Board Members Violated Missouri Sunshine Law

From the St. Louis Business Journal comes a story of violations of Missouri’s open meetings law by “several current and past members” of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (aka MOHELA):

In the settlement, MOHELA and the other defendants agreed that “various procedures and communications” related to the meetings constituted violations of the Sunshine Law, but they deny that they “knowingly, purposefully or willfully” violated the law.

…MOHELA agreed to comply with the Sunshine Law and take steps to ensure its compliance, including establishing a written policy and providing annual training sessions for MOHELA’s board and employees.

Were talking about a board responsible for $6.5 billion in assets, per the Business Journal. Imagine some of the little local boards that get even less attention. Do the board members all “chat” beforehand and have a sense how they are going to vote? I wonder if St. Louis has any written policy for board members to follow? Any training they receive just to make sure they don’t accidently tread into waters they should not? This should be a wake up call that individuals serving on these board can end up making mistakes and paying fines for them.

Conveniently, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has a Sunshine Law Quiz for the public (11 questions) and a member of a public body (10 questions).  I suggest taking both as they cover different areas of the law.  Below is an example with the correct answer in bold and the followup explaination afterwards:

10) Your public body has formally established a three person committee to review bids for city trash service. The three person committee intends to report back its recommendations to the full body. After the committee meeting, two of the committee members continue to discuss the merits of the bids submitted. What best characterizes this development?
a)    Discussions by committee members, even outside the meeting, are allowed because the committee cannot make any final decisions anyway.
b)    Two committee members are not a quorum of the city council and so there is nothing illegal about this discussion.
c)    While the two members of a committee do represent a quorum of a public body, there is no violation if they merely discuss the bids but do not make a decision about who to recommend.
d)    This discussion is a violation of the Sunshine Law because a discussion of public business among a quorum of a committee is illegal if not posted.

By law, the discussion was a meeting because it was a discussion about public business and it took place among a quorum of a committee – see Section 610.010(4)(e) (a majority of the committee was present, 2 out of 3). The discussion was in violation of Sunshine Law because public business was discussed and there was no notice of the meeting posted in advance. 

Gee, do you think a majority of say, the Preservation Board, end up emailing each other about a topic prior to the public meeting?  They’d better hope not.  Of course, a Sunshine Law request for email records might shed some light.

James Trout Challenges Missouri’s New “Ethics” Law in Court

Today James Trout, a St. Louis County resident, filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri challenging the new “ethics” law known as H.B. 1900. From AP/KWMU:

The law that took effect Monday repeals state limits on individual campaign contributions.

It also prohibits any contributions to those seeking a state office while the Legislature is in session.

A lawsuit filed today contends the fundraising blackout violates free speech protections.

The case was filed in the 19th Judicial Circuit (Cole County — Jefferson City) earlier today, a motion hearing is set for noon on Friday before Judge Richard C. Callahan. Trout, through his attorney Charles Hatfield of Jefferson City, is seeking a temporary injunction. Trout, a Democrat, recently lost his first race for office against Republican State Rep. Kathlyn Fares.

I called Jim Trout at home to get more information. Basically he makes a good argument that the new law overly favors incumbents. Essentially, campaigning is prohibited while the Missouri legislature is in session. Sounds fair right? Except that incumbents can be talking with potential contributors during this time but a potential challenger is prohibited from being out on the campaign trail trying to drum up support and needed contributions. Not so good.

Invalidating, or just an injunction, could have implications here in St. Louis as candidates for the President of the Board of Aldermen and a number of aldermanic seats are likely counting on not having any limits to contributions leading up to the March 6, 2007 primary. I presume the blackout during session does not apply to the local level.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, also a Democrat, is responsible for defending the law. However, Jay Nixon is running for Governor and if the law remains in place he cannot receive contributions during the legislative session. Will his office “settle” the lawsuit by declaring it unconstitutional? You can track the case on Casenet.  Update 10:50pm — blog post from Post-Dispatch.

Kansas City Updating Old Zoning, Way Ahead of St. Louis in Effort

Via the Kansas City Star:

Kansas City is about to overhaul its zoning ordinance for the first time in half a century, with significant changes anticipated for landscaping, parking and housing throughout the city.

A consultant team and steering committee undertook a painstaking review and revision of the city’s zoning and subdivision regulations in the past 18 months. A draft ordinance should be ready for release on the city’s Web site by spring.

City officials say the public will have plenty of opportunity to comment. If all goes as planned, the City Council could vote on the new rules sometime in the summer or fall.

It’s high time for Kansas City to join other cities in moving past the suburban growth patterns and auto dependency that characterized the zoning approach of the 1950s and ’60s, says Chicago-based consultant Kirk Bishop, executive vice president of Duncan Associates.

“Those regulations have gotten out of date, out of sync with the diversity of today’s modern city,” he said.

Sound familiar?  Kansas City, like St. Louis, adopted a major city plan in 1947 but both city’s zoning codes have remained stuck in that period. It seems the leadership in KC has the political will to actually do something about their outdated zoning.  Meanwhile we have a hot shot urban planner on staff that is basically bound and gagged.

From the same article:

Planners recognize that Kansas City has sometimes had excessive parking requirements, promoting the proliferation of lots and hindering small retail development and street activity. New rules would lower the minimum number of parking spaces required downtown to encourage small retail development.

Bishop says the goal is to reduce inconsistencies, establishing minimum expectations for landscaping and parking that would be more fair and predictable.

At the urging of Kansas City’s bicycle clubs, Kansas City also would adopt certain requirements for bicycle parking, so cyclists have accessible places to lock their bikes.

Kansas City may not have won the World Leadership Award but it would appear they are taking important steps in the right direction.  Mayor Slay should have assembled a similar steering committee to work on St. Louis’ zoning following the 2005 adoption of the new Strategic Land Use Plan.   For the most part, our land use plan remains in limbo until the zoning is actually updated.

Loughborough Commons is Not Finished Yet

When I started writing about the failures of Loughborough Commons a few months ago I was reminded by Ald. Matt Villa (D-11th) that it is not finished yet. He is correct, work is still progressing even though the two main stores, Schnucks & Lowes, are open.

In addition to a number of possible out buildings and the need to finish an ADA accessible route to a public street it seems Desco is working to correct some of the poor planning on areas that were already finished. Yes, the not finished yet $40 million project is already getting fixes.

Above you can see a new black metal fence installed recently which blocks now former accessible parking spaces near the entrance. A similar parking arrangement on the other side of the entry remains.

From this angle you can see how the angle of the main entrance would make it a challenge to see oncoming cars if you were backing out of one of these spaces. Accessible spaces, such as these near an entrance, are ideal for many so they do not need to cross a main drive. Still, these must be designed and placed in such a manner that someone using them is able to easily navigate in and out of them. This is also an example of where the minimum sidewalk width required by law is just that, mimimum.

Before the change you can see how tight the space was. When extra shopping carts were stored in the area it completely blocked the sole planned walking route from Loughborough. Civil engineers are a critical part of any design team, they are necessary for a number of areas including water runoff concerns, accessing soil conditions, engineering curbs and other details on a given site. They are not, however, natural specialists in creating walkable & ADA accessible environments. Projects of this scale, especially those with over $14 million in public tax incentives, should have a consultant on board to ensure more than simple textbook minimum compliance. At this point I still question if they will be able to establish minimum compliance with respect to an accessible route.

Above is an earlier image between the Schnucks and the Lowe’s, but as of 1/1/07 nothing has changed here. Pedestrians, including those using walkers, mobility scooters or wheelchairs are directed into the pharmacy drive-thru exit! At this point these pedestrians have only a couple of choices, those who can will simply walk through the plantings/grass and those who cannot must either turn left and exit the drive-thru lane with the cars out into the main drive for the development or turn right and go head-on with the cars in the pharmacy lane for about 5ft (just outside of view in this image) until they get to what appears to be a drainage area which provides a break in the planter. In this direction someone will have to hope the cars leaving the pharmacy drive-thru lane see them. This second route would allow pedestrians to go down that direction but the slope is too steep for a return back to the Schnucks and out to Loughborough. And forget wheelchairs for a minute, what about young families pushing a stroller! We do want young families with kids in the area, right?

What is more amazing than having such major projects built without a planning/access specialist on the design team is the idea that we leave it up to our elected aldermen to ensure the public’s interests are being considered. With our 28 mini-cities with a city mentality we get varying results from ward to ward. Some aldermen seem to know their limitations and consult the city’s Planning & Urban Design Agency. Others, like Lyda Krewson, have ideal developers like Joe Edwards so these issues are rare. But folks like Ald. Matt Villa, who assured me before construction started that pedestrians would be considered, are clearly incapable of distinquishing between token gestures toward access and good community design. Yes, he is certainly a “nice guy” but that only goes so far — not even remotely close in the case of Loughborough Commons. And just think, Loughborough Commons is not even finished.

Happy 2007!

I want thank all of you for your continued readership this past year and to wish you a vibrant & urban 2007.  I’m working on a summary of highlights from 2006 but in the meantime I wanted to say a few quick things.

While I received some nice accolades during 2006, what was truly satisfying for me personally is the way urban issues (architecture, planning, politics, education, etc…) were being discussed here and elsewhere.  In all the years I’ve lived in St. Louis I’ve not seen so much dialogue on the city & region as we saw in 2006.  We are becoming a more engaged community which will benefit us greatly in the long run.

In the short term it may appear to some of us that we’ve simply created a new form of chaos.   The reality is change does not always come through the “proper” channels or by working within the system.  Our system, by default, is opposed to change.  Future change will involve a clash of long-held tradition and new ideas, people will disagree.  It will not always be pretty.  2007 will include more of the same call for change, we have a good momentum going with urban-minded folks seeking to re-shape this city back to an urban form that accomodates people as well as their various modes of transportation.

On a personal note I look forward to graduate classes starting at SLU as I continue to work toward a Masters in Urban Planning & Real Estate Development.  Work wise I will continue as a real estate broker-salesperson helping people buy & sell properties, consulting on residential design as well as urban planning (offering my critique before construction).

Again, thank you so much for reading Urban Review STL in 2006.  I look forward to bringing you many more issues for debate in 2007.

– Steve