation of the folks sitting on the Council. Mr. Crow stated that Council <br />has been down this pathway before, as the Mayor’s response at one time was “I <br />don’t think the logo has anything to do with this”. He stated that it actually did <br />because Council voted for a marketing company and was told later that Council <br />approved a logo when approving the hiring of a marketing company. Mr. Crow <br />said that was a significant bootstrap. He said Council was bootstrapped on the <br />Prop U vote where there was an abstention vote but later on it was not an <br />abstention, instead it was being a steward of finances. Mr. Crow noted that it was <br />an abstention because the City Attorney said it may be a violation. He stated that <br />this rewriting of history - to everyone who thinks this was just politics, at the end <br />of the day, it was about credibility. Mr. Crow said there was no harm in giving all <br />seven members of Council notice about the conversation and when notice did not <br />go out, it should have not been allowed to go on. He said when there was talk <br />about moving forward, it was one of the biggest concerns he has because he has <br />been down this pathway before and has been told that his vote meant something <br />much broader than what was on the agenda. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />