INFOBOXES:
Changes related to public meetings:
-the definition of a "public meeting" would explicitly include meetings conducted by electronic means, such as a "conference call, video conference, internet chat, or internet message board"
-if a meeting will be conducted by telephone or electronically, the public must be given notice ahead of time as with any other meeting, and the governmental body must provide the public access to the meeting.
-a "public vote" would include votes cast via a computer or over the telephone
-a journal or minutes of closed meetings must be taken and retained
-public bodies must allow open meetings to be recorded
Changes related to public records:
-if you request a record in a certain format, and the governmental body is capable of providing the records in that format, it must do so.
-similarly, if a public body keeps records on a computer system, and that system can produce electronic records in a format you request, it must do so.
-it would be illegal for a public body to enter into a contract for a computerized records system if it "impairs the ability of the public to inspect or copy the public records of that agency."
-the copying cost for paper records shall not exceed 10 cents per page; costs for electronic records shall only reflect the actual cost of duplication
-public bodies may charge for programming or staff time in some instances, but cannot charge more than the "average hourly rate of pay for clerical staff" at the agency
Changes related to enforcement:
-the bill would create a two-tiered system of penalties:
-a public body could be fined between $25 to $250 for "negligently" violating the law; a citizen would only have to prove access to a public record was unlawfully denied. The bill sponsor says this would remove "ignorance of the law as a defense" for public officials
-if a public body is found to have "purposely" violated the law, fines of $1000 to $5000 could be assessed, along with attorneys' fees.
JEFFERSON CITY - The Missouri House of Representatives voted 122-18 to strengthen the state's "Sunshine Law" Tuesday, but not before an amendment to gut the bill's enforcement was narrowly defeated.
Missouri's open-records law -- known as the "Sunshine Law" -- is designed to provide the public access to open meetings and state and local government records. But in the wake of critical compliance audits done by State Auditor Claire McCaskill's office and several media organizations showing many public bodies simply do not comply with the law, a majority of lawmakers said they thought stronger penalties were needed.
The proposal has already passed the Senate, and will now be taken up in a conference committee this morning. All Joplin area representatives voted for the bill, except Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City.
The real fight on the House floor was over whether the state should adopt a stricter standard for those breaking the law.
Rep. Jack Goodman, R-Mt. Vernon, the House handler of the bill, said Missouri's open-records law lacks sufficient enforcement provisions to motivate people to learn the law.
"Officials shouldn't be able to use ignorance of the law as an excuse to deny a request," Goodman said. "But with the current system, it almost creates an incentive not to learn the law."
Goodman said the current requirement -- where a person has to prove an agency "purposely" violated the law in denying access to public records -- is extremely difficult to prove because "you have to show what was in someone's mind."
The approved House bill includes a "negligence" standard, where all a person would have to prove is that a request for public records was unlawfully denied.
"Clearly a negligence standard is necessary for the Sunshine Law to have any enforceability at all," Goodman said.
But some lawmakers raised concerns, saying the stricter language would cause trouble for those serving on small boards.
"In small towns, we have some people that might break the law unintentionally," said Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, who voted to strip out the "negligence" language but later voted in support of the overall bill. "Why take the risk of losing good people?"
The amendment introduced during debate to strip out the negligence standard resulted in one of the closest votes of the session -- with Republicans and Democrats crossing party lines to defeat the measure 80-73.
Of all the Joplin area represenatives, only Rep. Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, voted against removing the "negligence" standard. Wilson, who used to serve on a school board himself, said it was a "tough vote," but that he "had to come down on the side of openness."
"The whole idea of a 'sunshine' law is just that, that these things should be open," Wilson said. "This encourages boards to learn what the law is...and might give people an incentive to err on the side of openness."
Charles Davis, director of the Freedom of Information Center, said in the end, whatever standard the state employs is only as good as those willing to enforce it.
"I'm not sure penalties really do much on their own," Davis said. "Without the political will, they just sit there and look threatening."
ELECTRONIC RECORDS
Another key provision of the legislation is to more explicitly deal with electronic records.
"Everybody is dealing with technology issues," said Jean Maneke, an attorney with the Missouri Press Association, which has lobbied on behalf of the bill. "The thing to remember is that the information itself in those records is public, regardless of the format it is kept in."
But while electronic records have become quite commonplace at the state level, some local governments -- including the City of Joplin -- are still struggling with the new technology.
Joplin City Attorney Brian Head said records maintained electronically were "for a long time not considered the same" as paper records, and that he does not think the law is clear when it comes to when and if they should be made available.
"We have a giant disconnect between the legislature's intent (regarding electronic records), and what people out here have been told for years," Head said.
Head said many city officials still hold a fair amount of suspicion toward electronic records, which "can be manipulated" easier than paper records.
For example, a recent Globe request for city's budget was initially denied because the city said it could not produce the budget electronically. Head, who ultimately stepped in to solve the problem, said the confusion was over the distinction between the "budget document" and the "budget data." The city subsequently provided the budget numbers -- the data -- to the Globe as a electronic text file.
However, Joplin City Clerk Barbara Hogelin said she was still uncomfortable with the idea of releasing electronic records that could "be changed."
"You could change $1 to $1 million dollars (in the budget) and there would be nothing we could do," Hogelin said.
Davis said Missouri's Sunshine Law does not provide for denying a request based on a public record's "potential to be messed with," and that anyone caught altering a record to commit fraud will likely face a lot of trouble.
"If you manipulate a record, a computer is very good at showing what you did, even better than paper," Davis said. "Plus, it's a crime, and you'll be facing civil liability. I think these people are watching too many movies."
Lynn Onstot, Joplin's public information officer, told the Globe Wednesday she did not see the need for the city to provide records electronically if they were already available in paper form.
"I actually think it would be more cumbersome to search it electronically," Onstot said, referring to Joplin's budget numbers.
But Onstot, who intially said the budget records were "not available" electronically and declined to investigate further, said she did not consider that action denying the Globe's request.
"I did not deny a request, you got what you wanted," Onstot said. "I said I would look into it."
When asked about a subsequent letter she sent to the Globe stating the records would not be provided, Onstot said that "at the time, the people I talked to said that I couldn't."
With so much confusion possible when dealing with new technology, Goodman, the House sponsor of the Sunshine bill, said it is important to provide a real incentive for public officials to learn the law and become familiar with their systems. He said he thought penalties for violating the law were "vital."
Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, said public officials need to "know the law...and follow it."
"If you have a public trust, you should be diligent in learning your responsibilities," Ruestman said.
Rep. Ron Richard, R-Joplin, agreed, saying government should be as "transparent as possible" to ensure public trust.
"You lose trust by not making information public," Richard said.
Ruestman said aside from certain areas involving national security, she believes the public should have access to the information held by its government.
"It's your money paying for them (the records)," Ruestman said.