Sunshine in Missouri

The sounds of silence...

    While our state government continues to swirl with controversy that is focused on sunshine law matters (Sen. Charlie Shields' crusade, Gov. Blunt's debacle regarding his emails,   and the Ethics Commission flip-flop), I have found it breath-taking to hear all the discussion of these issues and all the calls for strengthening the law.  It is clear the next legislative session will be quite interesting.

    But at the same time there is high risk involved in any changes being made.  Many of my favorite blogs (including Tony Messenger and Dan who's-last-name-is-confidential) are devoting space to this discussion, along with the regular political blogs at The Post-Dispatch and The Columbia Tribune , as well as Prime Buzz (which, thank you, Star, is free again!).

    But a commentor to Tony's blog recently accused Tony of something that, while I disagree with his comment, is troubling.  Changes in the law are necessary.  Changes in the law that result in more openness to the public will be a benefit for the public.  Taking action behind closed doors is a bad thing for the public.  Destruction of public records is a travesty.  Politicizing the selection process of our state's judiciary is not the way to maintain the balance which is constitutionally mandated between the legislative and judiciary branches  of government. But making changes that are beneficial must be balanced with avoiding becoming a pawn for someone's political agenda.

    Seeking changes in the law is not the same thing as playing politics, and the public must make sure that the changes which are made do not make any of us a "pawn" in anyone's agenda. Where are the citizens of this state when it comes time for testimony in the legislative committees about why changes are needed?  Who else in the state, besides groups such as Missouri Press Association and the Missouri Broadcasters' Association, understands the need for open government and supports strengthening this law?  We need the other groups in the state that support open government to raise their voices louder when these issues arise.  Your legislators need to hear a deafening roar that open government is required in this state, whatever party is in control.

    Speak up or forever hold your peace!

    I promise, I'll get off my soapbox and back to the regular blog entries I write.  I just felt, this once, this issue needed to be addressed. 

A different way of walkin', a different way of talkin'

    I have avoided writing about all the sunshine law activity going on in the state which is filling the newspapers, because you don't need to read that here.   Read your local paper, instead.  The call for openness in access to records has been refreshing, however, in whatever form it surfaces.  But whatever comes of all this call for openness, I can only hope it results in increased access to information across the board.

    Meanwhile, what I can do is offer to all of you some food for thought.  A year or so ago, I was co-author of an article  that ran in the Journal of the Missouri Bar.  It offered thoughts on a mechanism that might allow the public greater access to a process for resolving sunshine law disputes.  The process in the current law, of bringing suit yourself if you cannot convince the state's attorney general or your local prosecutor, to sue, makes litigating these disputes darned near impossible for citizens.

    I still think this process, in one form or another as detailed in the analysis, is worth consideration in this state and would offer citizens a huge public benefit.

I don't need to know your reasons, no, not even if they're good...

A city in our fair state recently had an audit, with unpleasant results relating to its parks department.  Funds were missing.  Clear signs pointed to the need for a strong response.

So the council decided to hire a new director for the parks department.  Had the discussion focused on hiring a person for the post, that would have properly been held in a closed meeting.  (Well, it didn't HAVE to be in a closed meeting -- all of you know, of course, that the closing of a personnel matter is allowed but NOT required, right?)  But where this body got off course was that the entire discussion of whether to create this new full-time position in the budget was part of the closed meeting.  There is no way this discussion of budget and employment -- of job creation -- belonged in a meeting closed for "hiring, firing, disciplining and promoting" purposes.

What, you say?  These two discussions belonged together?  Well, hardly.  The law says the exceptions need to be interpreted strictly.  Therefore, it was incumbent upon the body to separate these two topics and wait until they were talking about personal information about a candidate before they closed the discussion.

Hopefully the public won't let closure settle on THIS discussion.  Someone needs to bring a little sunshine to this topic in this community.