Mo. House passes one Sunshine amendment, rejects another

An amendment that would have applied the law to legislators was rejected.

By Trevor Eischen

Published April 27, 2009

The Missouri House passed a bill April 23 that would allow for the expansion of the Sunshine Law, but rejected a provision that would make all documents from legislators' offices available to the public.

The first amendment of the bill was rejected April 21 with a final vote 81-79. The amendment would have applied the Sunshine Law to all public officials, requiring the individual legislators to provide documents procured on state-funded computers.

At the start of the vote, the amendment had an 81-80 lead. But legislatures' concerns over constituent reception to the bill caused them to waver in their decision and switch to the opposing side, said bill sponsor Rep. Jake Zimmerman, D-Olivette.

Zimmerman said he saw undecided legislators talking to Republican opponents.

"I saw people huddled over and having conversation on the Republican side," Zimmerman said. "A couple of members who switched their votes had particularly challenging elections."

Zimmerman said he hopes a Missouri senator will consider his bill or create an amendment similar to the provisions he included in the rejected amendment.

After the first amendment was rejected, the House passed a second amendment sponsored by Rep. Jeff Roorda, D-Barnhart. The amendment was approved by voice vote. The amendment would close records involving internal law enforcement investigations.

Roorda said Zimmerman's amendment didn't pass because of prior delegation from the opposition.

"Opposition came from the groups it would affect," Roorda said. "It was obvious from the floor debate that it was something discussed in committees."

Roorda said Zimmerman's amendment wasn't passed because the opposition doesn't want to be held accountable for its actions.

"We should at least be doing what every other government official is being required to do," Roorda said.

Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka, sponsored the original bill. The bill would change provisions in the law to increase a violation fee from $5,000 to $8,000, as well as require all records kept by the Missouri Ethics Commission to be open unless they are being used for investigative purposes.

Journalism professor Charles Davis said vagueness in Zimmerman's amendment probably caused concern among the opposition. Davis, the executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said he leans in the direction of all government information being free to the public.

Davis said Missouri is neither progressive nor digressive in the attempt to publicize government documents and information.

"I'd say we're in the muddled middle," Davis said. "We're not setting any records, for sure."

Davis also said problems arise when differentiating a politician's public and personal life. He said politicians lead several lives and distinguishing their private and public information can be murky.

"I think this is a conversation that must continue," Davis said. "We certainly haven't solved the problem."

After the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966, the Missouri Sunshine Law was passed in during the Watergate scandal. The law requires all votes, records, meetings, actions and deliberations be open to the public.

The bill will now make its way to the Missouri Senate, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 23-11.