Amending Missouri鈥檚 open records law to permit government agencies to withhold more information from the public 鈥� and charge more for any records that are turned over 鈥� is among Gov. Mike Parson鈥檚 priorities for the 2022 legislative session.
Among the changes, which were outlined in a presentation to Parson鈥檚 cabinet that was obtained by The Independent through an open records request, is a proposal to allow government agencies to charge fees for the time attorneys spend reviewing records requested by the public.
Such a change would reverse that found attorney review time was not 鈥渞esearch time鈥� under the Sunshine Law and thus could not be charged.
The presentation, which was prepared for a Nov. 10 meeting of Parson鈥檚 cabinet, included slides on the legislative goals of Parson, who was referred to as 鈥淕57.鈥�
The slide on proposed Sunshine Law changes dubbed the proposals as 鈥淕ood Government鈥� reforms and described the changes as ones that would 鈥渂enefit political subdivisions, the legislature and state government.鈥�
But transparency advocates say the changes would diminish the public鈥檚 ability to hold public institutions accountable.
鈥淚f they succeed in accomplishing this wish list of changes, it will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for Missourians to get access to information about what their government is doing,鈥� said Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, a libertarian nonprofit that advocates for government transparency.
Kelli Jones, spokeswoman for the governor, did not respond to a request for comment.
鈥業mportant to him鈥�
A handful of bills have already been filed for consideration during the 2022 legislative session that touch on various changes outlined in Parson鈥檚 cabinet presentation.
State Rep. Bruce DeGroot, R-Ellisville, once again filed legislation that if they were submitted for the sole purpose of receiving newsletters or other alerts.
The bill, which was passed by both the Senate and House last year, , in part, due to a subsequent court ruling related to the Sunshine Law and provisions related to the Office of Child Advocate鈥檚 authority that were added later in the session.
This year鈥檚 bill includes many previously proposed provisions, but it also includes new measures that DeGroot said were proposed by Parson鈥檚 office over the summer.
鈥淚 really liked the House version last year,鈥� DeGroot said, 鈥渁nd then the governor came to me, and obviously, this was something that was important to him.鈥�
DeGroot said it鈥檚 not his intent to have information hidden from the public. He hopes the bill will lead to a conversation on finding a 鈥渉appy medium鈥� between information being made accessible without overburdening government agencies.
鈥淲e have to have good investigative reporting going on on government, and that鈥檚 healthy, in my opinion,鈥� DeGroot said. 鈥淥n the other hand, sometimes some of these requests can become so overly burdensome, it can grind government to a halt with some frivolous requests.鈥�
Attorney review time
Included is a provision that allows a government agency to charge a member of the public the hourly rate of the lowest paid attorney used to conduct research or review requested records.
Charging for attorney review time was among the proposals outlined in the cabinet presentation, which justified the change by saying 鈥渆very sunshine response has two legal questions; is the record responsive and is the record open.鈥�
Time attorneys spend reviewing public records was previously a common charge that often resulted in massive costs for the public to obtain records.
However, in June the that the Sunshine Law does not authorize these types of fees. It鈥檚 a ruling that Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt鈥檚 office recently office cited .
If they succeed in accomplishing this wish list of changes, it will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for Missourians to get access to information about what their government is doing.Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri
The ruling stemmed from a case alleging Parson鈥檚 office improperly redacted records, charged exorbitant fees and knowingly and purposely violated the state鈥檚 open records law. Since the June ruling, paid by those whose requests were pending when the court鈥檚 decision was handed down.
That case was originally filed by Elad Gross, a lawyer and former Democratic candidate for attorney general. He argued charging fees for attorney review time was illegal and said the state鈥檚 highest court affirmed that was the case.
鈥淎nd now that governments have less ways of really scaring and deterring regular folks from accessing our own records, they鈥檙e trying to make that the law in this state,鈥� Gross said. 鈥淎nd I think it鈥檚 wrong.鈥�
Roland said allowing for such charges would be 鈥渃atastrophic鈥� to citizens鈥� efforts to obtain public records, and said if state statute is amended to allow for attorney review time to be charged, there wouldn鈥檛 be recourse through the courts like in Gross鈥� case.
Constituent info
Some of the categories of records the cabinet presentation outlined making exempt from public disclosure 鈥� like shielding constituents鈥� personal info 鈥� .
It鈥檚 also an issue that both state lawmakers and the Parson administration have previously been challenged on.
In 2019, Schmitt鈥檚 office said telephone numbers, addresses and email addresses of private citizens who reached out to the governor鈥檚 office.
A , founder of the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project, challenges a House rule that allows lawmakers to redact records or withhold them completely. The case is ongoing, with a hearing scheduled for later this month.
Jean Maneke, an attorney for the Missouri Press Association, said she was disappointed in the governor鈥檚 office鈥檚 belief that measures to restrict access to public records are urgently needed to make state government better.
鈥淗iding government information is not going to increase the public鈥檚 faith in its leaders,鈥� Maneke said.
In addition to some of the provisions that have garnered traction in recent years 鈥� such as shielding information on customers鈥� utility bills and evacuation and lockdown procedures 鈥� DeGroot鈥檚 bill would also allow for the closure of addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses of job applicants, employees, customers and constituents of governmental bodies.
That same info could also be withheld for elected officials or foreign leaders if it would jeopardize their safety.
Transitory records, which the bill defines as including draft versions of documents, would not be deemed a public record under the bill, and it would also redefine what counts as 鈥減ublic business鈥� or a public meeting.
Roland said the changes outlined in the cabinet presentation reveal a 鈥済eneral hostility of people in power to allowing citizens to look over their shoulders.鈥�
鈥淚 think this is a systemic problem, and one that the Sunshine Law was designed to address,鈥� Roland said, later adding: 鈥淲e certainly don鈥檛 need more roadblocks to government transparency.鈥�
is part of States Newsroom, a network of news outlets supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence.