[imc-st.louis] Matt Blunt politicizing Highway Patrol

[Ben]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[stlimc-editorial] Matt Blunt politicizing Highway Date: 	Tue, 
24 Jul 2007 18:32:05 -0700
From: 	Brent Blackaby <brent at blackrockonline.com>

Hi all—

In case you haven’t seen this, Matt Blunt is trying to use the Highway
Patrol as a political arm.  Some eerie parallels to Bush’s
politicization of the Justice Department.

Also, contrast Blunt’s response (silence, ducking questions, no action)
to Eliot Spitzer in New York (quickly spoke out, fired responsible
staff):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin 

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin>

Once again, Blunt is showing poor leadership – now it’s by politicizing
the Highway Patrol and failing to own up and take responsibility for it.

Thanks,
Brent

* *

*Inappropriate interference from Missouri governor’s office*
Editorial

Gov. Matt Blunt should not let his staff drag the Missouri Highway
Patrol into next year’s re-election campaign. Unfortunately, that
appears to be the way things are headed.

/The Star /reported this week that Blunt’s staff was heavily involved in
writing an early June news release sent out by the patrol regarding its
investigation into the Taum Sauk Reservoir collapse that badly damaged
Johnson’s Shut-Ins State Park.

In e-mails, Rich Chrismer, the governor’s communications deputy, told
Mark James, director of the Department of Public Safety, that the patrol
should issue the statement and not answer any questions about it. James
is an appointee of the governor and his agency oversees the Highway Patrol.

“They know to let the statement speak for itself, correct?” Chrismer
wrote. That’s just incredible. The governor’s office has no business
ordering a law enforcement agency to keep information from the public.

In a follow-up e-mail to the patrol staff, James refers to “orders” from
somewhere — presumably the governor’s office — regarding treatment of
the patrol’s statement.

“Everybody cool on the final orders, right? Hit the send button and take
the phone off the hook,” James wrote.

The news release about the Taum Sauk Reservoir episode was attributed to
Col. James Keathley, patrol superintendent. But the statement appears to
contradict his agency’s earlier report that the patrol had identified no
criminal suspect in its investigation.

The statement served to underscore the contention from Blunt supporters
that Nixon should use his subpoena power to discover who moved
water-level sensors at the top of the reservoir after the disaster.

Nixon previously announced he would file no criminal charges. He based
that decision on the highway patrol’s findings that there were no
identified suspects of criminal activity.

AmerenUE, owner of the reservoir, has said that in 2006 it provided the
names of employees who moved the water sensors, making Keathley’s
statement about suspects somewhat puzzling.

The highway patrol report didn’t need embellishment. Blunt staffers
shouldn’t have interfered in the communications between the Highway
Patrol and the public it serves.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/v-print/story/198640.html

* *

* *

*Missouri governor’s staff pressed Highway Patrol to criticize state
attorney general*

By TIM HOOVER
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent



JEFFERSON CITY | Gov. Matt Blunt’s staff last month pressed the Missouri
Highway Patrol to issue a public statement criticizing Attorney General
Jay Nixon, Blunt’s likely Democratic challenger in 2008.

E-mails obtained by /The Kansas City Star /through an open records
request detail how deeply Blunt’s office was involved in crafting a June
7 patrol statement that bolstered Republican criticism of Nixon for
deciding not to file criminal charges in the December 2005 Taum Sauk
reservoir collapse, which sent more than a billion gallons of water
roaring down a Reynolds County mountainside, heavily damaging Johnson’s
Shut-Ins State Park and injuring the park superintendent and his family.

The patrol’s statement contradicted the agency’s own investigative
report that said there were no criminal suspects in the case as well as
previous public statements by patrol spokesmen.

Democrats said the correspondence between Highway Patrol officials and
the governor’s office proves Blunt’s administration is politicizing a
state agency.

“The e-mails show the governor used the Highway Patrol not as a law
enforcement agency but as a political arm of his administration,” said
Jack Cardetti, spokesman for the Missouri Democratic Party.

Ed Martin, Blunt’s chief of staff, denied that the administration’s
involvement was for political gain. He said Blunt’s office merely
assisted the patrol, which is under the Department of Public Safety.

“I am very comfortable that what we were trying to do was help the
Department of Public Safety articulate a concern they had,” Martin said.
“Did we encourage them? Sure, but I don’t think we stepped over any bounds.”

Blunt said Wednesday in Kansas City that his staff’s encouragement of
top Highway Patrol officials to issue a statement critical of Nixon was
not meant as an attack. It was intended to clarify that Nixon made the
decision not to seek criminal charges in the case, and it was his job to
drive the investigation, he said.

When Nixon stated that no criminal charges would be filed based on the
patrol’s investigation, some members of the patrol felt Nixon was
blaming them for failing to find a culprit, Blunt said. However, e-mails
show that the governor’s staff intervened only after two patrol
spokesmen agreed with Nixon’s statement.

Highway Patrol officials, through a spokesman, declined comment on the
e-mails.

Mark James, director of the Department of Public Safety, denied the
patrol had been used for political purposes.

“No one over there (in Blunt’s office) dictates anything to me,” James said.

In January 2006, the patrol began a criminal investigation into the
collapse at the hydroelectric plant, operated by St. Louis-based AmerenUE.

Throughout the investigation, Martin, other Blunt administration
officials and the Missouri Republican Party repeatedly had attacked
Nixon because his campaign had accepted $19,000 in indirect
contributions from Ameren in 2006 as the investigation was under way.
Nixon returned the money, but Martin and other critics have maintained
the attorney general was compromised as a prosecutor.

Blunt has taken money from Ameren executives and employees in the past.
But in February this year, he said he had not done so during settlement
negotiations stemming from the collapse.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste did not respond directly to the accusation
that his boss was compromised as a prosecutor.

Holste said, though, “The attorney general reviewed and accepted the
conclusion of the Highway Patrol’s 16-month investigation. The patrol
has publicly stated no crime has occurred. Our attention is now focused
on making certain Ameren pays the state and other injured parties
through our civil lawsuit.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission already has fined Ameren $15
million, and according to The Associated Press, criminal investigators
for the Environmental Protection Agency are looking into the collapse.

*Report: No suspects*

This April, the patrol released its 2,000-page investigative report.
“There is no suspect in this investigation, at this point in time,” the
report said.

The report said that water-level sensors on the reservoir wall did not
shut down pumps because the sensors had been moved higher so they
wouldn’t be tripped as often, allowing power production to continue.
Ameren employees and contractors could not recall who, in December 2004
— a year before the collapse — had adjusted the sensors, according to
the report.

The report did identify two employees who removed the sensors shortly
after the 2005 collapse, which Ameren officials said was done to find
out why the sensors didn’t work. Department of Natural Resources dam
inspectors found the probes a week later in a pile of material at the
plant powerhouse, a DNR official said.

On May 18 this year, Nixon announced he would not file criminal charges
in the case, citing the Highway Patrol report that found no evidence of
a crime. Prosecutors decide whether to file criminal charges based on
the findings of investigators.

Nixon noted, however, that he would pursue civil penalties against
Ameren, saying “it is clear that Ameren repeatedly put profit over
safety.” Then, in a June 4 Associated Press story, Sgt. Jason Clark, a
patrol spokesman, was quoted as saying, “If we thought there was a crime
out there that had been committed, we certainly would not have ended our
investigation.” In another AP story the next day, Capt. Tim Hull, also a
Highway Patrol spokesman, said the patrol found no evidence of criminal
wrongdoing.

Over the next few days, e-mail exchanges made it clear that Blunt
administration officials were not happy with the patrol’s public
statements and wanted to emphasize Nixon’s decision not to prosecute.

The e-mails were sent to or came from the following parties: James,
Blunt’s public safety director; Rich Chrismer, Blunt’s top spokesman;
Col. James Keathley, Highway Patrol superintendent; Lt. Col. Richard
Coffey, the patrol’s assistant superintendent; Capt. Bret Johnson,
Keathley’s chief of staff; and Hull, the patrol spokesman. Martin,
Blunt’s chief of staff, was copied on some of the e-mails. A chronology:

*June 5 *

8:35 a.m.: James forwards one of the AP stories to Coffey. James also
informs Coffey that Henry Herschel, Blunt’s legal counsel and the
liaison to the department, wants to talk about the Taum Sauk case.

5:32 p.m.: Chrismer e-mails Hull wanting to talk about the story in
which Hull said the patrol found no criminal wrongdoing.

*June 6 *

11:11 a.m.: James sends an e-mail to Coffey that shows growing
dissatisfaction in Blunt’s office with how the patrol has dealt with the
Taum Sauk case. He says Martin wants to “meet with us today to chew on
us for not getting the thing done to their expectation…” and “Chrismer
got backdoor intel that patrol was soft on the message.”

11: 16 a.m.: In a reply, Coffey says Hull “apologized profusely if there
had been any negative inference about our reports…”

11:22 a.m.: James responds: “I think the statement they want to
establish is, ‘It’s his (Nixon’s) job to decide whether to prosecute and
not the ” patrol’s.’

4:05 p.m.: Chrismer sends Hull another e-mail containing a snippet of
the AP story in which Nixon’s office said the attorney general would not
file criminal charges against Ameren because “the patrol’s report did
not identify any suspects in the case.”

*June 7 *

10:11 a.m.: Chrismer e-mails James a draft of a statement attributed to
Keathley, who is in Colorado at the time.

“Below is the draft everyone agreed to last night,” Chrismer writes. “We
need it to go out this morning.…Also, the patrol should let the
statement stand for itself.”

10:54 a.m.: James forwards the draft to Coffey and Keathley, saying,
“Can you live with this? … I know it’s a bit strong, but I don’t think
we will get them to change it much if any.”

11:18 a.m.: James e-mails Keathley and Coffey: “They are breathing down
my neck for you to get this out before noon. Can you live with this
statement?”

11:58 a.m.: Capt. Bret Johnson, Keathley’s chief of staff, forwards a
few changes to Chrismer, who replies that it “looks good.”

12:08 p.m.: Chrismer e-mails James: “They know to let the statement
speak for itself, correct?”

12:17 p.m.: James forwards Chrismer’s message to patrol staff and adds:
“Everybody cool on the final orders, right? Hit the send button and take
the phone off the hook.”

*Buttressing GOP message*

The statement the patrol ultimately released on June 7 appears to
reinforce a Republican press release issued the same day arguing that
Nixon should use his subpoena power to determine “the identity of the
Ameren employee, and potential suspect, who removed critical evidence
from the scene of a disaster.”

Keathley said in the statement, “Let me be clear to those who have been
critical of the Highway Patrol for not identifying the unknown
individual who moved water-level security probes before investigators
arrived on the scene. We sought this person’s identity, but could not
compel cooperation.

“In point of fact, the patrol does not have subpoena power. Our
responsibility in this is to conduct a thorough investigation and
provide this information to the criminal prosecutor in the case who
makes the decision to pursue charges.”

In fact, Nixon’s office had issued a subpoena in the one instance in
which patrol investigators requested it.

Both Keathley’s statement and the Republican press release seemed to be
confused about the details of the Highway Patrol report. While
investigators could not determine who adjusted the water-level sensors
in 2004, they knew which two employees removed the probes after the
collapse.

And Keathley’s statement contained a curious assertion — that there was
“a list of suspects” in the Highway Patrol report from which the Public
Service Commission could compel testimony to aid in determining whether
criminal charges were warranted. The commission’s Republican chairman
had announced that utility regulators would reopen their own
investigation of the reservoir collapse based on news reports — later
corrected — that said “unknown” Ameren employees had removed the water
level sensors after the collapse.

On June 7, Ameren, frustrated by the new investigation and accusations,
released a statement pointing out that the company in 2006 provided the
names of the employees who moved the water level sensors after the
collapse. As in previous statements, the company denied there was any
criminal tampering with evidence and said Highway Patrol officials
previously had agreed that Ameren had cooperated fully.

On June 8, James e-mailed Johnson, Keathley and Coffey, expressing
concern about publicity in the case.

“This case is only going to get more perilous in the media,” James said.
“The patrol must NOT make any more comments to the media on this case!!!!

“I want to get the patrol out of this limelight ASAP and let the PSC
take center stage. I MEAN it!! No conversations with the media on this.
I won’t be able to protect you from the wrath if you do!!”

When a /Star/ reporter called a few days later to ask about
inconsistencies between Keathley’s statement and the patrol’s report, a
patrol spokesman said “the statement speaks for itself.”

In an interview, James said the patrol’s statement was a collaborative
effort with the governor’s office.

“Some of the guys at the patrol participated in that,” James said.
“Certainly, I was looking at it and reviewing it. I’m sure at one point
I asked Rich Chrismer to take a look at it.”

James, though, said he couldn’t say who wrote the bulk of the statement.

Chrismer downplayed his role, saying James asked for his help and the
idea for the statement originated with the Department of Public Safety.

“I assisted with the draft, but ultimately it was a news release that
the Highway Patrol dictated,” Chrismer said, adding he didn’t write more
than “a sentence or two” of the release.

His involvement in writing a release for an agency under the governor is
nothing out of the ordinary, Chrismer said. And there was nothing
inappropriate about telling patrol spokesmen they shouldn’t comment on
the release after it went out, Chrismer said.

“I thought it was a very clear statement and that it speaks for itself,”
he said, saying his e-mail comments were a suggestion to the patrol, not
a directive.

As for e-mail comments by James to patrol officials that “they are
breathing down my neck,” James said he was referring to his own public
relations staff, not the governor’s office. And James said he was
referring to the news media when he told patrol officials they would
face “the wrath” if they didn’t stop commenting publicly on the Taum
Sauk case.

Democrats said explanations about the e-mail exchanges don’t wash. It’s
clear from the context and timing that this was a coordinated political
effort by Blunt’s office, said Cardetti, the Democratic spokesman.

“The job of the Highway Patrol is to protect and serve, not to further
the governor’s political agenda,” Cardetti said. “The fact that the
governor’s office is dictating what press releases go out from the
patrol and who the patrol can talk to should be alarming to Missouri
citizens.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Key players in the Taum Sauk e-mails *
*Blunt’s top staff:*

Rich Chrismer: Blunt’s top spokesman

Ed Martin: Blunt’s chief of staff, who is copied on and referred to in
some of the e-mails

*Missouri Department of Public Safety, which oversees the Highway Patrol: *

Mark James, department director

*Missouri Highway Patrol:*

Col. James Keathley, patrol superintendent

Lt. Col. Richard Coffey, assistant superintendent

Capt. Bret Johnson, Keathley’s chief of staff

Capt. Tim Hull, a patrol spokesman


* *

-- 
Ben West
westbywest at riseup.net
http://savetheinternet.org