• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: transparency

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas – positive for COVID-19

31 Friday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Corona virus, COVID-19, Kansas City, Mayor, missouri, pandemic, Quinton Lucas, transparency

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas [2019 file photo].

From Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas:

Mayor Quinton Lucas
Throughout the pandemic, I have been regularly tested for COVID-19 due to my frequent interaction with the public. While results earlier this week were negative, last night I tested positive for COVID-19. I am fully vaccinated and have received my booster dose, and because of that, I am experiencing few symptoms.
I thank all of our healthcare workers who continue their work to serve our community. Let’s help them—and each other—by encouraging all in our lives who are not yet vaccinated or boosted to make it a priority today and to use caution as we ring in the New Year.

Immediate notice. That’s how transparency from a public official is supposed to work.

Get vaccinated if you haven’t already done so. Get a booster when you’re eleigible if you haven’t already done so. Wash your hands. Avoid crowds in closed rooms. Wear a mask when around others.

The Heavens open, the light begins to shine on the darkness

29 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Elad Gross, for the win, missouri, Missouri Sunshine Law, Missouri Supreme Court, public records, RSMo 610, transparency

It isn’t called “the Missouri Sunshine Law” for nothing.

Elad Gross (D) [2020 file photo].

Today the Missouri Supreme Court said [pdf]:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc

ELAD GROSS, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL PARSON, et al., Respondents.

No. SC98619
Opinion issued June 29, 2021

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
The Honorable Patricia Joyce, Judge

Elad Gross appeals the circuit court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Governor Michael Parson and the custodian of records for the governor’s office, Michelle Hallford (collectively, “the Governor’s Office”). The underlying lawsuit filed by Mr. Gross involves two public records requests he made under the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010-.035.

Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it: required Mr. Gross to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney-review time; arbitrarily refused to waive the fees associated with his first request; failed to explain its estimated delay in producing certain requested records; and impermissibly redacted [….] certain records. Mr. Gross claims some or all of these violations were knowing and purposeful. He also alleges the circuit court misapplied the law by assigning him – not the Governor’s office – the burden of demonstrating the redaction of portions of the records complied with the Sunshine Law.

For the reasons set forth below, the circuit court’s judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded.
[….]

Facts in the case:

….In 2018, Mr. Gross sent the Governor’s Office two requests for public records pursuant to Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In August 2018, Mr. Gross first sought “[a]ny and all records, communications, documents, emails, reports, and other material” sent from or received by the Governor’s Office from 27 specific individuals or entities after January 9, 2017, i.e., between January 9, 2017, and the processing of Mr. Gross’s request. [….] Mr. Gross says his request was made as part of his investigation into the use of “dark money” by nonprofit organizations in Missouri. Mr. Gross ended his request by noting where responsive documents should be sent and requesting a waiver of all fees related to his request….

….On October 12, 2018, the Governor’s Office provided records in response to Mr. Gross’s second request. The responsive records were separated into two sets. “Set A” [….] contained 17 pages, two of which were partially redacted. “Set B” contained 40 pages, none of which were redacted. In addition to the responsive documents, the Governor’s Office informed Mr. Gross it decided to waive the fees for his second request. The Governor’s Office did not, however, provide a further response regarding Mr. Gross’s first request….

….After filing its answer, the Governor’s Office filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging Mr. Gross’s claims fail, as a matter of law. In particular, the Governor’s Office alleged Mr. Gross’s fee-waiver claim fails because the Governor’s Office has [….] discretion to waive fees; Mr. Gross’s excessive-fee claim fails because attorney review time is chargeable to a requester and $40 per hour is the hourly rate of the lowest-paid attorney who works for the Governor’s Office; Mr. Gross’s claim regarding the inadequate timeline provided by the Governor’s Office fails because the 120-day estimate is reasonable given the scope of Mr. Gross’s request; no improper redaction occurred because the Sunshine Law “authorizes the redaction of closed information, which includes attorney-client privileged communications”; and Mr. Gross’s allegations regarding “knowing” or “purposeful” violations of the Sunshine Law are based only on speculation. On July 8, 2019, the circuit court sustained the motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment in favor of the Governor’s Office….

The gist of the appeal:

….On appeal, Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In 10 points relied on, Mr. Gross offers 10 different legal reasons to support his position. First, he claims the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Second, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date upon which the records in his first request would be available. Third, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with a detailed explanation of why it required at least 120 business days to produce documents in response to his first request. Fourth, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in response to his second request without explanation and without closing any records. Fifth, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in holding he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when, under the Sunshine Law, it is the Governor’s Office’s burden to demonstrate compliance with the law when redacting public records. In his sixth and seventh points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. In his eighth and ninth points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the [….] Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. Tenth, and lastly, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office abused its discretion in violation of the Missouri and United States constitutions by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying his request for a fee waiver or reduction associated with his first request….

Point by point:

….In his first point, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Mr. Gross avers the Sunshine Law does not authorize the Governor’s Office to charge him for attorney review time.

[….]

….Because the Sunshine Law does not authorize a public governmental body to charge a requester for attorney review time, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his second claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date records in his first request would be available for inspection…

[….]

Because the pleadings show the Governor’s Office provided Mr. Gross with a time estimate of 120 business days from payment rather than the exact calendar date upon which Mr. Gross could inspect the requested records, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the [….] circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his third claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated section 610.023.3 when it advised Mr. Gross it would take at least 120 business days to produce documents responsive to his first request without providing him with a detailed explanation as to why it required at least 120 business days…

[….]

… Because section 610.023.3 requires a public governmental body to provide a “detailed explanation” when records are not immediately made available and the pleadings do not show the Governor’s Office did so, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. With respect to Mr. Gross’s claim that the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law by failing to provide a detailed explanation for the delay associated with his first request, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his fourth claim, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in his second request without explanation…

[….]

….Mr. Gross’s pleading sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office violated the law when it redacted records responsive to his second request. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….

….In his fifth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court misapplied the law when it concluded he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when it made the relevant redactions….

[….]

A requester does not have the burden to show noncompliance when an open record is redacted. The circuit court’s conclusion that Mr. Gross must have pleaded “more” than unexplained redaction is erroneous….

….In his sixth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first records request and he sufficiently pleaded the Governor’s Office committed knowing violations….

[….]

…Mr. Gross has sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office acted knowingly; therefore, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In consequence, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to this issue….

….In his seventh claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second sunshine request when it redacted two records it provided to him. Mr. Gross also claims he sufficiently pleaded that a knowing violation occurred. The Governor’s Office alleges its redactions were proper and Mr. Gross failed to plead otherwise sufficiently. The circuit court held Mr. Gross did not plead any facts “support[ing] even an inference that the Governor’s Office engaged in any conduct to knowingly . . . violate the Sunshine Law.” This conclusion was erroneous….

…In his eighth and ninth claims, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts III and VII of his petition. Count III alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first request, and Count VII alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second request….

[….]

…These allegations sufficiently allege the Governor’s Office had an intent to violate the law. The Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, on the face of the pleadings; therefore, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in regard to Counts III and VII of Mr. Gross’s petition….

….In his tenth and final claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated “Missouri statutory and case law, the Missouri Constitution, and the United States Constitution” and “abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying [his] request for [the Governor’s Office] to waive or reduce fees associated with his first [….] Sunshine Request.” While his point relied on mentions “Missouri statutory and case law,”
Mr. Gross’s argument alleges only constitutional violations….

[….]

…Because Mr. Gross failed to raise this issue in the circuit court and never sought to amend his pleadings, his constitutional claims have not been preserved for appellate review….

Go. Read the whole thing.

Openness and transparency are supposed to be an essential element when it comes to government in Missouri. Not always in practice. There are a lot of people who should know better.

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

Gov. Eric Greitens (r) thinks you’re a moron

23 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, Missouri Governor, Missouri Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

campaign finance, Eric Greitens, Jason Holsman, missouri, Scott Sifton, transparency

“…The people who believe in voter intimidation believe that the minute you make a political donation that you immediately need to turn all your information over to the government…”

Uh, that would be called “transparency”.

From two senators:

For immediate release
May 23, 2017
Senators to Gov. Greitens: Do You Really Want to Abolish the Missouri Ethics Commission?

Jefferson City, Mo. – State Senators Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, and Scott Sifton, D-St. Louis, are calling on Gov. Eric Greitens to clarify or recant his recent comments disparaging Missouri voters’ support of campaign finance transparency.
“Recently, Gov. Greitens went on the radio and seemingly called for an abolition of Missouri’s voter-approved campaign disclosure laws. Even for a Governor who prefers to operate from the shadows, this new call for complete and total darkness for his big dollar donors is troubling,” Sen. Holsman said. “I cannot truly believe that a Governor who recently admitted to breaking campaign finance laws would have the audacity to call for dismantling the very system that exposed his wrongdoing. The Governor needs to clarify or recant his statements so that the people of Missouri know where Eric Greitens stands on laws that protect against corruption and pay-to-play.”
During his interview with St. Louis radio station KMOX on Monday, the Governor criticized Missouri’s donor disclosure laws, which were recently reaffirmed by Missouri voters, saying:
“The people who believe in voter intimidation believe that the minute you make a political donation that you immediately need to turn all your information over to the government. You need to turn over your home address and your contact information, so that the government can turn around and publish that,” Greitens said.
The ‘people’ to which the Governor was referring, are the nearly 70 percent of the electorate that voted for strengthening Missouri’s current campaign finance laws, which include the disclosure requirements criticized by the Governor.
“Missouri’s ethics disclosure laws have provided a bedrock of transparency for decades. The Governor is wrong to malign transparency and disclosure,” Sen. Scott Sifton said. “The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.”
On November 8, 2016, Missouri voters overwhelming approved Constitutional Amendment 2 with 69.95 percent of the vote, far surpassing Gov. Greitens’ 51.14 percent vote total in that same election. Among its provisions, Constitutional Amendment 2 states that: ‘The people of the state of Missouri hereby find and declare that excessive campaign contributions to political candidates create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption … (and) … the interests of the public are best served by limiting campaign contributions, providing for full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, and strong enforcement of campaign finance requirements.’
During his 2016 campaign for Governor Eric Greitens in a radio interview on the Politically Speaking Podcast with Jason Rosenbaum made the following statement:
“What I have found is the most important thing is there is transparency around the money, we have already seen these secretive super PACs where they don’t take any responsibility for what they are funding. We saw secretive super PACs who were attacking Tom Schweich where people hide behind these organizations. There will probably be more (super PACs) because that is how the game has always been played. I am very proud to tell people that I am stepping forward and you can see every single one of our donors because we are proud of our donors and we are proud of our campaign.”
The existence of Governor Greitens’ secret 501(C)(4) PAC, A New Missouri, ensures that he will continue to play the game like a ‘career politician’.
“Perhaps the Governor is no longer proud of his donors and wishes them to remain in the dark,” added Sen. Holsman. “Either way, his reversal of position on transparency is disappointing.”
###

Uh, the government is the people.

Campaign Finance: That transparency thing?

29 Saturday Oct 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

campaign finance, Eric Greitens, governor, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, PAC, transparency

Forget about it.

Eric Greitens (r) [2016 file photo].

Eric Greitens (r) [2016 file photo].

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission for Eric Greitens’ (r) 2016 gubernatorial campaign:

C151053 10/29/2016 GREITENS FOR MISSOURI Republican Governors Association – Missouri 1747 Penn. Ave. NW Suite 250 Washington DC 20006 10/28/2016 $1,000,000.00

C151053 10/29/2016 GREITENS FOR MISSOURI Republican Governors Association – Missouri 1747 Penn. Ave. NW Suite 250 Washington DC 20006 10/28/2016 $500,000.00

[emphasis added]

Seriously? At this point are they gonna send a limo to each household in the state to drive voters to the polls?

Gee, that’s $13,000,000.00 total contributed to this one campaign from one entity. $8,000.000.00 in October alone. So far. And we don’t have any idea who wrote the check(s) to get to this point. So far.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Gee, don’t hold back, show us how you really feel… (October 17, 2016)

Campaign Finance: make it an even $11,500,000.00 (October 26, 2016)

Sound familiar?

06 Monday Jul 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, Legislature, Misouri, RSMo 610, Sunshine law, transparency, Wisconsin

Transparency when it comes to public business doesn’t appear to be in vogue anymore.

This past week in Wisconsin:

Sweeping secrecy is big mistake

July 03, 2015 10:31 am

Republicans are supposed to be suspicious of big government.

Instead, the GOP leaders who run the Legislature’s budget committee want citizens to trust state government with sweeping secrecy.

No thank you.

The full Legislature should reject the Joint Finance Committee’s sneaky attempt Thursday night to exempt state lawmakers from Wisconsin’s open records laws….

[….]

….Aren’t Republicans supposed to favor responsibility? Apparently, Wisconsin Republicans do not.

Among several troubling passages inserted into the state budget Thursday night is this doozy: “No provision of the state’s public records law that conflicts with a rule or policy of the Senate or Assembly or joint rule or policy of the Legislature applies to a record that is subject to such rule or policy.”

In other words, state lawmakers do what they want, when they want – and taxpayers will be in the dark….

[….]

Meanwhile, in Missouri:

Missouri judge dismisses lawsuit over open Senate committee meetings

Lawsuit claimed lawmakers must allow filming of meetings

5:52 PM CDT Jun 30, 2015

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -A Missouri judge dismissed Tuesday an advocacy group’s lawsuit that challenged restrictions on filming Missouri Senate committee meetings.

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the petition brought by Progress Missouri, which claimed decisions by Senate committee chairmen to prohibit filming by the group violates the state’s open meetings law. The liberal advocacy group also said the prohibition infringes on its freedom of speech and association.

The state’s Sunshine Law allows public bodies to establish guidelines on recording to minimize disruption, but the lawsuit said Progress Missouri’s filming wouldn’t have been disruptive. Senate rules state that cameras may be allowed with the permission of the committee chairman “as long as they do not prove disruptive to the decorum of the committee….”

[…]

Sunshine ain’t bustin’ out all over.

The stalwart courage of old media in Missouri is inspiring:

Jason Hancock ‏@J_Hancock

Progress Missouri challenges state Senate on Sunshine Law (via @krcg13) [….] 4:19 PM – 23 Jun 2015

We asked:

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@J_Hancock @KRCG13 So, KRCG was denied permission to film a Senate hearing in the past and they’re not a party to the lawsuit? Why not? 4:31 PM – 23 Jun 2015

Interestingly, there was no response.

Previously:

Because asking politely for people to comply with the law always seems to work out so well (April 15, 2015)

On the wrong side of history and technology (April 20, 2015)

Ain’t no sunshine in our lives

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, missouri, Missouri Sunshine Law, Progress Missouri, Senate, transparency

Please note, while the good folks at Progress Missouri are our friends, we’re completely different entities. Oh, and by the way, we agree with them on this.

A letter from Sean Nicholson at Progress Missouri, sent to the powers that be in the Missouri Senate:

Progress Missouri

February 10, 2015

The Honorable Senator Michael Kehoe

Missouri Senate

201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Re:Videotaping Senate Commerce Committee Meeting

Dear Senator Kehoe:

I am writing regarding videotaping of Senate Commerce Committee meetings. You stated on February 3, 2015 that videotaping of these meetings is only allowed for “member[s] of the Missouri press corps” with previous permission. This restriction violates Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In addition, to the extent the Committee is making membership in a private organization, such as the Missouri Press Association, a condition of videotaping these meetings, this restriction violates the First Amendment and our free speech rights under the Missouri Constitution.

On February 2, 2015, a representative of Progress Missouri sent a courtesy email to you, to notify you of our intent to videotape the next Senate Commerce Committee meeting. The e-mail cited Section 610.020, R.S.Mo., which states that a “public body shall allow for the recording by…videotape…of any open meeting.” The e-mail also requested any guidelines for recording the meeting to minimize disruptions.

On February 3, 2015, Adam Gresham telephoned us and stated that we would not be able to collect video at the meeting. He did not explain how he thought our efforts to videotape the meeting could possibly be disruptive. Nor did he offer any steps we could take to minimize any possible disruptions.

Notwithstanding the statement by your Chief of Staff, we attended the Commerce Committee meeting on February 3, 2015. At the start, you announced a “housekeeping” matter. At this time, we were videotaping the proceedings. You stated:

[page]

“The policy of the Senate, certainly the policy I’m going to adopt, is that if you’re a member of the Missouri Press Corps you can get with our office before the meetings start. Certainly, Adam will work with you to allow videotaping. If you need something other that you’re welcome to get with Senate Communications given to you certainly and you’re welcome to attend any meeting that you want to. But videotaping is only allowed for press corps members with previous permission and Senate Communications. That will be the policy.”

Your statement was a direction to us to stop videotaping. We are not members of the Missouri Press Association, which is a private organization of reporters. Accordingly, we ceased videotaping the meeting. Members of the Missouri Press Association may have continued to record the proceedings, but we do not have access to their recordings.

Per Missouri’s Sunshine Law, it is the public policy of the state that “meetings, records, votes, actions and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law.” Section 610.011.1, R.S.Mo. The law is to be liberally construed.

Id.

The Sunshine Law gives a broad right to record public meetings, and these rights are not limited to reporters. Missouri’s Sunshine Law is absolutely clear on this issue.

Section 610.020 of Missouri’s Sunshine Law states: “A public body shall allow for the recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of any open meeting. A public body may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such recording is conducted so as to minimize disruption to the meeting.”

The Senate Commerce Committee is a “public body,” as defined by Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In addition, the meeting on February 3 was a “public meeting” as defined by the Law. At no time was our videotaping disruptive. We were quiet and respectful. We did not block or obstruct anyone’s access or views and did not interfere with the proceedings. We conducted ourselves in the same manner as we have conducted ourselves at other committee meetings, which we have videotaped without issue. We also conducted ourselves in the same manner as members of the press corps have conducted themselves in videotaping committee meetings. Nothing about our efforts to record the meeting could be considered disruptive or would cause a reasonable person to believe that our conduct would cause any disruption.

In the past, Senators have cited Senate Rule 96, which purportedly requires the permission of a Chairman to videotape a committee meeting. But, the Senate cannot draft a rule, which is not a law enacted by the General Assembly, to escape its obligations under the Sunshine Law. While

[page]

the Senate may establish neutral guidelines to minimize disruptions at meetings, it cannot create guidelines that completely defeat the law. A rule giving the Chairman blanket discretion to withhold permission to record is also arbitrary and unlawful, and could be used to suppress disfavored views for political reasons. Moreover, our efforts to videotape did not cause and will not cause a disruption.

I also note that courts in other states have held that citizens and businesses have the right to videotape public meetings, even if they are not members of the press.  See Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 916 A.2d 1036 (N.J. 2005) (actions of mayor were arbitrary when it created restrictions to block citizen from videotaping a public meeting); Pinellas County School Board v. Suncam, Inc., 829 So.2d 989 (Fl. Ct. App. 2002) (business has right to videotape public meeting).

We hope this letter resolves this matter. We will continue to send emails to your staff regarding our attendance at meetings as a courtesy, when possible.

If you intend to prevent us from videotaping Committee meetings, please inform us with your basis for doing so. We reserve the right to take legal action, including seeking an injunction. In case of legal action, we will consider your actions to be “knowing” and “purposeful” violations for purposes of the Sunshine Law, and will seek costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in protecting the public’s right to videotape Committee meetings.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

s/

Sean Soendker Nicholson

Progress Missouri

Cc:

Senator Tom Dempsey, President Pro Tem of the Senate

Senator Ron Richard, Majority Floor Leader

Senator Joseph Keaveny, Minority Floor Leader

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General

Chris Grant, Schuchat, Cook & Werner

What is the Missouri Senate afraid of?

It’s gonna be a bright, bright, bright sun shiny day.

WikiLeaks: power’s legitimacy directly proportionate to its transparency

06 Monday Dec 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

information revolution, Julian Assange, Pentagon Papers, transparency, wikileaks

How “cablegate” actually works in America’s favor and its rollout quite possibly may have been sanctioned by pro-US interests

WikiLeaks is down again-likely the result of multiple denial-of-service cyber attacks. All week it’s been on and off. Amazon stopped hosting the site and PayPal dumped their account. The latest has the website adopting a new domain in Switzerland, found at wikileaks.ch or http://88.80.13.160. It’s pretty much a case of cyberspace whack-a-mole.

Pitch forks come out

Calls for the scalp of WikiLeaks founder and spokesperson Julian Assange have crowded the airwaves. Sarah Palin wonders why we don’t go after Assange and his org like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda-Huckabee smells treason for whoever leaked and, “anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” On Sunday, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell called Assange a “high-tech terrorist”, while Newt Gingrich proclaimed that Assange is engaged in “information terrorism and warfare” and should be treated as an enemy combatant. Tough, tough, talk.  

Assange has also been hit with an Interpol arrest warrant for an alleged sex crime committed in Sweden during, “consensual, but unprotected sex”, possibly due to a condom malfunction. Assange says it’s a smear campaign and has claimed being “set-up” by enemies of WikiLeaks.  

Amid the international manhunt and calls for assassination, Assange revealed the existence of an encrypted and compressed 1.4 gigabyte “insurance” file as a sort of dead man’s switch. He said 100,000 people have downloaded this file, and if WikiLeaks is blocked, the trigger will be pulled on this unredacted chunk of joy guaranteeing the mission of disclosure no matter what strategies are employed to shut Assange’s operation down.

Disclosure hall of fame

WikiLeaks Iraq War logs and “cablegate” have been called this generation’s “Pentagon Papers”:

•Cablegate : 251,287 leaked US embassy cables (only 931 available as of 12/6/2010)

•Iraq War logs : 391,832 United States Army field reports from Iraq War (2004-2009)

WikiLeaks intends to release the entire trove of embassy cables in the coming months, in addition to insider documents from a major US bank. After instigating tens of thousands of unique press reports and articles covering the latest material, WikiLeaks has clearly risen to top the disclosure hall of fame.

It’s important to note that WikiLeaks and Assange did not steal the diplomatic cables per se, but were provided the classified documents by a whistleblower-much like what had occurred during the Vietnam War.

Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers

In 1969, Daniel Elsberg was an analyst working for RAND and the DoD, and leaked a top secret report on the Vietnam War­-information that became known as the “Pentagon Papers”. The Pentagon Papers clearly showed purposeful deception leveled at Congress and the American people by the Johnson Administration to further prosecute the war. The Nixon Administration attempted to block publication, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the disclosure in New York Times Co. v. United States, citing First Amendment protection (viz., freedom of the press).

The Pentagon Papers-on one hand-led to criminal pushback from Nixon resulting in the downfall of the Presidency through Watergate. On the other hand, the Pentagon Papers made a significant contribution to ending the war.

Ellsberg’s whistle-blowing counterpart in today’s WikiLeaks controversy is the alleged leaker, US Army analyst, Bradley Manning-not Assange, nor WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks, like the New York Times 40 years ago, is a media venue releasing information it received, and in as much, is protected by the First Amendment.

So, why the pitch forks?

Maybe in the big picture the WikiLeaks phenomenon is good?

A dissenting perspective

Now I know to some this may seem like a radical notion, but let me explain. First of all, I sympathize with those in Government feeling distraught that confidential communications have been cast into the wind for the entire world to see-I’m sure I would feel just as upset if I were in the State Department. However, I’m not at State, nor work for the government, so my observations are relatively neutral in examining the more over-arching implications of what WikiLeaks represents.

Information and knowledge are the lifeblood of democracy

America and the West are open-societies built on a foundation based upon the free flow of information. Founder, framer, President, James Madison said, “knowledge will forever govern ignorance”, and if a people intend to be their own self-governors, they must wield the power that knowledge brings.

Largely, we have a tradition of celebrating democratic, fact-based, and scientifically sound decision making processes-the product of age of enlightenment principles. The decomodification of information is our heritage and America’s birthright.

In contrast, secrecy is a form of government regulation that is particularly vulnerable to abuse due to lack of oversight. The overreaching application of secrecy shuts down the free flow of information. There is a role for privacy and confidentiality-but when it becomes a humongous institution generating millions of documents each year on autopilot-secrecy builds a bulwark against democracy, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan says in his book Secrecy: An American Experience, “a hidden metastasizing mass within government itself.”

Information-based democracy: power’s legitimacy is directly proportionate to its transparency

In 2004, I delved into the subject of Alvin Tofler’s Third Wave (the information and communications revolution) and explored its transformative impact on global politics, national security, and the evolution of democracy. I had learned that technological and scientific discoveries throughout history compound over time and once new standards are established, they rarely revert.

Information technology is like an accumulative arms race, and once people become accustomed to new ways of doing things, the cat’s out of the bag, so-to-speak.

Established technologies are built upon and improved by additional innovations over time. An example of this process would be the thousands of inventions and innovations that have come together to make the cell phone you hold in your hand. Thousands of inventors and developers, over the decades and centuries, did not speak with one another directly, and yet, through additive synthesis, collaborated with each another to bring us new state-of-the-art technologies. From a million miles away, this extremely effective and penetrating cooperation-beyond the boundaries of time and space-might appear to be an almost hive-like intelligence. 10,000 people made your computer possible, yet never spoke with one another.  

How would people’s ability to instantly communicate with one another impact the old, artificial, and comparmentalized constraints upon information dissemination? With the presence of these new tools, political or corporate power could not be preserved cloistered away in hidden chamber. It becomes a question of provable trust-and a vibrant information network, comprised of a plugged-in electorate, would eventually demand new levels of accountability, in real time. Hence, “power’s legitimacy is directly proportionate to its transparency.”

In other words, in an information-based society, where power accumulates, transparency must also. This principle should apply to governmental or corporate entities alike. The larger the potential impact an institution or corporation has, the greater the responsibility to publically fully vet its programs and procedures. Our future success as a society and global community is directly related to the quality of information people have access to-to wit, corruption unseen, is unfixable; and institutional secrecy in the info-age is a force in opposition to progress and the healing properties of cultural evolution. Secrecy is anti-democratic-and according to some scholars-anti-constitutional.

Hidden government and the Cold War national security apparatus

American institutionalized secrecy has grown to massive proportions since the National Security Act of 1947 creating a myriad of intelligence agencies and the current Department of Defense. With billions appropriated in the dark, numerous black-ops, covert acts­-all removed from any thorough scrutiny-we quite possibly started down a very unconstitutional path.

From the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 says,

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”

To quote recently passed Chalmers Johnson in his book “The Sorrows of Empire”,

“This article is the one that empowers the Congress and makes the United States a democracy. It guarantees that the people’s representatives will know what the state apparatus is actually doing and it authorizes full disclosure of its activities. It has not been applied to the Department of Defense or the Central Intelligence Agency since their creation.”

WikiLeaks slogan-“we open government”-suggests a different, yet, very constitutional way of conducting the people’s business. Open-source government is a new, and perhaps, inevitable future stage of democracy only made possible through the technological revolution of our digitally interconnected world-ironically, a technology originally created by the United States Department of Defense.

The Intergalactic Computer Network

The internet was created following a vision laid out in a series of memos by J.C.R. Licklider working for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). One memo addressed to “Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network”, described the principles behind packet switching, and interestingly was opposed by industry stakeholders as pointless and an inefficient use of computer resources. Licklider’s point was to make information and knowledge accessible all around the world. He had this epiphany in the early 60s and imagined connecting the user to, “everyday business, industrial, government, and professional information, and perhaps, also to news, entertainment, and education.”

Fast-forward to today and we see entire economies, communities and governments transformed by Third Wave technology-I submit, these cultural changes, engendered by the DoD, are inherently based on enlightenment principles, and in essence, operate as the new “arsenal of democracy”. And WikiLeaks is actually part of that arsenal.

The Emperor has no clothes

The reality of new media working to unpack totalitarian regimes in a classic “emperor has no clothes” narrative is well-established. The recent civil unrest in Iran saw cell phone cams and creative web workarounds penetrate the veil of suppression. Sites like Twitter and Facebook were thrust into a historic role raising the bar on transparency and carrying forward, the political ramifications are profound. These technologies have proliferated around the world, including into totalitarian-leaning nations, and as a result, amplifying the voice of the people. Is it any wonder China blacked-out coverage of the uprising in Iran, or why they’ve domestically shut down access to certain ideas, political concepts, or even whole sections of the internet?

Moving past the impasse in Iran and North Korea

The WikiLeaks phenomenon has opened up new possibilities for what many consider intractable foreign policy challenges. Revelations about where certain Chinese officials stand vis-à-vis North Korea (they could see a reunited Korean peninsula under the South’s leadership), or where the King of Saudi Arabia stands vis-à-vis Iran (urging US military action to address Iranian nuclear ambitions), have broken open a diplomatic logjam by engaging the court of world opinion.

The leaked diplomatic cables paint the US as less of a lone wolf in regard to its involvement in the Middle East and relatively consistent in what State department officials are saying in private and in public. Indeed, the disclosures are so pro-US, some have speculated that WikiLeaks could be a CIA conduit. Hands-on or hands-off involvement by CIA, NSA is irrelevant; fact is, all possible scenarios of open-source government have been gamed out. These are important possibilities to contemplate when trying to unpack what’s really transpired here with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

Open societies (the West) will ultimately benefit from open-source government. Yes there is corruption in the Empire that needs to be rooted out, the folly of endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the unholy tryst twixt Washington & Wallstreet-but foreign nations lead by strongman thugs, monarchies, theocrats, narco-neocommunists, will never thrive under sunshine. The West possesses the cultural infrastructure to best metabolize this new “sunshine paradigm” and morph itself into a productive vessel for pier-to-pier democracy. The celebration of knowledge, human ingenuity-not to mention the DoD-have made it possible for billions of people all around the world to be connected with one another, making all this disinfectant (WikiLeaks) possible.

“Singing our space songs on a spider web sitar… Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in…”

~ from the musical Hair

In the interest of transparency is Better Courts for Missouri going to tell us who bankrolls them?

13 Monday Jul 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

court plan, missouri, right wingnuttia, transparency

Like a “B” horror movie or a political party bereft of ideas and in serious decline, they keep coming back with the same cheesy plots.

Tony Messenger posted on the opponents of the Missouri Court Plan via Twitter this morning:

Better Courts for Missouri group announces they have filed petition hoping to get on the ballot to change how judges are chosen in Missouri. about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

I replied:

@tonymess Calling “Better Courts for Missouri” a “group” just might be a misnomer: http://bit.ly/SI8nP and http://bit.ly/f6qXc  about 1 hour ago from web in reply to tonymess

Tony Messenger at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reaffirms the lack of transparency coming from Better Courts for Missouri at the end of his article:

07.13.2009 10:33 am

Anti-Missouri Plan group plans ballot initiative for judge selection

By Tony Messenger

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

JEFFERSON CITY – Stymied by an unwilling Missouri Senate, opponents of the current method of choosing many judges in the state will head to the ballot and ask voters for help….

….Asked if this was simply part of the political pressure being put on the Senate to make changes, Harris said his group was “serious” about the petition process. He would not, however, tell reporters who was backing the process financially.

[emphasis added]

Ah yes, right wingnuttia and irony impairment go hand in hand.

Some of our previous coverage:

The irony impaired opponent of the “Missouri Court Plan”

The irony impaired opponent of the “Missouri Court Plan” – part 2

Attack on the Non-Partisan Court Plan

The Missouri Plan: In Plain English

The Missouri Court Plan

Stimulus Transparency in Missouri

25 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

federal stimulus, Gary Nodler, Joan Bray, missouri, Susan Montee, transparency

Moves are being made in several quarters in our state government to ensure that the use of the funds provided our state by the federal recovery package will be transparent and accountable.

First of all, to make the injection of federal dollars more transparent to the public, State Auditor Susan Montee has set up a handy-dandy stimulus tracker on her website. Once the federal dollars start flowing into state coffers,  the tracker will update daily to reflect every dollar allocated by our state government. Campaign finance junkies who like to play “Follow the Money” might find a fix during the long months in between campaign finance reports.

Also, in a move that could aid Montee, the unlikely team of Senators Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) and Joan Bray (D-University City) have guided a bill through the Senate, SB 313, that would create two separate funds for federal stimulus dollars. The first is a “Federal Budget Stabilization Fund” for money intended to bolster the General Revenue, like unemployment benefits and Medicaid reimbursements. The other, the “Federal Stimulus Fund” is for any additional funds. The idea here is to make sure the legislature doesn’t reroute federal stimulus dollars for other purposes by putting it all in general revenue.

Interesting to see that both Nodler and Bray are termed in 2010. In any case, it’s nice to see state officials making an effort on behalf of transparency.

Roy Blunt Redefines "As You Could Possibly Be"

20 Friday Feb 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Roy Blunt, Senate, transparency

Via Fired Up, Roy Blunt says that he’s been “as transparent as you could possibly be” in his time in Congress. Blunt’s only example? He has posted every single vote he ever took in Congress on his website. I hate to break it to him, but every vote he’s ever made is already in the Congressional record and easily searchable at thomas.loc.gov.

And rest assured, Blunt is ready to stand behind every vote he’s ever cast and “talk about what it takes to have the courage to serve as a member of the House or the Senate.”

Recent Posts

  • Show us on your diploma where the professors hurt you…
  • Stormy Weather
  • Read the country, Mark (r)
  • Winning at losing…again
  • What were they thinking?

Recent Comments

Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…
What good is the 25t… on We are the only people on the…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,039,596 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...