“…listen, I’m a Mizzou educated lawyer, but I can keep up. [laughter] And I know what the word shall means in the law. Now I know he went to Yale, I think, or Harvard, one of those, one of those fancy ones. Um, I think they taught him the same thing, shall is shall…”

“…Any aggrieved person, taxpayer to, or citizen of, this state, or the attorney general or prosecuting attorney, may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026. Suits to enforce sections 610.010 to 610.026 shall be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the public governmental body has its principal place of business…”

Or the Attorney General.

Title XXXIX CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS
Chapter 610

610.027. Violations — remedies, procedure, penalty, purposeful violations — validity of actions by governing bodies in violation — governmental bodies may seek interpretation of law, attorney general to provide. — 1. The remedies provided by this section against public governmental bodies shall be in addition to those provided by any other provision of law. Any aggrieved person, taxpayer to, or citizen of, this state, or the attorney general or prosecuting attorney, may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026. Suits to enforce sections 610.010 to 610.026 shall be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the public governmental body has its principal place of business. Upon service of a summons, petition, complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim in a civil action brought to enforce the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.026, the custodian of the public record that is the subject matter of such civil action shall not transfer custody, alter, destroy, or otherwise dispose of the public record sought to be inspected and examined, notwithstanding the applicability of an exemption pursuant to section 610.021 or the assertion that the requested record is not a public record until the court directs otherwise.
  2. Once a party seeking judicial enforcement of sections 610.010 to 610.026 demonstrates to the court that the body in question is subject to the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026 and has held a closed meeting, record or vote, the burden of persuasion shall be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026.
  3. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has knowingly violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars. If the court finds that there is a knowing violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, the court may order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.
  4. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has purposely violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to five thousand dollars. If the court finds that there was a purposeful violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, then the court shall order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing such a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.
  5. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body has violated any provision of sections 610.010 to 610.026, a court shall void any action taken in violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, if the court finds under the facts of the particular case that the public interest in the enforcement of the policy of sections 610.010 to 610.026 outweighs the public interest in sustaining the validity of the action taken in the closed meeting, record or vote. Suit for enforcement shall be brought within one year from which the violation is ascertainable and in no event shall it be brought later than two years after the violation. This subsection shall not apply to an action taken regarding the issuance of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness of a public governmental body if a public hearing, election or public sale has been held regarding the bonds or evidence of indebtedness.
  6. A public governmental body which is in doubt about the legality of closing a particular meeting, record or vote may bring suit at the expense of that public governmental body in the circuit court of the county of the public governmental body’s principal place of business to ascertain the propriety of any such action, or seek a formal opinion of the attorney general or an attorney for the governmental body.
­­
(L. 1982 H.B. 1253, A.L. 1987 S.B. 2, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1395 & 1448, A.L. 1998 H.B. 1095, A.L. 2004 S.B. 1020, et al.)

Attorney General Josh Hawley (r), also a candidate for the U.S. Senate, has appeared to be a reluctant participant in holding (now) former Governor Eric Greitens (r) accountable for his and his staff’s use of a self deleting texting application to conduct state business. A private attorney filed a lawsuit under the Missouri Sunshine Law (RsMO 610) to shed more light on this practice in the governor’s office.

Today it was revealed that twenty individuals (including Eric Greitens) in the governor’s office had the application on their phones, not eight as reported in Attorney General Josh Hawley’s earlier assertions. The Attorney General’s reticence on the subject became a social media bludgeon today, wielded by Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
RsMO 610.027

Brooke Goren @BrookeGoren
This is what a real investigation into the governor looks like. cc: @HawleyMO #MOSen [….]

11:27 AM – 1 Jun 2018

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
That statute SPECIFICALLY gives the Attorney General the right to bring suit but he refused and this private citizen is doing his job for him. Not good.
12:00 PM – 1 Jun 2018

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
Totally bogus excuse that he couldn’t subpoena. He could have done exactly what this private attorney did and gotten the information he claims he couldn’t get.
12:01 PM – 1 Jun 2018

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
That’s what happens when you don’t actually investigate. An investigation isn’t “they told us they didn’t do anything wrong” AG should have filed suit under 610.027 like the private lawyer who found this out today. Embarrassing that private atty has to do AG’s job. #ladders

Steve Kraske @stevekraske
Greitens and 19 staffers had secret texting app, far more than number reported to AG [….]

5:33 PM – 1 Jun 2018

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
The subpoena excuse is close to the dog ate my homework. Totally bogus. Does the AG’s office expect people to believe that a private lawyer has more power than the Atty General? Embarrassing.
5:41 PM – 1 Jun 2018

That left more than a few marks. And it’s just the beginning of June.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – town hall in Warrensburg – Press Q and A – August 17, 2017 (August 17, 2017)