February 5, 2026, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

I attended the February 5, 2026, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

All commissioners were present.

The first agenda item was “Discussion of updating Road & Bridge’s phone system for offices.”

Rex Bridges from Missouri Bell informed the Commission that the phone system at Road and Bridge was so antiquated that he was having trouble finding refurbished phones for it. He estimated that switching the phones over to the Spectrum plan would reduce the monthly cost from $270/month to $6/month. He felt the whole transition would most likely cost less than $1500.

The commissioners agreed that he should proceed with his plan.

The second agenda item was “2026 Missouri Bell Telecom annual contract for services.”

The Commission voted unanimously to accept the 2026 Missouri Bell annual contract.

The third agenda item was “Camden County credit card policy.”

Presiding Commissioner Skelton read aloud from the policy. The county credit cards were to be used for county business only. Gratuities or splitting of charges to avoid reporting requirements were prohibited. All receipts must be submitted.

County Auditor Laughlin suggested that all purchases of $3,000 should require a purchase order. The Sheriff was concerned that this might hinder food purchases for the jail, but Laughlin assured him those purchases would not be restricted.

A lengthy conversation then ensued regarding what should be done with the revenue share from the credit card purchases. And when I say lengthy, let’s just say that listening to it had me questioning some of my life choices. Eventually, it was decided that the revenue share (which might be as little as a few hundred dollars) should be placed in the Capital Improvements Fund. Sheesh.

The commissioners brought up the issue of the late fees the county has been forced to pay on some of its bills. The representative from Central Bank explained that it would be easier to pay bills like Laclede Electric using electronic ACH payments instead of waiting for the paper bill to arrive in the mail. (Sort of like the way many of us pay our bills.)

The commissioners voted unanimously to approve the credit card policy.

The fourth agenda item was “TCLA Funds interest distribution policy.”

Presiding Commissioner Skelton explained that there are no restrictions on how the money could be used. He stated that the money had been seized inappropriately and the capture of those funds was an “asset seizure” as far as he was concerned.

According to the County Treasurer, $2 million of the money was in a CD. $473,000 was in a cash account and was generating approximately $1400 per month in interest.

The commissioners decided unanimously to roll the interest from the cash account back into the cash account.

The final open agenda item was “Enforcement of Ordinance 12-23-23-01.”

This was the county ordinance that prohibited license plate reader cameras (“LPR”) in Camden County. Presiding Commissioner Skelton read aloud a letter from a citizen opposing LPR.

Skelton proposed that the Commission instruct the County Attorney to proceed with civil litigation to have the ordinance enforced and have the LPR removed from Camden County.

Commissioner Dougan asked Skelton to specifically describe what he was asking them to do?

Skelton explained that they would have to civilly sue the Department of Public Safety and Flock Corporation.

Dougan asked what Skelton thought the costs would be for such a civil action?

County Attorney Charlie Dickman stated that that such a suit would cost “at least a hundred dollars.” He was apparently talking about the filing fee.

Skelton clarified that Dickman would handle the suit himself on behalf of the county.

Dickman described the proposed suit as a very challenging endeavor, but said he would do his very best and has had some experience suing large companies successfully. He made it clear that it could be a lengthy process.

Skelton stated that he does not think that DPS has the authority to put surveillance cameras on the highways.

County Attorney Dickman clarified that he felt that the LPR ordinance was valid, but the question of who would be the appropriate target for a lawsuit would require more research.

Presiding Commissioner Skelton then rescinded his first motion and amended it. He then made a motion to direct the County Attorney to investigate and pursue civil litigation to enforce the county’s ordinance.

Commissioner Dougan expressed concern that filing a lawsuit might expose the county to a costly countersuit.

Skelton asked for a second to his motion. Both district commissioners remained silent. Skelton withdrew his motion. He then attempted to make a motion to go into recess, but Commissioner Gohagan interjected.

Gohagan stated that the county had just gone through a “brutal budget cycle.” He felt that the County Attorney was already very busy and he called this agenda item a “blindside.” Skelton refuted this, saying it was posted on the agenda and he has been talking about LPR for 2 years.

Gohagan said that he himself had originally suggested pursuing civil enforcement of the LPR issue and he had been called “weak.” The original LPR ordinance only addressed county right-of-ways and would have been valid and enforceable in his opinion. He did not want the county to be responsible for maintaining the state highways and did not feel the county’s authority extended to them.

Presiding Commissioner Skelton again attempted to call for a recess, but Commissioner Dougan stopped him.

Commissioner Dougan clarified that he doesn’t like the cameras but they were “here to stay.” He would like to see some more legislation to regulate their use.

Commissioner Gohagan said he doesn’t like the LPR cameras either, but he felt it would be a waste of county time and resources to pursue this issue. The county has enough trouble fixing its own county roads. According to him, there is some legislation regarding LPR at the state level. (I checked with sources in Jeff City and all of the LPR legislation proposed there received little to no support and is effectively dead in the water.)

Presiding Commissioner asked for a motion to recess and it was approved.

And that was that.

And so the argument about license plate readers continues. While the automated recording of license plates can be used to solve crimes, it does raise a question of how much state surveillance are we willing to tolerate for a greater sense of security? We could let the government record all of our daily activities and trust that the harvested data would only be used to catch criminals. Is that what we want?

Can we trust that stored records will be safeguarded and not used for nefarious purposes?

Only a month ago, a Joplin police officer was fired for searching the location of the same license plate approximately 395 times in a 14 month period. I wonder what young lady was driving that car?

The police chief of Ballwin, Missouri was fired in December of 2023 for checking the records of over 1,000 citizens without probable cause. An internal investigation by the city revealed that 1,236 citizens were secretively run in the department’s database. Some of them were only run through the system because they had asked questions at city council meetings.

So I understand that registering your vehicle is a privilege, not a right. And your license plate is publicly visible and could be just as easily run by a live deputy who is driving behind you. I think most people just want to see some indication from the government that they are willing to restrict access to this data, store it securely, and place a sunset term on how long such records will be retained.