Missouri Sunshine Law
From Sunshine Review
Contents |
Missouri's Sunshine Law was introduced seven years after the Freedom of Information Act was passed in Congress in response to the Watergate scandal. In 1973, RSMO Chapter 610 was signed into the Missouri Constitution making the state one earliest advocates of the open records act. The law expressly stated that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies are to be open to the public.[1]
The law set out to create specific instances when a meeting, record or vote may be closed should be narrowly defined and interpreted to promote government openess. Public meetings are designated to be held at convenient times, to be accessible to the public and held in facilities large enough to accommodate the expected audience.
The Missouri Meeting Notices Law legislates the methods by which meetings are conducted, either open or closed.
[edit] Recent news
[edit] Transparency blocking
No recent news. If you have news add it here
More transparency blocking news from across the country.
[edit] Litigation
- Blunt settles lawsuit, will release thousands of emails
- Amended lawsuit accuses Blunt of violating public records laws
- Bipartisan team investigates Blunt over emails
More FOIA litigation news from across the country.
[edit] Legislation
No recent news. If you have news add it here
More FOIA legislation news from across the country.
[edit] Sunshine Guardians
No recent news. If you have news add it here
Other Sunshine Guardians from across the country.
[edit] Missouri's transparency report card
A 2008 study, BGA - Alper Integrity Index, conducted by the Better Government Association and sponsored by Alper Services, ranked Missouri #22 in the nation with an overall percentage of 52.50%. [1]
A 2007 study, Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, conducted by BGA and the NFOIC, gave Missouri 41 points out of a possible 100, a letter grade of "F", and a ranking of 34 out of the 50 states.[2]
A 2002 study, Freedom of Information in the USA, conducted by IRE and BGA, ranked Missouri's law as the 42nd worst in the country, giving it a letter grade of "D".[3]
[edit] Revisions of the Sunshine Law
[edit] HB 170
In the early 90's the Sunshine Law began to undergo major revisions due to electronic media and the expansive role of government within the state. In 1993, H.B. No. 170 amended how votes were recorded in closed meeting. Whereas prior to the mandate the votes were "made public" it was now required for votes to be recorded by a roll call vote. In 1995 this moved into the judicial area of legislation where it was ruled that despite the case of Tuft v. City of St. Louis, which ruled the government can agree on settlements in return for silence that settlement agreements made by public bodies are open records, even if no taxpayer funds are exchanged.
Another change included the revision of the definition of a "public record" to exclude:
"internal memorandum or letter received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendation 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."[4]
Also it was noted that given the trend of governmental units to sign contract with large information distribution entities for exclusive right to manipulate and distribute public records that it would be recognized that taxpayers pay for collection of this data and should not be forced, when seeking to access this taxpayer-owned data to profit a commercial company.
[edit] Features of the law
The law summarizes its purpose stating that, " 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."[5]
It is important to note that all governing bodies are required by statute to name a custodian of records. [5]
[edit] What records are covered?
Records are defined by Missouri law as "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"[5]
Specific exceptions include but are not limited to:
- Legal information concerning current litigation and any information that would fall under attorney client priveledge where the governmental body acts as a party to the litigation [5]
- Information on sale or purchase of real estate by departments [5]
- The discussion of personal information concerning state employees excluding concrete decisions made about the hiring and firing and discipline of those employees [5]
- Militia and National Guard information [5]
- Medical files [5]
- Academic information of students [5]
- Examination materials [5]
- Welfare information [5]
- Employer/Employee negotiation preparatory information [5]
- Security information, including the security of individuals infrastructure and electronics and telecommunication [5]
- Non-approved competitive bidding information and sealed bids [5]
- Employee information excluding "names, positions, salaries and lengths of service of officers"[5]
- Names of donors [5]
- "Credit card numbers, personal identification numbers, digital certificates, physical and virtual keys, access codes or authorization codes that are used to protect the security of electronic transactions between a public governmental body and a person or entity doing business with a public governmental body."[5]
However, records that contain both exempt and non-exempt material must be seperated and non-exempt material must be released. [5]
[edit] Deliberative Process Exemption
Missouri possess a codified deliberative process exemption, stating that, "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."[5]
[edit] Electronic media
E-mails are subject to open record requests if an e-mail is sent to 2 or more recipients concerning public business. Any such message is required to be copied to the custodian of records, or the members public office computer.
[edit] The budget
Introduced in Missouri by Gov. Matt Blunt's Executive Order 07-24 in 2007.[6] This effectively opened the budget to the public in an easy to understand format. Specifically, the order required:
- State agencies to procure goods and services and disburse funds to eligible recipients
- Creating an internet site for the public to freely search and access information about government spending, grants, and contracts; and
- The Commissioner of Administration to establish the Missouri Accountability Portal as a free, internet-based tool allowing citizens to demand fiscal discipline and responsibility.
- The Missouri Accountability Portal to be an easy-to-search database of financial transactions related to the purchase of goods and services and the distribution of funds for state programs.
- The Missouri Accountability Portal to be updated each state business day and maintained as the primary source of information about the activity of Missouri’s government.
The Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP) is one of the most comprehensive open records site available by state and is being held up for example by other states.[7]
[edit] What agencies are covered?
Agencies include all branches of government at both the state and local levels, including entities created to serve advisory capacities. This also includes "quasi-public governmental bodies" which are those that regularly enter into contracts with governmental bodies or perform public functions.[5]
[edit] Who may request records?
Anyone may request public documents in Missouri.
[edit] Must a purpose be stated?
There is no law requiring a statement of purpose.
[edit] How can records be used?
There is nothing in the Missouri Sunshine Law that restricts the use of records.
[edit] Time allowed for response
- See also: Request response times by state.
Missouri law allows for three business days for the return of records requests. However, it does permit lengthening this but only with written notice by the custodian of the records.[5]
[edit] Fees for records
Missouri law allows for charging of fees which include the cost of duplication, which is not to exceed $.10 per page as well as the cost of research and labor involved in duplication. Partial or whole waivers may be granted if the records are deemed to be in the public interest. [5]
[edit] Penalties
If it found that government body violated the Sunshine law it may declare void any action taken in violation of the law. If the law was knowingly violated however:
- Shall be subjected to a fine up to $1,000
- May request to pay all reasonable cost of the attorney feeds.
If found guilty:
- Subject is faces a civil fine up to $5,000
- Will pay all court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
[edit] Open meetings
It is required by the Sunshine Law that government entities provide a reasonable written notice at least 24 hours in advice before a public body meets. This notice must be posted predominately in the principle office of the entity or at the agreed meeting place. Any meetings held by conference call, internet or other electrical means is to posted to the principle website.
Other requirements include:
- Time of the meeting
- Date of the meeting
- Place of the meeting
- Tentative agenda of an open meeting
- Whether the meeting will be open or closed
- If it must occur within a 24 hour period, the reasons must be recorded in the meeting minutes.
[edit] Proposed changes
[edit] 2009
Louis Leonatti and Joe Maxwell in early 2009 issued a statement saying that Missouri's Sunshine Law is poorly written and needs to be fixed. Among the changes they suggest:
- Require a judge to have “in camera” review of public documents before a public official can deny them to somebody who requests them.[8]
House Bill 62 [9] "would let police departments close files in which an officer is found to have violated departmental policy but committed no criminal act, or when no violation is found. The proposal, by Rep. Scott Lipke, R-Jackson, specifies that a file showing that an officer committed a crime would remain open." [10] Debate on the bill centered around concerns that exempting accusations against police officers would simply protect those that abused their power. [11]
House Bill 316 [12] was sponsored by Tim Jones (R-Eureka) in early 2009. The bill seeks to narrow the definition of the times a public meeting may be moved into closed session, require five days notice of public meetings (rather than the current 24 hours required notice), provide public records in electronic format if they are stored that way, and to open up the proceedings of the Missouri Ethics Commission. [13] Citizens have been urging the legislature to pass this bill, while lobbying organizations representing local governmental officials object to it. Gary Markenson, a lobbyist for the Missouri Municipal League and Todd Smith, a lobbyist for the Missouri Association of Counties expressed concern that the bill "goes too far". [14] Governor Jay Nixon has stated that he "hope[s] it [the bill] crosses my desk so I'll be able to sign it". [15]
[edit] Relevant legal cases
- See also: Court cases with an impact on state FOIA
Here is a list of lawsuits in Missouri. For more information go the page or go to Missouri sunshine lawsuits.
(The cases are listed alphabetically. To order them by year please click the icon to the right of the Year heading)
| Lawsuit | Year |
|---|---|
| Tuft v. City of St. Louis | 1995 |
[edit] Notable requests
[edit] 2008
In 2008, Attorney General Jay Nixon (who subsequently became the state's governor) appointed a special investigative team to investigate whether Gov. Matt Blunt or his staffers had violated various provisions of the state's sunshine law.
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan was in charge of approving the settlement reached between the parties to the dispute. Judge Callahan questioned whether the attorney general's office had the authority to appoint independent investigators. Callahan called the investigators (former state patrolmen Mel Fisher and Rick Wilhoit) a "rogue investigative team."
Henry Herschel, who was Matt Blunt's senior advisor at the time the e-mail controversy started, advised the governor on Sept. 10 and again on Sept. 14, that e-mails were not public record and that the governor’s office didn’t have a records retention policy. Later, on Nov. 11, Herschel corrected his position.[1]
[edit] See also:
[edit] External links
- Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 610
- Missouri Sunshine Blog
- Jean Manake & Dan Curry, The Missouri Bar, Public Scrutiny of Missouri E-mail Under the Sunshine Law, 2004
- Sunshine Week
- Missouri Accountability Portal
- Past articles on Missouri
[edit] References
| |||||||||||
