Attorney Says City Cannot Endorse a Chamber of Commerce Campaign for a Change in State and City Law, But the Entire Legislative Body Can 

By Pauline Masson- 

In bit of advice that defies credulity, City Attorney Bob Jones said last Tuesday that the City of Pacific cannot endorse a Pacific Area Chamber of Commerce campaign to change a state statute because a majority of board of aldermen are dues paying members of the Chamber of Commerce.

He said it would be a conflict of interest for elected officials who are Chamber of Commerce members to vote on such action.

But he also said he thinks the entire elected body can act jointly, independent of the City, and endorse the change. 

Is he kidding?

If the entire legislative body of a city – the majority of which are Chamber of Commerce members – acts in a city meeting, discusses and votes for a letter supporting the Chamber of Commerce’s campaign for a change in law to be drafted, signed by the mayor and all aldermen, that wouldn’t be considered aldermen with double loyalties acting? There is no conflict there?

There is no doubt that the call for change would be strengthened with the support of the city. But how do you divorce the elected officials, acting in a legislative matter, from the city they are elected to serve? Did a conflict occur when they voted to hide their membership in the Chamber of Commerce?

If this letter on plain stationary shows up in Jefferson City, signed by the seven elected members of Pacific city government endorsing this Chamber of Commerce campaign for change, is no one going to realize this is approved City of Pacific action.

In other words if a letter lands in the forest and no one who reads it knows the signers does it represent a conflict of interest?

State officials might not realize that the City of Pacific officials who signed the letter or petition also happen to be members of the organization campaigning for change, but the aldermen and the mayor will know. 

What triggered this unusual action was the inadvertent appointment of Christine Slusser, who owns the Kaleidoscope resale shop, to the city tourism commission where she was elected chair – and her removal when it was realized that she did not meet the residency requirement.

By state statute and city ordinance tourism commission members must live in the city or any county in which the city is located, which is St. Louis and Franklin counties. Ms. Slusser lives in nearby Jefferson County.

Debbie Baker, Chamber of Commerce executive director spoke to aldermen Apr. 1, saying she wanted to address the decision to remove Ms. Slusser from her role as Chair of the Pacific Tourism Committee. She said the Chamber of Commerce and its Advocacy Committee were seeking change in the statutory language for tourism board membership

The Chamber of Commerce intended to contact State Representative Brad Banderman, Lt. Governor David Wasinger, and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce to advocate for a change in the language of Missouri Statute 67.1364 to include a larger area for eligibility. 

And the Chamber of Commerce was asking the Board of Aldermen and Mayor Filley to lend their “full and unwavering” support of this effort.

Alderman Rafael Madrigal made an immediate motion that a letter of support be drafted that the mayor and all aldermen would sign and forward to Jefferson City. But Mr. Jones said any elected official who was also a member of the Chamber of Commerce could not sign such a letter.

Alderman James Cleeve said, “That’s a majority.”

The lengthy discussion that ensued focused on how to fix the uncomfortable situation

 There was no mystery about one thing discussed Apr. 1. Everyone respected Ms. Slusser and regretted that she had been caught up in this error in city action. They thought she would be an effective tourism commission member and did not want her to be harmed by the aldermanic flub.

Alderman Karla Stewart, who recommended Ms. Slusser for the commission apologized.

“I didn’t know how the law was written,” she said. ”And I didn’t know where Christine lived. I am sorry.”

Former Alderman Carol Johnson said aldermen were acting too fast. 

“It isn’t fair that this come up and the public outside really doesn’t know that there is a challenge to that ordinance,” she said. “All I’m asking that tonight before you rush through this is that it can be clarified and there are good rules in place.”

Franklin County Clerk Tim Baker – Ms. Baker’s husband – who had formerly served as the president of the Pacific Chamber of Commerce and chair of the Pacific Tourism Commission spoke up to support the issue.

Mr. Madrigal made a new motion that a letter be drafted for aldermen and the mayor to sign that supported the change, which was voted on and passed.

To help Pacific officials draft their letter, Ms. Baker provided for the mayor and aldermen a copy of an extensive letter from the Chamber of Commerce and its Advocacy Committee, outlining their wish to change the law to include individuals who live farther afield.

Ms.Baker said the Chamber of Commerce and its Advocacy Committee wanted the unwavering support of the city – which included the mayor and all aldermen – in its quest to get the state statute changed.

Pay attention, folks. The Chamber of Commerce and its Advocacy Committee are not going to be quiet about this when they get to Jefferson City. And they deserve to be heard.

Let’s be clear. The Chamber of Commerce has an absolute right to lobby the city for a change in any city ordinance, and an absolute right to petition state legislators for a change in any state statute. But to suggest that, out of city loyalty, city officials join this campaign for the state to amend its statute, places officials in conflict of interest territory.

In addition to being elected city officials they also choose to be members of Ms. Baker’s organization.

I have to tell you , , , everyone’s motives are in the right place here. They would like to fix the mistake, especially as to how it may have embarrassed or caused pain to Ms. Slusser. But for our elected officials to try to make up for an unintentional slight to a popular business owner by masking their joint loyalties – their positions as elected officials and their membership in the Chamber of Commerce – calls for scrutiny. 

This whole thing looks like Winston Churchill’s riddle wrapped up in an enigma. Did the conflict actually occur when aldermen voted to draft a letter intended to hide their involvement in the Chamber of Commerce? I’m just asking.

The board of aldermen are scheduled to act on the next step in this issue at the next (Apr. 15), or a future BOA meeting.

The BOA meetings where this discussion took place can be viewed on the YouTube Pacific page.