"It’s Over."

"The Chamber has fulfilled our contract," Mayor Kenneth Johnson told the Council Tuesday evening during their regular meeting. "Let’s get on with it and get off this."

Council member Art Dunaway echoed the Mayors feelings.

"As far as the City Council is concerned, it’s over," said Dunaway.

The comments came after nearly an hour of questions concerning the audit of the Chamber, required by the City as a condition of the Chambers tourism/promotion contract, conducted by Mense, Churchwell & Mense. A representative of the firm answered questions submitted in advance by the City. The Mayor allowed time for any follow up questions by individual Council members. There was little actual discussion by the Council in general.

"Do we want to continue our relationship with the Chamber," questioned Council member Charlie Bastin. There was no motion to dissolve the contracts signed by the City and the Chamber so they stand unless other action is initiated.

The Mayor was questioned by Council liaison to the Chamber Jackie Boyer about the Chamber’s earlier statements concerning their meetings not falling under the state sunshine law.

"I firmly believe they (Chamber meetings) should be open," said Mayor Johnson. "If they don’t I think we should take a look at the contract."

Chamber President Dexter Friesen told the Council that their meetings would be posted starting Wednesday morning.

Earlier in the month, the Leadership Carthage Committee of the Chamber had voted to continue its policy of making all meetings and financial records of that project open to the public.

The following is the letter sent to the Chamber by City Attorney David Mouton:

Dear Mr. Friesen:

I am writing to you in my capacity as Carthage City Attorney, at the request of Mayor Kenneth Johnson. Mayor Johnson asked me for my opinion as to whether the Carthage Chamber of Commerce is required to comply with the Missouri "Sunshine Law" set forth in Chapter 610 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The "Sunshine Law" or open meetings law applies to public governmental bodies. Under Section 610.010 of the statutes, public governmental bodies is defined as including "any quasi-public governmental body." That term is further defined as meaning any person, corporation or partnership or unincorporated association with either:

"a. Has as its primary purpose to enter into contracts with public governmental bodies, or to engage primarily in activities carried out pursuant to an agreement or agreements with public governmental bodies; or

b. Performs a public function...or any association that directly accepts the appropriation of money from a public governmental body, but only to the extent that a meeting, record, or vote relates to such appropriation...."

The Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals in a decision handed down in 1988 in Champ v. Poelker, cited at 755 SW 2d 383, held that a convention bureau which had entered into a contract with St. Louis County for the promotion of tourism and convention business in the county did constitute a "quasi-public governmental entity" and was therefore subject to the requirements of Chapter 610, RSMo. A lawsuit had been brought against the convention bureau and an other entity for failure to comply with the requirements of the Sunshine Law and other matters, and the trial court had dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals stated that from the allegation contained in the lawsuit that the convention bureau entered into a contract with St. Louis County in 1982 for the promotion of tourism and convention business in the county, the court could reasonably infer that the convention bureau's business was to perform a public function pursuant to it's agreements with governmental bodies.

I note that Section 610.011 of the Sunshine Law states that the provisions of the Sunshine Law shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote the public policy of open meetings, records, votes, and actions. Of course, the Sunshine Law, in Section 610.021 provides for matters for which closed meetings are authorized, such as hiring, firing, disciplining, or promoting an employee.

I believe that the Carthage Chamber of Commerce should comply with the Sunshine Law or open meetings law set forth in Chapter 610 of the Missouri Statutes, as does Mayor Johnson. A substantial part of the Chamber's revenues are derived from taxpayer funds received from the City of Carthage under contract. Since the Chamber spends a great deal of taxpayer funds in the course of it's operations, we believe it is not only legally proper, but also good public relations, to comply with the open meetings law so that the liaison to the Chamber, other council members and taxpayers can observe how taxpayer funds are being utilized. Even if it were not 100% clear from a legal perspective that the Carthage Chamber of Commerce is required to open its meetings and comply with Chapter 610 of the Missouri Statutes, there is no reason not to comply if the Chamber wishes to demonstrate to the city council and taxpayers that it is prudently utilizing taxpayer funds and is accountable for the same.

I am providing a copy of this letter to attorney James Spradling, who I believe recently represented you regarding some issues involving contracts with the City of Carthage. Please respond to me within a reasonable time as to whether the Chamber intends to comply with Chapter 610 of the Missouri Statutes.

Sincerely,

David B. Mouton

Just Jake Talkin'
Mornin',

I suppose that one a the appeals of the many fall festivals in the area is the fact that they aren’t considered as one of the regular family holidays. They are more of a make-your-own holiday.

There isn’t the pressure of Christmas or Thanksgivin’, or for lots a families the Fourth or Easter. In many cases it seems, the fall gatherin’s are more of an excuse to see old friends or some combination of friends and family.

The traditional meal can be as informal or formal as is comfortable or with so many activities and food venders there can be no meal at all.

Probl’ly the best part for some is that the local merchants don’t close on this holiday. Shop till ya drop.

This is some fact, but mostly,

Just Jake Talkin’.

by

Metcalf Auto Supply

Click and Clack Talk Cars.

Dear Tom and Ray:

I have a 1994 Toyota Camry LE V6 with an automatic transmission and a little over 30,000 miles on it. It has been properly maintained. At about 50-60 mph, a high-pitched whine develops in the transmission while the accelerator pedal is depressed. Upon release of the pedal, the noise stops instantly. The service manager at my Toyota dealership said the whine was coming from the "final drive assembly" and that it was OK for now. He said it was a very rare occurrence. Since the car is still under warranty, what should my next step be? — Henry

TOM: Your next step should be to ask him when he wants you to make an appointment to come in and have your final drive gears replaced, Henry.

RAY: He's right that it's very rare. He's also right that it's OK for now, in that it's not going to break suddenly and leave you stranded, or cause some catastrophic safety failure. It's just going to get slowly worse. And it's going to drive you nuttier and nuttier. Look what happened to my brother! The doctors say his condition can be directly traced to the incessant whine of the final drive on his 1967 GMC Suburban.

TOM: The problem is an improper gear mesh between the ring gear and pinion gear in the differential. Make sure your dealer writes his diagnosis on your service slip, so that you have proof that the problem started during the warranty period. That will ensure that they'll have to cover it under warranty, no matter how long they manage to put you off.

RAY: They're trying to wait you out, Henry. By telling you it's OK for now, they're hoping your hearing gets worse or you get a new job out of state.