Unanswered questions remain in Missouri FOI debate

Since former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's e-mail controversy of 18 months ago, a new e-mail retrieval system has been implemented in the governor's office but has not been expanded to other offices due to costs, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. Hundreds of public officials still maintain that e-mail is not considered public record. It's still not clear what records must be saved, said the court-appointed attorney who oversaw the Blunt investigators' final product. The problem is that the records retention act and the Sunshine Law aren't on the same page.

For 18 months, a cloud of suspicion has blocked out some of the sunshine from the second floor windows of the Missouri Capitol.

Investigators tapped by the attorney general's office tried to determine whether then-Gov. Matt Blunt and his employees were following the public accountability laws that require certain documents to be maintained as open records.

In fact, some laws were being skirted, investigators argued in their final report, which was released this month after more than a year and a half of legal wrangling and political squabbling in which Missouri's Sunshine Law became front page news.

More here.

Former Gov. Matt Blunt will not face criminal charges

Investigators concluded that former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt's office "did not have adequate policies regarding record retention and state open-records law," the Kansas City Star reported. However, the violations are not considered criminal. Blunt's lawyers said the investigators' report contained “flawed factual assumptions and conclusions.” It's still unknown whether anyone in his administration ordered e-mail backup tapes to be destroyed or not.

A 16-month investigation concluded that former Gov. Matt Blunt’s office did not follow all laws on retaining public records, but investigators decided the violations were not criminal.

The report is the latest word, but likely not the last, on the issue that surrounded Blunt from late 2007 until he left office in January.

A defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit is pending brought by fired administration attorney Scott Eckersley, who contends he was terminated after challenging his superiors’ position on open records.

More here.