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:
-a public body could be fined up to $250 for "negligently" violating the law; a citizen would only have to prove access to a public record was unlawfully denied. The 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 one to five thousand dollars could be assessed, along with attorneys' fees.
JEFFERSON CITY - Missouri's "Sunshine Law" is designed to provide the public access to open meetings and state and local government records. In the words of a recent state audit report, the law exists to "ensure that public governmental bodies conduct their business in a manner that is open to public scrutiny."
But over the last several years, a number of media reports as well as compliance audits by State Auditor Claire McCaskill's office have indicated many local and state agencies simply do not comply with the law.
A 2001 audit of state agencies, for example, found that nearly half of those surveyed -- 44 percent -- did not comply with the Sunshine Law. Studies of local government performance has also been disappointing.
Part of the reason why, says Rep. Jack Goodman, R-Mt. Vernon, is 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."
He said he wants to see Missouri law move to include 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.
Goodman is handling a bill in the Missouri House of Representatives to do just that, along with a number of other measures designed to strengthen the state's open-records laws. The proposal, already approved by the Senate, is set to be taken up this week in the House.
One of the main focuses of the legislation is to deal with electronic records and meetings.
The Sunshine Law is supposed to be interpreted "liberally," meaning if there is a question as to whether a record should be open or not, a public body should lean toward making it open. Currently, Goodman said he thinks a electronic meetings and records should be covered by such a reading of the law.
But many local and state government bodies are applying a strict reading of the law, Goodman said, in order to deny access to records. As a result, he said the proposed legislation will explicitly deal with situations such as meetings being conducted over the Internet and access to records kept in computer databases.
A number of lobbyists on either side of the public records debate have descended on Jefferson City in recent weeks, all trying to either strengthen or weaken the legislation.
"Anytime there's a bill like this, there are a number of entities that try to apply pressure to change the law in their favor," said Jean Maneke, an attorney with the Missouri Press Associate, which has lobbied on behalf of the bill.
One of those entities attempting to influence the legislation turns out to be the city of Joplin itself. City officials, working with the Missouri Municipal League -- which opposes the bill -- attempted to introduce an amendment to weaken a key passage dealing with electronic records.
The bill would make it illegal for a public body to enter into a contract for a computer system for the "creation or maintenance of a public records database" if that contract "impairs the ability of the public to inspect or copy the public records of that agency."
Joplin City attorney Brian Head said the city had wanted that section removed, as otherwise the city would have to pay "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to upgrade its computer system in the coming years.
The change did not succeed, but a "grandfather" clause has been added to the latest version of the bill -- meaning cities and towns with existing contracts would be exempt from the provision. Goodman said the grandfather clause was also needed to ensure the bill had no substantial fiscal impact and would not be considered an "unfunded mandate."
Head, contacted again Wednesday, said the inclusion of the grandfather clause would alleviate most of the city's financial concerns on the matter.
But it turns out the issue could largely be moot, as in the wake of a Globe request for Joplin's city budget data, it was discovered the city's computer system was capable of providing the records in a usable format.
"Everybody is dealing with technology issues," Maneke said. "The thing to remember is that the information itself in those records is public, regardless of the format they are kept in."
But with so much confusion possible when dealing with new technology, Goodman 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."
Among the provisions of Goodman's bill would be to create a two tier system of penalties for government bodies breaking the law.
Currently, a public body must be found to have "purposely" violated the law, and even then it can be fined no more than $500.
Under the new proposed legislation, if a public body is found by a judge to have "negligently" violated the law, that agency could face a fine of $25 to $250. If a public body is found to have "purposely" violated the law -- a much higher burden to prove -- it could then face fines from $1000 to $5000, and could be forced to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.
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.
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.