Open records: Should some documents stay out of the public eye?
Not too long ago, the Post-Dispatch was involved in legal battles with Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt’s office over releasing e-mails that had been sent to and from his office. At that time, there was public sentiment for and against that stance. Some readers thought we were making a mountain out of a molehill by demanding that the records be kept, and, once kept, opened to public scrutiny. Others were in agreement with our stance.
In a story today, Jake Wagman writes about his efforts to get the divorce file for U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis. The Post-Dispatch had reported on Friday about the divorce filing.
Within hours of making the request, Wagman found that a request to seal the records was filed, and granted, cutting off access to the documents.
The motion asks that the case be sealed because “the private interests of the individuals involved in this matter outweigh the public need for information.” Clay’s attorney, Alan Mandel, was in Russia on Monday. But his law firm delivered the motion — which Mandel said had been prepared earlier — to the courthouse at around 2:30 p.m., about three hours after the Post-Dispatch requested to see the file.
I’m not altogether sure that if you or I had requested our divorce files to be sealed that a judge would honor that request. I’ve been a court reporter; I’ve looked at plenty of divorce files. Court files, by and large, are supposed to be public records.
Is there a difference between the two cases? Do public officials have privacy that others should not enjoy? What is your expectation for the public having access to government records (which is, after all, what court files are)?
Kurt has been an editor at the Post-Dispatch since August 2002, working on both STLtoday and the newspaper. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
Double standard.
Nothing suprises me anymore.
There is a double standard, the powerful get much better treatment than the weak. In this case, the powerful politician had a law firm file a motion and got it passed within three hours. Could you or I have done that? Not unless we have the money to have a law firm watching the courts like hawks. Frankly, a normal person would have found out about the document request when the story hit the newspaper.
As for the Privacy concerns, we regular people have none. However, a Politician guards their privacy viciously. How could a politician campaign on a platform of morality, when it’s public knowledge they frequent hookers? How can a politician get votes for opposing gay rights, when it’s public knowledge they frequent gay bars? No one’s perfect – and nothing showcases a person’s warts better than a nasty divorce. Plenty of political careers have ended when divorce court documents became public, so it’s no surprise he had a law firm ready to pounce.
Any document created by a Corporation or a Government should be kept away from the prying eyes of the public. The public needs to kept in the dark and be lead around by the nose. Otherwise the public will become informed and enlightened and foolishly try playing a role in their own lives. That could be disastrous!
Aren’t they entitled to any amount of privacy? I don’t agree with forcefully “outing” people who don’t want to be “out” either. Why do we care what the divorce file says? There are often ugly accusations and they may or may not be true, but once they become public the damage is done. Also, what if the couple has children - should the kids be subjected to the intimate details of their parent’s marriage being common knowledge?
The only real problem is that laypeople are treated differently than public figures. Someone probably tipped off the law firm that the P-D was interested in the file and they rushed down with their motion. Would a private person’s motion have been heard & granted that quickly? No way. That’s the double standard and it isn’t fair, and it’s a different question than whether the P-D should be seeking the file in the first place.
Jennifer, our current President benefitted mightily as a result of an unsealed divorce filing. Seems he or his handlers thought it appropriate to drag a couple’s personal affairs through the mud fro his benefit and advancement.
Either they are all open or all closed. You can’t pick and choose based on political affiliations or aspirations.
Well, I believe the government needs to be transparent, but there are some cases where confidentiality is necessary so as to protect people’s safety. Case-in-point is the Federal government’s exposure of documents regarding water boarding techniques to secure classified information about terrorism. Given that millions of American’s lives are at stake, there are certain processes of government that is best kept out of the public eye. My expectation is that the public have access to government records only in so far as no other persons be put at risk.
There’s a big difference in the two cases. E-mails sent and received to/from official government e-mail addresses using government owned computers should most definitely be subject to public scrutiny. My work owns the computer they gave me, and they own the server that holds our e-mails. The computer and the e-mails are their property. Tax paying citizens pay for and own government equipment, and should have every right to peruse official conversations using that equipment. I don’t use my work e-mail address for personal reasons, and neither should any public official do so with their work e-mail address. That’s abusing tax payer owned computer resources.
I fail to see how that means people should be able to peruse someone’s divorce files. Some things should be private matters. I understand court files are generally open. Criminal court files should clearly be open, but not all civil files should be open. I think the request to seal the records was a proper judgement call.
Also, good points, Amazedbythelunacy. If I had a divorce file, and the PD requested to see it, they’d see it without me ever knowing. That is a double standard, for sure. All open or all closed.
Yes,some documents detailing the truth about our country should stay out of the public eye.
I don’t think there should be any double standards. What’s good for me is good for them. I do however think that there should be a point where we are all protected from anyone getting into our personal court files. Divorce is a private matter, it is not criminal and should be the business of the two involved. On the other hand, criminal (sex offender,ect.) matters should be open to protect everyone in the public. While you are a public official, all of your dealings should be up front and public as long as it pertains to the position the public official holds. Your personal divorce records should not.