Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency Ndas Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances ban on government NDAs in data-center negotiations after elected-officials'testimony
Summary
The State and Local Government Committee advanced SF 45-48 to prohibit government nondisclosure agreements tied to data-center projects after local officials and residents described NDAs that limited public communication; members debated whether the ban should cover only elected officials or all government employees.
Senator Hauschild told the committee SF 45-48 aims to ensure transparency when local governments consider data-center projects, saying constituents "deserve to understand the full scope of a possible data center development" before decisions are made.
St. Louis County Commissioner Annie Carla described signing an NDA during a development negotiation and its effect on her relationship with residents: "The signature itself created a wall between me and the people that I represent," she said, adding she later apologized to constituents and supports a statewide fix so other officials are not put in the same position. Farmington resident Gary Johnson said the bill, as drafted in the Senate version, is too narrow because it limits NDAs only for elected officials and would leave secrecy in place when non-elected staff or contracted employees sign agreements. "If you truly want to prevent secrecy, you need to include all local government officials and staff," Johnson said.
Committee members discussed several approaches. Some said limiting the prohibition to elected officials responds to the principal concern about accountability; others urged expanding the language to include municipal employees, administrators and economic-development staff so secrecy cannot be shifted to unelected officials. Counsel described an oral amendment that replaces the term "elected official" with "government" and adds employees of cities, counties and towns to the prohibition. The committee adopted the oral amendment and the bill, as amended, was recommended to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
The panel did not adopt a final, comprehensive definition of the classes of local government employees to be covered and members asked for stakeholder engagement on exact language before it moves farther in the process. The committee vote on the recommendation was recorded as passed and the file was referred to Judiciary.
