July 26 Meeting Minutes

The following was emailed to JSC Members on July 28. Only one comment was received and that person's name was excised from the following.

It is important to record the happenings of the July 26, 2006 JSC meeting since an essential issue was discussed and there is much detail the minutes would not be anticipated to cover. There also appears from time to time to be disagreement over what has transpired irrespective of what JSC approved meeting minutes have recorded.

In the February JSC meeting, the JSC voted that no subcommittee meetings would be held without a quorum present. Here is how the minutes of that meeting recorded the decision:

"Then there was a discussion regarding whether or not there has to be a quorum in order for the Subcommittees to meet. Mr. Schoedel stated that the Subcommittees could have discussions; but they could not make decisions. Then the question was raised as to whether or not this would violate the Sunshine Law. Ms. Hamilton stated that the meeting could not be called to order without a quorum. It was discussed and decided that it could cause problems if the Subcommittees meet without a quorum present."

At the July 26 JSC meeting, Mr. Jerry Bollato, the RH Chair, offered a new interpretation. He asserted that the subcommittees should be able to meet without a quorum so as not to delay progress.

Both Clayton Alderman Berger and RH JSC member Newman objected. Mr. Berger contended, as he had at the February meeting, that meeting without a quorum was unjust and could engender public distrust. Ms. Newman commented that the quorum rules were voted on, adopted, should be followed, and that [since they were clear] interpretation was not in order. Clayton Mayor Uchitelle commented that the previously JSC approved February minutes may not have accurately recorded what was said. RH JSC member Wright questioned what is meant by a meeting. RH JSC member Livingston echoed this comment essentially with the analogy that meeting casually was no different from two people grabbing a beer and discussing subcommittee business.

Further discussion ensued and Mr. Bollato ruled [presumably so other business could be transacted?] that this issue would be tabled for revisiting at the August meeting. No one objected to tabling this issue nor asked why it was being tabled or what new information would be sought over the next month that justified not settling the issue that night. No one suggested consulting Robert's Rules of Order for guidance. No one made a motion to amend the quorum rule. No one asked to seek a legal interpretation of the Missouri Sunshine law. Although all other business was concluded by 8pm (and the meeting adjourned) and time was available*, no one asked to continue discussion on the quorum issue.

*The JSC approved 9/28/2005 minutes recorded the following: "The [JSC] committee would meet on the last Wednesday of each month, beginning promptly at 7 p.m. with the meetings rotating between the municipalities’ community centers, adjourning at 9:00 p.m."