Supporters of an off-leash dog park in Waldo are accusing the Kansas City, Missouri, parks board of violating Missouri’s Sunshine Law in the hopes of rescinding a controversial vote that put a sudden end to their efforts.
On August 28, the parks board enacted new guidelines for off-leash dog parks. The guidelines state that dog parks belong in the city’s regional parks, effectively canceling the effort the set aside a portion of Sunnyside Park in Waldo for dogs and their owners.
The parks board put the new guidelines on the agenda on short notice and did not allow public comment on the item. Dog-park supporters were outraged. Now they’ve got lawyer.
On Thursday Arthur Benson sent a letter to John Fierro, the president of the parks board, accusing the commissioners of meeting in secret. Benson’s evidence is a parks department press release explaining the board’s decision to create a new policy. According to Benson’s letter, the press release was handed out while the meeting was in progress, indicating that parks commissioners had decided to enact the new policy in advance.
Benson is also making a First Amendment claim. His letter suggests that parks board censored speech by not allowing the comments about dog parks. Benson says a lawsuit will be filed if the parks board does not rescind its new policy and schedule public hearings.
After the August 28 meeting, I asked Bill Geary, the city attorney who was present, for the legal justification for limiting public comment. In an e-mail, Geary said the parks board “can choose how to address each of its issues, and providing a time for public comment is not a requirement but is something the Board chooses to do to assist it in performing its duties.”
As for the press release, I didn’t receive a copy, so I can’t vouch for Benson’s suggestion that it was passed out before the meeting had concluded. But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the parks department had met in secret. In fact, I think I saw it happen.
The parks commissioners went into a closed session at the end of the August 28 meeting. I wasn’t in the room, as I describe in this week’s column, but I challenge anyone who was to convince me that the lengthy discussion was limited to “legal matters.” – David Martin
Showing 1-2 of 2
Therefore, Arthur's good name should force the appointed representative democracy to formulate public policy in view of the public because of the Sunshine Laws and Free Speech rights. Fat chance says the devil's advocate and here is why.
Dogs running freely could be construed as a legal issue for public safety reasons, so the board may have properly closed the meeting.
Free speech is nice and public input is good but not a requirement (show me the law). So if you don't like what's being done take a position like LaRaza and tell the city that you will boycott the park, better yet show up at the meeting with signs of protest, but don't expect a judge to reverse a decision just because it was illegally formulated behind closed doors. Remember MOHELA? Good intentions and rational ideas and government are usually mix that is a suspension and not very fluid.
So Arthur's good name should force the appointed representative democracy to formulate public policy in view of the public because of the Sunshine Laws and
free speech rights. Fat chance says the devils advocate and here's why.
Dogs running freely could be construed as a legal issue for public safety reasons,so the board may have properly closed the meeting.
Free speech is nice and public input is good but not a requirement (show me the law). So if you don't like what's being done take a position like LaRaza and tell the city you will boycott the park but don't expect a judge to reverse a decision just because it was illegaly formulated behind closed doors. Remember MOHELA? Good intentions and rational ideas and government are usually mix that is a suspension and not very fluid.
like
dislike
