Missouri governor's staff pressed Highway Patrol to criticize state attorney general
By Press, Section News
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." Source
|
Related Links+ By TIM HOOVER, The Star's Jefferson City correspondent + Source + More on Scoop + Also by Press |
|
American |
|
||
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. |
|||
|
The purpose of this site is to serve the public interest: As related to Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, all materials on this site are made available without profit. Reprints are published for permanent archival of public information for the purpose of news reporting, criticism, comment, education and research. Site User/Editors strive to ensure that every user submission includes, at the beginning and end of all re-published material, the original author's name and a direct link to the original source of any and all copyright protected material. |
|||
