Lincoln University’s closed-door vote to reinstate president raises questions of transparency
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
Lincoln University is still not releasing records related to its investigation into the death of an administrator.
On March 15, the Lincoln University Board of Curators voted to reinstate University President John Moseley. Moseley volunteered to go on paid leave during the investigation into the suicide of another faculty member, Bonnie Candia-Bailey, who had accused Moseley of bullying her in a suicide note. An independent investigation found claims of bullying were unsubstantiated.
ABC 17 News requested the meeting minutes from the closed session and any record of votes taken from the March 15 meeting. The school's Custodian of Records revealed it was a 7-1 vote, but wouldn’t release any other information writing in the letter “Lincoln University is engaged in communications with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office about such matters…”
Missouri’s Sunshine Law turned 50 years old last year and calls for transparency in government business, including Lincoln University, a public university. The secretary of state’s website describes the law as “the embodiment of Missouri’s commitment to openness in government. ”
ABC 17 News asked Sandy Davidson, a University of Missouri School of Journalism professor who teaches communication law, to review Lincoln University's response, which cited four parts of the law.
“If you start looking at what those provisions provide, some of it is very favorable to access,” Davidson said. “The presumption in this state is that records, meetings, votes are open.”
The first section of the law Lincoln University cited (section 610.021 (1) ) says that legal actions of confidential communications between a public body or an attorney can remain private. However, any minutes, vote or settlement agreement relating to legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body shall be made public upon final disposition of the matter voted upon.
Another section cited says any personal information about a particular employee discussed may be closed. But it goes on to say that “any vote on a final decision ... to hire, fire, promote or discipline an employee of a public governmental body shall be made available with a record of how each member voted...."
The final two subsections LU cited protect identifiable records such as salary or performance ratings and records protected from disclosure law. Davidson argues that Missouri’s redaction statute can still protect that information, while still being transparent about the vote.
“What the redaction law says is that you strip out the private information and you release the public information," Davidson said.
The law also states that “any minutes ... shall be made public upon final disposition of the matter voted upon....” A public governmental body has 72 hours from the close of the meeting to provide that information. This is another thing that Davidson took issue with in Lincoln University's response.
“March 15th was the meeting time, we are well past that 72-hour window,” Davidson said.
Many students were upset about the decision to reinstate Mosely. Students have held several on-campus protests this year in response to Candia-Bailey's death.
“He should just go,” Lincoln University senior Tyree Stowal told ABC 17 in March after news was released that Mosely would be reinstated. “A lot of people are hurt, a lot of people are going through things, just go.”
Davidson speculates that the public attention and high emotions generated surrounding Candia-Baliey’s death may be the reason some board members do not want their names attached to the vote.
“Perhaps, the people who voted really are concerned about being attacked for their votes and they would just rather not have put up with the hassle that they fear would ensue, if it was known how they voted,” Davidson said.
Dave Roland, the director of litigation at the Freedom Center of Missouri, says that it’s plausible -- given the subject of the closed meeting -- that Lincoln University’s meeting did impact all subsections of the law.
He added that even if they did break Sunshine Law, oftentimes it takes a lawsuit to get a governmental body to turn over their records.
“A lot of governmental bodies, even if it's pretty obvious that they're in the wrong, they'll basically double down on their position and dare somebody to sue them over it because almost no one has the resources to take on a case like this,” Roland said.
Sunshine Law has come under attack in recent years. Gov. Mike Parson and some Missouri lawmakers have been pushing for legislation that would restrict access to government information.
SB 174, sponsored by Sen. Andrew Koenig, (R-Manchester) would close off the legislative records not involving a public meeting or lobbyist. The bill would also allow agencies to charge for the amount of time legal counsel spends redacting records. The bill was passed out of the Senate Committee on Governmental Accountability last year.
"The Sunshine Law is even more crucial when people don't trust the media, because the Sunshine Law is what allows citizens to check for themselves,” Roland said when asked about the importance of Sunshine Law. “The ultimate value of the Sunshine Law is that it enables any citizen to determine for themselves, how they feel about the way about the way the government is using the authority of the taxpayer resources they have been provided, without having to trust what an elected official says about it, without having to trust what a journalist says about it. It allows the citizen to go straight to the horse's mouth."
