Apparently, it is when attorney and former Jasper County Judge Jon Dermott decides it is not. The Joplin Globe just posted an article revealing that Missouri Southern State University officials are refusing to release e-mails requested by the Globe through a Freedom of Information request.
An attorney advising Missouri Southern State University has balked at two requests by the Globe for e-mails that experts on Missouri’s Sunshine Law say are “clearly” public records.
The Globe on Aug. 7 and again on Aug. 28 filed requests for e-mails sent on MSSU accounts after May 1 for 13 top-ranking officials. The list includes Bruce Speck, MSSU president; Terri Agee, senior vice president of business affairs who will step down at the end of the year; Jack Oakes, a former vice president; and Roger Chelf, faculty senate president.
I would expect and hope that we will see the Joplin Globe take legal action against the university officials to get them to follow the law. I would expect that the Globe is not surprised by the refusal. The newspaper and The Turner Report have written extensively over the past several months about the MSSU Board of Governors' refusal to follow the clear wording of Missouri's Sunshine Law.
When the board discussed appointing a search committee to find a replacement for Julio Leon as college president, it was done in secret, even though it did not involve the hiring, firing, promoting, or disciplining of any personnel.
In the Jan. 24, 2009, Turner Report, I wrote about another violation:
When Missouri Southern State University President Dr. Bruce Speck announced the elimination of the Child Development Center and the men's soccer program Thursday, the first question that came to my mind was a simple one.
How in the world could the Board of Governors make this decision without discussing it in an open session? After all, this is a far-reaching decision that adversely affects a number of lives. These people and their supporters deserved an opportunity to have their say in front of the board...and more importantly, they had a right to look the board members in the eyes as the cuts were made.
It is not hard to predict what university officials' response will be- The deliberations and decision could be made in secrecy because it involved the jobs of identifiable workers. Sorry, but that is not the way the Sunshine Law works. If you are talking about hiring and firing specific workers for cause, or if you are talking about making decisions to eliminate certain workers from a department during hard economic times, those are things that can be discussed behind closed doors.
That does not cover this situation.
Eliminating programs is something that must be discussed and voted on in open session. The decision by a board, which is headed by a lawyer who should know better (and probably does) is shameful.
Who knows how many other decisions have been made behind closed doors by a group of officials who do not seem to realize they are governed by law and not by their own ambition.
12 comments:
I always love it when insignificant "boards" or "committees" made up of folks suffering from "big fish in small pond" syndrome think they're above the law.
I hope to hell the Globe sues the pants off them, or at least sics the attorney general's office on them.
It's not like the Sunshine law is an 880-page tomb full of lawyer-babble. It's about as easy to understand as a children's book.
IMO:
I'm not even sure it's a matter of personal ambition (though it could play a role). I think it's rather a difficult to dislodge mentality of "I'm the boss, and that means it's my way or the highway." It's more a sense of arrogance and a malformed understanding of the relationship they stand it to the community at large.
Look at Speck. I don't see any evidence that he thinks of faculty, say, as anything more than "employees". He sees his relationship to them as similar to the relationship the boss at the DMV might view himself being in with his clerks. Faculty aren't a necessary part of the actual heart of the institution, they just work *at* the institution. Thus they should be treated accordingly.
The board sees its relationship to the general community in a similar way, so when it suits them they resist (or at least are tempted to resist) compliance.
Sorry but I would be troubled if the Board or MSSU just handed over email at the request of the Globe. It is the government's job to enforce the law, so it would be appropriate for the judicial system to decide what to hand over and what not to. If the law is such that when someone with "journalist" in their job description makes a request, people will seek less memorable forms of communication. One might consider that violating or skirting the law, but the law has to prove it then.
Anon 12:10 you just don't get it. The law isn't for journalists, ITS FOR THE PUBLIC! You and anyone else have the right to request and look over these records. I get concerned when people like you want to turn a blind eye when entities supported by my tax money and yours tell us it's none of our business. That should raise a red flag. Journalists are the ones who make these requests, but that's because it's their job. They write stories about government and other things that you don't have time to look into. But in reality Missouri Southern's actions are the equivalent to Bruce Speck telling the public this is my university, the public can go to hell.
Randy, the board also doesn't know math when it comes to cutting programs. Look into how many scholarships the men's soccer program had vs. the number of players they had each year. How was that program "costing" the school anything?!
Anon 4:37 First, your hyperbole needs to be reined in. Next,how many of your tax dollars do you think go to MSSU? You seem to think that your 10 dollars buys your way into every detail of every entity that sees a few dollars from you. As for the public, again, I would be quite troubled if you just showed up at MSSU or any other university and were essentially allowed to sift through email accounts. In your eyes, it seems that employees at universities shouldn't even have passwords on their email except perhaps to send an email. Those employees would stop using email and would use a less memorable form of communication, thus rendering any request useless. My point is not that information should be hidden, but that it should not simply be handed over when just ANYONE requests it! While I disagree with some interpretations of the Sunshine Law, that has no bearing on whether I think that 3 months of email from a dozen people should be handed over. Why should an email from person X informing his boss that he will be late because he is going for treatments for an illness become public knowledge simply because Greg Grisolano asks for it? What about email between an employee and a student regarding grade/assignment information? Sorry, a Grisolano request shouldn't result in that being simply handed over on request. Would you support public access to student grades? After all you are paying for a portion of their education. Maybe student grades should be posted openly online. Let's ask the students if they would be in favor of such openness, which would be in the same spirit as what you are claiming.
Anon 9:22,
You are out of your mind.
This reporter is making a reasonable request based on circumstances. He is trying to ascertain what is going on at a taxpayer-funded institution.
According to the documents published by the Globe, this is a reasonable request.
I work for a public governmental entity....The Sunshine Law REQUIRES government to turn over ALL records requested by ANYONE. You may not agree with that standard, but it IS the law.
There are, of course, exceptions -- including records that are personally identifiable and deal with protected issues such as grades, evaluations, illnesses, etc. Also, governmental entities can (and do) charge for collecting and copying these records.
The Sunshine Law is a good thing; even when its a pain in the backside to comply with a request.
E-mails among members of public bodies 610.025
If a member of a public body transmits an e-mail relating to public business to at least two other members of the body so that, when counting the sender, a majority of members are copied, a copy of the e-mail shall be sent to either the custodian of records, or the member’s public office computer. Any such message, subject to the exceptions of Section 610.021, shall be considered a public record upon receipt by the custodian or at the public member’s computer.
Closed meetings and records 610.021, 610.022
A public governmental body is permitted, but not required, to close its meetings, records and votes when they relate to certain issues listed in Section 610.021. When a public body relies on one of these exceptions to close a meeting or record, it should bear in mind that the exceptions are to be read narrowly under Section 610.011. Matters that may be closed include:
* Legal actions, causes of action or litigation (except that votes, minutes and settlement agreements must be opened to the public on final disposition, unless ordered closed by a court).
* Leasing, purchase or sale of real estate where public knowledge might adversely affect the amount paid in the transaction.
* Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting a particular employee.
* Welfare cases of identifiable individuals.
* Software codes for electronic data processing.
* Individually identifiable personnel records.
* Records related to existing or proposed security systems.
* Records that are protected from disclosure by other laws.
When a public governmental body votes to meet in closed session, members must cite in open session the specific statute and subsection allowing closure. Once in closed session, the public body may not discuss any matter beyond the scope of the stated reason for the closed session. The public governmental body must close only that portion of the facility necessary for its members to conduct the closed meeting, allowing space for the public to remain and attend any later open session.
Some of you need to read this first. The emails become public record when a majority of members are copied.
Secondly, the elimination of a program can fall under the the category of a closed session if the elimination of the program causes the coach to lose his/her job. It might be a loophole but has been challenged and upheld in court. Deal with it Turner and do your homework next time before you start babbling.
So you are afraid now to post my earlier comment that listed the Sunshine Law guideline and contradicted your claims about open session? Typical.
4:14 It isn't a reasonable request. One who thinks a blanket request that includes email from faculty to students is reasonable should have his head examined! A reasonable request asks for email between specific people (e.g., Email from BRS to TA, not ALL of a faculty member's email account). Sorry, it isn't irrational to counter Grisolano's claim with some resistance. If information about student email with faculty is exempt then the MSSU lawyer sure as hell should be resisting the blanket request that would include such correspondence!
5:50 Why are there exceptions if it IS THE LAW as you so capitally put it? Why shouldn't the taxpayer get to request student grades (I know that there is a law that prohibits it, but WHY does this law exist?) if the taxpayer has paid for it. That is the justification some make for the sunshine law, the taxpayer paid for it so they should have access into the intimate details of everyone's life who sees a penny from Jefferson City! Gimme a break. The Sunshine law, which has good intentions, has run amok!
Ultimately SOME of the email will be released under the sunshine law. I think that a judge will get involved and make the Globe narrow the scope to relevant email. A faculty member's email to a student is NOT relevant. If I were a faculty member I would start using a private email account to communicate from here on out!
Anon 4:14 - I agree with everything you say in your last paragraph. Many of us at Southern have been doing exactly that for the last year or so.
Not in fear of the Sunshine Law you understand, but from fear of retaliation from the administration. Many committees do not share agendas electronically and feel more confortable meeting off-campus for some topics. Makes me think we're living a John Le Carré novel!
Despite the situation, we still love the University and look forward to a time when administration asks for, listens to, and follows suggestions from the folks down in the trenches (staff and faculty) who work with the students each day.
Hell, we know that changes in higher education in general, and MSSU in particular will need to get made. Most of them won't be fun. But you have to trust that the guy driving the bus knows what he's doing and can treat people fairly.
We haven't seen that since Speck arrived. Besides, if all you want is a real back-slappin' kind of guy, just go visit a local car lot and you'll meet a bunch. Maybe you can get a good deal on your next car - you'd be way ahead of us.
Post a Comment