Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council revisits event‑MOU policy after conflicting recusal practices; attorney says statute requires special monetary benefit
Summary
Council reconsidered Event Street closure MOUs after confusion about prior recusals; the city attorney provided a memorandum concluding Missouri conflict‑of‑interest statute requires a special monetary benefit to trigger recusal, recommending disclosure and recusal when a member serves on an applicant nonprofit's board and the MOU names the nonprofit.
Council reconsidered a prior resolution approving event street‑closure memorandums of understanding after some members recused themselves in an earlier meeting. The city attorney explained the controlling Missouri conflict‑of‑interest statute requires a special monetary benefit to a council member, spouse or dependent child and said the cited resolution and blank MOU did not name any nonprofit receiving preferential treatment.
"The key in that phrase is special. Special means preferential treatment to the council member, their spouse, or to their dependent child," the city attorney said, reading from his memo. He recommended a practice of disclosure and recusal by any member who serves on an applicant organization's board for event‑specific MOUs when an MOU names an organization. Council members discussed the loss of constituents' voice when members recuse and expressed a desire for clarity; one council member said he had recused previously out of caution but would not recuse this time based on counsel's advice and his review of the memo.
After discussion and questions about how MOUs and incomplete applications would return to council for approval, council voted to approve the resolution. Staff noted that each MOU would be presented to council for approval and that the memo addresses when disclosure and recusal practices are appropriate.
