Someone told me it’s all happening at the zoo!

I don’t too often let others write on my blog … comments are a lot of work for folks who have other jobs!  But occasionally someone writes something I feel the need to share.  Today’s offering is from Patrick Martin, publisher and editor of the Jefferson County Leader, in Festus.  Patrick is fed up with the email controversy.  Patrick is a dutiful student of the sunshine law and a strong advocate of openness in goverment.  You’ll enjoy his thoughts!

“We used to get a lot of letters to the editor written the old-fashioned way, on lined paper or nice stationery, in handwriting that you could read.
Not so many come in that way anymore. Now we get about 80 percent of them on e-mail, which is faster than a letter, costs nothing and best of all, is typed so we don’t have to guess when writers have shaky penmanship.
For example, in a handwritten letter, the word “orange” might look more like “orangutan.” That makes quite a difference.
So e-mail, for the most part, is good. It saves time, saves the writers money and the possibility of having their letters turn out to be about large zoo critters instead of citrus fruit.
Now, would someone tell the state of Missourah that e-mail, like most modern conveniences, is supposed to save us time and money – not cost us?
The boys and girls in Jefferson City, in a never-ending attempt to posture and embarrass each other, have latched onto e-mail as their latest weapon to prove to voters that the (fill in the party you don’t like) are a bunch of secretive and probably criminally bad people who don’t respect your right to open government.
Meanwhile, the (fill in the party you do like) are the champions of freedom and openness and all that is right in the world.
And that large sucking sound in the background is tubloads of our money being thrown down a rathole while they dance their little election year dance.
It began with the man who would be governor, Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, appointing an investigative panel which demanded that the man who no longer wants to be governor, Republican Matt Blunt, turn over e-mails sent and received in his office because they are public records.
The gov responded that it will cost Nixon (and us) about $540,000 for Blunt’s staff and lawyers, some of whom bill at $300 per hour, to comb through the e-mails and edit out the things that are exempted from public scrutiny.
When this began, of course, Nixon figured he was running against Blunt this November. Now that the gov has announced he won’t run again, it would be too transparent to drop the case, so the Jaybird soldiers on. And lame duck Blunt, with no voters to answer to anymore, can be just as in-your-face to Nixon as he pleases.
Asking for a half a million bucks to produce public records is a pretty serious in-your-face maneuver.
The Republicans, in a completely unrelated but highly coincidental request, now have asked Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan for her e-mails. Carnahan, perhaps sensing these are hard times, replied that information would cost only $91,000.
Both parties are outraged that Missourians should be gaffed for access to records which should be public!
Let’s come back to the planet Earth for just a minute. As a long-standing member of the press, I can tell you that Missouri’s Open Meetings Law, which was established and subsequently tweaked over the years by both parties, has holes in it you could drive an ocean liner through. Sideways.
For example, there is a provision that says meetings and records may be closed if they involve litigation. I have seen numerous meetings and discussions closed because “we might get sued.” The Missouri Press Association attorney, Jean Maneke, who knows more about this law than any living person, has said she believes the “threatened lawsuit” is not a legitimate reason for closing a meeting or record, but open meetings advocates lack the case law to prove it.
“It is frequently used because they think they can get away with it,” Maneke said.
The public’s (or a newspaper’s) only recourse is to sue, which is very time-consuming and expensive. Even if the suit is successful, the Open Meetings Law has no meaningful penalties to levy against offenders. So the winners are really losers and the offenders are winners!
This watery law, with the splendid-sounding name, was passed by none other than the Democrats and Republicans who now thunder for justice and openness in its name!
Good luck to them. It’s like going to war with a waffle iron.
Closed government, back-door decision-making and insider trading of favors have been  long-standing traditions in this state. The Open Meetings Law is window dressing to distract from those traditions.
Now that they have to apply that weak-kneed statute, it’s pretty funny to see the top people in state government fuming about openness. Funny, except that they are throwing our money out the car window as they drive around the state telling horror stories about each other.
Somehow, their strategists think the public is going to buy all this. They must think we are orangutans.”