U.S. District Court rules Metro not subject to open records laws

St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian, Aug 20, 2008 by Donna Walter

A federal judge in St. Louis threw out a local television station's lawsuit against Metro, the area's public transportation agency.

KMOV-TV, Channel 4 on the dial, sued Metro after the agency refused to provide investigative reporter Steve Chamraz with free, unredacted records of complaints against Metro employees. Chamraz made his request in May 2007 for records dating back to January 2004.

Metro, which was created as Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District, provided a summary of the number and type of complaints and comments made during the 3 1/2- year time period. When Chamraz asked for more specific records about rude employees, operator behavior and security, the agency refused to provide unredacted copies and said it would charge $1,950 to provide redacted records, according to the decision issued Monday by Chief U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson.

Bernard J. Rhodes, of Lathrop & Gage in Kansas City, said KMOV's next move is still up in the air.

"We are looking at the decision to determine whether the appropriate response is judicial or legislative because it just seems wrong that Metro gets to be the judge, jury and executioner," he said. "Under the judge's ruling, they are immune from the Missouri Sunshine law, the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and the federal Freedom of Information Act, and that just doesn't seem to square with a principled democracy."

Metro's lawyer, Terrance J. Good, of Lashly & Baer in St. Louis, referred questions to Metro's media department. No Metro representative returned phone messages by press time.

To get to her dismissal, Jackson had to determine how state laws apply to compact entities, including Metro, which by definition are created by two or more states with the approval of Congress. Missouri and Illinois created Metro in 1949.

In general, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court have held that one party to a compact cannot, by legislation, impose burdens on the compact without the approval of the other parties, Jackson said.

The central issue in the case against Metro is whether Illinois concurred in the decision by the Missouri General Assembly to apply the Sunshine Law to the agency.

Jackson said the law of the 8th Circuit and the state of Missouri requires explicit approval by both states, which was not present here. Although both Missouri and Illinois have open records laws, only Missouri applies its Sunshine Law to Metro, and it did so "without the explicit concurrence of the Illinois legislature," she said.

The judge's reasoning follows that of courts in New York that require such explicit approval. Some New Jersey courts, however, say similar legislation in compacting states is enough to show both states intend to apply the legislation to the compact.

Rhodes said the requiring explicit approval is a matter of "form over substance."

"There is no unconstitutional burden on Metro when both the Missouri Sunshine Law and Illinois Freedom of Information Act would otherwise apply," he said." If they were a Missouri entity, the Missouri law would apply. If they were an Illinois entity, the Illinois law would apply."