I wrote about Council Bill 2007-241 here, here and here.
Please excuse my "greenness," but I was mistaken about what I thought was a connection between City Charter Sec. 2.8. Prohibition of Interference and the bill. The Bill referred to Sec. 2-8 of the Municipal Code, which was, indeed, on the topic of Disclosure of certain transactions.
This link, www.municode.com will take you to the index of the Municipal Code. You will find under PART II CODE, a hot link of Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION,* it will take you to another index. There, locate Sec. 2-8 and click on that link. That link will take you to Sec. 2-8 Disclosure of certain transactions.
If I understood her correctly, City Clerk, Brenda Cirtin, said that Bill 2007-241 is intended to keep employees of the City of Springfield from having to file lengthy disclosure forms every two years when/if their only transaction with the city that amounts to more than $500.00 is met through the paycheck they are paid by the city as their employer.
My apologies for my misunderstanding and connecting the bill to the City Charter rather than the Municipal Code.
Earlier today I received a question about it in the comment section of one of my past entries on the subject. An anonymous commenter wanted to know what the status of the bill was after the last council meeting. The bill was requested to be removed from the consent agenda by Councilman Burlison. It was moved to second reading bills. When it came up, Mr. Burlison questioned the bill as to why the language was necessary regarding the Attorney General needing to interpret it. Ms. Cirtin responded to Mr. Burlison's question, a vote was taken and the bill passed unanimously.
If you are interested in more detail on this bill there is a website for City of Springfield, MO - TV23 where citizens may go on-line and view the council meetings.