Springfield News-Leader Editor Should Run for Missouri Governor

His opinions more authoritative than Governor Blunt's opinions

In, Prosecutors wrong to use intimidation tactic "Springfield News-Leader"

Governor Matt Blunt raised some legitimate issues regarding KMOV's report that St. Louis area law enforcement officials should be careful in their use of language.

"Law enforcement officials are entrusted with extraordinary powers. They must be careful with their language. When they suggest that statements made in opposition to a candidate could be a violation of the law and that they will be prepared to respond then they are intimidating voters and chilling political discussion."

He also chastised the News-Leader for overlooking, "completely the assault on free speech in St. Louis City and St. Louis County."

The News-Leader's only response?

"Editor's note: Despite our questions raised about the propriety of the governor's office making partisan statements,* the office confirmed the above statement was also prepared by the governor's staff for delivery to the News-Leader."

I've got a problem with the News-Leader's Editor when he insinuates that because the authoritative (sic) editorial board has raised questions about the "propriety" of the governor's office "making partisan statements," (a matter of opinion) the governor should not comment on issues which impact residents of Missouri.

Blunt gave his reasons for holding the opinion that this is an issue effecting the State of Missouri in the first paragraph of his statement, linked above:

"The security of constitutional rights and the integrity of law enforcement are essential parts of my oath to uphold the laws and constitution. I recently issued a statement condemning outrageous tactics by St. Louis area law enforcement precisely because the issues are civic and public and not political in nature."*

Dang, if I'm not CONSTANTLY forgetting that the opinions of the News-Leader's editorial board and editorial page editors are much more authoritative and directive than the Governor of the State of Missouri and that when the News-Leader questions an action of the Governor, the Governor needs to sit down and shut up.

What is wrong with me!?

*emphasis mine

Missouri: Questionable Purchases says the National Taxpayers Union

The National Taxpayers Union found over $2.4 million in taxpayers' dollars spent for purposes they deemed questionable at the state level in a review of the Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP), launched by Gov. Matt Blunt (R) in 2007. Some of the purchases were made at bakeries, bra stores, coffee shops, beauty salons and picture framing galleries, they reported in this August 29, 2008 news release.

""Unfortunately, MAP only goes so far in telling you what was actually behind the expenditures," (Kristina) Rasmussen concluded. "Often, the spending record data will dead-end at 'professional services,' 'supplies,' or 'non-contract purchases.' While it's possible that some of these purchases are fairly innocuous, the name of the vendor alone gives reason for taxpayers to at least question the expense."

The National Taxpayers Union claims 362,000 members nation-wide. Of those members, the news release said, almost 7,300 of them are employed and live in Missouri.

Edit: I should have noted these questionable expenditures were made over an eight year period.

Yes, it IS called a free press!

At The Rhetorica Network on Media/Political bias, Andy Cline wrote:

"There is no such thing as an objective point of view.

No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message...."

Cline continues:

"Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing...."

So, when a blogger at the News-Leader.com Community Blogs - Ozarks Right wrote he was:

"...amazed that a citizen would criticize a news organization for ferreting out a story on violations of a SUNSHINE LAW..."

I had to wonder why and question whether he might have missed the point, entirely. I don't know that he was speaking of me when he talked about "a citizen" but I seemed to be among few (maybe the only) questioning why Tony Messenger, the Editorial Page Editor of The Springfield News-Leader has seemed so intent on taking Eckersley's side when the latter claimed he was fired for calling attention to the Governor's email retention policy. I've never questioned or objected to any "news organization for ferreting out a story" on any subject, let alone a story on violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

In fact, David Burtond, member of the Missouri Press Association, Southwest Missouri Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Ozarks Press Association and the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors recently wrote, Journalists Should Expose Unethical Practices of Others in the News Media. Burtond was citing The Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics. He wrote:

"Right under the heading of "be accountable," the code says journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.""

From Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (this is not a complete list, I selected from it to make a point but, please, do follow the link to read the entire list):

--Deliberate distortion is never permissible.Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
--Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
--Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
--Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
--Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
--Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Certainly, the first amendment to the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, I'm not formally announcing that I would like to take David Burtond's charge of holding local media accountable for perceptions of ethical violation and I should point out that The Society for Professional Journalists code of ethics is followed voluntarily by members of the media, they are not required to follow it.

The readers of Messenger's combined articles, columns and blog entries on the Eckersley/Blunt administration/Sunshine Law affair can decide whether his writings have been entirely ethical or not but certainly, I have a right, and some might even say an obligation to consider and question that aspect of the coverage.

Reflections on the politics of the Eckersley/Blunt affair

after reading Ryan Cooper's piece in the Springfield News-Leader

Late last night I was thinking maybe I'd been a little harsh to a commenter at my blog. I suggested that by writing "don't you think you've said enough," he was suggesting I had no right to write what I wrote. Well, that wasn't true. He never questioned my right to write about any subject, so, yes, I'll answer my own question this morning: it was harsh to frame it that way. My apologies to that commenter.

And then I'll write incessantly about the same topic again. ;)

I read Ryan Cooper's Blunt's chief of staff won't keep his job, this morning and realized there is yet another side of the story I hadn't thought about. A more sinister side that Tony Messenger didn't touch on (at least in a way that resonated with me) and I didn't touch on. The side of the story that takes politics back to the political arena, where it really belongs, and reminds me of how little I know about the machination of politics. Perhaps that's why I spent my time on the issue looking at what is right and wrong about Tony Messenger's approach to the issue. I'm more comfortable going there.

Cooper put the subject of Eckersley/Blunt right back where it belongs, in a territory that I seldom tread, at least not consciously. For me, and I think for most Americans, politics is not supposed to be played out like a series of moves by skilled players, with the American people the pawns on a chess board, their thoughts moved strategically by the players to ensure a player's future "checkmate."

Politics and the ideology that accompanies it is supposed to be about its players representing us in a way that will lead us, as a whole, as a community or a country in the right direction. Politics are supposed to be about leading us to be the best, to travel the right road. We aren't politicos, we're human beings who have our own thoughts and opinions about what is right and what is wrong and how we can achieve the best goals, goals we have decided are worthwhile because they are the "right" goals.

Cooper wrote about The Leadership Institute, he wrote about Morton Blackwell, "a conservative political guru." Morton is the president of The Leadership Institute which boasts it is "For conservatives who want to win."

Everybody wants to be a winner. There are rules to every game. Politics, or the ideology that represents political parties has its game plan, has its rule book. I'm naive to think it doesn't. So, call me naive for not taking that into account. I'm sure Messenger takes the "game" into account far more than I.

Not being familiar with The Leadership Institute, I looked around their website briefly. I don't have a lot of time this morning, have a busy day ahead, but I found this speech given by Morton Blackwell to young conservatives at the Heritage Foundation's Third Generation meeting in 1985, an excerpt (he was speaking about Richard Weaver's book, "Ideas Have Consequences":

"Weaver warned powerfully against rootless, mechanistic manipulation, against knowledge "of techniques rather than of ends." His deserving target was the destructive tendency of modern man to lose his sense of purpose as he rapidly accumulates knowledge of how to do things. But it is a gross misreading to suggest he argued against action. It would be fair to say he held that actions based on the right ideas will have desirable consequences. He quite correctly gave absolute priority to ideals, but recognized the duty of philosophically sound people to take actions...."

He continued:

"The intellectual's dismay at the untidy nature of political life is by no means new. Very late in life Plato wrote in his Seventh Epistle:

For both the written laws and the unwritten laws of good conduct were gradually destroyed, and the state of things became worse and worse at an astonishing pace, so that I, who at first had been very eager to go into politics, finally felt dizzy when I looked at it and when I saw things carried in all directions in utter confusion. I did still not give up watching for a possible improvement of these conditions and of the whole government; but, waiting all the time for an opportunity to do something, I finally had to realize that all the states of our time without exception are badly administered.

If Plato was dizzied by politics and withdrew almost entirely from personal participation, we should not be surprised that so many conservative intellectuals and aspiring intellectuals now find comfort in the proposition that Ideas Have Consequences. They can believe themselves thereby absolved of the awkward responsibility for personal actions.

The world of politics is invariably imperfect and replete with compromises. How tempting it is to shield our principles from degenerating contact with such untidiness. Never mind that we simultaneously insulate the real world from the ennobling effect of practical contact with our principles.

Now, however, we should know better. Edmund Burke did not tell us: "All that is necessary to triumph over evil is for men to have enough good ideas." Quite the contrary, Burke's most famous words are: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing....""

The moral to the story? Is there one? If there is one, I think it is probably that we need to be careful of the motivations behind our politicians, or "representatives," that is, if we are even in a position to know them. That we should not allow the "players" to manipulate us with behind the scenes machinations that don't follow the law (if that is the case with the Blunt administration) in order to achieve their goal of "winning."

Ryan Cooper shared some insight into a process I think most of us don't understand, or maybe it's just me.

Blackwell concluded:

"Good ideas have desirable consequences only if we act intelligently for them. We owe it to our philosophy to study how to win."

Well, maybe so...but who wants to think about that? Who wants to think about the future of our country in terms of political winners and losers? Who wants to be that cynical? The truth is, we have to be that cynical. We choose which "mechanistic manipulation" best suits our own political ideology and then we have to live with our choices, whether we consciously recognize the "mechanistic manipulations" of the one who holds our future like a chess piece in a game or not.

Messenger continues to seek the truth...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunshine law policy on email retention needs Attorney General's clarification

I'm beginning to think there may be something to Tony Messenger's fuss about his email request regarding "Martin's attempts to rally pro-life groups to urge Attorney General Jay Nixon's removal from a case defending a new abortion law." But it still isn't a settled issue.

I'm always willing to accept fact and accept the truth and I also recognize that there are some things about the Sunshine Law that I don't understand (in fact, maybe that no one understands). That doesn't change anything in regards to Eckersley's charge that he was fired for calling attention to email retention, in my opinion, but, in fairness, Messenger's questions regarding his original request for an email from Martin are legitimate.

Last Sunday, November 4, Messenger laid out how often the Governor's position has changed (a characterization I am uncomfortable with), here:

He quoted an AP story:

"Here's an Associated Press account of the changing opinions coming out of the governor's office:

"Blunt has offered varying explanations for his office's handling of e-mail records. In one interview, he said that 'nobody saves e-mails for three years.' In another, he said his office has no written policy on e-mail retention but merely follows the Sunshine Law. In yet another, Blunt acknowledged using 'four or five' e-mail accounts and deleting some messages to avoid an overflowing inbox.""

I could word parse a little here, for instance, was Blunt saying that nobody saves ALL their emails for three years or was he saying that nobody saves ANY emails for three years? That's not really clear.

The AP, in the portion of the story Tony quoted, quotes Blunt and stays with the facts of what is known about Blunt's "position," Tony hasn't always done that and that has been of as much interest to me as the actual story. I think if you follow what I have written in the past you will recognize that. My questions have been, for the most part, about how far an editorialist should go in drawing conclusions and taking a side BEFORE all the facts are out and the truth is apparent.

Case in point, in the same column last Sunday Messenger wrote:

"Herschel tries to suggest that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles e-mails. He takes issue with how Eckersley has characterized his firing. And he offers yet the latest in changing explanations for how the governor views retention of e-mails."

He was referring to a portion of a letter Herschel wrote :

"...with respect to e-mails, our retention policy is similar to and perhaps superior to that of the attorney general's office: e-mails that are not public records are retained; some that are not public records are not retained; others that are not public records are retained. Paper documents and digital documents are treated under the same standard. (Attorney General Nixon's spokesman told The Associated Press on September 24, 2007, that the attorney general's office routinely deletes e-mails that are not public records. This is common practice.)"

You see, I question whether Herschel tried "to suggest that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles e-mails?"

I don't see any "suggest(ion)" that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles email than in the Governor's retention policy. This is where I take issue with Messenger. His over-exuberant excitement over assuming that he knows the motives behind statements made by the Governor and/or his administration. Certainly, as an editorial writer he will do so but it is his obvious excitement at finding an "AHA!" moment with the Governor's office on this issue that has been tedious and debatable in almost every instance. I question his analytic abilities to conclude the motives and intentions of others without asking and I always have.

Regarding Messenger's statement:

"He (Herschel) takes issue with how Eckersley has characterized his firing."

Herschel wrote:

"He (Eckersley) now claims he was fired over the Sunshine law. There is nothing that supports his assertion, and we only released documents supporting the true reason for his dismissal after he made false claims to the media."

Herschel is correct, Eckersley is claiming he was fired over the Sunshine law and there really hasn't been anything that supports that assertion. It sorta galls me that every single time the Governor or his administration has offered further elaboration on their policy, which has been identified as "to follow the Sunshine law" that they've been charged with changing their story. I don't view it so much as a "change" of their position as an elaboration on their policy.

For instance, their policy is to follow the Sunshine Law. Herschel, same letter, wrote:

"So you will know our policy, it is to meet fully the disclosure standards of the relevant statute (the "Sunshine Law," Chap. 610 et seq RSMo). Our policy is provided to employees at Section 5.11 of the office manual. Further, the policy is consistent with the recommended practices of the Secretary of State."

How is this a change? "Our policy is "X" and "X" is provided to employees as a part of the office manual. "X" is consistent with the recommended practices of the Secretary of State." Clarification for the record, not an attempt to change their position, in my opinion. It's true that Blunt stated "there is no policy," but it is also true that he QUICKLY followed that statement with "Our policy is the Sunshine law."

Don't get me wrong, I think there is legitimacy in Messenger's questions:

"Why were Martin's e-mails deleted? Was that a violation of the state's e-mail retention policy?"

But I can't agree with Tony that there is "no doubt" that deleting emails regarding "Martin's attempts to rally pro-life groups to urge Attorney General Jay Nixon's removal from a case defending a new abortion law," was a violation of the state's email retention policy. I don't think that's a settled issue but I am leaning a little more toward Messenger's assumption.

Tony wrote:

"The bottom line is this: I'm seeking the truth, governor. Are you?"

He's already implied that the Governor is NOT seeking the truth. He wrote here :

"The bottom line is the same as it always is: Taxpayers deserve the truth.

When it comes to the Sunshine Law, Scott Eckersley told it.

The governor's office has not."

On Tuesday, November 6, Messenger wrote under "Another Herschel letter,":

"that e-mail was deleted and not provided in accordance with the Sunshine Law (which is not in dispute)."

Email retention policy simply hasn't been settled, in my opinion, and if Messenger spent more time trying to get to the bottom of that and see that it is settled instead of seeming to be so exited about pouncing on the Governor and his administration for unproven charges this whole episode would be easier for me to stomach.

Then in "AP: Memo backs Eckersley," Messenger quoted an AP story. Excerpts of that AP story:

"The memo also pointed out that Blunt himself signed a record retention policy in 2001 when he was secretary of state that said state agencies must retain for three years records, including “all general communication.”’ The e-mail stated an updated retention policy kept that requirement. The memo used all capital letters to emphasize that e-mails are considered public under the Missouri Sunshine Law because the statute covers any document “written or ELECTRONICALLY STORED, retained by or of any public governmental body.” The memo is not clear-cut in its stance that e-mails are public documents. It says not every e-mail is automatically public because the Sunshine Law excludes letters or documents that a government agency receives, but does not retain...."

"...The memo says the reporter is in error to assume specific e-mails mentioned in the article are public. The memo also suggests a way Blunt can handle the story as a campaign issue against Attorney General Jay Nixon, Blunt’s presumed Democratic rival in the 2008 governor’s race. “If we want to attack the AG on this we should not ask the post-dispatch why they have not requested letters from Nixon, we should ask Nixon to clarify the retention schedule as one of the members of the commission that created it,” the memo says...."

"...It was sent to two people, including a Blunt aide. It is not clear if any of the recipients passed the memo on to Blunt, his chief of staff Ed Martin or anyone else in Blunt’s office. Eckersley said he wouldn’t comment directly on the memo, citing attorney-client privilege. He repeated his claim that he sent
several memos like it, and said they all made the same argument. He said the memos went to Martin, Chrismer and legal counsel Henry Herschel. Blunt officials have repeatedly denied that claim. On Oct. 30, Blunt’s chief counsel for the Office of Administration, Rich AuBuchon, told the AP: “Mr. Eckersley never once voiced a concern, never once wrote an e-mail, never once talked to other employees in the office evidencing any concern that the governor’s office was not complying with the Sunshine Law or any record retention policies.” On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention and I cannot comment on a document that any news outlet has so little confidence in that it will not provide it to me....”

It seems to me that Eckersley's advice that "we should ask Nixon to clarify the retention schedule as one of the members of the commission that created it," was good advice and that there still is no proof of Eckersley's claim that he was fired for advising the Governor's office on their email retention policy. I'm still just trying to stick to the facts as they are known and as willing to accept the truth as ever.

Note: All emphasis mine

Email, email, who's got the email?

Rumors continue swirling around the Scott Eckersley firing

Jo Mannies of The Post-Dispatch claims to have an email:

"dated Sept. 14, in which Eckersley lays out to a co-worker what he says should be the response of Blunt staffers when asked by reporters about the handling of office e-mails."

The Post-Dispatch did not provide access to that email to the public. Instead they are polling readers as to whether they believe Governor Blunt's office is obeying the law regarding emails.

Tim Hoover of the Kansas City Star reported there is an email that proves Eckersley had advised the Blunt administration about email retention but that Eckersley's attorney didn't release it. He was concerned about attorney-client privilege.

Tony Messenger of The Springfield News-Leader claims the story has legs because the Dispatch and the KC Star have picked it up. All three sources cite an email they apparently have in possession that Eckersley claims supports his allegation that he had sent emails to Blunt officials informing them of email retention policy. None of them have posted that actual email for readers to examine. In fact, and as admitted by Messenger (see: The evidence is adding up) that email proves nothing.

Messenger links an Agency Records Disposition Schedule circa 2001 from the Office of the Governor signed by the Agency Director, Carol Gilotrap. The Agency Records Disposition Schedule was approved by then Chairman of the State Records Commission, Matt Blunt on October 25, 2001. Messenger identifies this document as "the Governor's email retention policy." Mannies only cites "a separate state law" and does not link it. I wonder if policies held by one Office of the Governor are carried over to the next Office of the Governor or if each Governor is responsible for his own office's policy? Messenger seems to be using the document as proof that the Governor lied when earlier this week he said:

"Our policy is to follow the Sunshine Law, that's the policy."

Blunt said:

"The Sunshine Law provides lots of information about that (what qualifies an email for retention), it differentiates and is very specific about what is and is not a public record."

Messenger also, in "The story has legs" at his blog, wonders whether that law was rescinded by the Governor but didn't bother to confirm whether it had been or not. Messenger claims that Blunt "doesn't really want to say that," as though he is privy to what Governor Blunt either wants or does not want.

Here is what the Missouri Sunshine Law says about electronic records:

The Sunshine Law encourages public governmental bodies to maintain records in electronic formats that are accessible to the public (Section 610.029.1). Public governmental bodies are obligated to provide records in the format requested, if available (Section 610.023.3). However, when a requester demands records in a format beyond the scope of staff expertise, a body may charge for the actual rate of programming necessary to comply with the request (Section 610.026.1(2)).

Section 610.025 requires that certain e-mails sent by members of a public body be copied to the custodian or that member's public office computer. It is triggered when a member of a public body sends an electronic message dealing with public business to two or more members so that, when counting the sender, a majority of the body's members are copied on the message. Once transmitted to the custodian or the member's public office computer, the e-mail is an open record, unless it is subject to an exception in Section 610.021.*

Now, in the case of Messenger's original request, the request that started this whole affair seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Something to do with a member of the Blunt administration trying to rally support from a group OUTSIDE the Governor's office to request their promotion of a certain related policy or something? If so, according to what I just posted from the Sunshine Law, that action would NOT have triggered the copying of the electronic message to the custodian of public records because it wasn't sent to a majority of the body's members. So, while being used for possible partisan reasons it wouldn't be considered something that should be kept in public records or something the public would necessarily be interested in, UNLESS you happen to be a fervent editorial journalist bent on smearing the Governor's administration by casting undue doubt on whether they should be emailing an outside activist group from their state computer at taxpayer's expense. I hope I'm remembering this correctly, I could not find where the News-Leader website references Tony's original "controversy" over not being allowed these email messages. In fact, I can't even remember who was involved, but then since Messenger is not required to verify or substantiate his claims and allegations then why should I? I mean, I'm just a blogger, he's the editorial editor of the city's leading newspaper.

*emphasis mine