Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fair ~ River stage: 34 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
|
MO Press Association Supports Purcell Sunshine Suit
Posted Monday, February 16, 2009, at 2:37 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link
Cape Girardeau County Commissioner Jay Purcell filed his appeal brief with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District this morning alleging three points of error by the circuit court. If you would like to read Commissioner Purcell's brief, please click here.
The Missouri Press Association ("MPA") filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Commissioner Purcell's position that the Cape Girardeau County Commission violated the Sunshine Law.
In its brief, the MPA states that it "is a state-wide association having as members approximately 300 newspapers in the state of Missouri." The MPA is a non-profit corporation that was incorporated for the "purpose of furthering efficiency and morality in the newspaper field...and to make the profession of journalism more beneficial to the people of the State of Missouri." The current officers and directors of the Missouri Press Association are: Officers: Vicki Russell, Columbia Daily Tribune, President Richard Gard, St. Louis Daily Record, Secretary Linda Geist, Monroe City Lake Gazette, Treasurer Directors: Jon Rust, Southeast Missourian Brad Gentry, Houston Herald Mark Maassen, Kansas City Star Kate Martin, Perry County Republic Monitor Joe May, Mexico Ledger Dennis Warden, Gasconade County Republican The Cash-Book Journal is also a member of the MPA.
As you can see from a state-wide organization like the MPA getting involved, the issues raised in Commissioner Purcell's lawsuit will have far-ranging effects on Sunshine Law compliance and enforcement throughout Missouri. I encourage anyone interested in the Sunshine Law and holding their state and local governments accountable to read the Sunday, February 15, 2009 editorial in the Columbia Daily Tribune. It crystalizes a lot of the issues raised by the lawsuit filed against the Cape Girardeau County Commission and is an example of the importance of the Sunshine Law to Missouri citizens and journalists. Columbia Daily Tribune Sunshine Law Editorial UPDATE: In response to the Southeast Missourian's editor and Jean Maneke of the Missouri Press Association, Commissioner Purcell's and the MPA's briefs filed with the Court of Appeals speak for themselves. Purcell's brief alleges the Cape County Commission violated the Sunshine Law and so does the MPA's. I encourage everyone interested in this matter to read the briefs themselves and make up their own minds. Any suggestion that anything in this blog was "inappropriate" or a "misrepresentation" is in itself a misrepresentation. Blogs are supposed to be about opinions, interpretations, and disagreements. If the Missourian or the MPA disagree with my interpretation, they should state so in the comments to the blog or write their own blog or column. To pull my blog from front page because someone disagrees with its content is censorship and contrary to the principles of the First Amendent. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
J.P. is an attorney in Cape Girardeau who focuses on family law, consumer protection, and estate planning. J.P. was born in Cape Girardeau and graduated from Cape Central in 1995. He has worked for the Missouri Attorney General's Office, concentrating on First Amendment issues and Sunshine Law enforcement, and now uses his experience to represent individuals and businesses in southeast Missouri. His blog will focus on law and politics and the intersection of the two. You can find out more about J.P. at theclubblawfirm.com
Hot topics MO Press Association Supports Purcell Sunshine Suit(  9 ~ 3:17 PM, Feb 16)
Winter Storm & Price Gouging
Scared Straight?
Attack on Courts, County Gov't, & Blackberrys
The Truth About Living Wills
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
CLARIFICATION: The perception that this blog entry leaves is that Missouri Press Association is supporting Commissioner Purcell in the arguments he makes to the Court of Appeals. That is an incorrect summary of the amicus brief filed on MPA's behalf. The amicus brief supports only that all of the commissioners discussed matters that did not constitute a "cause of action" under the sunshine law and therefore the discussion in the closed meeting violated the law. The amicus brief does not touch on any other issue raised by any of the parties in this matter. See the story by Peg McNichol at http://www.semissourian.com/article/20090217/NEWS01/702179933.
Note from Publisher, Jon K. Rust
The above blog no longer links from the front page of the semissourian.com web site.
Why not?
We allow community members like Mr. Clubb to blog on our Web site as part of our mission to engage readers and encourage community dialog. Some blogs go directly onto the home page of our site when posted, others just appear on the blog page.
Periodically, an inappropriate blog is posted to the home page. When that happens, we typically leave it on the blog page where people can still view and comment on it as a matter of public record, but we remove the link from the front page. In this case, Mr. Clubb’s blog misrepresented the position of the Missouri Press Association.
As such, the Southeast Missourian has removed the link from the front page while allowing his blog to remain on the blog page.
For those who are curious, Jean Maneke is legal counsel for the Missouri Press Association.
Why would the press association file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Purcell if it didn't support his position? That doesn't even make any sense.
Mr. Clubb, has the press association ever taken a position like this (the one in Mr. Maneke's comment)? Is their position really more in line with the County Commission's position in this case? If so, why wouldn't they file in support of the commission? Why file a friend of the court brief at all if you don't support either side? I'm curious about how a newspaper association could take that kind of position. Who pays Mr. Maneke's salary?
Apologies! I just saw that the lawyer for the newspapers is a woman. Sorry about that.
Jon Rust is on the MPA board of directors, huh?
Neato. Sorry about getting the boot, fancy pants lawyer Clubb.
I would like Mr. Rust to go sentence by sentence of Clubb's blog and tell us which sentences are "misrepresentations." Because I have read this thing about five times and the comments and Matt Sander's blog and those comments and I don't think there are any misrepresntations. I think this is a sad example of a newspaper editor with a big head trying to limit public discussion because he doesn't agree with the discussion.
What has happened to the First Amendment???
FROM THE PUBLISHER:
Note: The following post originally appeared on Matt Sanders' blog. I am repeating it here as it touches upon some of the questions below.
FROM THE PUBLISHER
Sorry, I've been in meetings today. And, I'm glad you've decided to participate in commentary, Mr. Wonderful. The issue with Mr. Clubb's blog was larger than a matter of headline. And, the Missouri Press Association attorney has spoken in part to that in her comments regarding Mr. Clubb's blog, where she wrote: "The perception that this blog entry leaves is that Missouri Press Association is supporting Commissioner Purcell in the arguments he makes to the Court of Appeals. That is an incorrect summary of the amicus brief filed on MPA's behalf."
I will not speak for the Missouri Press, though I do serve on the board, and I support wholeheartedly the stance the Missouri Press has taken on a specific issue which aligns with Mr. Purcell's lawsuit. In that sense, there is support for one of Mr. Purcell's arguments. (To quote from the brief: "In regard to these issues relating to Chapter 610 only, the amicus is supporting the Appellant." Note the word "ONLY"). But to say that that the Missouri Press brief supports the whole lawsuit or all of Mr. Purcell's arguments, which is the clear implication of Mr. Clubb's blog, is inaccurate.
Mr. Clubb may argue that this is a matter of intepretation. In fact, the briefing is quite specific regarding several of his arguments, including, to quote further:
"There are other issues which may be addressed in this appeal, the amicus notes, and it is highly possible the Court may decide the matter on the basis of those issues. As to those issues, the amicus is taking no position and supports neither party."
In another section:
"...Should the Court decide that the Sunshine Law issues are appropriate to address, this amicus seeks solely to address a question of law which arises from the court's Judgment in this matter, in particular in regard to the court's ruling that the discussion of the Respondents constituted a discussion of potential litigation..." Note the word: solely.
Finally, the brief also states:
"For that reason, the amicus believes that while the closing of the meeting was proper and the motion and notice, while not as well drafted as one would wish for, probably met the basic standard for a proper notice and motion, the discussion that ensued in the closed meeting was a clear violation of the mandate in Section 610.022 (3)."
This final point, while agreeing with Mr. Clubb's case on one level, disagrees with it totally on another.
Thus, Mr. Clubb's blog creates a misperception towards the position taken by the Missouri Press, a point made by the very attorney who drafted the brief for the Missouri Press. And who should know this better: Mr. Clubb or the attorney who drafted the brief?
There are other points that can be made and may be made later, but time is short.