According to an El Paso Times article city council may be having second thoughts about their proposal to cripple the Texas Public Information Act.
Council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance on its first reading last week. They are scheduled to consider it again today (Tuesday March 5, 2013).
The Times points out that a “barrage of criticism” might cause council to reconsider and “go back to the drawing board” with the ordinance.
Reconsidering is a good idea. The legal mess that this ordinance would cause would cost us a lot of money. Texas has a good law — it appears that the rest of the state can live with it. Some members of our council want the right to conduct public business without the public having the right to see what they are up to. Going back to the drawing board is a bad idea. It would be another waste of our time and money.
The Times article suggests that some council members believe that the proposed ordinance is not well written. It would appear that some of them have finally gotten around to reading it.
That brings up the point of this post. According to an El Paso Inc. article this weekend the proposed ordinance was drawn up by the law firm that is representing the city against the Attorney General of Texas who had previously ruled that the city must turn over documents that were requested through the Public Information Act. City council does not want to release the documents.
- Why are we wasting our taxpayer money and time in a mean-spirited fight to deny the public access to its’ documents?
- If certain city council members object to disclosure why don’t they fund the lawsuit themselves? The Attorney General is on the side of the citizens. Council is opposing us and is using our money to do it.
- The outside law firm did a poor job drafting the ordinance. Are they competent? How much are they getting paid to sue Texas and try to keep us in the dark? How much are they getting paid to write the proposed ordinance that has now been so thoroughly criticized?
- Should they be fired?
Where was the City Attorney on this? How did this even get on an agenda? Was this reviewed? Was council advised that the proposed ordinance is “a can of worms” to use the Mayor’s words? Is council now pretending that this was not what they intended?
It is good that the Times has started to pay attention to what is going on at city hall. If they want fresh front page articles to replace their constant reiteration of problems over at the El Paso Independent School District, all they have to do is read city council agendas and start thinking. They won’t even have to make up problems.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
I do not recall seeing the name of the law firm that wrote the proposed public records ordinance. Maybe I should look in the obituaries because the Mayor and city council have clearly thrown the law firm under the bus in an attempt to hide the truth and make themselves look innocent of secrecy, deceit, and manipulation.
In a recent TIMES article, Mayor Cook said: “You know sometimes these lawyers get paid by the word, and what I would’ve written would have been much shorter and probably simpler.”
Not only is Cook’s comment inaccurate (law firms do not get paid by the word), it is flip and intended to once again to make excuses and blame someone else for his own failing and that of the council.
He went on to say: “So maybe we just need to remember that old phrase, ‘Keep it simple, smarty.'”
Well, Mayor, the simple, smart thing would have been to have done nothing and to have not attempted to change the law to defeat the will and interests of the people. So next time, Keep It Simple, Stupid.
LikeLike