Abstract company filed suit claiming charges violated the Sunshine Law, specifically § 610.026, RSMo. The court held the language at the beginning of § 610.026, RSMo, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law” permitted the per record charges authorized by § 59.310, RSMo. Missouri Sunshine Law 25 ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR PURPOSEFUL OR KNOWING VIOLATIONS SPRADLIN v. CITY OF FULTON, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1998) “Purposely” is defined as “intentionally; designedly; consciously; knowingly.” An act is done ‘purposely’ if it is willed, is product of conscious design, intent or plan that is to be done, and is done with awareness of probable consequences. To purposely violate the open meetings law, a member of a public governmental body must exhibit a “conscious design, intent, or plan” to violate the law and do so “with awareness of the probable consequences.” R.L. POLK & CO. v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 309 S.W.3d 881 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) Polk sought penalties alleging that Department of Revenue purposefully violated the Sunshine Law. The court held that the mere intent to engage in conduct is not purposeful, but a governmental body must exhibit a conscious design, intent, or plan to violate the law with awareness of the probable consequences. Where DOR attempted in the absence of statutory direction to determine a charge based on its interpretation of costs its conduct was not purposeful. GREAT RIVERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER v. CITY OF ST. PETERS, 290 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) After Great Rivers requested records from the City, the City invoked its right pursuant to § 610.027.6, RSMo, to seek an opinion from the Attorney General regarding the legality of closing particular records. While opinion request was pending, Great Rivers filed action alleging the City knowingly and purposefully violated the Sunshine Law by not providing the requested records. Court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to find a knowing or purposeful violation because the City availed itself of § 610.027.6, RSMo. CLIENT SERVICES, INC. v. CITY OF ST. CHARLES, 182 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) Once a party seeks judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law, the public governmental body has the burden to demonstrate compliance. R.E.J., INC. v. CITY OF SIKESTON, 142 S.W.3d 744 (Mo. 2004) City that violated the notice requirements for meeting in adopting an ordinance may have that ordinance voided even if the city repealed the ordinance after being sued. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD v. EVENTS PUBLISHING CO., 951 S.W.2d 366 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) If a public governmental body seeks a judgment declaring whether a record is open or closed pursuant to § 610.027.5, RSMo, the body must pay both its own costs of bringing the action and the respondent’s attorney fees. See also, Hemeyer v. KRCG-TV, p. 39.

See also, Hemeyer v. KRCG-TV, p. 39. Missouri Sunshine Law 26 LAUT v. CITY OF ARNOLD, 491 S.W.3D 191 (Mo. banc 2016) A knowing violation of the Sunshine Law occurs when a public governmental body has actual knowledge that its conduct violates a statutory provision. LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS STATE EX REL. PULITZER MISSOURI NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. SEAY, 330 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) City’s former police chief was given a suspended imposition of sentence and placed on probation. The court ordered the file to be a closed and confidential file. Thereafter, the judge denied a newspaper publisher’s request to review file. The court of appeals found the publisher was entitled to review the file because the former chief’s case was not finally terminated as of the date of the request. Section 610.105, RSMo, provides records of a suspended imposition of sentence are closed records when the case is finally terminated. On the date the publisher inquired about the file, the case had not been finally terminated because the former chief, who had received a suspended sentence, had not yet completed his probation. GUYER v. CITY OF KIRKWOOD, 38 S.W.3d 412 (Mo. 2001) A complaint alleging criminal misconduct by a police officer is an “incident report,” and a report concerning investigation into the complaint is an “investigative report” under § 610.100, RSMo. Those records can be closed only on grounds specified in § 610.100, RSMo, for closing law enforcement records. They cannot be closed under § 610.021(3) or (13), RSMo, on grounds that they are personnel records or related to disciplining or firing of an employee. STATE EX. REL. GOODMAN v. ST. LOUIS BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, 181 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) An “incident report” as defined in § 610.100, RSMo, only includes those elements described in its definition. Other information, such as phone numbers and addresses, is not subject to disclosure. SCROGGINS v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 227 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) The director of the Children’s Division has discretion to release records and reports that it generates, but investigative reports of law enforcement agencies provided to the Children’s Division are closed records under § 610.100.2, RSMo, until the law enforcement investigation becomes inactive. NEWS-PRESS AND GAZETTE CO. v. CATHCART, 974 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) A coroner is a public governmental body under § 610.010, RSMo. But an autopsy report used in an active investigation is an “investigative report” and is closed under § 610.100, RSMo.

W.D. 1998) A coroner is a public governmental body under § 610.010, RSMo. But an autopsy report used in an active investigation is an “investigative report” and is closed under § 610.100, RSMo. Missouri Sunshine Law 27 COX v. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE, Opinion filed February 13, 2019, WD81748 The penalty provision within Section 610.027, RSMo., for violations of 610.010 through 610.026 does not apply to potential violations of sections 610.150 and 610.100.2, pertaining specifically to law enforcement records. Further, Section 610.021 is a permissive statute that allows, but does not require, a governmental body to close certain meetings, records, and votes, and it does not provide a punishment for the opening of covered records to the extent a body so chooses. Existing penalty provisions are to be read closely. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS Occasionally the Attorney General’s Office will opine on matters related to the Sunshine Law. While these opinions do not carry the force of law, they are indications of this Office’s positions on questions related to these statutes, which the Attorney General has a role in enforcing. The information below was derived from Attorney General opinions issued over the years, is not exhaustive, and is provided only for informational purposes. The following are examples of entities meeting the definition of “Public Governmental Body,” and required to abide by the Sunshine Law: • A school district budget “task force” appointed by the superintendent to make proposals. • A municipality’s “citizen advisory committee.” • A board of jury commissioners, when acting in an administrative capacity. • A “board of visitors” established under Section 221.320, RSMo. The following are examples of “quasi-public governmental bodies,” and required to abide by the Sunshine Law: • A sheltered workshop established by a non-profit corporation. • The Missouri School Boards Association. The following are examples of types of information that cannot be closed under the Sunshine Law: • A list of personal care attendants’ addresses. • The votes of each member of a board or council during closed session, even if the information considered during the closed meeting may be closed.

The following are examples of “quasi-public governmental bodies,” and required to abide by the Sunshine Law: • A sheltered workshop established by a non-profit corporation. • The Missouri School Boards Association. The following are examples of types of information that cannot be closed under the Sunshine Law: • A list of personal care attendants’ addresses. • The votes of each member of a board or council during closed session, even if the information considered during the closed meeting may be closed. Missouri Sunshine Law 28 • Telephone billing records of members of the General Assembly. • Property record cards prepared and retained by a county assessor. • Records of the information set out in Section 290.290, RSMo., if retained by the body. • Records relating to permits to acquire a concealable firearm retained by a county sheriff (though Missouri’s concealed-carry law contains its own confidentiality provisions in Section 571.101.9, RSMo.) • Public meetings regarding consideration of volunteers to citizen boards may not be closed, because board members, like elected officials, are not “employees” of the body. When closing a meeting or a record, reference to the number of the relevant subdivision in the § 610.021, RSMo, list of exceptions to openness (for example, § 610.021(1), RSMo) is sufficient to meet the requirement of § 610.022, RSMo. A recitation of the words in the relevant subdivision is not required. Pursuant to § 610.022.2, RSMo, notice of a closed meeting of a public governmental body must include the time, date, and place of the meeting and a reference to the specific statutory exception allowing the meeting to be closed; however, notice of a closed meeting is not required to include a tentative agenda. Once a public governmental body has properly voted to close a meeting, all members of the general public should be removed from the meeting. The governmental body cannot discriminate regarding which members of the public it might wish to remove or allow to stay, though the case of Smith v. Sheriff, 982 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998), recognizes that a body may allow certain members of the public into a closed meeting to provide information to the body.

App. E.D. 1998), recognizes that a body may allow certain members of the public into a closed meeting to provide information to the body. Missouri Sunshine Law 29