Letter to the Editor: Questionable Violation

Posted on 05 May 2017 by Ian Schrauth

Was the Sunshine Law actualy violated?

In my opinion, STLCC did not violate the Sunshine Law (Chapter 610 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri) as the only obligations placed upon the governmental or quasi-governmental entity are to appoint a custodian of records, provide records (public and closed) to the custodian of records, and provide the identity and location of said custodian upon request. As the Montage submitted a request directly to the HR department instead of requesting the identity and location of the custodian of records, the HR department had no legal obligation under the Sunshine Law to respond in the manner laid out by the Sunshine Law for the responses from the custodian of records. That being said, the HR department should have given the Montage the contact information for the custodian of records instead of the response the Montage received from HR which only said that the HR department will not be providing the requested documents (which does not violate the Sunshine Law). In addition to that, the fact that not one but two lawyers have said that STLCC did violate the Sunshine Law may mean there is some legal precedent that I’m unaware of and have been unable to find, but based on my reading of the law their responses are a bit aggressive towards STLCC.

 

–  Ethan Arneson, student

Comments are closed.

Advertise Here

Photos from our Flickr stream

See all photos

Advertise Here

Upcoming Issues

Dec. 7, 2017
Jan. 25, 2018
Feb. 8, 2018
Feb. 22, 2018
March 8, 2018
March 29, 2018
April 19, 2018
May 3, 2018