Public Records laws won a victory in Mississippi today. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled against Mississippi State Auditor Stacey Pickering that Department of Marine Resources records sought by the Sun-Herald (Gulf States Publishing) were not exempt from the Mississippi Public Records Act.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals overturned a contempt of court ruling against State Auditor Stacey Pickering today. Harrison County Chancellor Jennifer Schloegel ruled he was in contempt of court after the State Auditor subpoenaed DMR records during the course of the DMR investigation in 2012. Gulf Publishing, the owner of the Sun-Herald, sought the records.
The Gulf Coast newspaper sought copies of DMR financial statements as it investigated the state agency. DMR previously turned over the records to the State Auditor. State Auditor Stacey Pickering refused to release the records, as he argued they were part of an investigation. The Sun-Herald sued for their release in Harrison County Chancery Court. Chancellor Jennifer Schoegel ordered OSA to turn over the records to the newspaper. The U.S. Attorney then subpoenaed the records. Mr. Pickering's office turned the records over to the feds. The SH filed a motion for contempt of court against Mr. Pickering. The Chancellor ruled the State Auditor was in contempt of court for violating the Mississippi Public Records Act. The Court of Appeals disagreed and dissolved the contempt of court ruling.
The Court of Appeals also held that the records at issue were not public records as they were part of the investigation once the subpoena was served. The Chancellor ruled that DMR produced the records as a normal course of doing business and that they were not created by the investigation itself. The Court of Appeals and Ethics Commission disagreed and held they were protected from disclosure.
The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed:
¶38. But as evinced by the language of the subpoenas issued at the behest of the Department of Audit, the documents sought from DMR were original business records “having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of [DMR], or required to be maintained by [DMR].”....
These records sought by the were originally produced by DMR and not produced by the State Auditor or any law enforcement agency just as minutes and budgets are produced by government agencies. Thus the newspaper was entitled to the records:
¶57. For these reasons, we reverse and vacate that portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment holding that the records sought by GP (Sun-Herald) in the Department of Audit’s possession constituted investigative reports exempted by the MPRA. We reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment that reversed and rendered the chancery court’s judgment against the Department of Audit for violation of the MPRA. We reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that Huggins was not liable for the $100 penalty provision under Section 25-61-15. We affirm the chancery court’s ruling that the Department of Audit is liable for $36,783.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,249.95 in expenses. We reverse and render the chancery court’s ruling that DMR is joint and severally liable for the same. We reverse and vacate that portion of the chancery court’s judgment assessing, pursuant to the MPRA, a $100 fine to Pickering, Hood, Lott, Patterson, Runnels, Chestnut, and Pizzetta. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The opinion is posted below. The discussion starts on page 15.
8 comments:
why would the state auditor not want the records released? I don't understand the reasoning if the records are part of normal business.
His speech at the Ocean Springs Rotary during the DMR fiasco reportedly included this:
“It has been very complex and very complicated and my only commentary on the DMR investigation is there are a lot of friends of yours and mine. Let’s be very clear. This is close to home for all of us.”The auditor said his take on the situation is the investigation will likely reveal a “culture of corruption.”
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2015/06/auditor-charges-dps-chief-of-staff.html
Damage control. Restricting information flow to make sure nothing came back to haunt the MSGOP sacred RINO herd bulls. Loyal capo protecting his Republican don.
If I remember the case correctly, Pickering didn't object. Rather, he asked someone clarify proper response when there were supposed competing orders from courts - Harrison County Chancery and Southern District Federal.
My reading of the MSSC ruling is that the Supremes didn't aim at Pickering - in fact somewhat absolved him personally. But - took some very pointed shots at David Huggins, OSA Chief Investigator, and his role in the Federal order.
Because the DMR and Stacey are tight. And they blow money for their personal use and have screwed the numbers for NOAA for red snapper season. Whole bunch of mess.
Because he missed it. Intentionally or not is the question.
Anyway you look at it....Pickering is either incompetent and weak in his leadership, or he fully knew about defying the court's order to release public information. HE is supposed to be accountable for the people's money, and it's simply pouring out the door. All the while he attempts to grandstand for his next election campaign. There is no explanation for the holding back of PUBLIC information except incompetency or covering of guilt....and then his office wasting $37,000 of taxpayer money (! the Auditor's own office mind you) on legal fees to cover up something apparently. Pickering is now appearing to be either in on some part of the corruption, or he's a weak leader just trying to protect an inner circle of other weak leaders that make up Mississippi's so-called "leadership".
hahahahaha
A blast from the past! Broke ass rich people can't pay their bills!
"Former Mississippi Department of Marine Resources Executive Director William “Bill” Walker could be going back to prison because he is not making his monthly payments in court-ordered restitution and fines for embezzling from the state agency."
Bill Walker is paying what he owes but can’t afford $5K each month, Scott Walker says
Times are tough and chit!
Bill Walker asked for a reduction in his monthly payment earlier this year, but U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett denied the request.
In his ruling, the judge noted Bill and Sharon Walker brought in an estimated $15,000 a month in retirement and social security benefits.
Important people will be shitting money clips and fancy watches all over the country club greens if this sending him back to prison because he's not paying his restitution actually happens!
Post a Comment