The ‘myth’ of Branson’s ‘Cone of Silence’

Do you remember that clumsy television spy, Maxwell Smart, lowering the plastic dome of the “Cone of Silence” over his head, expecting total and absolute privacy? The gadget always failed, amplifying every whisper for all to hear and leaving Maxwell shouting in a clear box.

The executive sessions Branson Aldermen love to go into, seemingly after every meeting, offer about as much mandated secrecy as Maxwell Smart’s cone of silence. Most folks assume that our board of aldermen are legally required to lock the door when discussing sensitive items—but that is a myth. Under Missouri’s Sunshine Law (RSMo § 610.021), public governmental bodies are allowed to close specific meetings, records and votes. While the law presumes everything is open, it lists dozens of specific exceptions where confidentiality is permitted. However, closure is generally optional, not mandatory. 

Under Missouri’s open meeting laws, in most cases, closing a session is permitted, never mandated. Like Maxwell Smart’s useless plastic dome, these closed doors are a clumsy attempt to manufacture absolute secrecy, trying to hide what the law never demanded be kept secret in the first place. Secrecy is a fragile thing. Eventually, the whispers always escape.

“Hold on, Seagull. Are you saying that the vast majority of times when the Branson Board of Aldermen goes into executive session, there’s no Missouri law, Sunshine or otherwise, requiring them to go into executive session to discuss the item?” No, the Missouri Sunshine Law says it.

“You said, ‘Eventually, the whispers always escape.’ How can that happen if the conversation takes place during an executive session? Aren’t the members in the meeting prohibited from disclosing what takes place in the meeting?" That’s a common myth. Can you cite the state statute or Section of the Branson Municipal Code that says that’s a violation of anything?

While there are a few situations where disclosure could violate another law or contractual duty, the vast majority of cases commonly discussed at Branson Board executive session meetings are not. Examples of where secrecy might be appropriate include discussions involving HIPAA, attorney-client discussions on a particular matter such as the appeal of the $30 million judgment, and discussions of courtroom tactics. Examples where disclosure might be appropriate include when the Board is trying to change the law relating to what the tourism tax can be used for, or the rationale for terminating employees without cause. 

The way most Branson Boards, including this one, try to invoke the “Cone of Silence” to protect their communications in executive session shows just how “transparent” those who ran for office under the banner of transparency are.