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?

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)

A press release from Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster:

Attorney General’s Office to defend Senate in Sunshine lawsuit

Apr 20, 2015, 16:04 PM

Jefferson City, Mo. – The Attorney General’s Office released the following statement:

“Last week, the Missouri Senate, three of its legislative committees, and their chairpersons were sued under the Missouri Sunshine Law for acts related to the administration of official proceedings of the Senate. The Attorney General’s Office has communicated to Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey that the AGO will provide counsel to the General Assembly and vigorously defend the legislature in this matter.”

Because the Missouri Senate is a private club and the public has no business hearing about their business?

Because the Missouri Capitol News Association is another private club and they’ll know best which business to filter from the public view?

You know, this is the twenty-first century.

Previously:

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

Previously:

Matt Blunt Calls Out Jeff Harris; Harris Fires Back (May 8, 2008)

Harris Tangles With Blunt Again (May 12, 2008)

Denny Hoskins (r): not a big fan of governmental transparency (June 17, 2009)

A bill, introduced yesterday:

HB 919

Specifies that the open records and meetings law and its exceptions apply to individual members of the general assembly

Sponsor: Mayfield, John (020)

Co-Sponsor: Hummel, Jacob (081) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2013

LR Number: 2175H.01I

Last Action: 3/27/2013 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 919

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

What are the odds of this passing? Just asking.

This morning we plunked down $87.75 in cash (and got the receipt) for one sealed envelope which contained the results of one of our Missouri Sunshine Law requests concerning the contract between KOKO Radio (D&H Media) and the University of Central Missouri.

“Could I get a receipt?”

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

Back to our request for information. The sealed envelope contained three sheets of paper.

Update below

A printed copy of the e-mail exchanges pertaining to this Sunshine law request was in the envelope:

[…]date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

subject: Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

[….]In accordance with Section 610.024 1.(1) “.. ..Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Based on the scope of the request, the public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time. Prior to producing copies of the requested records, the person requesting the records may request the public governmental body to provide an estimate of the cost to the person requesting the records.

. .”

The cost of compiling a report that responds to your request is $87.75.  The report will be made available to you once payment is remitted.

Sincerely [….]

>>>[….] 10/19/2009 7:20 AM >>>

Thank you for your response.

In reading the contract I note:

1) Under Paragraph 13 it is stated that the parties to the contract are required to meet annually to “review and reconcile the gross advertising sales information.” Is it the assertion of the University, as indicated by the response to my original request, that no further communications have taken place concerning compliance with Paragraph 13?

If the meetings(s) took place, this is a request for communication(s) concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract.

2) Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract.

Thank you [….]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM [….]wrote:

>

> Pursuant to your request, I am attaching a copy of the contract between UCM

> and D&H Media, LLC.  There is no addenda to the contract, nor am I aware of

> any other communications concerning the contract.

>

> Sincerely, [….]

>

>

>>>> [….] 10/15/2009 10:30 AM >>>

> This is a request under RSMo 610 for the following information:

>

> 1. The multi-year contract between KOKO radio and the University of

> Central Missouri for coverage of intercollegiate athletics activities

> signed in 2005 (or possibly 2004).

>

> 2. Any and all addenda for said contract.

>

> 3. Any and all communications between KOKO radio and the university

> concerning compliance with that contract.

>

[….]

And a single printed sheet containing the following information (Update: The actual document):

KOKO Revenues

2009

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $80,451

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,113

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,113

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $5,812

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,000

Total UCM Compensation – $34,812

Amount Owed to UCM – $301

2008

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,756

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,439

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,439

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $7,077

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,380

Total UCM Compensation – $36,457

Amount Owed to UCM – ($1,018)

2007

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,566

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,392

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,392

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,066

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $27,100

Total UCM Compensation – $36,166

Amount Owed to UCM – ($775)

2006

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $78,356

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 19,589

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 34,589

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,101

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $24,300

Total UCM Compensation – $33,401

Amount Owed to UCM – $1,188

2005

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $67,081

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 16,770

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 31,770

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $11,000

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $23,100

Total UCM Compensation – $34,100

Amount Owed to UCM – ($2,330)

“…Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract…”

Uh, we didn’t get the dates of those payments. We’re gonna ask again.

We’re not accountants, but to paraphrase Senator Al Franken who has done some research, neither are most Americans. When we balance our checkbooks it doesn’t quite look like this.

And we figure that since we already had the information contained in the two sheets of paper documenting our exchanges of e-mail, we were really only paying for the remaining sheet of paper.

Update:

We received an additional response to one of our Sunshine Law requests.

[….]

date: Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM

subject: Re: Request for information RSMo 610

[….]Pursuant to your request of October 23, 2009, attached is a copy BOG Policy 4.1.010 – Bids and Contracts Approval Policy approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001.

>>>[…] 10/23/2009 8:37 AM >>>

This a request for information under RSMo 610.

The Board of Governors policy on bids and contracts dated April 18, 2001.[…]

This is the Board of Governors policy at the time the contract was signed:

Bids and Contracts Approval Policy 4.1.010

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

I. Purpose

Central Missouri State Un
iversity follows a competitive bid process to ensure impartiality in awarding contracts and to ensure the best possible use of University funds.

II. Policy

The Board of Governors of Central Missouri State University:

A. Authorizes the University President or designated officials to sign off on routine items bid under $50,000.

B. Requires University officials to report items bid between $50,000 and $100,000.

C. Must approve items bid over $100,000.

Uh, that ten year contract was worth over $100,000.

The current policy has even more detail:

Approval of Contracts, Real Estate and Capital Projects Policy

Board of Governors Policy 4.1.010

Revised and Approved by the Board of Governors on September 17, 2008

I. Purpose

This policy ensures that the best possible use is made of funds available to the university.

II. Policy

A. Delegation of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

  1. Authorizes the university president to delegate contract and decision-making authority to direct reports within limits set out in position descriptions or by written delegation and to approve short-term (not longer than one calendar year) grants of leasehold interests in university real property.

  2. Directs the university president to adopt university procedures to ensure efficiency and accountability governing bids, contracts, agreements and all commitments of university resources. The University of Central Missouri follows a competitive procurement process to ensure integrity and the best possible use of funds available.

B. Retention of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

  1. Retains authority to purchase, regardless of the source of funding, or sell university real property for the use of the university.

  2. Retains authority to lease real property for use by the university if the lease term exceeds one year and payment exceeds Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($200,000), regardless of the source of funding.

  3. Retains authority to approve any agreement to purchase property or services over multiple budget years when at completion of the agreement the total commitment exceeds Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($200,000), regardless of the source of funding.

  4. Retains authority to approve demolition or construction of university buildings, regardless of the source of funding.

  5. Retains authority to approve capital projects, major renovations, or significant alterations that were not included in the fiscal year budget approved by the Board of Governors….

Approved by the Board of Regents on May 20, 1987

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

Approved by the Board of Governors on February 21, 2007

Formatting updated August 1, 2007

Approved by the Board of Governors on September 17, 2008

[emphasis added]

“Retains authority” in this policy update probably means that they claimed that same authority in 2005 when the radio contract was signed, don’t you think?

First, a little lesson about the “Missouri Sunshine Law”:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 610

Governmental Bodies and Records

Section 610.011

Liberal construction of law to be public policy.

610.011. 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.

“Liberally construed” means, if there’s any doubt, err on the side of openness. The law is designed to allow very few restrictions. “Strictly construed” as applied to any exceptions means that the exceptions must match the letter of the law, well, strictly.

Since Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) made a big splash this last legislative session with conceal carry on university campuses and openness in government you’d think somebody might make a request for more information. You wouldn’t be wrong:

Missouri House of Representatives

May 28, 2009

[address redacted]

Dear [name redacted]

This letter is in response to your request for records under Chapter 610, RSMo., of May 28th, 2009 to Rep. Denny Hoskins.

Specifically, you requested the following:

“1.  All written and electronic correspondence with administrators, faculty, and students at the University of Central Missouri concerning legislation pertaining to the issue of concealed and carry of firearms in Missouri.

2.  All written and electronic correspondence with lobbyist registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission from May 8th, 2009 through May 15th, 2009.”

As the custodian of records of the Missouri House of representatives I am not providing the requested records for the following reasons:

1.  Rep. Denny Hoskins is not a ‘public governmental body’ under chapter 610 of the Missouri Statutes and therefore, not required to open all records contained therein.

2.  The information requested may not be a “public record” as defined in Chapter 610.

3.  Even if Rep. Denny Hoskins were a “public governmental body” (which it is not) and even if the requested information were “public records” (which they may not be), the information requested could well be exempt pursuant to 610.021.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

s/

D.  Adam Crumbliss

[Chief Clerk]

[emphasis added]

There’s a certain irony to the assertion that the Missouri General Assembly is not a public governmental body. Then again, given the way the republican majority operates, I could see why they think that way.

Then there’s that liberally/strictly construed language in the statute which this response appears to not quite address with its very mushy language (“may not” and “could well be”).

So, in the past have the executive branch of state government and all state representatives reacted in this same fashion to a Missouri Sunshine Law request? Nope:

(then Representative Jeff Harris, May 22, 2008)

…Well, lo and behold, the next day I get in my office and I have a request from Trish Vincent, who is the governor’s [Matt Blunt] chief of staff, for every single e-mail my office has ever created or received since I took office in 2003 and all back up tapes. And every document we’ve created or received since 2003. My response the very next day to Trish Vincent was, you can have, we’ve done a preliminary assessment, because I don’t want to disclose anyone’s social security number, for example, but I said you could have 75,000 pages of documents, five thousand e-mails, come and get ’em, it’ll cost you ten thousand dollars. So I did comply with that request. I also suggested that she could narrow her request to save taxpayer dollars. She did. She asked for all of my documents and e-mails on February 20th 2008. To my knowledge there’s nothing magical about that day. We looked at February 20th 2008 and I produced, Mike, approximately two hundred and fifty pages of documents and e-mails to Ms. Vincent for February 20th 2008 and I told her that because the costs wee de minimus, she didn’t, I didn’t need to charge here for copying. She tendered me a check for about twenty four bucks that was payable to my office that I don’t think I can cash and it has not yet been cashed. So I did comply. And I would, I would comply again because I believe in the sunshine law…

Here are the strictly construed exceptions under Chapter 610.021 RSMo:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 610

Governmental Bodies and Records

Section 610.021

Closed meetings and closed records authorized when, exceptions, sunset dates for certain exceptions.

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:

(1) Legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys. However, any minutes, vote or settlement agreement relating to legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body or any agent or entity representing its interests or acting on its behalf or with its authority, including any insurance company acting on behalf of a public government body as its insured, shall be made public upon final disposition of the matter voted upon or upon the signing by the parties of the settlement agreement, unless, prior to final disposition, the settlement agreement is ordered closed by a court after a written finding that the adverse impact to a plaintiff or plaintiffs to the action clearly outweighs the public policy considerations of section 610.011, however, the amount of any moneys paid by, or on behalf of, the public governmental body shall be disclosed; provided, however, in matters involving the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the vote shall be announced or become public immediately following the action on the motion to authorize institution of such a legal action. Legal work product shall be considered a closed record;

(2) Leasing, purchase or sale of real estate by a public governmental body where public knowledge of the transaction might adversely affect the legal consideration therefor. However, any minutes, vote or public record approving a contract relating to the leasing, purchase or sale of real estate by a public governmental body shall be made public upon execution of the lease, purchase or sale of the real estate;

(3) Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded. However, any vote on
a final decision, when taken by a public governmental body, to hire, fire, promote or discipline an employee of a public governmental body shall be made available with a record of how each member voted to the public within seventy-two hours of the close of the meeting where such action occurs; provided, however, that any employee so affected shall be entitled to prompt notice of such decision during the seventy-two-hour period before such decision is made available to the public. As used in this subdivision, the term “personal information” means information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees;

(4) The state militia or national guard or any part thereof;

(5) Nonjudicial mental or physical health proceedings involving identifiable persons, including medical, psychiatric, psychological, or alcoholism or drug dependency diagnosis or treatment;

(6) Scholastic probation, expulsion, or graduation of identifiable individuals, including records of individual test or examination scores; however, personally identifiable student records maintained by public educational institutions shall be open for inspection by the parents, guardian or other custodian of students under the age of eighteen years and by the parents, guardian or other custodian and the student if the student is over the age of eighteen years;

(7) Testing and examination materials, before the test or examination is given or, if it is to be given again, before so given again;

(8) Welfare cases of identifiable individuals;

(9) Preparation, including any discussions or work product, on behalf of a public governmental body or its representatives for negotiations with employee groups;

(10) Software codes for electronic data processing and documentation thereof;

(11) Specifications for competitive bidding, until either the specifications are officially approved by the public governmental body or the specifications are published for bid;

(12) Sealed bids and related documents, until the bids are opened; and sealed proposals and related documents or any documents related to a negotiated contract until a contract is executed, or all proposals are rejected;

(13) Individually identifiable personnel records, performance ratings or records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment, except that this exemption shall not apply to the names, positions, salaries and lengths of service of officers and employees of public agencies once they are employed as such, and the names of private sources donating or contributing money to the salary of a chancellor or president at all public colleges and universities in the state of Missouri and the amount of money contributed by the source;

(14) Records which are protected from disclosure by law;

(15) Meetings and public records relating to scientific and technological innovations in which the owner has a proprietary interest;

(16) Records relating to municipal hotlines established for the reporting of abuse and wrongdoing;

(17) Confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body and its auditor, including all auditor work product; however, all final audit reports issued by the auditor are to be considered open records pursuant to this chapter;

*(18) Operational guidelines and policies developed, adopted, or maintained by any public agency responsible for law enforcement, public safety, first response, or public health for use in responding to or preventing any critical incident which is or appears to be terrorist in nature and which has the potential to endanger individual or public safety or health. Nothing in this exception shall be deemed to close information regarding expenditures, purchases, or contracts made by an agency in implementing these guidelines or policies. When seeking to close information pursuant to this exception, the agency shall affirmatively state in writing that disclosure would impair its ability to protect the safety or health of persons, and shall in the same writing state that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the records. This exception shall sunset on December 31, 2012;

*(19) Existing or proposed security systems and structural plans of real property owned or leased by a public governmental body, and information that is voluntarily submitted by a nonpublic entity owning or operating an infrastructure to any public governmental body for use by that body to devise plans for protection of that infrastructure, the public disclosure of which would threaten public safety:

(a) Records related to the procurement of or expenditures relating to security systems purchased with public funds shall be open;

(b) When seeking to close information pursuant to this exception, the public governmental body shall affirmatively state in writing that disclosure would impair the public governmental body’s ability to protect the security or safety of persons or real property, and shall in the same writing state that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the records;

(c) Records that are voluntarily submitted by a nonpublic entity shall be reviewed by the receiving agency within ninety days of submission to determine if retention of the document is necessary in furtherance of a state security interest. If retention is not necessary, the documents shall be returned to the nonpublic governmental body or destroyed;

(d) This exception shall sunset on December 31, 2012;

(20) Records that identify the configuration of components or the operation of a computer, computer system, computer network, or telecommunications network, and would allow unauthorized access to or unlawful disruption of a computer, computer system, computer network, or telecommunications network of a public governmental body. This exception shall not be used to limit or deny access to otherwise public records in a file, document, data file or database containing public records. Records related to the procurement of or expenditures relating to such computer, computer system, computer network, or telecommunications network, including the amount of moneys paid by, or on behalf of, a public governmental body for such computer, computer system, computer network, or telecommunications network shall be open; and

(21) Credit card numbers, personal identification numbers, digital certificates, physical and virtual keys, access codes or authorization codes that are used to protect the security of electronic transactions between a public governmental body and a person or entity doing business with a public governmental body. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to close the record of a person or entity using a credit card held in the name of a public governmental body or any record of a transaction made by a person using a credit card or other method of payment for which reimbursement is made by a public governmental body.

Ah yes, openness in Missouri government can be such a breath of fresh air. Not.

This kind of got lost in hotflash’s Friday night post about the pre-convention reception, but just as Jeff Harris told her then, he quickly replied to Blunt’s e-mail request, saying that he’s willing to immediately turn over the 75,000 documents Blunt requested at a cost of $10,000 to the taxpayer. One extra wrinkle – the House generally maintains that individual members of the House are not in of themselves public bodies and therefore not open to scrutiny under the Sunshine Law. Harris maintains that his willingness to comply has nothing to do with the validity of the House opinion.

I’m not sure why Blunt is going this route. Maybe he’s hoping that Harris can’t produce all of the documents, or that Harris might have some skeletons buried in those hard drives. But it’s egg on Blunt’s face if Harris can produce and nothing of consequence surfaces. Meanwhile, Harris gets extra press and an opportunity for a fundraising ask – Harris sent out an e-mail to his list calling Blunt’s attack a “Badge of Honor” and asked for a small contribution on behalf of the guy standing up to Blunt.  

There is so much irony on so many levels.

…Since the Nixon administration, a mantra repeated during many scandals has been, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up…”

The Kansas City Star has an online copy (pdf) of the lawsuit filed in Cole County by Special Investigator C.E. Fisher against Governor Matt “baby” Blunt in the e-mail destruction/obstruction case. It’s kind of nice that the paper saved us a drive down to Jefferson City to get a copy. The document provided by the paper does not have the case number nor any filing stamp on the header. tiny URL

Oh, yeah. The Kansas City Star did a front page story (below the fold) in this morning’s Kansas City Edition. tiny URL

It’s on the Missouri Courts case system:

08AC-CC00370 – STATE OF MO EX REL V MATTHEW R BLUNT ET AL

Judge Assigned: CALLAHAN, RICHARD G

Date Filed: 05/05/2008

Location: Cole Circuit

Case Type: CC Declaratory Judgment

Disposition: Not Disposed

There are some interesting revelations:  

First, someone in the Blunt administration who was concerned about the law spilled the beans on the Blunt administration:

…30. On November 1, 2007, after hearing the aforementioned confrontations with Ross, an employee of the Office of Administration contacted a member of the Attorney General’s office and confidentially reported the activities of Ross to the Office of the Attorney General. After receiving this information, the Attorney General took steps to begin an investigation…

Second, that big bill for the records request was not exactly a big bill for the records request:

…63. On February 8, 2008, Mr. Holstein provided his supplementary response to his January 8, 2008 correspondence. In his response on behalf of Defendant Blunt and the Office of Administration, Holstein communicates an estimated cost of $540,940.00 to determine which records Defendant Blunt is required to produce, said amount not including any costs of copying or electronic formatting. Of the $540,940.00 estimated costs, $467,840.00 was for attorney time to review the records…

It was a big bill for attorney’s fees.

What’s the lawsuit all about?:

…73. In order to complete the instant investigation, Plaintiff must review the records of e-mail transmissions and other records currently in the custody of the Office of the Governor and the Office of Administration…

The big revelation?:

…89. Defendant Blunt or those acting on his behalf, under his control or at his direction have violated or attempted to violate the provisions of Chapter 610, by:

a. instituting and overseeing practices to delete email transmissions from forty-three (43) computers located in the Office of Governor…

…b. attempting to compel employees of the Office of Administration to place backup tapes containing public records back into a rotation cycle after Sunshine Law request had been made for such records which would prevent the proper disclosure of public records…

Uh, oh.

And why did they do it?:

…90. The actions set forth in the preceding paragraph where taken to mitigate potential personal and political damage to Defenfdant Blunt and not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest…

Yeah, read the “Exhibit 3” attached to the lawsuit.

“…it’s the cover-up”