When people speak of Missouri’s Sunshine Law they often forget that it is more than a means by which individuals can request information from city hall. All of the information that a public governmental body uses while conducting public business is required to be open to the public unless the information falls within one of the statutory exceptions. Thus, Chapter 610 sets forth the rules for public meetings and records of public governmental bodies and the exception to the rule of openness.
Missouri has declared in Section 610.011, RSMo that the meetings, records, votes, actions and deliberations of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public unless otherwise provided in Sunshine Law. The provisions dealing with the Sunshine Law are to be construed liberally to promote openness and to be construed strictly as to its exceptions. Thus, the provisions dealing with public records are deemed to be open unless an exemption is found to apply in Section 610.022, RSMo.
This is particularly relevant in dealing with major development projects such as data centers. These types of projects include issues related to zoning and annexation and can include a host of utility agreements as well as tax incentives for development and even use of industrial revenue bonds to finance construction of public improvements. And, to be sure, there will likely be times when certain information can be kept confidential for a limited time. However, that does not mean the entire project can be kept secret indefinitely.
Public Meetings Have Rules Before the Meeting Ever Begins
Notice of the meeting must be provided to the public in writing at least 24 hours prior to the time at which the meeting is to be held. Notice need not be provided for weekends or for holidays on which the facility at which the meeting is to be held is closed. Meetings must be held in facilities that are reasonably accessible to persons with disabilities and at times that are reasonably convenient to members of the public. Members of the public are permitted to record open meetings of public governmental bodies, subject to reasonable rules adopted by the body to regulate recording in order to prevent disruption of, or interference with, the meeting. RSMo § 610.020. Minutes of all meetings must contain a record of attendance, a record of any votes cast and the results thereof. RSMo § 610.020.
This has the potential to be a very complex issue. At first glance, there are some significant differences between an “economic development” agenda and an agenda that lists off the following items for public consideration: development agreement, tax-abatement for years, Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs) for years. The notice requirements are not meant to read through the minutes of every single document that is discussed at a meeting, but rather to inform the public of the general nature of the matters that will be considered. In this case, a significantly more informed public would be better served by listing off each of these items on the agenda for public consideration rather than simple notice of an “economic development” meeting.
A government body cannot simply say a meeting is closed and send everyone home. A closed meeting requires an affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum to hold a closed meeting. Section 610.022 also requires the governmental body to identify the specific exemption authorizing the closed meeting in its action authorizing the closed session, and that must be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. Moreover, all discussion in a closed meeting must be relevant to the stated exemption authorizing the closed meeting. Thus, an exemption permitting a closed meeting on one subject does not permit discussion of other subjects related to the overall project.
What Can Actually Be Closed?
RSMo § 610.021 sets forth the exceptions to the rule of open meetings and public records. This section addresses attorney-client communications and litigation materials as well as real estate transactions involving the government. Additional exceptions exist for proposed sealed bids and contracts, proprietary information such as that related to technological services, security measures and other information including certain personnel related information.
Examples of legitimate exceptions to open government exist in order to permit certain activities to be conducted on behalf of the public with confidentiality. For instance, in negotiating the purchase price of real estate for a park or other public use, a city would be put at a disadvantage to its counter-party if it were to disclose the highest price that the city would pay for real estate before the city had completed its negotiations to acquire the property.
But the exceptions have boundaries.
Section 610.021(2) allows a public governmental body to close meetings to discuss the leasing, purchase, or sale of real estate by such public governmental body. Section 610.021(12) allows documents to be kept confidential while they are related to a negotiated contract; however, such documents cease to be confidential when the contract is executed or when all proposals are rejected. Section 610.022 states that a closed meeting shall be held only for as long as is necessary to consider the subject for which the meeting was called.
Thus, while the information in a contract may be kept confidential under a nondisclosure agreement, the document itself cannot be kept secret under such an agreement once it is a public record. In other words, an NDA does not constitute an additional basis for a governmental body to withhold information from the public. Rather, the basis for withholding the document must be found in Chapter 610, as and if applicable.
The Missouri Supreme Court Has Already Addressed Secret Development Discussions
An important case dealing with Sunshine Law matters is Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. banc 1998).
It is not, however, lawful for the governing body of a city to close meetings and consider all of the matters that are associated with a particular real estate deal simply because real estate is one of the subjects under consideration. In Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. banc 1998), the Supreme Court held that the real estate exception to the Sunshine Law did not apply to the closed meetings held by the governing body of Fulton regarding a proposal by a private investment group to acquire property and develop a golf course. The considerations regarding the proposed golf course involved not only the real estate, but also matters regarding the financing of the project by means of neighborhood improvement bonds, as well as other considerations such as annexation, zoning, roads, utilities and other action by the city as a governing body.
The real estate exception for Section 610.021(2) does not permit a governmental body to discuss a private developer’s real estate project while closing all of the meetings on the subject of development for the project. The exception only applies to real estate transactions of the governmental body and not to real estate related to the transactions of the private developer. Thus, in Spradlin, the City’s attempt to close all of the meetings on the golf course project of the private developer fell outside of the real estate exception.
Thus, for example, discussions with regard to a municipal purchase of a warehouse for storage of computer equipment could properly be closed under the real estate exception. But discussion of zoning concessions, of utility services, of road construction and other public facilities, of financial incentives, of development policy generally, could not properly be closed under the real estate exception to the Sunshine Law as applied to discussions of a data-center project.
Public-Private Deals Do Not Stop Being Public Business
In North Kansas City Hospital Board of Trustees v. St. Luke’s Northland Hospital, 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998), the Western District held that the Sunshine Law applies to the records of a publicly-operated hospital, even though the hospital deals with private entities in those records. Importantly, however, the court held that whether records are subject to disclosure under Chapter 610 is determined by whether the records are retained or controlled by a public governmental body. Thus, the fact that private parties such as developers or consultants are involved in the records does not automatically mean that the records are outside the Sunshine Law. Rather, whether the records may be withheld from disclosure is determined by whether the records fall within one of the exceptions to Chapter 610.
However, records sent to a public governmental body by private parties can become public records depending on the nature of the records and the governmental body’s practices regarding the retention and maintenance of such records. Thus, the fact that records in regard to a development request were prepared by a private party does not automatically mean that such records are not public records under Chapter 610. Section 610.023 applies to records retained or constructed by a public governmental body. Thus, whether a document is public or not depends upon the governmental body’s control of the document and application of Chapter 610, not upon the preference of the governmental body regarding disclosure.
The protection afforded by Missouri’s Sunshine Law may be temporary as well. For example, Section 610.021(10) permits documents to be kept secret while a public governmental body is negotiating a contract, but once that contract is executed or the developer’s proposal is rejected, all of the documents related to the development become public records. Similarly, records relating to the approval of real estate contracts by a public governmental body remain closed until the contract is executed by the public governmental body.
How a Sunshine Request Works
Section 610.023 sets out the procedure for the amounts a public governmental body charges a requester for records. The statute requires every public governmental body to designate a records custodian. A request for records must be acted upon by the public governmental body as soon as possible and, if the request is in writing, within three business days after the date it is received by the custodian.
For purposes of production, the three business days does not mean that the governmental body must gather, reproduce and deliver thousands of pages of information within that timeframe. If, however, the records will not be available within three business days, the custodian must respond immediately and explain the time needed to produce the information and the place, time and date that the records will be available. A demand for a written explanation of a denial of access to information includes a request for identification of the specific statute or provision which authorizes denial of access to information.
Nothing in the statute prohibits the body from denying access to portions of a document which fall within an exemption from disclosure; rather the body is required to provide access to non-exempt material within the document and to delete or “redact” exempt material from the copied or otherwise disseminated portion of the document.
Electronic communications and documents are also included in the definition of public records under Chapter 610. Section 610.025 specifically addresses communications via electronic mail or other electronic means among a quorum of a public body. However, Missouri law defines public records more broadly to include information regardless of whether it is maintained in paper or alternative forms. Thus, emails and other documents stored in a governmental body’s computer databases or other media would be subject to request under the Sunshine Law.
Besides classifications for specific documents, Chapter 610 also governs how the Sunshines Law applies to records. These statutes explain who a governmental body’s records custodian is and how a requester can make a records request. When a requester makes a proper records request, the custodian must respond within three business days from the date of receipt, and either provide the records or state when the requester can receive them.
The Government Cannot Turn Legal Review Into an Unlimited Records Fee
As noted above, cost can become a prohibitive factor in requesting and receiving information from government bodies. To address this concern, the Sunshine Law restricts charges for copying, research, and staff time. Section 610.026 limits the charge for making copies of regular papers to ten cents per page. Similarly restricted are charges for staff time and research. A public governmental body must use the lowest cost employee to perform a requested task and a requester can ask for an estimate of costs before they are incurred. Disclosure of information that will facilitate public understanding of government activity may be waived for requests that are not primarily commercial in nature.
Missouri case law regarding requests for public information has also continued to evolve in recent years. For example, in Gross v. Parson, 624 S.W.3d 877 (Mo. banc 2021), the Missouri Supreme Court held that Sec. 610.026 does not permit a public governmental body to charge a requestor for attorney review time by calling it “research time” to review public records requested by a requestor in accordance with Chapter 610.
For large development projects, however, the provisions for costs and time for production of records can present significant problems for residents making requests. A single request for records concerning a large development can consist of thousands of pages of emails and other documents which could require days or even weeks to compile and produce. Yet Chapter 610 is not meant to be a means by which public information can be kept from the public through unjustly high charges for production of copies of records.
There Are Real Consequences for Violating the Law
Finally, as discussed in detail above, there are significant and severe legal consequences for a government body’s violation of the Sunshine Law. Specifically, Section 610.027 allows an “aggrieved person… or taxpayer… or citizen… or the Attorney General… or a prosecuting attorney… [to] enforce the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.030 by injunctive relief or by damages…”.
The governmental body then has the burden of proving compliance with Sunshine Law requirements for closing meetings and voting in secret. A “knowing” violation of Sunshine Law requirements can subject a governmental body to a $1,000 civil penalty, while a “purposeful” violation can subject a governmental body to a $5,000 civil penalty. Furthermore, a governmental body found to have purposefully violated the Sunshine Law is subject to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with the violation.
A third way that the Sunshine Law can affect a government action is for a court to declare an action taken in violation of the open meetings law to be “void.” The statute contains several limitations on this remedy, however, including a provision that it does not apply to bond issues that are voted on in a public hearing, at an election, or following a public sale. Thus, the mere fact that a government action is subject to the Sunshine Law does not automatically mean that the action can be declared “void” in a lawsuit. However, the possibility that it can provides strong motivation for government bodies to comply with the Sunshine Law.
What About Missouri Data Centers?
To date, I have been unable to locate a Missouri appellate court decision specifically addressing the applicability of the Sunshine Law to a data center project. There are, however, several Missouri cases currently being litigated, each of which present questions regarding the application of the Sunshine Law to data center-related matters by cities, counties, and/or state agencies. Those cases are before the trial court and are still pending and are therefore subject to change and, ultimately, to be decided by the trial court following trial on the merits.
On February 11, 2026, in a related matter to this post, the proposed Montgomery County data center was the subject of a lawsuit filed in Cole County Circuit Court by Preserve Montgomery County, LLC. The plaintiffs (who are listed as Relators) challenged the action of Montgomery County and the Missouri Department of Economic Development (the “Department”). Among the issues challenged were the manner in which meetings were noticed and conducted, including closed sessions. The case is styled Preserve Montgomery County, LLC v. Missouri Department of Economic Development and Montgomery County, Missouri, Case No. 26AC-CC00072 in the Cole County Circuit Court.
Around the same time, Wake Up Jeffco, LLC and several property owners, including Chris Nader, Marty Sheppard and Rex Sheppard, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis Division of the 26th Judicial Circuit against the City of Festus and CRG Acquisition, LLC, developers of a proposed data-center to be built off of State Hwy AA in Festus. This case, State of Missouri ex rel. Wake Up Jeffco, LLC v. City of Festus, Case No. 26SL-CC03024, has allegations similar to those found in Gross related to possible Sunshine Law violations. Reporting on the complaint found that various officials of the City of Festus participated in secret meetings prior to those same officials voting on the project in public sessions. For now, all allegations of misconduct by the defendants are simply that – allegations of possible misconduct. In fact, the case was removed to Federal Court and then remanded back to the St. Louis Circuit Court – where it remains pending. It too will be one to watch as it too works its way through the judicial system.
These are cases that we need to keep an eye on and which hopefully will help to develop case law relating to the application of long established Sunshine laws to the growing phenomenon of large private developments of the type of data-center projects under consideration in Missouri. However, until the Missouri Supreme Court determines whether the particular procedure of negotiations and ultimate approval of large, private projects for development of the type of development of Spradlin, supra, of enormous public action involved in such massive projects may be secretly negotiated and decided prior to public disclosure, Spradlin will remain an important case.
Transparency Matters Before the Vote, Not Just After It
In addition to disclosure of government action already taken by releasing the final agreement, the Sunshine Law also requires disclosure of the process and rationale behind the government’s decision and actions regarding development proposals before a final vote is taken. Therefore, in addition to disclosure of the final agreement regarding a development proposal, disclosure of all prior meetings, deliberations, documents and actions of government regarding the proposal are required prior to a final vote.
These are matters of public concern and will affect land use, public utilities, public infrastructure and the taxpayer funded finances of a city or town for decades to come. The actions of government must be subject to scrutiny. Not everyone will agree on every project but all should have the opportunity to understand the decision making process of local government.
The statutory provisions permitting certain confidentiality also have to be applied to development projects. Thus, real-estate negotiations and offers may be kept confidential for 14 days. Similarly, development agreements may be kept confidential for a 30-day period following the date the final vote is taken on such an agreement. These exceptions to Missouri’s policy of openness for governmental bodies apply, however, only to true exceptions from the rule of openness and not as a means to evade compliance with the Sunshine Law. Thus, for example, attorney-client communications, certain financial information, and written or oral experts’ opinions developed for or by litigation counsel [which] would otherwise be available under § 610.023(1), can be kept confidential only to the extent such are proprietary in nature.
However, the statute does permit instances of legitimate confidentiality including real estate transactions, negotiations for contracts, attorney-client communications as well as matters of a proprietary nature. Such confidential information is the exception to the rule of open government and is not superseded by large economic development projects such as data-center proposals now popping up across the state of Missouri.
This article is not intended to be a complete or current discussion of the law surrounding Sunshine requests, but is merely a summary of certain reported cases and an overview of the relevant Missouri law. Because the issues surrounding Sunshine requests can depend on a variety of factors, including the specific records requested, the subject matter of the meeting or communication at issue, and the applicable statutory exceptions, requests should be made with the assistance of legal counsel, and all governmental bodies handle such requests the same.
By Michael Deslongchamps
Leave a Reply