Above some laws?

Neither of our west side city representatives has turned over text messages relating to the serial quorum of city council that they were evidently involved in.

One said that he had no responsive texts.  The other said that “she has adhered to all laws that she is supposed to adhere to” according to a recent article in the Times.

Other text messages that have been produced by city council members evidently prove that she was part of a chain of text communications.

Above the law?

Are there some laws that she does not have to obey?  I wonder if we can get her to produce a list of them.

In charge

According to the article she said “All I am in charge of doing is (turning over) what I have in possession at the time of the request”.

Other than the grammatical error the statement calls into question how she is in “charge” of this.  Does she think of herself of being in charge?

Open records experts are telling us that it is illegal for the city representatives to destroy public records.  Cell phone text messages that involve city business are public records.

Is she deleting her text messages?  That would be an overt act in violating of the law.

She does not have to run for office during this election cycle.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

5 Responses to Above some laws?

  1. Read Between the Lines says:

    The woman chooses her words very carefully. Here is what was said and what probably wasn’t said:

    “Rep. Niland does not have any responsive documents. She does not save emails on any other laptop, desktop or other servers. I will defer to IT for any emails on her work computer.”

    SHE PROBABLY DOES CITY BUSINESS ON HER PERSONAL COMPUTER, BUT DELETES EVERYTHING ON HER PERSONAL DEVICES SO SHE WILL NEVER HAVE TO PRODUCE IT. FEEL FREE TO CHECK HER WORK COMPUTER BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ANY DAMAGING STUFF WOULD HAVE BEEN ON HER PERSONAL COMPUTER.

    When asked whether she deleted the text messages, Niland said she “did not have them in her possession.”

    SHE DOESN’T HAVE THEM IN HER POSSESSION BECAUSE SHE DELETED THEM OR SIMPLY WASN’T HOLDING HER PHONE IN HER HAND WHEN SHE SAID THEY WERE NOT IN HER POSSESSION

    “All I am in charge of doing is (turning over) what I have in possession at the time of the request.”

    SHE DELETED THEM AHEAD OF TIME, KNOWING THAT THEY COULD BE USED AGAINST HER.

    In her arrogance, she forgets about all the tools that the Texas Rangers and the FBI have to retrieve data. She also has no assurance that the persons she was communicating with deleted things.

    Like

  2. Anon says:

    Tolbert admitted to deleting text messages but was dismissive of the fact that it might be illegal.

    Like

  3. Haiduc says:

    Maybe she has a private server in her guest bedroom and we can the Russians to hack???

    Like

  4. Disgusted says:

    City reps are issued a cell phone that is paid for by taxpayers. It is for them to use to conduct city business. The city attorney told the Times that those cell phones are sitting in drawers unused, despite her encouraging the reps to use them. Reps are using their personal phones to try to avoid disclosure and they are wasting our money for unused phones.

    Like

  5. ManintheMoon says:

    Brutus
    As if they care what the law says their retort will be prove it. Also what are you going to do about it if we did!

    Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: