Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with 17 other state Attorneys General, sent a letter calling on Congress to investigate the Chinese government’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Led by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, the letter was sent on Friday to the leadership of the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other House and Senate leaders asking for a Congressional investigation.
“Last month, we became the first state to file suit against China, alleging that their inaction and suppression of information during critical days early in 2020 led to the spread of COVID-19 across the globe. Here in Missouri, the impact of the virus is clear: thousands have been sickened and hundreds have died, staggering unemployment claims have been filed, companies have been forced to close their doors, and loved ones are separated from each other,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “Congress should investigate the role that China’s Communist Party and government played in this pandemic.”
In April, Missouri became the first in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Communist authorities in China, citing a “campaign of deceit” on the part of the Chinese authorities related to the outbreak of the pandemic. In addition, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch announced her decision also to file a lawsuit holding China’s government accountable.
The current U.S. death toll from this coronavirus is nearly 80,000 and the pandemic’s economic devastation has caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket from 3.5 percent in February to its current rate of 14.7 percent.
“One of our colleagues has already filed suit against China and many of us are considering similar legal actions,” South Carolina Attorney General Wilson said. “Congressional hearings are critical to our nation’s understanding of the origins of COVID-19 and efforts by the communist Chinese government to deceive the international community.”
In addition to South Carolina and Missouri, the following states’ attorneys general signed onto the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
[….]
###
“…the pandemic’s economic devastation has caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket from 3.5 percent in February to its current rate of 14.7 percent…” But, but, the stock market.
Now, only if he’d investigate Donald Trump’s (r) role.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
Current Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r) and Senator and former-Attorney General Josh Hawley (r) are publicly whining about an audit released on Thursday about a portion of Hawley’s (r) short tenure as Missouri Attorney General.
…In a December 31, 2019, letter (Appendix I, page 435) in response to seeing a draft copy of this report, the AGO formally objected to the inclusion of interview transcripts in this report, and stated the inclusion of these transcripts would be a disclosure of audit working papers, and therefore, a felony violation of Chapter 29, RSMo. The SAO disagrees with this conclusion. Objections to the inclusion of interview transcripts and audit communications citing Chapter 29, RSMo, are without merit. The confidentiality provisions of Chapter 29 are intended to protect the SAO’s working papers from public disclosure. The interpretation that those confidentiality provisions are intended to keep the SAO from disclosing information obtained during the course of the audit is at odds with Chapter 29, RSMo, and Yellow Book requirements, which both require a report of information obtained during an audit be made public. In addition, the statement that the inclusion of working papers as appendices to a public report is unprecedented is not accurate. Including information obtained during an audit as appendices is very common and not unique to this administration. Appendices have been part of audit reports issued by the SAO for decades…
State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2019 file photo].
A statement, issued Thursday by the State Auditor’s Office in response to Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s (r) very public whining:
“Any criticism by Attorney General Schmitt regarding the laws that govern the State Auditor’s authority rings hollow. In 2013, then-Senator Schmitt voted in favor of expanding the authority of the Auditor’s Office to conduct investigations. Additionally, the Attorney General is currently prosecuting public corruption cases where we utilized this same authority to expose wrongdoing.
“Per Chapter 29, RSMo of Missouri Law, the State Auditor’s Office has the authority to disclose information in a public audit report, unless another provision of law specifically prohibits it. There is not any law that prohibits the disclosure of sworn testimony gathered in the course of an audit. ”
The 2013 legislation referenced above was House Bill 116.
From an audit of former Attorney General Josh Hawley (r), released yesterday by State Auditor Nicole Galloway’s (D) Office:
…In a December 31, 2019, letter (Appendix I, page 435) in response to seeing a draft copy of this report, the AGO formally objected to the inclusion of interview transcripts in this report, and stated the inclusion of these transcripts would be a disclosure of audit working papers, and therefore, a felony violation of Chapter 29, RSMo. The SAO disagrees with this conclusion. Objections to the inclusion of interview transcripts and audit communications citing Chapter 29, RSMo, are without merit. The confidentiality provisions of Chapter 29 are intended to protect the SAO’s working papers from public disclosure. The interpretation that those confidentiality provisions are intended to keep the SAO from disclosing information obtained during the course of the audit is at odds with Chapter 29, RSMo, and Yellow Book requirements, which both require a report of information obtained during an audit be made public. In addition, the statement that the inclusion of working papers as appendices to a public report is unprecedented is not accurate. Including information obtained during an audit as appendices is very common and not unique to this administration. Appendices have been part of audit reports issued by the SAO for decades…
A portion of letter to the Attorney General’s Office from the State Auditor’s Office, the entire letter included in the released audit:
…Given the irreconcilable conflict created by your (1): taking a position against the authority of the State Auditor’s Office; (2) attempting to give legal advice and direct the audit of the Attorney General’s Office; and (3) communicating your position against the authority of this office to a third-party, the Attorney General’s Office cannot serve as attorney for this office in any case related to its core audit function…
State Auditor Nicole Galloway – [2017 file photo]
From a personal social media account of Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):
Eric Schmitt @Eric_Schmitt
As the Chief Legal Officer of the state of Missouri – the AG’s Office has repeatedly expressed serious concerns about the political nature of @AuditorGalloway’s audit of fmr AG @HawleyMO’s Office & the unprecedented release of transcripts likely in violation of state law. #moleg 4:51 PM · Feb 6, 2020
Wait, one would think that the Attorney General of Missouri would use an official channel of his office, like say, a social media account under his name as Attorney General, to express a valid point law about an audit concerning his office.
So, the original Tweet on the personal account (and several following up) is, wait for it…political.
There is much hilarity in the responses to his short series of personal Tweets:
So the guy that ran the treasury is covering for the AG he replaced when the former AG went to the Senate after inappropriate use of campaign funds? I’d ask who’s running this shitshow, but it’s clearly the guy the current Senator just voted to acquit.
Maybe then-AG Hawley shouldn’t have committed ethics violations if he didn’t want a light shone on them.
She did her job. She follows the Sunshine law, unlike republicans who repeatedly use apps like Confide and taxpayer funds for political games.
Is it a violation or is it likely a violation? Because you started this tweet referring to yourself as the “Chief Legal Officer” of the state and you ended it seeming confused about the law.
With William Barr as the AG of the land, it becomes difficult to tell which AGs are trustworthy, and which ones aren’t.
I can’t tell if I should believe you or not, Eric Schmitt.
Nothing to say about the likely violation of state law by Hawley?
I’m sorry, but the entire GOP has forfeited any rights to moral outrage about other people *appearing* to break the law or behaving unthically. Under your party’s own rules as applied to Trump, she cannot be guilty of anything unless and until she fully confesses under oath.
So is subverting law enforcement to threaten political rivals just a thing all republicans do now?
You’re a joke
This is bull! So @AuditorGalloway could never send a forged check to a local prosecutor or include any meaningful factual detail in a final audit?? The law violation here is that the AGO’s office didn’t Mirandize these people before they were questioned about potential crimes
Bulllshit pal. Are u really trying to intimidate @nicolergalloway?! She’ll chew u up & spit u out. U know she’s a CPA? Those types are detailed oriented to a fault. I can assure u she did everything above board-including the audit which was requested by Ashcroft & req’d by law.
Hey as the “Chief Legal Officer” of the state who the fuck knows whether this was a violation of the law or not if it isn’t you?
This sounds like you slinging mud without having the fucking stones to charge her with a crime.
Put up or shut the fuck up.
In response to the previous comment:
Amen brother. Talk about playing politics and inappropriate public statements.
And, some of the subsequent responses to one of Eric Schmitt’s (r) additional Tweets on the subject:
Hawley covers for Greitens. Schmitt covers for Hawley. Republicans of a corrupt feather.
Ridiculous. @nicolergalloway has the highest level of integrity, and all you can whine about is confidentiality? This is the Show-Me State, buddy. Sounds like you’ve got a corruption problem, not a confidentiality problem.
Nah. Nicole has always gone after grift no matter where she finds it. Just so happens she found it in Joshy’s office.
Shocking, to find Republicans misbehaving. So out of character.
That last part was probably sarcasm.
Yea, so what are you going to do about it? Send a strongly worded letter and hope it doesn’t happen again? it’ easy to apologize if there are no consequences.
Nah, just fling crap against the wall from a personal social media account and hope (probably correctly) that old media will buy it. Suckers.
Government is not supposed to operate in secret. Ever heard of the Sunshine Law? You and your party are so afraid of sunshine, I’m beginning to think you are vampires. You share other traits of vampires too.
Eric we know you don’t give a crap if Hawley violated the law. Your phoney outrage is ridiculous. There are professional standards that CPA’s MUST follow and there have not been problems with her audits in the past. You are covering for Hawley Shame in you!
As a Missouri resident, if she broke the law, arrest her ass and throw it in the pokey!
Calling the bluff.
So basically you’re attempting to squash documents just like the sham impeachment trial?
We pay the bills in this state. I want to know who’s crooked and who’s not.
Even if it is the president’s ass kissing senator.
Not working buddy. You are dirty as hell and you should resign.
Harm because it exposed the frat boy? Typical republicans. Don’t do what’s right. Do what you can get away with. @HawleyMO @nicolergalloway
Good government? Really? You really went there after all the bizarre crap MO has been thru with the Republican Party! Your statement comes from a weak position! Now we got a report that @HawleyMO mis-used our govt for his political party?And you’re worried about hiding that fact?
29.200. Audits to be conducted at discretion of auditor or request of governor — auditor’s duties. — 1. Except as provided under subsection 2 of this section, all audits conducted under this chapter may be made at the discretion of the auditor without advance notice to the organization being audited. An audit also shall be conducted upon the request of the governor as provided under section 26.060, and the expenses for any such audit conducted upon the request of the governor shall be paid as provided in section 26.090.
2. The auditor, on his or her initiative and as often as he or she deems necessary, to the extent deemed practicable and consistent with the overall responsibility as contained in this chapter, shall make or cause to be made audits of all or any part of the activities of the state agencies.
3. The auditor shall make, or cause to be made, audits of all or any parts of political subdivisions and other entities as authorized in this chapter or any other law of this state.
4. In selecting audit areas and in evaluating current audit activity, the auditor may, at his or her discretion, consider and utilize, in whole or in part, the relevant audit coverage and applicable reports of the audit staffs of the various state agencies, independent contractors, and federal agencies.
[….]
Ah, one of the ladder climber (r) audits just came out.
State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2019 file photo].
State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released a report that looked into whether former Attorney General Josh Hawley used state resources for political purposes. The review determined that coordination between political campaign consultants and Attorney General staff gave an appearance of impropriety, and the Attorney General used a state vehicle for political and potentially personal purposes.
This portion of the closeout audit was initiated at the request of Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, shortly after his office began an investigation into a complaint that Attorney General Hawley used public funds to support his U.S. Senate campaign. In the request, Secretary of State Ashcroft cited the State Auditor’s Office’s experience in such audits, as well as the authority of the Auditor to subpoena individuals and documents. Former employees of the Attorney General’s Office agreed to sworn testimony and did not require a subpoena. In the interest of transparency and in accordance with professional audit standards, the transcripts of the interviews are included in the report.
“At the request of the Republican Secretary of State, my office performed an in-depth audit, which confirmed media reports about the use of campaign consultants and a state vehicle by the office of the former Attorney General,” Auditor Galloway said. “Campaign-paid political consultants from out of state advised staff in the Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, then-Attorney General Hawley used a state vehicle and state employee for trips that were partly political or appeared personal.”
The audit found that consultants paid with Hawley state campaign funds interacted with and advised Attorney General’s Office staff. These contacts included in-person meetings during working hours at the Attorney General’s Office in Jefferson City where consultants gave advice on the administration of official duties.
Interaction between campaign-paid consultants and state employees include discussion of to-do lists created by the consultants recommending assignments to state staff. For example, prior to the roll-out of a human trafficking initiative by the Attorney General, consultants provided logistical guidance to state employees.
While these interactions between consultants and government officials give the appearance of using state resources for political purposes, no evidence exists of a violation of state law. Additionally, because the communications between campaign and AGO staff were conducted by private email and text messages, the purposes of these meetings could not always be determined.
The audit also found that Attorney General Hawley used a state vehicle and state employee as driver/security detail for some trips for which the business purpose was not documented. Some trips were partly political in nature and other trips appeared to be personal. For example, a state vehicle was used to travel to a Lincoln Day event in Platte County, which is a political event.
In some cases, the state employee took vacation time and received separate payment from federal campaign funds during the time of specific meetings. There is no record of any reimbursements to the state for the use of a state vehicle on these trips. The audit recommended that taxpayers be reimbursed for the amount of state resources used for political or personal purposes by former Attorney General Hawley. While there are no provisions in state law that allow for reimbursement for non-official use, such reimbursements by elected officials have taken place in the past.
Finally, the audit found that the Attorney General’s Office did not always follow communication and retention policies. The use of personal text and email to communicate official business and the use of a Google calendar for official meeting invites were in violation of AGO policy. The audit recommends that the Attorney General’s Office ensure policies are followed regarding the use of personal email accounts and personal devices, and that business communications are retained in accordance with state-approved record schedules.
At a press conference announcing the release of the report, Auditor Galloway addressed criticism by now-Senator Hawley, who released a response to the audit several weeks before the report was finalized and available to the public.
“The unfair attacks by Senator Hawley in an attempt to deceive taxpayers about the nature of this audit are disturbing, but unfortunately, they are not surprising,” Auditor Galloway said. “My career staff carried out this audit professionally and in adherence to professional audit standards, sometimes in the face of abusive attacks. Now that all of the facts are available, it is clear that this report is based solely on evidence provided by current and former Attorney General’s Office staff and political consultants who worked with the office. There was no bias.”
The report released today focuses on the allegations of use of state resources for political purposes as requested by the Secretary of State. An additional report on the general operations of the Attorney General’s Office during Hawley’s two-year tenure in office is ongoing. That report is expected to be completed in the coming months.
[….]
Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].
The current Attorney General is Eric Schmitt (r).
The audit report [pdf] is 450 pages, with letters and interview transcripts. As always, the really interesting stuff is in the details.
In page 4 of the report [Attorney General’s Office = AGO, State Auditor’s Office = SAO]:
…In a December 31, 2019, letter (Appendix I, page 435) in response to seeing a draft copy of this report, the AGO formally objected to the inclusion of interview transcripts in this report, and stated the inclusion of these transcripts would be a disclosure of audit working papers, and therefore, a felony violation of Chapter 29, RSMo. The SAO disagrees with this conclusion. Objections to the inclusion of interview transcripts and audit communications citing Chapter 29, RSMo, are without merit. The confidentiality provisions of Chapter 29 are intended to protect the SAO’s working papers from public disclosure. The interpretation that those confidentiality provisions are intended to keep the SAO from disclosing information obtained during the course of the audit is at odds with Chapter 29, RSMo, and Yellow Book requirements, which both require a report of information obtained during an audit be made public. In addition, the statement that the inclusion of working papers as appendices to a public report is unprecedented is not accurate. Including information obtained during an audit as appendices is very common and not unique to this administration. Appendices have been part of audit reports issued by the SAO for decades…
From a letter [page 411 in the audit, page 413 in the pdf], dated February 21, 2019, from Michael Moorefield, Chief of Staff and Counsel in the State Auditor’s Office, addressed to Christopher R. Wray, Chief of Staff in the Attorney General’s Office:
…I am writing this letter to outline the conflict of interest that prevents the Attorney General’s Office from representing the State Auditor’s Office in any case related to an audit. Because of this conflict, the State Auditor’s Office will not tender any case to your office where the authority of the State Auditor to conduct audits under the performance audit standards is being challenged…”
…This conflict was further demonstrated in your response to information requested by our audit team in a letter dated February 15, 2019. In that letter, to another statewide official, you again challenged the authority of the State Auditor to obtain information related to the audit. The Attorney General’s Office explicitly stated that it was “unaware of any constitutional or statutory that allows the Auditor to request the information sought.” The “information sought” included very basic records such as calendar events, conference room meeting bookings with attendees, timesheets, leave records, expense accounts, dates of employment, financial disclosure forms, contracts with consultants and personnel policies and procedures. I have attached a copy of this letter.
These documents are requested regularly in audits by this office. In the letter, you suggested that the only authority this office would have to request this information is “as part of an end-of-term audit.” By law, however, the State Auditor has the authority to audit state offices on her initiative and as often as she deems necessary…
The letter concludes:
…Given the irreconcilable conflict created by your (1): taking a position against the authority of the State Auditor’s Office; (2) attempting to give legal advice and direct the audit of the Attorney General’s Office; and (3) communicating your position against the authority of this office to a third-party, the Attorney general’s Office cannot serve as attorney for this office in any case related to its core audit function…
Well, those conversations must have been a might bit testy.
Then there’s this discussion – in a transcript – of whether the transcript would be made public in the audit [starting at page 276 in the audit, page 278 in the pdf]:
1 STATE OF MISSOURI
2 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
3 Audit of Missouri Attorney General’s Office
4 Deposition of Daniel Hartman
5
6 October 3rd, 2019
For the State of Missouri Auditor’s Office:
MR. JOEL E. ANDERSON
STATE OF MISSOURI OFFICE OF AUDITOR NICOLE GALLOWAY
For Mr. Hartman:
MR. BRENT E. HADEN
HADEN & HADEN
[starting at page 276 in the audit, page 278 in the pdf]
11 MR. ANDERSON: Once the audit is
12 published, if it’s part of it, that part is.
13 MR. HADEN: I understand that, because of
14 that — the theory on that would be that it’s a
15 public document anyway. Now, what determines
16 whether or not you attach — because here is my
17 issue — and you and I have talked about it. We
18 don’t have to do this on a transcript. I’m not –
19 by the way, I’m not necessarily opposed to doing
20 this on a transcript, but he’s here voluntarily, and
21 you’ve got a boss that’s running for governor, and
22 you’ve got a boss that’s going to have — I’m not
23 saying she will do this or she won’t do this, and
24 I — frankly, America is America, but she would have
25 some incentive to take potshots at a sitting senator
1 from the opposite party.
2 MR. ANDERSON: You’ve said that to me
3 before –
4 MR. HADEN: I have said it, and I’ll say
5 it on the record here today.
6 MR. ANDERSON: You already have said it on
7 the record.
8 MR. HADEN: Okay. So that being the case,
9 what’s –
10 MR. ANDERSON: I’m kind of done with it at
11 this point.
12 MR. HADEN: Done with what?
13 MR. ANDERSON: Well, the same question
14 over and over again.
15 MR. HADEN: Okay. So — all right. So
16 what is my assurance that this is not going to be a
17 politicized event? I’m just a lawyer doing my job.
18 What is my assurance from the auditor’s
19 office that this is going to be about doing their
20 job, rather than about pursuing some political
21 agenda?
22 MR. ANDERSON: I don’t know what assurance
23 you’re looking for.
24 MR. HADEN: Well, I’m at least looking for
25 assurance that you will do your utmost to ensure
1 that doesn’t happen.
2 MR. ANDERSON: What is the “that” that
3 you’re talking about?
4 MR. HADEN: What I just said. It’s not
5 going to be some politicized event –
6 MR. ANDERSON: What does “politicized”
7 mean? Will it be public? Well, an audit is public.
8 MR. HADEN: Okay.
9 MR. ANDERSON: I mean, where do you go
10 from there?
11 MR. HADEN: Okay. All right. Well, we
12 can proceed with the questions, I guess, and see
13 where we end up today.
14 MR. ANDERSON: If you have an objection to
15 make or a concern with a question, that’s why you’re
16 here.
17 MR. HADEN: Obviously.
18 MR. ANDERSON: Uh-huh.
19 MR. HADEN: I’m just trying to figure out
20 what exactly the auditor’s office is going to do
21 with the information they’re gathering.
22 MR. ANDERSON: They’re going to do a
23 report, and it’s going to be published, just like
24 every audit they’ve ever done.
25 MR. HADEN: Okay. We’ll see.
1 MR. ANDERSON: Good to start?
2 MR. HADEN: Yes.
3 MR. ANDERSON: Pam.
4 EXAMINATION
5 BY MS. ALLISON: [….]
“…We’ll see…”
And here we are.
“…I’m not – by the way, I’m not necessarily opposed to doing this on a transcript, but he’s here voluntarily, and you’ve got a boss that’s running for governor, and you’ve got a boss that’s going to have — I’m not saying she will do this or she won’t do this, and I — frankly, America is America, but she would have some incentive to take potshots at a sitting senator from the opposite party…”
State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released the following statement in response to a determination made by the Attorney General’s Office related to Sunshine Law exemptions as claimed by Gov. Parson’s Office. This spring, reports revealed that Gov. Parson’s office failed to disclose information in response to Sunshine Law requests, citing the First Amendment.
“The Attorney General’s letter confirms Gov. Parson was wrong to withhold information from the public. Nonpartisan advocates for government transparency and legal experts all agree the Governor’s actions were unlawful.
“I will continue to fight for transparency and openness at all levels of Missouri government. Missourians deserve nothing less.”
In a May 7 request, Auditor Galloway asked for legal clarification on whether it is appropriate to redact information related to individuals conducting business with, lobbying or attempting to influence a government entity. The Attorney General’s Office has since advised that practice is not appropriate.
In the letter to State Auditor Nicole Galloway from the office of Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):
In the letter to Governor Mike Parson (r) from the office of Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):
The press release from the attorney general’s office:
Jefferson City, Mo. – Yesterday, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office issued a letter to Governor Mike Parson and Auditor Nicole Galloway regarding the use of the First Amendment to redact personal contact information in response to Sunshine Law requests.
The letter to Governor Parson, a response to a request for advice from the Governor’s office, states, “We recommend that your Office not rely on the First Amendment for blanket redactions of personal contact information.”[….]
….Gov. Mike Parson will continue to redact certain information from public records, despite a letter from the attorney general’s office Thursday advising him to stop using the First Amendment as justification to withhold records from public disclosure….
A release, yesterday, from Representative Peter Merideth (D):
State Rep. Peter Merideth
80th District
peter.merideth@house.mo.gov
For Immediate Release:
Aug. 8, 2019
Five months later, Schmitt hasn’t provided requested legal opinion
Attorney general shows pattern of protecting GOP officials in Sunshine Law cases
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – More than five months after state Rep. Peter Merideth submitted a request for a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Schmitt regarding whether the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is violating state law and the Missouri Constitution by preventing public access to certain lawmaker records, Schmitt has yet to respond – even though his office promised to do so with 90 days.
Yesterday, State Auditor Nicole Galloway noted that Schmitt, a Republican, likewise has failed to timely act on a request she submitted on May 7 seeking the attorney general’s opinion on whether government entities can assert the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as justification to close portions of public documents that are open under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Republican Gov. Mike Parson’s office recently invented the novel legal argument, which has been ridiculed by experts in open records law.
“Eric Schmitt has established an unfortunate pattern of looking the other way when Republican elected officials violate the law by shielding public records from public scrutiny,” said Merideth, D-St. Louis. “As attorney general, it is his duty to fight for transparency and protect Missourians. Instead he has chosen to protect officials of his own party and keep Missourians from holding their state government accountable.”
Merideth submitted his request for an attorney general’s opinion on March 7. Other than a same-day letter acknowledging receipt of the request and promising to respond to respond “within 90 days,” Merideth has received no further information from Schmitt regarding this issue.
“Missouri law requires the attorney general to issue legal opinions when requested by other elected officials,” Merideth said. “Eric Schmitt needs to do his job.”
Merideth’s original opinion request and the attorney general’s letter of acknowledgment are attached.
-30-
The original request for an opinion from Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):
Request for Attorney General Opinion
1. Information about requestor: Representative Peter Merideth represents Missouri House District 80. He was first elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 2016, reelected in 2018, and currently serves as a member of the 100th General Assembly.
2. Official capacity of requestor: Rep. Merideth is a duly elected State Representative serving the constituents of St. Louis City residing in Missouri House of Representatives District 80. He currently serves as a member of the 100th General Assembly, First Regular Session. His principal office is in Cole County, Missouri, in the Missouri Capitol building.
3. The question of LAW upon which I request your legal opinion is as follows: Does Rule 127 of the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly, as set forth in House Resolution 7, passed by the Missouri House of Representatives on January 15, 2019, violate Article III, Section 19(b) of the Missouri Constitution?
4. A complete statement of the FACTS giving rise to this question is as follows: Constitutional Amendment 1 (“Clean Missouri”) On November 6, 2018, 62 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 1, also known as the “Clean Missouri” Amendment. Among its provisions, Constitutional Amendment 1 required all legislative records, defined broadly, to be subject to the state open meetings and records law, known as the Missouri Sunshine Law. Subsequent to its approval, Article III, Section 19 of the Missouri Constitution was amended to include subsection (b), which states: “Legislative records shall be public records and subject to generally applicable state laws governing public access to public records, including the Sunshine Law. Legislative records include, but are not limited to, all records, in whatever form or format, of the official acts of the general assembly, of the official acts of legislative committees, of the official acts of members of the general assembly, of individual legislators, their employees and staff, of the conduct of legislative business and all records that are created, stored or distributed through legislative branch facilities, equipment or mechanisms, including electronic. Each member of the general assembly is the custodian of legislative records under the custody and control of the member, their employees and staff. The chief clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate are the custodians for all other legislative records relating to the house and the senate, respectively.” House Rule 127 On January 15, 2019, the Missouri House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 7, which details the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly. House Resolution 7 included a new rule, Rule 127, “House Records,” which purports to grant Members of the Missouri House of Representatives the authority to close constituent case files, which it defined broadly, as well as records containing caucus strategy, which it did not define. The rule states: “Members may keep constituent case files, and records of the caucus of the majority or minority party of the house that contain caucus strategy, confidential. Constituent case files include any correspondence, written or electronic, between a member and a constituent, or between a member and any other party pertaining to a constituent’s grievance, a question of eligibility for any benefit as it relates to a particular constituent, or any issue regarding a constituent’s request for assistance.” Sunshine Request On March 2, 2019, Rep. Peter Merideth, who is currently an elected official in the Missouri House of Representatives, received two requests for legislative records pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine law. The first request specifically asked for emails purportedly, though likely fraudulently, sent to Rep. Merideth using his constituent’s email address. The second request specifically asked for emails, including attachments to said emails, sent from Democratic caucus staff and leadership to Rep. Merideth in regards to certain bills filed in 2018.
5. List each and every governmental entity involved in this request:
Rep. Peter Merideth The House Minority Caucus.
6. Which of the entities listed in response to Question 5 have attorneys paid with public funds? For each entity listed, attach a copy of the written legal opinion of each such attorney on the question involved herein. Rep. Merideth is represented in this matter by the House Minority Caucus Counsel, Casey Millburg. As an employee of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ms. Millburg is paid with public funds. Ms. Millburg’s written legal opinion on the question is attached.
7. State in detail how the question of law relates to your official position or to the discharge of your duties. Pursuant Article III, Section 19(b) of the Missouri Constitution, each member of the general assembly is the custodian of legislative records under the custody and control of the member, their employees and staff. As the custodian of such records for his office, Rep. Merideth is responsible for determining how to comply with Sunshine requests made for his office’s legislative records. Further, pursuant to this subsection, in doing so Rep. Merideth must comply with the provisions of the state’s open records laws. As a duly elected official serving as a Member of the Missouri House of Representatives, Rep. Merideth is also subject to the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly. As set forth in House Resolution 7 passed by the General Assembly on January 15, 2019, Rule 127 purports to give Rep. Merideth and all Members of the Missouri House of Representatives the power to determine whether or not to release constituent case files of the type at issue in Mr. Pedroli’s request in response to a Sunshine request for such records.
8. Is any litigation pending involving the issues raised in your opinion request? We are aware of no pending litigation involving the specific issues in this request.
9. If the answer to Question 8 is “yes” list the name of case, court in which it is pending and docket number of case: See above.
An entry today in the Missouri Court System Casenet after the Western District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.
WD82880 – AMERICAN CIVIL LIB, APEL V JOHN ASHCROFT, RES
07/09/2019
Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
motion and application; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: ANTHONY EDWARD ROTHERT
On Behalf Of: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, SARA E BAKER
Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
Respondents Ashcroft and Schmitts Motion for Rehearing, En Banc Review, or Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: DEAN JOHN SAUER
On Behalf Of: JOHN ROBERT ASHCROFT, ERIC SCHMITT
You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…
[We don’t have any file photos of Eric Schmitt (r), but then, we don’t run into him out in public in this neck of the woods.]
C071320: Schmitt For Missouri
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 220722
Kirkwood Mo 63122
Party Affiliation: Republican
Established Date: 10/12/2007
[….]
Information Reported On: 2019 – April Quarterly Report
Beginning Money on Hand $427,831.13
Monetary Receipts + $82,626.70
Monetary Expenditures – $82,682.99
Contributions Made – $0.00
Other Disbursements – $11,801.65
Subtotal ($11,857.94)
Ending Money On Hand $415,973.19
[emphasis added]
Let’s take a look at the contributions:
So, no spontaneous small dollar grassroots contributions?
Some detail: there was one $50.00 contribution, a couple of $100.00 contributions, and a whole bunch of $2,600.00 contributions. With $88,939.83 in itemized contributions from 87 itemized contributors the average contribution this quarter was $1.022.30.
Well, isn’t that special, if not particularly grassrootsie?
And the expenditures?:
Media analysis, consulting, photography, research (polling), fundraising, more consulting.
Missouri will have a new Attorney General, since Josh Hawley (r) will be in the U.S. Senate in January.
Via Twitter:
Governor Mike Parson @GovParsonMO
I am proud and pleased today to announce that Eric Schmitt will be Missouri’s next Attorney General. Eric is someone who I highly respect, personally trust, and have full confidence in to serve as Missouri’s chief law enforcement officer.
[….] 9:57 AM – 13 Nov 2018
Gee, who’ll be State Treasurer then?
And, from Eric Schmitt (r):
Eric Schmitt @Eric_Schmitt
I’m grateful to @GovParsonMO for the opportunity to serve Missourians as their attorney general and chief law enforcement official.
[….] 10:58 AM – 13 Nov 2018
He continued:
It is an incredible honor to be named the lawyer for 6 million Missourians and I promise to fight each and every day so the next generation of Missourians have the same opportunities I’ve enjoyed in the greatest country on earth.
I believe everyone is granted the right to be treated equally under the law. No matter who you are, what race or religion you are, your background, your creed – every single person is entitled to equality of opportunity and a fair shake under the law.
Translation: “I’m going to continue the lawsuit to remove pre-existing medical conditions protections from Missourians.”
