Opinion letter to the Honorable Jerold L. Drake

J OHN C DAN~ORTH A TTOAHCY O t:NE A A L .~·~~i~')·~ • ;_.; j:,)... . . ........... OFFI(aOH cu• TIIIO ATTORNEY GENGRAL OF 1\IISSOURI JEFI•"ER80N CITY May 16, 1975 OPINION LETTER NO. 4 Honorable Jerold L. Drake State Representative, 5th District c/o House Post Office State Capitol Building Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Dear Representative Drake: Fl LED '1- This letter is in response to your request for an official opinion of this office, which request reads as follows: "Do the requirements of the Open Meetings Law (Act 17·2, 77th General Assembly) apply to a meeting between a state licensing agency and a professional person licensed by that agency, and/or their respective legal coun- sel concerning possible suspension or sur- render of the professional person's license?" More specifically, you state you are inquiring of the situ- ation which: " . . occurs when a licensee is contacted by the licensing agency or its counsel to explain charges against the licensee which the licensing agency has received. The meeting can result in the surrender of a professional person's license without full evidentiary hearing." It is our view that the meeting in question falls within the exemption of subsection 2 of Section 610.025, RSMo Supp. 1973, which provides: Honorable Jerold L. Drake "2. Any meeting, record or vote pertain- ing to legal actions, causes of action, or litigation involving a public governmental body, leasing, purchase or sale of real es- tate where public knowledge of the transac- tion might adversely affect the legal con- sideration therefor may be a closed meeting, closed record, or closed vote." In reaching this conclusion we take into consideration that it has long been the public policy of this state to encourage the disposition of such matters by private conference, discussion and negotiation. Such policy is reflected by the provisions of Sec- tion 536.060, RSMo, relating to administrative actions. Any other result would, in our view, virtually destroy the privacy to which the private litigants are entitled and as a result nullify the possibility of, and accordingly, the advantages of pre-trial dis- position of litigation. We do not believe that an interpretation should be given to the statute which would have an unreasonable result. State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 161 S.W. 1169 (Mo. 1913}. We therefore regard such conferences as being within the exemption relating to legal actions and conclude that such confer- ences are not within the public meetings law. Such meetings may be open to the public if the parties so desire but are not public meetings. Very truly yours, JOHN C. DANFORTH Attorney General