Lauber Municipal Law’s Response to Sunshine Law
August 12, 2026
Recently, you may have read an article that provided some opinions about how local governments operate under Missouri’s laws addressing open meetings and open records (the “Sunshine Law”) through the assistance and advice provided by our firm, the attorneys at which practice exclusively in the area of municipal law. Following is a response to the issues raised in the article and to provide a broader perspective on cities’ duties to their constituents (and city attorneys’ roles to ensure that their clients balance those duties) than the recent journalism school graduate authors articulated.
From the outset, the article positions itself as an anti-local government op-ed piece with references to responses to common requests for records as “battles” and indicating that public governmental bodies are “hiding their business” when they legitimately enter into executive session meetings to address issues that the Sunshine Law allows them to. Suggesting that our firm would encourage our clients to be less transparent is simply incorrect—and it begs the question: “less than what”? Cities that do not fully understand the Sunshine Law are likely to hold unnoticed meetings or improperly withhold records, which works against transparency. The lawyers of our firm are champions for open government, and we work diligently to ensure that our clients are well trained and understand how and why the Sunshine Law works.
We also understand that the extremely important public policy of transparency does not exist alone—it also must be balanced the equally important public policy of being good stewards of public funds. Making requestors pay for their specific use of city resources does not reduce transparency, open records are open and will be disclosed within the framework of the Sunshine Law. This response addresses these important issues in greater detail below.
Legal questions compared to policy questions
Before we delve into the specific provisions of the Sunshine Law raised in the article, it is important to first establish the context in which these issues arise. When any issue is presented to a city’s governing body that leads to the question of “what options does the city have” for acting in response to the issue, that is a legal question to be answered by the city attorney. When any issue is presented to a city’s governing body that leads to the question of “what course of action to take is in the best interests of the public”, that is a policy question to be decided by the elected officials. We take seriously the distinction between matters of law and policy. Our role as city attorney is to provide our clients with the best information possible to allow them to make the best decisions for the citizens of their jurisdiction. This means we provide all the relevant options along with the possible benefits or consequences of choosing one of those options. We are trained to identify issues, to know where to find applicable laws, and to spot factual distinctions that could cause a judge or a jury to decide differently that other existing cases indicate. It is incorrect to think that city attorneys make the decisions or “run the city”— we are a simply a resource available to the elected officials to gather information necessary to make decisions. Your elected representatives make the decisions within the framework that state laws and case law interpretations have created.
Who is the client?
Another important context consideration is understanding who the client is for issues arising in municipal law. When a private (meaning non-governmental) individual meets with an attorney for advice the question of “who is the client?” is easy to answer. But consider the situation when the answer to that question is “the city”—what does that mean? Experienced municipal lawyers understand that their client is composed of all the citizens of a jurisdiction, but those citizens elect representatives to speak on their behalf. City councils and boards of aldermen usually are made up of representatives of districts or wards that cover different geographic areas of the jurisdiction. Consequently, a municipal lawyer’s client consists of a majority of a quorum of the council or board of aldermen. Thus, one elected official’s voice on a matter may not determine the direction the governing body takes but always is a component of what is considered in deciding a matter. We do not represent a mayor, individual council or board member, or city administrator, unless a majority of the council or board members deem it in the best interest of the city to do so.
Furthermore, one member of an elected body does not have authority to disclose confidential information on their own. The majority of the quorum of the governing body determines whether confidential information can be disclosed or meetings or records can be opened, regardless of the opinion of any individual elected official. When one member of an elected body acts out because they are not “getting their way”, it illustrates that they do not understand their role and are being ineffective representatives for their constituents. Effective elected officials understand their roles and how they can affect change, even when they may hold a minority opinion of how the government should be run.
Why are public governmental bodies allowed to go into closed sessions or close certain records?
The Sunshine Law clearly states that Missouri’s public policy is that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. A discerning reader might ask why then does the General Assembly provide 29 different exceptions to the laws that require our public governmental bodies to conduct business openly and transparently? Fundamentally, the statutory exceptions to Missouri’s Sunshine Law are for the protection of citizens’ safety or financial wellbeing. So, while our elected officials owe citizens a duty of transparency in the conduct of government business, they cannot focus solely on that duty because it must be balanced with an equally strong duty to be good stewards of public funds and also the duty to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
Health, safety and welfare exceptions
Many of the Sunshine Law’s exceptions addressing public safety are more applicable to records than meetings. For example, security system access codes, the configuration of a city’s computer or telecommunications network, or plans for public infrastructure like the public water supply. Logically, meetings to discuss the creation or amendment of records like this should also be closed.
Protection of public funds exceptions
Sunshine Law exceptions permitting cities to close meetings often are most applicable to issues that touch upon elected officials’ duty to be good stewards of public funds. The Sunshine Law permits a public governmental body to go into an executive session to discuss the leasing, purchase, or sale of real estate—that is because if a discussion about what a city is willing to sell a piece of property for a range of value is held in public, it is unlikely that a potential buyer be willing to pay more for the property than what the board of aldermen said would be their lowest acceptable price. Another exception allows elected officials to meet to discuss a negotiated contract until the contract is signed or all proposals are rejected—likewise, if the contracting party could be in the room to hear the discussion of what the city is willing or not willing to do regarding the contract, the negotiation of terms would be useless.
Confidential attorney-client conversations
It likely goes without saying that a private individual with a need to speak with a lawyer for advice expects that lawyer to keep the conversation confidential. For attorneys, the professional responsibility to keep client information confidential is one of the highest duties we hold, and breaches of that duty can lead to severe professional discipline. Clients can be individuals or entities. Missouri’s Sunshine Law recognizes that public governmental bodies need legal advice and are permitted to go into closed sessions to receive that advice. Without the ability to go into closed sessions, an attorney would be forced to provide legal advice that could provide someone with a road map to successfully sue a city on a matter with the purpose of obtaining a large settlement. Exposing a city’s legal liability publicly would be the opposite of being a good steward of public funds and would cause the taxpayers of the city to pay hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars unnecessarily. Remember, the city’s money is the taxpayers’ money. Protection of public funds is an important reason why the Sunshine Law permits public governmental bodies to enter closed sessions. Because the client is made up of a group of elected representatives, one elected official does not have authority to disclose confidential communications. It takes the vote of a majority of a quorum of the governing body to close a meeting or a record (which is typically done in a city’s Sunshine Law policy for all records that can be closed), so equally, it takes the vote of a majority of a quorum of the governing body to open a closed record or to disclose the contents of a closed meeting.
Why does the Sunshine Law allow cities to charge for producing records for Sunshine Law requests?
Relying on the “solid” authority of social media posts, the authors of the article suggest that our firm has steered cities further away from transparency because we inform our clients that they can charge for fulfilling records requests. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Sunshine Law specifically allows cities, prior to fulfilling the request, to charge a requestor for a portion of the cost to fulfill the request, including the cost of a staff member’s time to research and copy the records and ten cents per page for copies. Should a city taxpayer who does not visit the city pool be required to pay for the season pass for another taxpayer (or non-taxpayer)? Of course not. Nor should the taxpayers of the city be required to pay the costs of a person who may or may not be a taxpayer to expend the time and resources of the city to fulfill a records request. Charging a fee for fulfilling a request has nothing to do with whether the record can be obtained.
Context is important. Some requestors seek records to assist their commercial enterprises; others may request records numerous times in a week or month; and many requests seek records going back over many years and result in thousands and even tens of thousands of responsive records. Also keep in mind that the Sunshine Law applies to all cities, but all cities do not have the same resources. A request for records dating back over five years that results in 250 responsive records puts a different burden on a city with a population of a few hundred residents and a city staff of three people than it does a larger city with more employees.
For example, one of the cities mentioned in the article had two requestors make a combined 84 requests in a ten-month period, which yielded approximately 6,000 records and took a combined 100 hours (12.5 8-hour working days) to fulfill. That information was provided to the authors when they conducted their interview, but the authors chose not to provide their readers with this relevant context. So, asking again, should all the taxpayers of the city be required to cover the costs for this abuse of resources? The Sunshine Law does not prevent a non-taxpayer from making requests; so, in those cases the citizens would pay the entire burden if a city did not require records requestors to pay for requests in advance. Being good stewards of city resources is just as important as “being transparent;” and keep in mind that what is being discussed is the city fulfilling records request—in other words being transparent.
What constitutes a meeting of a public governmental body?
A city can only conduct business when a quorum of its members is present. For a city with four aldermen and a mayor, a quorum consists of three members of the board of aldermen. Thus, a conversation among two aldermen, or even two aldermen and the mayor, is not a public meeting since the mayor does not count towards the quorum. When the board of aldermen or city council has six members, a quorum consists of four members. Likewise, a conversation among three council members and the mayor is not a public meeting. The Sunshine Law also makes clear that public meetings “shall not include an informal gathering of members of a public governmental body for ministerial or social purposes…” It is not automatic that members of a public governmental body talking in small groups during the break of a meeting are violating the Sunshine Law.
Contrary to the opinions of some on social media, our firm works diligently with our clients to ensure that they closely follow the Sunshine Law through regular advice to our clients in practice and by conducting training on Sunshine Law and other municipal law topics several times per year. We are careful to point out that elected officials who participate in small group conversations must never discuss city business with other small groups, as doing so could constitute a serial public meeting, which would potentially violate the Sunshine Law. The thousands of public officials who have attended our Sunshine Law trainings over the years are very familiar with the concept that they “cannot be the bee that pollinates the flowers” when it comes to communications with other elected officials outside of a public meeting.
Is it okay for a city to notice a closed meeting for every regular meeting?
Yes. The Sunshine Law does not prohibit a city from providing notice of a closed meeting for every regular meeting. The Sunshine Law requires a city to post notice of a closed meeting providing the time, date, and place of a closed meeting and the reason for holding the closed meeting. These notices must be given at least 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays when the city offices are closed, prior to the beginning of the meeting. Most city offices are open during regular “business hours” Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. However, city operations do not necessarily cease during “off” hours. Police, fire, and public works personnel are still working. Issues arise regarding public infrastructure and parks. Employment issues can sometimes arise. Cities commonly meet on Mondays or Tuesdays—the notice of a Board of Aldermen meeting that starts at 6:00 pm on a Monday evening must be posted prior to 6:00 pm on Friday night. Because legal or personnel issues can arise in the three days following the posting of notice, we advise our clients that they may provide notice of a closed meeting to discuss legal or personnel matters for every meeting so that if a matter arises, the governing body can address it quickly and efficiently at their regularly scheduled meetings. If an issue does not arise, they simply do not enter a closed meeting. Without providing the Friday night notice, it would require the city to post notice of a special closed meeting to take place at least 24 hours after the notice, which would mean the earliest time the council could meet to take up the matter would be at some point on Tuesday. Thus, a legal or personnel matter that arose on a Saturday night could not be addressed by a council for three days without the proactive notices we recommend. A city can decide for itself whether it wishes to utilize this type of notice, as is the case with any advice we provide.
City Attorney cost considerations.
Hourly rates
The article goes to some lengths trying to vilify our firm due to increasing legal costs in some communities. Unfortunately, the authors, again, failed to include relevant context that was provided to them as they researched. They correctly stated our hourly fee of $205 in central Missouri—this rate is higher in the Kansas City and Springfield markets as recommended in guidelines for fee setting established by the Missouri Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Responsibility. The stated rate is a discounted rate for cities that have appointed us as their city attorney and/or prosecutor; our special counsel rate is $250-$270 per hour depending on location. A simple internet inquiry reveals that the average rates charged by attorneys in Missouri are $250-$300 per hour.
When a person goes to their general practice doctor and then is referred to a specialist, it is commonplace that the specialist charges higher rates than the general practitioner. The same is true for most professions, including attorneys. Lauber Municipal Law practices only local government law, only on behalf of cities and other political subdivisions. Half of our 16 attorney team members have 20 or more years of experience representing government bodies. We have a tremendous amount of knowledge of all facets of municipal law, yet we charge our clients less than the statewide average billable rates. Why? Because we understand that our fees are being paid using public dollars and we have an obligation to keep our rates reasonable for our clients.
In-house vs. contracted city attorneys
The article points out that some cities had significant increases in their legal spending after hiring our firm. When a city is not spending on legal assistance and increase in assistance can be significant. Also, it is important to recall that our firm was hired because the city was facing substantial legal liability because they hadn’t been using counsel prior to engaging our firm. Not all cities can afford to hire an attorney to serve on their staff. In those situations, it makes good financial sense to contract with a firm for on-demand services.
Even some larger cities have discovered that hiring a contract attorney is financially more advantageous than hiring on-staff counsel. An on-staff attorney is likely to cost upwards of $200,000 dollars per year when you add up salary, benefits, insurance, payroll taxes, continuing education, licensing, legal research subscriptions, and office supplies and equipment—a number that increases proportionally for each attorney a city requires to address its needs. For that cost a city gets an attorney with one set of experience, viewpoints, and advice. When that attorney is ill, has a death in the family, or is on vacation, the cost of the salary continues, but the attorney is not available. And when that attorney is out of his or her depth, they must call in special counsel to assist, usually at a much higher billing rate.
Contracted attorneys provide the purest legal costs. If they are working for the city, they bill for that time and when they are not working for the city, they don’t. With a firm like ours, the clients have the experience of 16 different attorneys available to them. When one of us is ill or on vacation, we can have another experienced municipal attorney substitute. We also require less time to come up to speed on municipal matters and even often split the cost of projects that are common to more than one of our clients.
Special counsel considerations
While we only practice municipal law, we do have some specific areas of expertise that we typically practice as special counsel. The best example of that is our economic development incentives practice. We charge a higher rate for this type of work, which requires knowledge and skill that goes well beyond the typical city attorney or city prosecutor work. When a developer is seeking incentives from a city, we highly recommend that the city require the developer to enter into a funding agreement by which the developer makes a deposit of funds with the city from which the city pay its consultants (legal, financial, etc.) to conduct due diligence and make certain that the deal is a good “investment” for its citizens. We recommend this so that citizens do not have to foot the bill for a developer to make a request for incentives that may cost tens of thousands of dollars to implement. We sincerely have the financial wellbeing of the taxpayers at heart when we advise our clients, and we find every opportunity we can to keep our bills as low as possible.
The hidden value of hiring experienced municipal lawyers
Perhaps the most difficult concept to illustrate is the hidden value of having an attorney present to guide a city’s actions. If we are at a city meeting and are able to stop a city from undertaking an action that could lead to a costly lawsuit and damages or fines of even $50,000, it would take 100 meetings of approximately two and a half hours each for our fees to add up to what we saved the city by being there to give the advice— that’s about 4 years’ worth of meetings at $500 per meeting two times per month.
Because it is an important public policy to protect taxpayers, laws in Missouri and throughout the United States are written to do so. We help our clients to be good stewards of public funds by advising them when they do not have a legal obligation to pay certain funds or by offering them language for agreements that reduce the likelihood that they would incur costs for enforcement or to otherwise reduce their legal liability.
Conclusion
We are a collective of experienced municipal attorneys who deeply and sincerely care about the communities we represent. We also are staunch advocates of our clients to practice good governance, which includes transparency in conducting city business. We hope that a discerning reader would understand that we would not be able to represent all the cities we do if we were bad at our jobs—in fact, we are very good at what we do, and unfortunately, that paints a target on us occasionally. If that is a consequence of serving our communities well, then that is a sacrifice we are willing to make.
Joseph G. Lauber
Managing Member