BELLE — Belle Alderwoman Rebecca Withouse says concerns remain about transparency, access to information and the city’s reliance on legal counsel, while stressing that she is speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the city or board of aldermen.

“I would like to stress that I am speaking as an individual citizen, and that my views and opinions are mine alone, and they do not represent the city of Belle or the board of aldermen or anyone else in office,” Withouse said during an Aug. 21 interview with The Maries County Advocate.

Among her concerns is how and when aldermen receive materials before meetings.

Withouse said the packet she received ahead of the Aug. 24 meeting was only the third she had received before a meeting. She said she has asked to have packets emailed because her work schedule makes it more difficult for her to visit City Hall than other board member.

“A lot of times I’ve not gotten a packet,” Withouse said. “Just this last meeting, other aldermen had been allowed to get it, and I was not even told that that was an option for me.”

When asked how receiving materials immediately before a meeting affects her ability to research issues, ask questions and cast informed votes, Withouse said, “It negatively affects it.”

She said explanations for the delay have included documents not being ready and information arriving at the last minute.

Withouse said she also has concerns about changes to meeting agendas and aldermen receiving little advance information about proposed ordinances.

“We make so many last-minute changes to the agenda, and I get some of them cannot be avoided, I’m sure, but I mean, some of them could,” she said.

Withouse said she would like proposed ordinances and other information to be made more readily available to the public, even in cases where the city may not be legally required to publish the complete document in advance.

“I still think it would be nice if we shared that information,” she said.

She cited a proposed ordinance involving grass that had previously appeared on an agenda as an example. Withouse said she did not know what the proposal involved before the meeting was canceled and later learned the item had been removed from a subsequent agenda.

“I feel like if we’re supposed to represent, shouldn’t the aldermen know what the ordinance is so that way we can be aware in advance?” she said.

Withouse said her approach to Missouri’s Sunshine Law has been influenced by training she has received through the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and other civic education programs.

“One of the things that in all the Sunshine Law trainings that I’ve had from the Attorney General’s office that I’ve taken through civics courses have always been to err on following the spirit of Sunshine Law,” she said. “I feel like sometimes we could do a better job honoring the spirit of requests.”

Withouse was also asked what Sunshine Law education Lauber Municipal Law, the city’s law firm, has provided to her.

“Nothing to me,” she said.

Withouse said training has been mentioned, but she has not been provided with specific dates or instructions for attending.

“There was mention of a class, but I’ve never been contacted and been allowed to take that,” she said. “There was a lot of talk about, ‘Oh well, go to this class, learn, educate yourself.’ Well, that’s what I’ve been trying to do, but I have not been told, ‘Hey, this is the class, these are the dates, you can go to these.’”

Legal spending was another area Withouse said she would like to understand better.

For the 2023-24 fiscal year, Belle budgeted $3,288 on legal fees. For the month of February 2024 alone, one of its first months contracting with the firm, it paid $2,881 in legal fees.

Throughout 2024, the monthly invoices the firm billed Belle often amounted to close to the city’s budget for that entire fiscal year of legal fees.

The following fiscal year, the city increased its budget for legal fees to $15,000. This fiscal year, the budget for legal fees is $18,500.

She said the information she receives with the city’s bills generally shows the total amount owed to Lauber Municipal Law but does not provide aldermen with a detailed accounting of the work performed.

“I see the total bill,” Withouse said. “I do not see a breakdown of, okay, this is what we’re billing you for. This is what we’ve done. This is the work we’ve done.”

When asked specifically about the increase in the city’s legal expenses, Withouse declined to speculate about what caused it, noting that litigation and other legitimate legal work could account for some of the cost.

“I would love to see a detailed invoice,” she said. “I would not feel comfortable speaking on that, as I know that there are lawsuits and things like that. So I wouldn’t be comfortable saying because it could all be research from that. It could be for something else.”

She said greater detail would allow aldermen to determine what types of matters are repeatedly being referred to the attorney and whether city officials could eventually handle some of those issues internally.

Withouse said she believes routine questions should become easier for city staff to handle as institutional knowledge develops.

“There is a wealth of experience in that office,” she said.

She suggested the city could maintain written guidance for recurring issues, similar to how she keeps information for questions that arise in her own work.

“You would almost think we would have that, or quick access documents or forms for, ‘Hey, they want this. This is what you do,’ this step-by-step guide,” she said. “I feel like there could be more independence encouraged.”

Withouse also questioned whether it was necessary to use the city attorney to prepare the censure issued against her earlier this year.

“If it’s not a legal document that we’re not going to file anywhere, why did we pay the attorney to write that?” she asked.

Withouse acknowledged that her own actions leading up to the censure caught other board members by surprise and said she has since tried to communicate more in advance about issues she wants placed before the board.

“I’m not denying that my actions were blindsiding,” she said. “I didn’t intentionally mean it that way. I respect the fact that I did it, though.”

However, she said she believes the matter could have been handled through a conversation instead of involving the attorney.

“I don’t think we needed to pay the attorney to write a letter of concern about my behavior,” Withouse said. “We could have had a conversation.”

She added that disagreement should be expected among elected officials.

“We shouldn’t all have the same opinions and the same voices,” she said.

The discussion of her censure led into broader concerns Withouse has about the city’s code of conduct and whether its application could conflict with her First Amendment rights.

Asked whether she believes the code of conduct goes against those rights, Withouse responded, “Yes. Yes, I do.”

Withouse said she has considered raising the issue during a Board of Aldermen meeting, particularly because she believes the standards contained in the code have not been applied equally.

“I am constantly held to that standard, but I have a notebook and I have kept track of other people’s violations of it too, and yet I’m the only one that’s been censured,” she said.

Withouse initially said she did not believe aldermen should censure one another, before clarifying that she does believe the board should retain that authority.

“I do think that we should have the power to censure each other, but I do feel like it would do me no good to say anything because I have been shown by my exclusion that I’m not included,” she said.

Withouse said she worries that publicly challenging the code or other city practices could reinforce accusations that she is attempting to create conflict.

“I am worried now that with the article coming out that people are going to use this as an excuse to say Rebecca’s just trying to cause trouble, Rebecca’s just doing this for attention,” she said. “I hope that I’ve done a good enough job and stood by what I said, that people will understand that I just believe we could do better.”

Withouse later returned to the First Amendment issue when explaining why she has not formally challenged the code during a meeting.

“I do feel honestly that it violates my First Amendment rights, but what good will it do?” she said. “I am a minority voice. I am consistently left out of things. What good will it do?”

Those concerns, she said, are connected to how she believes she has been treated since being elected.

“I think it’s very clear that I am very much not welcome,” she said. “I have still not been allowed to go down and participate in things at City Hall. I’m still not allowed or invited. I’m the only one that’s not.”

She said she feels she is sometimes held to a different standard but acknowledged the other board members have the right to disagree with her actions.

“They are allowed to have an opinion about my actions,” Withouse said. “I did what they said I did. Was it my intention? No. And I think that’s the thing, is we’re all supposed to be believing the best in each other, that we’re trying to work together. I feel like I am held to different standards.”

Withouse said she would support additional Sunshine Law education from sources independent of the city’s law firm.

“As an individual, I think it’s always great to be trained and educated by multiple sources,” Withouse said.

She pointed to previous Sunshine Law training conducted through the Attorney General’s Office that was open to members of the public.

“The public was welcome,” she said. “I was able to attend that as a citizen.”

Asked whether she believes the Board of Aldermen would support an independent review of the city’s legal spending and Sunshine Law practices, Withouse said she does not believe such a review would currently receive support.

“My individual opinion is that they would not support a review,” she said.

If a review were conducted, however, Withouse said she would want it to determine what issues are generating calls to the city attorney.

“I would want to know who’s calling and over what,” she said. “I would like to track like…we’ve called 17 times about records requests. Let’s focus on getting that where you don’t have to call us.”

Withouse said she tries to make transparency a priority in her own role as alderman.

“I always do my best to err on the side of transparency,” she said. “I cannot speak to how they feel about it, but I know for me, I try and be transparent.”

She said she attempts to respond to citizens who contact her, attend meetings residents ask her to attend and broadcast government meetings when possible.

The interview also addressed whether Withouse is concerned about repercussions for publicly criticizing city practices, including through her interview with The Advocate.

“Yes,” she said.

Withouse said she worries her comments could be used as the basis for another censure.

“I’m worried that they will use it as another reason to censure me,” she said. “I’m trying to do my best, but I really don’t feel like I can speak freely. I feel like I have to be very careful.”

She said her intention is not to attack other officials, but to express her views about how the city operates.

“I run the risk of, ‘Well, she spoke badly about us. She criticized us,’ and that’s not my intention,” Withouse said. “I am really just trying to give my opinion on the situation.”

Her concern extends beyond her own position, she said, to whether future residents will be willing to seek office.

“What happens when seats open up?” Withouse asked. “Are other people going to be willing to run? Are other people going to want to take the chance of stepping up with the things they see and hear?”

Withouse said she believes her best approach for now is to continue documenting meetings and making information available to the public.

“The best way I can serve the citizens of Belle right now is to walk the line, broadcast the meetings and share what information I can,” she said. “And that is always my goal, to do the best I can in this office to serve the city of Belle citizens. Citizens, not the city itself. I work for the citizens.”

That view contrasts with comments previously made by Nathan Nickolaus, an attorney with Lauber Municipal Law, regarding the firm’s role in representing the city.

“My client is the city as a corporate entity,” Nickolaus said. “I don’t work for the citizens.”