A court ruling in an open meetings lawsuit puts us in a position of conflicting preferences.
In the final analysis, we agree with Cole County Circuit Judge John Beetem's decision that the Missouri Constitution trumps state law - including the Open Meetings Law, which we traditionally defend.
At issue was a lawsuit filed by Progress Missouri against the state Senate and three individual senators. The organization contended the senators failed to comply with provisions of Missouri's Sunshine Law when the lawmakers prohibited the group from making video recordings of Senate committee meetings.
The three senators, including Jefferson City's Mike Kehoe, were named because they serve as committee chairmen who refused Progress Missouri's request to record committee meetings.
The group cited a provision of the Sunshine Law that says: "A public body shall allow for the recording by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means of an open meeting (and) may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such recording is conducted so as to minimize disruption to the meeting."
That's pretty straightforward, but the Missouri Constitution authorizes the Senate to create its own rules, including rules of decorum that are a Senate tradition.
The three senators named in the lawsuit were pleased with Beetem's ruling. They noted the constitution supersedes state law, and the Senate's meeting are open even if restrictions limit recording devices.
In our capacity as journalists and "public watchdogs," we generally support greater openness regarding public records and meetings.
In that regard, we support the revised policy to permit recordings adopted late in the session by another of the named defendants, Sen. Mike Parsons, R-Bolivar.
But we also support judges who base their decisions on laws and facts, not personal preferences or popular opinion.
Senate meetings remain open, as intended by state law.
Recording restrictions apply, as outlined by constitutional authority granted to the Senate.
And, despite our interest in greater openness, Beetem's ruling is consistent with a greater good - judicial adherence to the rule of law.