The 50th anniversary of Sunshine Law of Missouri got me thinking about what could be done to restore the vision of the original sponsors of Sunshine Law of Missouri.
Recent reports and editorials from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kansas City Star have concluded that the Sunshine Law needs an “overhaul”.
I couldn’t agree more strongly.
Various actions by public officials undermined the vision of the leaders of the 1973 legislation to make government documents and meetings accessible to the public.
The Star editorial cited “exorbitant charges for copies of documents that are scrutinized for months before publication”.
The Post-Dispatch cited examples of digital technology used by state officials to block public access to public business.
Digital methods that did not exist in 1973 now offer easy ways to circumvent the Sunshine Act, as some state officials have used email transmission via a private cell phone that leaves no government public records for disclosure.
There is even an application used to delete the message when read by the recipient.
I have several ideas to strengthen the vision of Sunshine Law’s original sponsors.
My first suggestion would be to enshrine the Sunshine Law in the state constitution. This would protect him from legislative tampering without voter approval.
Also, a constitutional amendment would cover the legislature itself.
This would respond to a recent state appeals court ruling that effectively found that the Sunshine Act cannot restrict the General Assembly’s constitutional power to govern its own proceedings.
My first suggestion would be to enshrine the Sunshine Law in the state constitution. This would protect him from legislative tampering without voter approval.
Another significant change I suggest would be to remove enforcement of Sunshine Law violations by the state attorney general.
This would resolve an obvious conflict of interest cited by various news articles regarding allegations that former Attorney General Josh Hawley and his government staff used private cell phones to send messages that left no public record subject to disclosure.
An editorial in the Kansas City Star proposed that enforcement of the Sunshine Law be turned over to the Missouri Ethics Commission.
MEC has extensive experience enforcing campaign finance and lobbyist reporting requirements and putting this information online for everyone to see.
Having MEC review complaints under the Sunshine Law would avoid the lengthy and costly legal process now required to obtain a court ruling on the public’s right to government information.
It wouldn’t be too different from an unsuccessful 2003 bill sponsored by Sen. Mary Bland, D-Kansas City, to create a bipartisan council with subpoena powers to oversee compliance with the Sunshine Act.
Another component could be to require public records to be regularly submitted to the MEC for preservation.
This may resolve an issue reported by Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch regarding St. Louis Jail records.
In his column, Tony wrote that he was informed that “the city has none of the 2022 monthly use of force reports and routinely destroys videos of use of force incidents.”
His column demonstrates that any constitutional amendment must have explicit preservation requirements, as well as access to both government texts and digital records.
Given today’s technology for preserving and storing digital records, it would be much easier than it was in the days of early Sunshine Law proponents.
Perhaps every state and local government agency should be required to have an independent staff member responsible for turning over records to the MEC, along with possible civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance.
Another significant change I suggest would be to remove enforcement of Sunshine Law violations by the state attorney general. This would resolve an obvious conflict of interest cited by various news articles regarding allegations that former Attorney General Josh Hawley and his government staff used private cell phones to send messages that left no public record subject to disclosure.
There are legitimate privacy, law enforcement, and public safety concerns about unrestricted public access to certain government records. But Missouri’s Sunshine Law already provides several exemptions for areas such as health and student records.
The recent effort by legislators to include an exemption for disclosure from constituents to legislators raises an intriguing question.
I understand the desire to avoid public disclosure of personal data that a voter might include in an email to a legislator.
On the other side, a fellow Statehouse reporter once told me that access to these emails gave him information to contact the authors for information to make a story more powerful.
The issue is compounded by emails to lawmakers from corporations, advocacy groups and lobbyists. Should these emails be confidential?
This is just one of the issues that need to be explored for a Sunshine Law constitutional amendment before voters.
Perhaps a bipartisan government council similar to Bland’s bill could be a way to reach a compromise proposal.
Ultimately, letting Missouri voters decide on a constitutional amendment establishing the public’s right to public documents, meetings, and digital records strikes me as reflecting the original Sunshine Law sponsors’ vision that I covered there. so many decades old.