7/7/2010 Nexis®: Delivery Status

679 of 1695 DOCUMENTS

The Kansas City Star

July 19, 2007 Thursday

Missouri governor's staff pressed Highway Patrol to criticize state attorney general
BYLINE: TIM HOOVER, The Star's Jefferson City correspondent

SECTION: A; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 2282 words

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 Starthrough 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.
Nixon
Keathley

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.

w3.nexis.com/new/…/PrintWorking.do?… 1/5
7/7/2010
g y g p Nexis®: Delivery Status

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

w3.nexis.com/new/…/PrintWorking.do?… 2/5
7/7/2010 Nexis®: Delivery Status
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.
w3.nexis.com/new/…/PrintWorking.do?… 3/5
7/7/2010 Nexis®: Delivery Status

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
w3.nexis.com/new/…/PrintWorking.do?… 4/5
7/7/2010
y p p Nexis®: Delivery
y Status p p p

The Star's Kit Wagar contributed to this report. To reach Tim Hoover, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to thoover@kcstar.com

LOAD-DATE: July 19, 2007

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Copyright 2007 The Kansas City Star

All Rights Reserved

w3.nexis.com/new/…/PrintWorking.do?… 5/5