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)

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.

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

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

Progress Missouri

February 10, 2015

The Honorable Senator Michael Kehoe

Missouri Senate

201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Re:Videotaping Senate Commerce Committee Meeting

Dear Senator Kehoe:

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

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

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

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

[page]

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

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

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

Id.

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

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

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

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

[page]

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

s/

Sean Soendker Nicholson

Progress Missouri

Cc:

Senator Tom Dempsey, President Pro Tem of the Senate

Senator Ron Richard, Majority Floor Leader

Senator Joseph Keaveny, Minority Floor Leader

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General

Chris Grant, Schuchat, Cook & Werner

What is the Missouri Senate afraid of?

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

Our friends at Progress Missouri (no, that’s not us) sponsored a progressive summit in Columbia, Missouri on December 5th and 6th. There were a number of workshops and panels over the course of the two day event. We participated in a panel on new media on Saturday morning (more on that later) and also attended several of the other sessions.

The first panel session on Saturday morning titled “How to Not Be a Terrible Advocate: Advocacy from Targets’ Perspectives” (when you go to Jefferson City to talk to someone in the capitol) included Violet Marcel, Representative Randy Dunn (D), Greta Bax, and Representative Tracy McCreery (D).

(left to right) Violet Marcel, Rep. Randy Dunn (D), and Greta Bax.

Representative Tracy McCreery (D).

The short answer: know your stuff and don’t be a jerk.

Michelle Trupianao spoke on Medicaid Expansion on behalf of the Missouri Medicaid Coalition in early afternoon sessions.

Michelle Trupiano.

The organizer watched the proceedings:

Sean Soendker Nicholson, Executive Director of Progress Missouri.

One of the late afternoon sessions was “Rehabilitation or Incarceration: Drug Policy Reform as a Social Justice Issue”. Former NPR affiliate reporter LeShea Agnew recounted her chilling story.

Former NPR affiliate reporter LeShea Agnew.

Mustafa Abdullah, ACLU Program Associate.

Previously:

I <3 Columbia (December 6, 2014)

I <3 Columbia – part 2 (December 6, 2014)

Luminarias to signify the human impact of Medicaid Expansion at the Capitol on May 16, 2013. Photo courtesy of Progress Missouri.

From Progress Missouri:

Resolute Missourians Illuminate Human Cost of Failure to Expand Medicaid

1,500 luminarias lit at Capitol Thursday night to signify human impact of Medicaid Expansion

Jefferson City – As the General Assembly prepares to finish a legislative session defined by the failure to expand Medicaid for working Missourians, frustrated citizens gathered on the steps of the Capitol to light 1,500 luminarias to represent the lives that would be saved every year if legislators fully expand Medicaid to 138% of the federal poverty level.

“Medicaid Expansion is a moral imperative, and our commitment to this issue will not end with this legislative session,” said Rev. John Bennett of Jefferson City.  “Missourians’ lives are at stake, and we will continue to demand our legislature pass full Medicaid Expansion for our uninsured neighbors and family members.”

“Since our state motto is, ‘The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law,’ shouldn’t we care about the living conditions of our neighbors?” said Rev. Theresa Danieley of St. Louis.”For Christians, I believe the answer is a resounding yes. In Matthew 22, Jesus teaches us that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the Episcopal Baptismal Covenant, we promise, with God’s help, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to respect the dignity of every human being, and to strive for justice and peace.”

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found full Medicaid Expansion will save thousands of lives for impacted consumers; in Missouri, 15,000 lives would be spared in the first full decade of expansion.

The state of Missouri has an opportunity to expand Medicaid coverage to Missourians making up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. Federal funding will cover the costs of this expansion for the first three years and the state of Missouri will never pay for more than 10%. Estimates are that this expansion would allow more than 260,000 uninsured Missourians to gain coverage and create more than 24,000 new jobs in Missouri. However, the state legislature must act to extend this critical coverage to Missouri families.

For those of you who don’t know what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is, the folks at The Nation succinctly summarize the group’s activities:

ALEC practices stealth advocacy; it writes bills for legislators, refines that legislation through task forces where its business members wield veto power, then quietly shepherds the finished “model” bills to passage. Their mission accomplished, ALEC’s business members reward the group with massive contributions – nearly $400 million from 2000-10, according to Common Cause.

ALEC is one of the tools developed by corporate interests in order to purchase the government corporations want – which rarely seems to coincide with what’s good for the rest of us. ALEC wants to  bust unions, repeal minimum wages, privatize public lands and public services, cut corporate taxes and corporate accountability – you get the picture.

Progress Missouri has reported extensively on ALEC’s influence in Missouri and has issued a comprehensive report identifying ALEC sponsored legislation that has been introduced in Jefferson City, as well as the names of state lawmakers who are known to be associated with ALEC. The authors caution us, though, that:

Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though they claim to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of members made public by the organization.

It’s not surprising that ALEC and its legislator protégés prefer to operate in the dark. In fact, after organizations like Progress Missouri and Common Cause, among others, started shining a light on ALEC, several of its corporate partners began to pull their support (find a list here), and some lawmakers have dropped their membership – including Missouri Rep. Mike Colona. ALEC itself has disbanded a few of its more controversial “non-economic” task forces.

But there are still numerous corporations willing to pony up outsize gobs of cash so that ALEC can buy itself some government, and the organization still has lots of active task forces. Common Cause has made public a complete list of ALEC contributors and their task force involvement. Needless to say, it makes for interesting reading – I’m going to think twice before I buy from Amazon again.  

In case you’re interested, three of the corporations listed are headquartered here in Missouri. The fact that Peabody Energy is on the list isn’t much of a surprise; nor did the presence of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. shock me too much. But I was a bit annoyed to find that my own Internet provider, Charter Communications, was paying to play with with such lowlifes.

As a matter of fact, I’m so disturbed that I’m going to let Charter know about it. As I’ve noted above, pressure does work. Peabody Energy is a lost cause probably, but here is contact information along with the contact page for Anheuser Busch.

Common Cause is also putting together a petition to the IRS asking that the ALEC’s tax status be investigated. Losing its tax-exempt status could really put a crimp in its activities. You can sign the petition here. Another petition asking corporations to withdraw from ALEC can be signed here.