YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

March 3, 2003

Report No. 2003-20

Many public bodies cannot prove compliance with all closed meeting provisions of the state's open records statutes (Sunshine Law)

Auditors reviewed practices of 152 public bodies, which held closed meetings/sessions in 2001, to test compliance with closed meeting provisions of the Sunshine Law.  This report is the third in a series of audits showing how well public bodies comply with the law.

The law requires a public body wanting to hold a closed meeting to complete 2 steps: 1) document discussion topics for the closed meeting and the vote to close it in open meeting minutes and 2) post a public notice about the closed meeting at least 24 hours beforehand.

A third step of documenting closed meeting discussions is not required by state law, but is suggested in Attorney General guidelines about law compliance.  The following shows the overall results of compliance tests in these three areas.  Compliance results specific to each public body tested are in Appendix III  (page 13).

Most public bodies properly documented topics and votes for closed meetings

Open meeting minutes of 114 of 152 public bodies identified the planned discussion topics for the closed meetings and recorded the members' votes, while the remaining 38 (25 percent) public bodies did not fully comply with these requirements.  (See page 4)

Most closed meeting notices did not prove 24-hour rule always followed

Auditors found 50 percent of the public bodies that submitted meeting notices to us did not include the date and time of posting on the notices.  A date/time stamp would prove the public body posted the notice at least 24 hours before the meeting, as required by law.  The law does not require meeting notices include the posting date and time, but does require public bodies demonstrate compliance.  (See page 4)

Discussions in closed meeting should be documented

The law does not require public bodies to document closed meeting discussions, but such documentation is suggested by the Attorney General to show discussions did not go beyond the planned topics.  Auditors found at least 38 of the 152 public bodies did not keep closed meeting minutes.  (See page 5)

Some topics should not have been discussed in closed meetings

Auditors found 6 public bodies included notes in closed meeting minutes about topics not exempt by the law for closed meeting discussions.  These non-exempt topics, which should not have been discussed in closed meetings, included: holiday gifts for staff members, insurance premium changes and naming a building.  (See page 5)

Timely response to Sunshine Law request still a concern

On average, public bodies took 31 days to respond to Sunshine Law requests by auditors regarding closed meetings held.  The law allows 3 business days for a public body to respond to a request. Auditors sent the public records request on official State Auditor's Office letterhead to 319 public bodies and the response times ranged from 1 to 171 days.  Fifty-seven of the responding public bodies did not answer the request until after receiving either a follow-up letter and/or a phone call. (See page 7)  For response times by public body see Appendix IV (page 18).

Complete Audit Report