The case of the missing e-mails continues.

There was this little item in today’s Kansas City Star:

Across Missouri: Judge in Sunshine Law case resigns

Daniel Max Knust resigned Wednesday, two weeks after the former Webster County judge was appointed to help determine whether Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration violated the state Sunshine law.

In a letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, Knust attributed his resignation to criticism leveled by Gov Matt Blunt’s office that questioned whether Knust, a Republican, was part of a Democratic witch hunt…

tiny URL

Jo Mannies in today’s St Louis Post-Dispatch:

New lead lawyer in email probe says he won’t rush to judgment

…Knust wrote in his resignation letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, “I did not anticipate that my independence would be doubted by the Governor’s staff. My parents were devout Republicans, and I have held office for 28 years as a Republican…”

[The title of the article refers to the appointment of Chet Pleban to replace Knust]

tiny URL

The Missouri republican party website [Eeeew!] also aimed its wrath at Knust. [I’m not providing a link, just be thankful that I went there to read it so you don’t have to. Eeeew! Can’t get the bad taste out of my mouth. Uck.]  

The moral of the story: If you do anything that  makes Governor Matt “baby” Blunt look less than saintly he will release the hounds.

I would gladly offer Matt Blunt’s office advice on how to make the entire administration implode, but they don’t seem to need my help.  They’ve got it covered.  On Tuesday, they whined like third graders that Carnahan’s guard had shoved someone too.  That bought them an extra day of heated coverage.  But on Wednesday they really outdid themselves, moving decisively on every front. 

News broke that they have filed a complaint against Eckersley with the Missouri bar for breaking attorney-client privilege.  (Actually, they did that way back on October 19th, but Eckersley’s been out of state and only just returned and discovered the news.)  Breaking privilege isn’t illegal, but it can be grounds for disbarment.  Just what Bluntco needs:  to look vengeful against someone who told the truth.  Because that’s what’s so fascinating about the move: it’s a tacit admission of what Eckersley claimed from the beginning.  They’re compaining that he told the truth when he said that he advised them their e-mail retention policy was illegal. As he commented:

“First I’ve been told I didn’t say anything, now I’m being told I said too much.”

Technically speaking, that’s an old move that only just got revealed.  Here’s a new one.  Bluntco wants a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Jay Nixon.  They’re demanding a special prosecutor for no particular reason (the MOGOP is still on about Nixon’s use of the state car and a couple of other equally irrelevant issues).  The real reason is that they’re being toasted to a crisp, so they figure Nixon deserves to feel some heat too. 

It’s a preemptive strike, since Nixon is promising to reveal before the end of the week his plans as attorney general for dealing with the governor’s failure to adhere to the state’s Sunshine Law policy.  McCaskill, by the way, has recommended that Nixon keep clear of launching what looks like a politically motivated investigation by appointing a special prosecutor.

Having publicly stepped into the fray, McCaskill is coming in for her share of Blunt trauma.  His office has filed a Sunshine Law request that she produce every document, “both deleted and undeleted” from  her last sixty days as state auditor of Missouri.  She should send them the deleted ones first, don’t you think?

And for good measure, the MOGOP is also requesting that nineteen Democratic legislators, all in leadership positions, produce every piece of paper and every e-mail from their offices for the last three years.  It’s a transparently vindictive move, but the Democrats will comply–wasting days, weeks or months.  But they’ll be rewarded for their efforts by having ringside seats as they watch Matt Blunt KO himself.

Fired Up! has the best summary of Bluntco’s plan of action:

These developments can’t be viewed favorably for the few remaining Blunt boosters out there.  Once your man is so damaged that he starts lashing out at everything that moves, even when the lashing out does as much harm to him as it does his adversary, it’s a sure sign that he’s mortally injured and is headed for the exit.  Team Blunt is wounded, desperate and punching at anything it thinks it sees through its swollen eyelids.  Despite all the rage, they are slowly bleeding out.  Good riddance.

photos courtesy of Columbia Tribune

Memo shows attorney challenged Blunt’s policy before firing
Saturday, November 10, 2007
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD ~ The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — A former staff attorney for Gov. Matt Blunt sent an internal office memo challenging his boss’ stance on deleting e-mails just weeks before the attorney was fired, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo’s existence and content contradict public statements made by Blunt and his top officials after the attorney was fired in late September. Blunt officials have repeatedly said Scott Eckersley never challenged — verbally or in writing — their policy of deleting office e-mail and brought up the issue only the day he was fired….

This is a textbook case of how not to handle a political windstorm, unless…

…you’re worried that you’re going to go to jail for doing something really really bad.

…On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention….

Heh. Do you think maybe that lack of record is because it was deleted? A classic “non denial denial” if I’ve ever seen one.

RSMo 610.010

(6) “Public record”, any record, whether written or electronically stored, retained by or of any public governmental body including any report, survey, memorandum, or other document or study prepared for the public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service paid for in whole or in part by public funds, including records created or maintained by private contractors under an agreement with a public governmental body or on behalf of a public governmental body; provided, however, that 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. The term “public record” shall not include any internal memorandum or letter 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, unless such records are retained by the public governmental body or presented at a public meeting. Any document or study prepared for a public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service as described in this subdivision shall be retained by the public governmental body in the same manner as any other public record;

RSMo 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.

Rough translation: “when in doubt, save it” 

The to-do between Scott Eckersley and the entire Blunt administration hinges on one contested issue:  Did Eckersley, previous to his firing, warn the governor that deleting e-mails was illegal under the Sunshine Law?

Blunt’s office, in the person of Rich AuBuchon, has insisted there are no such e-mails:

“Mr. Eckersley never once voiced a concern, never once wrote an e-mail, never once talked to other employees in the office evidencing any concern that the governor’s office was not complying with the Sunshine Law or any record-retention policies.”

So far, we don’t have the definitive answer, but we do have a pile of circumstantial evidence that Baby Blunt is lying.  To begin with, Blunt is hiding the e-mails in question behind attorney-client privilege.  Possible motives for doing that would be: 

a)  He wants to keep the story going, so that he can continue to look bad.

b)  Like his role model, George Stonewall-’em Bush, he thinks no one should have the right to ever question him or make him prove anything.

c)  There are several e-mails in there that would hang him, and he’d rather look guilty than be caught with his pants down.

Without the definitive proof, reporters are left to work with what they’ve got, and that would be the boxes of Eckersley’s effects that the Blunters shipped to the Post-Dispatch and to Tony Messenger at the Springfield News-Leader. According to Messenger, there are items of interest in those boxes:

One of the e-mails sent by the state to reporters was sent Sept. 20 from Eckersley to Jonathan Bunch, a former Blunt employee. Here’s what Eckersley wrote after Bunch asked about Eckersley’s discussions with his bosses about e-mail retention:

“Wow … I fired on people yesterday about that – I just got so sick of it – I emailed Chrismer and HH and ed.”

That Eckersley says he e-mailed Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer, HH (probably attorney Henry Herschel) and ed (likely chief of staff Ed Martin) proves nothing, of course.

But it would sure indicate that somebody ought to be looking for e-mails to those three high-level Blunt staffers.

Messenger emphasizes the importance of that and other e-mails that are similarly inconclusive but that, taken together, indicate that Eckersley is credible.

One of the most intriguing parts of the story is that the governor’s office sent those boxes of Eckersley effects of its own free will.  Nobody asked to see them (except for Eckersley’s attorney, who was refused).  The state just … sent them, apparently without reading all of them first, since several of them lend credence to Eckersley’s claims.  They sent out enough material to pique our interest and tar their own credibility, and now they want us to drop it. 

Never mind being effective at governing.  These dimwits weren’t even smart enough to leave well enough alone.

(photo of Scott Eckersley courtesy of Fired Up!)

Where to start? A young attorney who works for the governor points out that the governor’s office isn’t following its own written policy on archiving office e-mails. Later, that same young attorney is fired “for cause” – that is, for inappropriate e-mails which were forwarded to his state e-mail account.

The irony is astounding. Think about it. The governor’s office managed to save those particular e-mails.

Blunt lawyer claims fired because questioned office handling of emails [tiny URL]
By Jo Mannies
POST-DISPATCH POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
10/28/2007

A former lawyer in Gov. Matt Blunt’s office says he was fired last month after he raised questions about how the governor’s staff was handling office e-mails and public records requests….

….”I believed I was fired for pointing to written office policy which … contradicted how the office was handling record requests,” Eckersley said….

….To back up AuBuchon’s assertions about Eckersley, the Office of Administration had sent unsolicited to the Post-Dispatch, by overnight mail, a box containing hundreds of pages of Eckersley’s office e-mails. The e-mails included those dealing with his father’s business and the one e-mail from the sex site.

The box was sent Friday, before the newspaper made any calls to Blunt’s office about Eckersley’s firing….

Ah, the “baby” Blunt administration, a paragon of  Missouri Sunshine Law efficiency. You no longer have to request the records, they’ll just anticipate your needs and forward it all to you. Such service. Especially when it comes to self-serving damage control.

I’m wondering if the governor’s office thinks all the spam e-mail they get is an indication that a lot of people really like them. Nah.

It gets more interesting:

Attorney speaks out about being fired [tiny URL]
….Martin’s buildup to a charge of accessing an inappropriate Web site took about a week. On Friday, Sept. 21, Eckersley had a verbal confrontation with his boss, chief counsel Henry Herschel, over a policy matter in the governor’s office. Eckersley thought Herschel had spoken to him in an inappropriate fashion, and he told Herschel as much.

The state’s rendition of that meeting says it was Eckersley who “shouted and ranted and made threatening motions toward his boss….”

The “baby” Blunt administration – the gang that can’t fire anyone without tripping over their untied shoelaces.

I’m surprised Eckersley wasn’t accused of participating in an international financial scam – you know, with all those overseas bankers sending random e-mails to people asking for help in transferring their funds.

If there’s one thing Republicans know, it’s that chutzpah pays.  I swear to god, they’re missing the embarrassment gene.  The most recent example is their attack on the Missouri Ethics Commission for failing to have a public discussion before ruling that candidates should return their over-the-limit campaign contributions unless they can prove that doing so would be a hardship.

“THE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE STATE’S SUNSHINE LAW!” Republicans screeched in voices that rose to a range above the hearing of bats, frothing and flailing at the injustice of it all–this just a couple of days after the governor’s office blithely defended deleting thousands of e-mails as a matter of course.  The Sunshine Law they’re so eager to pounce on forbids doing that, and they know it too, because Matt Blunt signed the requirement into law.

There’s a word for that … starts with “H”, I’m pretty sure.  “Hyp”? … It’ll come to me.

The Ethics Commission, horrified as they were to have the issue of returning over-the-limit campaign contributions dumped in their lap, made a misstep.  So now they’re rescinding their letter notifying candidates of their decision, and they’re planning a public comments opportunity at their Oct. 4 meeting.  They’re not convinced that their private meeting was illegal, but they’re cowed by the fury of the Republican reaction and the lawsuit that the GOP filed in a nanosecond:

“We find ourselves in a mess, in my opinion,” said commissioner Ken Legan, of Halfway, who made the motion essentially calling for a do-over. “We probably ought to rescind our actions of Sept. 11 — not that we made a mistake, but because of things that have happened.”

Everybody’s afraid of being a Republican target.  The Supreme Court really ought to have ruled on this question, but, quailing at the concerted campaign to label them “activist judges”, they tossed the hot potato into the only available lap.  And now that the members of the Ethics Commission have bloodied noses, they’re likely to be more malleable than they ought to about what constitutes “hardship”.  (Let me just mention that finding an envelope and a stamp do not constitute “hardship”.)

Matt Blunt et. al. have gotten their bluff in, and they intend to swagger away with their swag. 

Meanwhile, our gubernatorial candidate, Jay Nixon, as well as both Democratic Attorney General candidates–Margaret Donnelly and Jeff Harris–have said they are returning over-the-limit contributions.

Matt Blunt is nonchalant about the fuss over all the deleted e-mails in his office.

Blunt, in explaining his staff’s intentions, said with a chuckle, “I think people are trying to have a clear and manageable in-box. That’s what they’re trying to do.”

Chill.  Those e-mails will be available to the public “if they exist“.  So what’s the problem?

Jo Mannies pointedly rebutted Blunt’s easy assertions, insisting, for example that:

the preservation requirements mandate that all state communications or memos dealing with management, policy or financial matters need to be preserved for three years, or 90 days after the release of a state audit on that office. The law defines communications broadly, including those on paper or electronic.

And she defended Jay Nixon against one of Blunt’s misrepresentations (“Nixon has never publicly made such an assertion. What he has said repeatedly …”)

In fact, it was impressive the way Mannies refused, without being biased, to be sucked into the usual he said/she said journalistic “neutrality” game.

Despite Mannies resisting his charm, though, Matt is not worried.  I’m sure he’d tell us: this is no Rovian scheme to hide the fact that Ed Martin’s been doing anti-abortion campaign business on state time–or to hide any of the other illegal stuff we’re up to.  Hell, we don’t have anyone of Rove’s intellect steering us.  We just figure that when you control both houses and the executive, you don’t have to be sub-tile.  Right? 

In that respect, Blunt is a Bush clone, someone who believes he should be able to give a comradely chuckle, then flap his hand dismissively at pesky reporters and bloggers.

That was Dubya’s attitude when the whole Joe Wilson/Scooter Libby brouhaha surfaced.  He pretended for a few seconds to take it seriously–gotta offer the public at least a thin veneer of concern–but George knew all he had to do was pardon Libby.

And this situation is nowhere near as serious as Bush’s was.  Blunt knows, if worse comes to worst, that he might have to start saving e-mails.  Shrug. 

Only people who take themselves too seriously would wax eloquent about the indecency of covering up crimes and misdemeanors this way.  Only pontificators would remind the governor of what happened to Richard Nixon and Al Capone for their coverups.  Such sermonizers would be vastly overstating Blunt’s danger. 

No doubt, the governor sees this dustup as something that nobody but political nerds will notice.  The Republican base sure doesn’t care.  This subject is dry.  It lacks the blood and guts of stem cells and baby killers.  As far as that goes, the issue won’t grab many independents.  And if you want to know the truth, most Democrats will shrug and think, “everybody loses e-mail.”

Blunt’s probably right.  Yes, he’s broken the law, but he’s unveiling his health insurance for the poor scam program, and that’s more important than some dusty old Sunshine law.  Yada, yada.  Don’t get your knickers in a twist.