From the Associated Press:
The on-going court case could help put an end to the controversy that has followed Blunt for almost two years but will probably bring more uncertainty to First Amendment advocates who argue all email and cell phone records of elected officials conducting the people's business should be made public.
A similar battle over cell phone records is playing out in many states across the country including in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and in Colorado.
Under Missouri law, e-mails sent and received by elected officials can be considered public and are subject to open-records laws, but an ongoing debate on the length of time a government record must be kept is determined on a case-by-case basis and is subject to state employee judgement.
It will be important for First Amendment fans and the journalism industry to continue fighting this battle and others like it. As technology brings forth many new forms of communication, from cell phones to email to Twitter accounts, the nation's open records laws are becoming more outdated by the year.
"A bipartisan pair of court-appointed assistant attorneys general said at a Jan. 5 hearing that they believed Blunt's office broke Missouri law by deleting e-mails that should have been saved as public records.
"Clearly, based upon the evidence that was presented, there were violations" of the document-retention and public-records laws, one of those attorneys, former Democratic Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell, said after a court hearing.
But Maxwell and Republican attorney Louis Leonatti both said it would have been almost impossible to prove Blunt's office committed a knowing and purposeful violation, which are required elements under Missouri law for imposing civil fines.
That's because they said Blunt and his top deputies were relying on in-house legal advice — albeit wrong — when they asserted in 2007 that e-mails were not public records and did not have to be kept.
Leonatti said there was nothing to indicate any criminal conduct occurred, and he praised Blunt's former legal counsel, Henry Herschel, for eventually correcting his wrong interpretation of public-records laws.
The on-going court case could help put an end to the controversy that has followed Blunt for almost two years but will probably bring more uncertainty to First Amendment advocates who argue all email and cell phone records of elected officials conducting the people's business should be made public.
A similar battle over cell phone records is playing out in many states across the country including in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and in Colorado.
Under Missouri law, e-mails sent and received by elected officials can be considered public and are subject to open-records laws, but an ongoing debate on the length of time a government record must be kept is determined on a case-by-case basis and is subject to state employee judgement.
It will be important for First Amendment fans and the journalism industry to continue fighting this battle and others like it. As technology brings forth many new forms of communication, from cell phones to email to Twitter accounts, the nation's open records laws are becoming more outdated by the year.
No comments:
Post a Comment