Matt Blunt, the governor of the state of Missouri, involved in a defamation lawsuit, failed to convince a Jackson County Circuit judge to dismiss the charges against him. Allegedly, Blunt ruined a staff member's reputation to cover up the destruction of public records. Judge Michael Manners did not accept the argument that Blunt had the authority to make derogatory remarks while performing his job. Such a stance would undermine public policy as expressed in the state's whistleblower- protection laws as well as in laws that encourage government accountability.
The judge wrote that, the state not only needed to encourage high ranking public officials to speak out on issues of public interest but also needed to support lower ranking public employees to blow the whistle on instances of misconduct by their superiors.
Scott Eckersley, the governor's former deputy legal counsel, filed the lawsuit. His allegations stem from a controversy that arose in the summer of 2007 over the destruction of e-mail messages in Blunt's office. Supposedly, Eckersley had warned Blunt's aides in mid September last year that destroying those e-mails was illegal following which he was fired. The e- mails that were destroyed ascertained that Blunt's staff had tried to use the Missouri Highway Patrol to discredit a political opponent and used state workers and state equipment to coordinate political attacks.
Blunt and his aides have denied that Eckersley ever suggested that they stop deleting e-mails. They maintain that Eckersley was fired in late October last year for his poor job performance. After firing him they also distributed packets of information to news houses containing memos that accused Eckersley of doing private legal work on state time, viewing adult websites on his state computer and allowing personal problems to interfere with work. Eckersley claims that Blunt and his staff did this to humiliate him and discredit his name as they were afraid he would publicly accuse them of destroying official records.
Eckersley eventually sued Blunt and his aides, seeking damages for injury to his reputation and wrongful dismissal. The lawsuit is also seeking damages for violation of the state's open-records law and of the state's whistleblower law, according to which disciplinary action against a state employee who discloses illegal conduct is prohibited.
Blunt's attorneys have stated that, as governor, Blunt has complete immunity against being held liable for any allegation he makes.
Manners disagreed, writing that, such an argument restricts the public's right to know, only encompassing the official version projected by high government officials. To allow a public official to defame his critics also undermines the objectives of whistleblower laws, he ruled.
Information from an article written by Kit Wagar on The Kansas City Star website.
The judge wrote that, the state not only needed to encourage high ranking public officials to speak out on issues of public interest but also needed to support lower ranking public employees to blow the whistle on instances of misconduct by their superiors.
Scott Eckersley, the governor's former deputy legal counsel, filed the lawsuit. His allegations stem from a controversy that arose in the summer of 2007 over the destruction of e-mail messages in Blunt's office. Supposedly, Eckersley had warned Blunt's aides in mid September last year that destroying those e-mails was illegal following which he was fired. The e- mails that were destroyed ascertained that Blunt's staff had tried to use the Missouri Highway Patrol to discredit a political opponent and used state workers and state equipment to coordinate political attacks.
Blunt and his aides have denied that Eckersley ever suggested that they stop deleting e-mails. They maintain that Eckersley was fired in late October last year for his poor job performance. After firing him they also distributed packets of information to news houses containing memos that accused Eckersley of doing private legal work on state time, viewing adult websites on his state computer and allowing personal problems to interfere with work. Eckersley claims that Blunt and his staff did this to humiliate him and discredit his name as they were afraid he would publicly accuse them of destroying official records.
Eckersley eventually sued Blunt and his aides, seeking damages for injury to his reputation and wrongful dismissal. The lawsuit is also seeking damages for violation of the state's open-records law and of the state's whistleblower law, according to which disciplinary action against a state employee who discloses illegal conduct is prohibited.
Blunt's attorneys have stated that, as governor, Blunt has complete immunity against being held liable for any allegation he makes.
Manners disagreed, writing that, such an argument restricts the public's right to know, only encompassing the official version projected by high government officials. To allow a public official to defame his critics also undermines the objectives of whistleblower laws, he ruled.
Information from an article written by Kit Wagar on The Kansas City Star website.
Leave a comment