Sunshine in Missouri

Talk is cheap, but the price is high when it's true.

    Cell phones have become as much a necessity as your calendar and your car keys.  Unfortunately, this becomes a problem if you are a government employee.

    Let's say you are an employee of a state university.  Let's say the university supplies you a cell phone for your use on the job.  The university pays the bill.  Clearly, because the records of the state university are public under the sunshine law, those bills are public records.

    A reporter called today to note that the requested copies of the bills arrived in his office with redacted phone numbers on them.  When he questioned why those numbers were redacted, he was told they were personal phone calls made on the university-owned phones and that the numbers were redacted for that reason.

    Sorry, Charlie.  That doesn't work.  Those records are public records.  (In fact, there's case law in Missouri stating that point, so we don't have to argue about the interpretation of the words in the sunshine law about that issue.)  Unless there's an exception in 610.021 (which there isn't -- I'll save you looking for one) that says that these numbers are a closed record, all the data in those bills is open to the public.  I don't care if you have repaid the university for those calls (which maybe they have and maybe they haven't), it doesn't make that data private.  There's no exception for calls to private telephone numbers made on phones owned by a public governmental body.

    Even thought about getting two cell phones?  No, of course not.  It's cheaper to just use the university's phone, isn't it?  But what's the price you pay for being cheap?  You lose your right to privacy.  There's a cost to everything.  Talk is cheap.  Public disclosure is what can be costly....Maybe in this case, the cost is greater than you realized....

   

No matter where you turn around, it's the same sun that keeps shining down...

    Three weeks ago, there were citizens in our state who'd probably never heard of the sunshine law.  Now, I imagine there are a number of citizens in our state who are tired of reading about the sunshine law and e-mails and Governor's aides and deleting data and, well, you get the picture.

    Do you know what worries me?  For once the sunshine law is, dare I say it, in the spotlight, and yet I view this turn of events with trepidation.  I'm afraid it is getting so much attention, with a new story nearly every day, that citizens will begin viewing it as a political ploy.  As simply another political game played between the Democrats and the Republicans.  Any value that might be gained by this turn of events may be lost by the fact that everyone may soon be tired of  hearing about sunshine law violations.  Everyone might decide this is just another way to get the upper hand politically.

    State records are critical.  This country was founded on the rights of citizens to be involved in their government and monitoring actions of public officials in meetings and through inspection of public records plays a key role in that process.  When politicians began playing games with this right, it loses its purity as a principal of good government.

    And when citizens get tired of hearing about the sunshine law, will they discount the importance it plays in keeping our government on a sound basis?  Will state legislators not want to strengthen this law because it is "yesterday's issue" and not relevant to what is happening in the state in the immediate future? 

    I just hope I won't regret tomorrow that today the sunshine law is a page 1 issue in my newspaper.

    Meanwhile, there's an interesting situation that has developed in the central part of the state.  A key public figure faced a criminal charge.  Who it was and what the charge was is probably not as important as what happened.  The wheels of justice did not, in this case, grind slowly.  They, in fact, gave our own Carl Edwards a run for his money, so to speak.  This case reached the finish line before those observing it had "left their gates," so to speak.  Records normally open to the public in this case were closed almost literally within minutes of being created and open to the public.  The case was over and the records, if they existed, were closed, according to the official statement.

    That is surely not what the legislature intended in allowing for closed records in cases of suspended imposition of sentencing.  Indeed, the Missouri Supreme Court has said that official records are only closed "following successful completion of probation...."  If that is what happened here, this case must hold a statewide record for the shortest duration of probation in history.  (See the attached Yale decision.)  Download Yale.doc

    There will be a discussion, I predict, about this as a case of the court taking care of its own.  As an officer of the court myself and as a believer in openness in government, I hope I am not embarrassed by my brethren at the bar before this is over.

Life's a game!

    I learned a long time ago that you cannot take yourself too seriously.  If you cannot laugh at yourself, you are doomed to have no friends and spend your days under a black cloud.

    In that vein, the Missouri Democrats  have invented a hilarious game that I have to post for folks who might have missed it.  I am not posting this because of any political motives.  Feel free to play this game and imagine your local politicians who you'd like to catch in the sunshine law spotlight.  I have a number of candidates for the next version of this game.  Some are Democrats!  Others are Republican.  There's plenty of blame to go around.

    But it's a great way to entertain yourself between reading my blog entries!

    Go get it!  http://www.bluntdocumentdestroyer.com/

I've got to find a way just to hear those little things you say

    Late last week, a city's planning and zoning commission met for a regularly-scheduled, properly noticed meeting.
    The meeting ended and the commissioners began gathering up papers.  Members of the public attending the meeting also left, concluding the meeting was finished.
    Perhaps one of those citizens, in leaving the room, took along with him or her the brains of these commissioners.  Because these commissioners began talking among themselves about the meeting and suddenly realized they had failed to take up an issue that they wanted to discuss.  Yes, there was a quorum in the room while this "chatting" was going on.  No, they were not in a formal "meeting" setting when this "chatting" was going on.  Can you say "violation of the law"?
    So, someone on the commission decided they needed to fix this problem and so fix it they did.  At least, they got themselves into a further fix in the process.  Because the fix was to simply resume the meeting, now an illegal meeting without proper public notice, to further discuss this matter of public business after the public had gone. 
    Probably they thought this was just a "little thing."   But it's not such a little thing to someone who came to the meeting and wanted to hear that particular discussion, then missed it because it appeared to the public that the meeting was over.  In fact, an action like this just makes it appear someone is trying to hide something from the public.
    Someone needs to "fix" these commissioners' lack of understanding about the law.  If they can read and understand the city's planning and zoning rules, there's no reason they can't read and understand the sunshine law.  Each law is critical to the responsibilities they have undertaken.
    One of my favorite advocates of the sunshine law opined the other day, "The Sunshine Law is intended to turn the lights on public officials not knock the daylights out of [the public] when the switch was turned on."  I laughed when I read that line, but the truth is that when I see situations like this, I think perhaps getting a giant club and using it to enlighten some of our public officials to the provisions in the sunshine law might not be a bad idea.  Beating a little common sense into their heads is one tactic we haven't tried.  Attempting to legislate fines and penalties clearly isn't working.

    MY FINAL THOUGHTS:  And I add these are MY thoughts and not the thoughts of any other person, statewide association or organization of any race, color or creed, or reader of this blog:  1)  The sunshine law already covers emails; and 2) Public bodies already have to sort the "spam" from the records relating to public business that comes into their U.S.Postal Service mailbox every day.  Why are we acting like what is going on statewide is so difficult?

Silence speaks a thousand words

    I started this blog on April 13, 2006, because education was needed about sunshine law issues and because I wanted to raise awareness in the state about the lack of respect for the law by public officials.

    Today, November 15, 2007, I am just sitting with my jaw in my lap.  Never in my wildest dreams did I ever figure the day would come in this state when sunshine law issues were at the height of Missouri's political news.  I have written about public officials on the local level who needed an education about the law.  Tomorrow morning, your papers will be filed with stories about the state government and the sunshine law arguments that have taken over those in the highest offices of our state government.  I am just stunned at this turn of events.

    The little stories I hear cannot begin to compare with what is swirling around us on the state level.

    So tonight, I declare a moment of silence on local sunshine disputes, because we have reached a level of cacophony that exceeds all my expectations. Maybe tomorrow I'll get back on my soap box, but tonight I secede it to those in our highest levels of state government. 

    May the sunshine law never rest in peace.

Just read my lips, yes I think you can. Just read my lips and I think you'll understand.

    A little town on the western side of the state has been engaging in some mind-boggling city council action  lately.  In past weeks, I've heard stories about council members resigning in great numbers and meetings being held without notice, in fact being held a hour after announced meetings are canceled.

    Today's call from a paper is to say that this time the council decided to fire the city treasurer, then waited five days to make public the vote on this matter.  Perhaps these council members cannot count to 72 (as in hours before such a vote MUST be made public under Section 610.021 (3).)    Well, I suppose if they can't read (as in read the law), we can hardly expect they are capable of counting to 72.

     But there's more!  They're even prohibiting some citizens from attending public meetings!  These are public meetings, folks.  Just what do you think the word "public" means?

    Well, if they can't read the sunshine law, I don't suppose I can expect them to read the law that says the council persons cannot elect a new mayor.  No, they didn't elect a mayor pro tem, they voted to elect a new mayor.  It says so right in their minutes.

    You know, we all have to pass a test before we are allowed to drive a car.  When we run a stop sign, no one excuses us from the penalty just because we didn't know the rule.  When we speed, no one excuses us because we didn't know the speed limit.

    It's time for public accountability among those who are responsible for the governing process in Missouri, from top to bottom.  One of my clients repeatedly reminds me the oath of office a public official takes should mean something.  How true!

Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy days of sunshine law violations...

    A while ago, I wrote about a board that was smart enough to know that something they were doing was illegal.  We're not talking about a local ambulance district or water district here -- we're talking about a board that functions on one of the highest levels in the state.  A board that should have big time lawyers telling it what to do.

    Last week, I got a call from another paper in that area.  The same board is again breaking the sunshine law.  And the problem seems to be spreading because I was told that three separate boards in this area of the state are doing the same thing -- something clearly illegal.  You'd wonder if they are getting advice from the same lawyer?

    The issue is simple.  When a board meets to talk about the qualifications it seeks in a candidate for its highest position, whether it is the head of a university, the director of a 911 district, or the superintendent of a school board, those discussions MUST be held in an open meeting.  There is NO exception in Section 610.021 that allows such a discussion to be held in a closed meeting.  No discussion of individual candidates' qualifications was going on in these meetings.

    Don't these people even read the sunshine law?  The law is pretty simple and pretty clear.  To hold a closed meeting, you must be talking about something that is detailed in Section 610.021.  And no exception in that section fits this description.  Either these folks can't read, or just are too lazy to read.  The language in the law isn't that difficult to understand.

    And when I hear a story about three separate public governmental bodies in the same area blatantly flouting the law in such a manner, it angers me. Don't these people even bother to try to follow the law?  The sunshine law books published by the Attorney General's office are free.  Training is available to anyone who wants it from a variety of sources.    State organizations provide it for the school boards, county and city office holders.  The attorney general's office speaks on a regular basis.  Press groups host gatherings around the state.

    Anyone who doesn't bother to understand the law is just plain lazy.  Maybe we need to add a standard to Section 610.027 for lazy folks.  What other law can you break and then claim it's because you didn't bother to understand what the law said?

 

Randy Turner, who writes a blog from southwest Missouri, had some pointed comments to make last week about the sunshine law in connection with his analysis about the ethics commission situation.  Randy concludes that we need a sunshine law with teeth.  How true!  It's been a embarrassment to have this argument going on in our state in the law few weeks about whether and when e-mails are public records.  And the solution is not for state officials to "use their own computers" to avoid conflicts, as Chris Koster  suggested recently.  With folks sending and receiving emails from their Blackberries, their home and office computers and their laptops, it gets harder and harder to keep track of whether copies of e-mails that are business related are properly stored.  But this is a critical issue for members of public bodies and it is going to need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

    Time again for some changes in chapter 610 come next legislative session.  And it's clear that any politician worth his or her salt is going to be in agreement on this point.