Tag Archives: RSMo 610

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

29 Tuesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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].

Elad Gross (D): Sunshine!

14 Saturday Dec 2019

Posted by in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

610.011. Liberal construction of law to be public policy. — 1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.
  2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.
­­——–
(L. 1987 S.B. 2, A.L. 2004 S.B. 1020, et al.)

Liberally construed. That means access to public records is the norm.

Elad Gross (D) [2019 file photo].

This morning, from 2020 Attorney General candidate Elad Gross (D):

Elad Gross @BigElad
Big news in my Sunshine Law case!

On Friday, the Western District Court of Appeals accepted three amicus briefs in support of my lawsuit from 4 orgs:
@aclu_mo, the Freedom Center of MO, @missouripress, and @MarkPedroli and the Sunshine and Gov’t Accountability Project.
[….]
8:00 AM · Dec 14, 2019

And the explanation thread:

I identified 27 groups and individuals with ties to a scheme to hide the identities of political donors in Missouri. I asked the Office of the Governor for any communications with those folks.

The answer: Over 13,000 records responsive to my request.

Sometimes, the government charges copying fees for public records. These records appear to be electronic, which means copying costs shouldn’t be high at all.

But I was charged over $3,600 to access the records at a rate of $40 per hour. That was more than double what the previous administration charged (and more than double the rate I got paid as an Assistant Attorney General!).

Despite my requests, the government refused to reconsider and the Attorney General – who is supposed to enforce Missouri’s Sunshine Law – never answered me.

I eventually filed a lawsuit to enforce the Sunshine Law. I’ve been in court fighting this with my money for over a year.

Through litigation, I discovered the government was charging me so much money not to make copies, but to have an attorney review public records. Charging for an attorney had never been allowed by a court.

Until my case.

The judge ruled against me and said the government could charge attorney’s fees.

That means that the only folks who can access records from our government now must have enough money to pay for a lawyer.

And the Attorney General has been training state agencies to charge these fees. School boards, health departments, our state hiding records about kids getting dropped from health care services: All of these documents will be inaccessible for most people.

That’s not how the Sunshine Law has ever worked, and it’s not how it is supposed to work. It was designed to allow the public to have transparency, to access public records, to hold our government accountable.

In a few months, I’ll explain that to the Court of Appeals, and, hopefully, we’ll make Missouri’s Sunshine Law work again.

I’m proud to fight for the freedom of the press and for public transparency, and I’m honored to have such wonderful organizations in my corner.

Sunshine is a very good thing.

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Governor Mike Parson (r) needs to follow the Missouri Sunshine Law (§ 610, RSMo)

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2019 file photo].

A press release from Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D):

Statement from Auditor Galloway on Governor’s improper use of First Amendment
8/30/2019

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:

AG Schmitt Recommends Against Using the First Amendment for Blanket Redaction in Letters to Governor Parson, Auditor Galloway
Aug 30, 2019, 09:07 AM

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.”[….]

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

And Governor Parson (r) still thinks otherwise:

….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 response on social media:

@GovParsonMO likes it in the dark, just like @EricGreitens did.

Is anyone surprised?

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): not so fast…

07 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in Missouri Governor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Missouri Attorney General shall, in the Missouri Revised Statutes:

27.040. Opinions to be given, when. — When required, he shall give his opinion, in writing, without fee, to the general assembly, or to either house, and to the governor, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, commissioner of education, grain warehouse commissioner, director of the department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration, the director of the division of finance, and the head of any state department, or any circuit or prosecuting attorney upon any question of law relative to their respective offices or the discharge of their duties.
[….]
(1974) Opinions of the attorney general are entitled to no more weight than that given the opinion of any other competent attorney. Gershman Investment Corp. v. Danforth (Mo.), 517 S.W.2d 33.

27.070. Shall file and index opinions. — The attorney general shall keep in his office and provide for his official use, and that of his successors, indexed copies of all opinions delivered by him during his term.

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2018 file photo].

Today, from State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D):

Statement from Auditor Galloway on request for Attorney General Opinion on Sunshine Law exceptions
May 7, 2019

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo (May 7, 2019) — Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released a statement after formally requesting a legal opinion from the Attorney General on the appropriateness of Sunshine Law exemptions, as claimed by Gov. Parson’s office. Recent media reports revealed that Gov. Parson’s office failed to disclose information in response to Sunshine Law requests, citing the First Amendment. Auditor Galloway’s request asks whether it is appropriate to redact information related to individuals conducting business with, lobbying or attempting to influence a government entity.

“Government should not be in the business of finding ways to hide information from taxpayers, but time and again, we have seen continued efforts to do just that. Most recently, reports revealed Governor Parson’s office used the First Amendment to withhold information requested under the Sunshine Law. This is why I have requested clarification from the Attorney General as to whether these actions were lawful. There should be no confusion on how the Sunshine Law is applied.”
[….]

Form to Request Attorney General Opinions [pdf]

1. Information about requestor:
Name: State Auditor Nicole Galloway
Address: PO Box 869
Jefferson City, Mo 65102
Phone: 573-751-4213
Date Request Made: May 7, 2019

2. Official capacity of requestor (See Section 27.040, RSMo):
Section 27.040, RSMo, provides (in part), “When required, he shall give his opinion, in writing, without fee, to the . . . auditor . . . upon any question of law relative to their respective offices or the discharge of their duties.”
As the duly elected State Auditor, charged with auditing state and local government entities, as provided by Missouri Constitution, Article IV, Section 13, and Chapter 29, RSMo, I request that the Attorney General issue this opinion.

3. The question of LAW upon which I request your legal opinion is as follows: (Note: Make certain the phrasing of the question is complete and clearly stated because only this question will be considered for an official opinion.)
In responding to Sunshine Requests, the State Auditor’s Office does not redact any identifying information related to an individual who is conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity, advocating on behalf of a third party or lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence or advise on any action taken by the government entity based on an exception found in the First Amendment. Should a Missouri government entity, such as the State Auditor’s Office, assert that the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides an exception to the Sunshine Law such that it can redact, any or possibly all, identifying information related to an individual who is conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity,
advocating on behalf of a third party or lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence or advise on any action taken by the government entity?

4. A complete statement of the FACTS giving rise to this question is as follows: (Note: If all facts are not furnished which this office needs to respond to this question, it may be rejected as an incomplete request which this office cannot answer.)
The question presented is one of a predominantly legal nature. The State Auditor’s Office does not, and has not, closed information based on an exception to the Sunshine Law found in the First Amendment. In Missouri Law, there is not a specifically enumerated exception in the Missouri Revised Statues that would permit the office to close or redact information under the First Amendment. Additionally, there is no exception imposed by any judge in Missouri caselaw that would permit such an exception solely on First Amendment grounds.
This question nonetheless arises because a Missouri state government entity has asserted that the First Amendment in and of itself requires redaction of information, effectively rendering the Missouri Sunshine Law, and the state’s public policy that records of governmental entities be open to the public, unconstitutional.
This government entity appears to redact information that identifies information related to individuals conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity, lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence any action taken by the government entity, claiming that the First Amendment protects this information. Essentially, this government entity asserts that individuals attempting to influence actions taken by the government would not do so without fear of retribution were it to provide in a Sunshine request response identifying information that the individuals voluntarily gave. This position provides greater protections to those lobbying or conducting business with the government entity than is given to individuals who are referenced in arrest and incident report records. See Sections 610.100 to 610.150, RSMo (providing that incident reports and arrest records are open records). While this office does not believe that the
First Amendment exception is a valid exception under Missouri law, it requests the opinion of the Attorney General to ensure that it is properly complying with the law.

5. List each and every governmental entity involved in this request:
The Missouri State Auditor’s office as a public governmental body under Missouri law, and as the executive office whose primary duty is to audit state and local government entities.

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. (Note for prosecuting attorneys: Also attach a copy of your legal opinion giving Missouri statutes, significant Missouri appellate decisions and your conclusions drawn therefrom.)
Missouri State Auditor’s Office. See attached legal opinion.

7. State in detail how the question of law relates to your official position or to the discharge of your duties.
The Auditor’s Office, as the executive office whose primary duty is to audit state and local government entities. requests this opinion as an entity subject to the Sunshine Law.

8. Is any litigation pending involving the issues raised in your opinion request?
None are known to date.

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:
[….]

Well?

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

Previously:

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Sunshine Law? What? (April 26, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Sunshine Law? What?

26 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Missouri Governor

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

The Missouri “Sunshine Law”:

610.011. Liberal construction of law to be public policy.
1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.
2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.

Today, in the Kansas City Star:

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson uses First Amendment to redact info from public records
By Jason Hancock April 26, 2019 12:00 AM

….”I do a lot of public records work and talk with people all over the country. I’ve never seen this,” said Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “It’s silly. It’s really quite silly. It sounds frankly like someone trying to be cute and cite the First Amendment back to a reporter….”

Someone should write a letter:

It must depend on what your definition of “transparency” is.

HB 1254: transparency

04 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Representative Gina Mitten (D) [2019 file photo].

A bill, introduced on Friday:

HB 1254
Modifies provisions relating to electronic public records
Sponsor: Mitten, Gina (083)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2479H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1254
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Some of the bill text [pdf]:

[….]
Section A. Section 610.025, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu 2 thereof, to be known as section 610.025, to read as follows:

610.025. 1. Any elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body who transmits any message relating to public business by electronic means shall also concurrently transmit that message to the custodian of records for the public governmental body in the same format. Any such message received by the custodian shall be a public record subject to the exceptions of section 610.021.

2. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall download or use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct on any communication device purchased with public moneys; except that, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the downloading or use of such software by law enforcement officers for purposes of conducting undercover investigations.

3. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct to conduct public business on any personally owned electronic device.

4. Any individual who knowingly or purposely violates this section shall only be held individually liable under section 610.027. A staff member or employee of a public governmental body shall be treated as a member of the public governmental body under section 610.027 only for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty for violation of this section.

Well, Josh?

HA 3, HB 445: it’s all in the (amended) details

05 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Legislative mischief, because the republican super majority can.

In the (amended) bill summary, in the latest version approved by the House [pdf]:

…Several new exemptions to the open records law commonly known as the Sunshine law are created including personal information and social security numbers, records of constituent files, and communications involving advice, opinions, and recommendations concerning the deliberative decision-making of any public governmental body…

[emphasis added]

Say what?

In House Amendment 3, introduced by Representative Nick Schroer (r) and passed by the House:

610.021. Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close meetings, records and votes, to the extent they relate to the following: [….]

(27) Any document or record, including electronic communications, received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body. [….]

[emphasis added]

That pretty much covers everything and anything.

(27) Effectively eviscerates the Missouri Sunshine Law, and is an attempt to let the Missouri General Assembly off the hook for the transparency required by CLEAN Missouri – Amendment 1 – which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November.

Representative Greg Razer (D) on the bill, via social media:

Greg Razer is at Missouri House of Representatives.
Yesterday at 5:52 PM · Jefferson City, MO ·

House Republicans just voted to gut the Sunshine Laws as it relates to the General Assembly. The underlined sections in the amendment below is a change to the law. Section (25) is perfectly fine. Section (26) is not great, but one could argue for it.

However, in particular take a look at (27). Read this closely. ANY document, including emails, that contain a legislator’s opinion would be allowed to be hidden from the Sunshine Law. Folks, virtually every email I send contains my opinion in some form. This section, (27), therefore guts Sunshine as far as the General Assembly is concerned.

(Lastly, you can see the vote below. In this instance, a green vote is AGAINST (27), while a red vote is supportive of (27).)

No transparency. Because they can.

Sound familiar?

06 Monday Jul 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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)

Because asking politely for people to comply with the law always seems to work out so well

15 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

From our good friends at Progress Missouri:

We’re Suing the Missouri Senate

Submitted by Sean on Wed, 04/15/2015 – 09:01

Today, Progress Missouri filed suit against the Missouri Senate for its continued refusal to adhere to Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Missouri state senators have repeatedly denied access to public hearings of Senate committees, in violation of state law, and we are escalating our fight for open government.

Our democracy works best when there is transparency and accountability, and the Sunshine Law is a necessary tool to maintain both. Some state senators, including Mike Parson, Mike Kehoe, and David Sater think that the Sunshine Law doesn’t apply to them. They’re wrong.

A copy of the petition filed in Cole County may be found below.

Senators Parson, Kehoe, and Sater have repeatedly denied Progress Missouri access to film public hearings of committees that they chair. Unfortunately, this is not a new practice. Progress Missouri has been denied access to film hearings by Ron Richard, Scott Rupp, Will Kraus, and Brian Nieves in previous years. Earlier this year, PoliticMO reported that KRCG reporter Kermit Miller was denied the ability to film a public meeting. In 2014, former Sen. Nieves ordered all video and TV cameras out of a public hearing. All of these denials violate Missouri’s Sunshine Law.  

The Missouri Sunshine Law states that public bodies, including legislative bodies, “shall allow for the recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of any open meeting.”

Progress Missouri films and live streams committee hearings in the Capitol in an effort to document the actions and statements of elected officials, and has attempted to work with Senators to gain access to public meetings in accordance with the law. However, Senators Parson, Kehoe, and Sater have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that the Sunshine Law applies to them.

The Missouri Senate helped write the Sunshine Law. It’s time for Missouri’s state Senators to start abiding by it.

“….The Missouri Senate helped write the Sunshine Law. It’s time for Missouri’s state Senators to start abiding by it.”

Uh, yep.

We agree. Not everyone does:

Matt Wills @Last_Wills

Suing an elected body for not letting you record their proceeding is a lot like whining about being blocked on Twitter. #moleg 1:48 PM – 15 Apr 2015

Because keeping people from information about public business is just like a privately operated social media platform?

Maybe it all depends on which Amendments to the U.S. Constitution you think are really important.