When the newly seated Crestwood Board of Aldermen meets after the April 7 election, we hope one of its first items of business is to fire City Attorney Rob Golterman.

As we’ve said before, Mr. Golterman apparently doesn’t have much use for the state’s Open Meetings and Records Law, also called the Sunshine Law, nor the city’s own rules and regulations he is paid to see are enforced. But as we’ve previously noted, that’s not really a surprise as Mr. Golterman has been an opponent of open and transparent government since he was named city attorney in December 2000.

During his tenure as city attorney, it’s no secret that Mr. Golterman — of the law firm Lewis, Rice & Fingersh — has been uncooperative with members of the media as well as residents with whom he disagrees. But we must say we were shocked by his failure last week to completely answer a question posed to him by an alderman.

City Administrator Jim Eckrich last week recommended that aldermen discuss proposed personnel cuts in closed session after the board’s Feb. 24 meeting because “specific identifiable employees” and “supporting documentation” would be discussed.

But Ward 4 Alderman Steve Nieder said Mr. Eckrich’s memo to the board did not stipulate that any personal information about employees would be discussed in the closed session.

Because Section 610.021(3) of the Sunshine Law calls for such personal information as performance and merit to be discussed to call a closed session, Mr. Nieder voted against the closed session, but not before asking the city attorney to specify what justified the closed session.

“I believe that the matter is in relation to the city administrator’s memorandum to the Board of Aldermen outlining elimination of specific positions in the city of Crestwood, which involves specific people,” Mr. Golterman said. “And that is a personnel matter and qualifies under 610.021(3).”

But Mr. Nieder correctly noted that section of the law states, “… Hiring, firing, disciplining, promotion or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded.”

He continued, “Personal information means information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees. I didn’t see anything like that in this particular memo that we’re going to discuss that.”

Unbelievably, Mr. Golterman refused to answer Mr. Nieder’s simple query. The city attorney was not being asked to disclose any personal information about any employee, merely whether such information was going to be discussed in the closed session.

This is yet another example of Mr. Golterman’s uncooperative, secretive tendencies. Even when city officials get it right, his refusal to offer a simple “yes” or “no” to an elected alderman is inexcusable.

While Mr. Eckrich confirmed the next day to the Call’s Burke Wasson that personal information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees indeed was discussed during the closed session, Mr. Nieder had no such assurance before he was asked to vote to go into the executive session.

Why? Because Mr. Golterman refused to answer and Mayor Roy Robinson bullied Mr. Nieder into silence by threatening to “pick up my gavel,” ordering Mr. Nieder to “cease and desist” and finally interrupting Mr. Nieder to call for a roll-call vote.

We don’t blame Mr. Nieder for voting “no” because that’s not open government.

That’s government by force.

As supporters of open government, we believe Crestwood residents should think about what kind of government they want when they vote for aldermen this April.

Will they elect aldermen who sit back and let these tactics continue? Or aldermen who will restore transparency and stand up to the mayor and city attorney when they refuse to be questioned?

If Mr. Golterman continues to dodge questions and duck accountability to aldermen — and ultimately the citizens they represent — the question he may find himself asking is: “Where will I work now?”