I don’t want to say it has been a busy summer but at my house we recently went 13 consecutive days without a television being turned on. That has to be some kind of record.
Wanting to see a celebrity during Chiefs training camp? Maybe try the Pizza Ranch, of all places. Here’s a tidbit for you, the details of which are brought to you courtesy of reporter Stacy Wiedmaier, whose parents live in St. Joseph. One time during last year’s Chiefs training camp, Taylor Swift dined at the Pizza Ranch in St. Joe. We know this because the next night Stacy’s parents were dining at that same Pizza Ranch and their waitress told them the story. Seems their waitress is the one who had the honor of serving the Swift table, and the waitress excitedly shared the story.
So did the waitress get Taylor’s autograph? Negative. She tried, but Taylor’s response was a polite but firm: “I’m eating.”
We don’t qualify as celebrities but Landmark columnist Chris Kamler and I had a memorable experience at a now-defunct sports bar in St. Joe during the Chiefs training camp of 2012 or 2013, my memory has faded on the exact year but not on the exact details of that experience. Maybe I’ll share that story in the next week or two.
As you’ll see on our front page, Platte City Board of Aldermen recently voted to add another year to the contract of Bryan Richison, city administrator. But it came with a rather odd vote total. Four aldermen voted yes to the extension: Vicki Atkins, Dan Laxson, Scott Poague and Debbie Kirkpatrick. That’s where the clarity ends and some weirdness begins.
The original closed session minutes sent to The Landmark indicated aldermen Jesse Bennett and Ken Graham voted no. But later we were told something different. After the Tuesday, July 28 board meeting, Richison sent an email to me at 8:43 p.m. stating this: “Tonight I was made aware of a possible discrepancy with the record of vote that I sent you. The board members tell me the two nay votes were actually abstentions. I had left the room for that part of the discussion so I can’t verify what actually happened. I will be contacting the city attorney, who took the notes, to try and straighten out the discrepancy.” Six minutes later on that Tuesday night I responded by asking Richison to please keep me posted with an update. The following afternoon Richison sent an email stating: “I have confirmed the two nay votes were in fact abstentions.”
Very strange for an elected official to abstain on a vote involving its top employee. Typically in Missouri, the primary reasons an elected official will abstain from a vote are a statutory conflict of interest, the appearance of impropriety, or a lack of sufficient information.
So I reached out by email to Bennett and by text to Graham asking for comment on their reasoning for abstaining on this personnel vote. Both responded in timely fashion, with professional, very politely worded comments. But the wording didn’t provide any answers, nor did it quote the Sunshine Law with accuracy. “On my abstention, that decision followed discussion that took place in the board’s closed session. As you are probably aware, Missouri’s Sunshine Law doesn’t allow me to speak to what was discussed there. Unfortunately, I can’t go into the reasoning beyond saying it wasn’t made lightly,” Bennett said in an email, adding “thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate the investigative journalism you provide our community.”
Meanwhile, here was Graham’s response sent by text: “Thanks for your inquiry. The board’s votes are a matter of public record however, because the discussion was regarding personnel and occurred in closed session, I’m not at liberty to comment or share any details about our meeting.”
Both avoided providing any reasoning for their choice to abstain. And that’s all we were asking. We weren’t looking for any juicy inside personnel information, we were looking for a legitimate reason why an elected official would choose to not cast a vote on an issue as important as adding on to the contract of the city’s highest level employee. It’s not a difficult nor unreasonable question for anyone in the public to ask, and frankly the public deserves an explanation.
As for the legal stance both mentioned in their choice to avoid the question, I’ll point out they are not accurately quoting the details of the Sunshine Law. Any media attorney will tell you that under Missouri’s Sunshine Law elected officials are generally free to publicly explain or discuss their votes and abstentions, even if those occurred during a closed session. While personnel matters can be discussed privately, final votes and abstentions are recorded, and state law does not impose a blanket gag on officials explaining their positions. Which is kind of a wordy way to say the aldermen chose not to comment on the question, they are not prevented by law from commenting. There is a difference.
Amber Brune, mayor since April, seemed to raise some questions on Facebook in the summer of 2025 when Richison was hired by Platte City. At that time Brune was commenting as a private citizen, she did not hold public office. Now that she is mayor, I reached out to her for comments regarding the board’s decision to add a year to Richison’s contract. “I respect the board’s decision to extend the city administrator’s contract. I look forward to continuing to work alongside the board, the city administrator, and our dedicated city staff, whose hard work and commitment keep Platte City moving forward,” Brune said. “Platte City is currently managing two large infrastructure projects–the new wastewater treatment plant and the Hwy. 92 improvement project (east of I-29). During projects of this scale, continuity and collaboration are important,” she continued. “As mayor, I do not have a vote on board matters except in limited circumstances. My priority is supporting the board’s decisions and working collaboratively to serve our residents,” Brune said.
Personally I’ve heard no complaints from anyone in the community about Richison’s job performance. That’s why it would be interesting to get a straight answer from a couple of aldermen who declined to chime in.
In open meetings there have occasionally been rumblings among city officials who sometimes get frustrated at what they perceive to be a slow pace on projects. But in Richison’s defense, the city has multiple significant projects in the works and the wheels of government turn very slowly. The designed slow pace of government is a form of protection for the public, offering opportunities for input along the way.
In Landmark dealings with the city, Richison has consistently been forthright with information and available, always pleasant and responsive to questions. And he hasn’t been present at any fights in Mexican restaurants.
At this time, no complaints here.
(You can often find Foley asking questions that folks are not excited to answer. Email ivan@plattecountylandmark.com)
