Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released a statement after formally requesting a legal opinion from the Attorney General on the appropriateness of Sunshine Law exemptions, as claimed by Gov. Parson's office.
Recent media reports revealed that Gov. Parson's office failed to disclose information in response to Sunshine Law requests, citing the First Amendment.
Auditor Galloway's request asks whether it is appropriate to redact information related to individuals conducting business with, lobbying or attempting to influence a government entity.
"Government should not be in the business of finding ways to hide information from taxpayers, but time and again, we have seen continued efforts to do just that. Most recently, reports revealed Governor Parson's office used the First Amendment to withhold information requested under the Sunshine Law. This is why I have requested clarification from the Attorney General as to whether these actions were lawful. There should be no confusion on how the Sunshine Law is applied."
"Government should not be in the business of finding ways to hide information from taxpayers, but time and again, we have seen continued efforts to do just that. Most recently, reports revealed Governor Parson's office used the First Amendment to withhold information requested under the Sunshine Law. This is why I have requested clarification from the Attorney General as to whether these actions were lawful. There should be no confusion on how the Sunshine Law is applied."
(Note: The portion below is taken from the state auditor's request and details what information the governor's office apparently wants to keep hidden.)
The question presented is one of a predominantly legal nature.
The State Auditor's Office does not, and has not, closed information based on an exception to the Sunshine Law found in the First Amendment.
In Missouri Law, there is not a specifically enumerated exception in the Missouri Revised Statues that would permit the office to close or redact information under the First Amendment.
Additionally, there is no exception imposed by any judge in Missouri caselaw that would permit such an exception solely on First Amendment grounds. This question nonetheless arises because a Missouri state government entity has asserted that the First Amendment in and of itself requires redaction of information, effectively rendering the Missouri Sunshine Law, and the state's public policy that records of governmental entities be open to the public, unconstitutional.
This government entity appears to redact information that identifies information related to individuals conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity, lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence any action taken by the government entity, claiming that the First Amendment protects this information.
Essentially, this government entity asserts that individuals attempting to influence actions taken by the government would not do so without fear of retribution were it to provide in a Sunshine request response identifying information that the individuals voluntarily gave.
This position provides greater protections to those lobbying or conducting business with the government entity than is given to individuals who are referenced in arrest and incident report records. See Sections 610.100 to 610.150, RSMo (providing that incident reports and arrest records are open records).
While this office does not believe that the First Amendment exception is a valid exception under Missouri law, it requests the opinion of the Attorney General to ensure that it is properly complying with the law.
Uh, who is surprised by a republican group trying to hide information from the voter. I have to admit that Parsons is awfully busy bringing out new laws/regulations and stuff, but it is a group of republicans heading everything up in favor of helping business and their cronies. Seems too much too fast is coming up for votes and worse of all is restricting how local health departments can place more stringent on CAFO's which contribute mightily to our environmental pollution. Worse of all it restricts who can sue for damages by their odor and manure handling which can wreck a owners land values. Bad juju for the state who prides itself on clean streams and an excellent MDC staff trying to protect our wildlife.
ReplyDeleteTheirs them who love freedum and and theirs them who don't! That's why theirs too political parties in red state 'Murrica! Theirs Republican'ts and then for them that aren't liberal theirs the Teabaggers.
ReplyDeleteClam, you are one of those open minded liberals who believe in tolerance, aren't you?
Delete