Jefferson City council introduces duty-to-preserve-confidentiality ordinance; public and members debate transparency and legal protections

Jefferson City Council introduced on first reading an ordinance to add a duty for elected officials, board and commission members to preserve the confidentiality of records and discussions held in closed session under the Missouri Sunshine Law.

The measure was presented by Councilmember Paulson and discussed at length by council members and the city attorney during the meeting. City Attorney Ryan Mollman told the council the proposed code section would apply only to records discussed or produced in closed sessions and explained the disciplinary route would be a trial before council for alleged breaches. Mollman said advice from the city attorney provides certain protections for officials under the Sunshine Law that are not available if an elected official consults only with a private attorney.

The ordinance prompted substantial public comment and council questioning. Two residents who spoke during public comment urged caution. Steve Sokoloff, a Ward 5 resident and president of Capital City United for Good Government, urged defeat of the bill and warned against broad prior restraints on elected officials’ speech, invoking the Sunshine Law’s policy that meetings and records “be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law.” He warned against doing harm where no need exists, saying lawmakers should follow the axiom “first, do no harm.”

Resident Scott Randolph pressed the council on access to information used to support the proposed conference center, saying pages 35–56 of a paid market study had been redacted on the public record and that elected officials who paid for the study should be able to review the underlying material. “You have a right to it. You paid for it. The taxpayers paid for it,” Randolph said, adding that the Sunshine Law contains protections for proprietary material.

Council members asked detailed legal and practical questions. Councilmember Allen asked whether confidentiality is implied by the oath of office; Mollman replied that the city code and state law do not currently create an automatic, enforceable duty of confidentiality and that the proposed ordinance would add an explicit duty. Members also questioned how enforcement would work, whether censure or removal would be an option, and whether an elected official could seek outside counsel in some circumstances. Several council members said they wanted clearer exceptions spelled out — for example, permitting an official with a personal, paid attorney-client relationship to consult private counsel — and asked the sponsor to draft specific language.

No final vote was taken on the ordinance; it was introduced and read at first reading. Councilmembers asked staff to return with draft amendment language to clarify whether and when a councilmember may obtain private counsel and to tighten definitions of prohibited conduct and disciplinary procedures. The ordinance will return to council for further consideration.