Yesterday I spoke with Ms. Lana Woolsey, who had previously identified herself to me as the Assistant City Attorney for the Parks Department. I had not yet gotten a response/clear response to my records request of Friday, March 27, so I went through the three items on my list and tried to determine the answers.
You know, you can tell when a person doesn't want to answer a straightforward question because they start
bobbing and weaving, directing questions elsewhere, claiming ignorance, etc. Bottom line, Ms. Woolsey did a masterful job of not answering my questions directly.
After minutes of unnecessary questions it became clear that A) it is her/her department that is responsible for keeping Park Rangers informed about how changes to Missouri law affect the enforcement of park rules/laws B) she was clueless about SB656/RSMo 21.750 prior to it being raised by BriKuz and myself, C) she feels that 21.750 is the only law which modifies the park rule, and D) **
prior to BriKuz's stop, neither she nor her department had informed the Park Rangers of the effect of SB656 on the park rule**.
Also, Amendment 5/the modified Article 1, Section 23 seems not to exist in Ms. Woolsey's world.
Throughout all of my communications with various parties there has been an unwillingness of some to respond promptly, clearly and accurately to records requests. Those parties have been 1) The City of Springfield, and 2) The Parks Department. I'm convinced that had I not contacted the press and turned them on to Brian, and had not the reporter written a story, the Parks Department would not have changed course.
Think about it - prior to my talking to Ms. Woolsey, she had had at least one conversation with Brian Kuzawa, and the Parks Director, City Council and Chief of Police had all been recipients of my communications, yet they didn't contact Brian or me before the reporter got in on things.
At the other end of the spectrum was the Sheriff's department - prompt, full, and complete responses, and even an apology when my request was misinterpreted. The difference has been simply stunning.
All that being the case, I think it's worthwhile to examine the structure and relationship of the Park Rangers to the City of Springfield and the Greene County Sheriff. My understanding is this: the Park Rangers work for the city, but are
deputized by the Greene County Sheriff. I think part of the reason for this is that some of the parks are outside the city limits.
Now, if I were the Sheriff and I looked into how the aftermath of this incident was handled, including Ms. Woolsey's (and/not her department) cluelessness to widely known changes in Missouri's laws, I'd be more than a little concerned. Park Rangers, as I understand it, are instructed and empowered to enforce Springfield Municipal Ordinances on park properties, yet their police powers come not from the city, but from the Sheriff. So, when a problem comes up with an officer who is not properly trained or informed, I think it's reasonable for people to turn to the Sheriff and say "Why aren't these people who are deputized by you kept abreast of the legal environment surrounding the laws they're expected to enforce??"
Also, if I were the Sheriff, rather than counting on a demonstrably uninformed municipal lawyer, I'd seek out the counsel of the County Prosecutor and better yet, the Attorney General, on how Amendment 5/the revised Article 1, Section 23 interacts with I consider to be an unconstitutional law, MRSo 21.750, as amended by SB656, and consequently the Park rules:
http://tinyurl.com/pveq6d3
