Ox goring

March 4, 2013

Cato has been busy talking about the proposed city ordinance that would attempt to change the public’s right to access information about city government and its’ employees.

When the El Paso Times weighed in they first wrote an editorial  that said “The proposed ordinance, to put it mildly, is a disaster“.  The editorial was published the day that city council would first consider it in session.  The message was clear — they wrote “We urge the City Council to reject this ordinance“.

Many of us agree and thank the Times for taking this stand.

City council ignored the Times and the public and is moving through the steps involved in adopting the ordinance.

The Times then put their new government reporter (I believe he was a sports reporter before this assignment) on the issue.  His article covered some of the issues.  In general it raised the heat.

Council continues with this assault on our right to know what is going on in our government.

I am not alone in believing that the Times has been trying to help the city with it’s coverage of the destruction of city hall, the moves, and the construction of the ball park.  They have been flogging the El Paso Independent School district while actively siding with the city government.

Now it appears that even the Times cannot abide council’s actions.  Some will say that the Times gives the city a pass because the city bought the Times building.  Many will say that this is because limiting public information will make writing newspaper stories harder — thus goring their ox.

What is important is that the Times is shedding light on this particular attack on our rights.

I doubt council will listen to any of us.  Remember the election coming in May.  We need to change the composition of council and we need to choose a mayor that will respect the will of the people.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Step into the trap

March 3, 2013

According to an El Paso Times article the Ysleta Independent School District (YISD) stiff-armed a Times public information request relating to bids to conduct a study about potentially outsourcing four administrative jobs.

Let’s start with the fact that the anticipated fee would be $100,000.  That fee would have bought a feasibility study of the effect of outsourcing those few jobs.  Suffice it to say that a more prudent approach would not have required a study.  Some would conclude that management (either at the board or staff level) should be expected to handle a decision like that.

Put simply, this does not look right.  It is good that the Times is looking into this.

The Times seemed surprised that the district “notified the bidder” even though their expert felt it would be hard to see why the information should not be considered available to the public.

The Times walked into the YISD trap.  Remember that government officials, lawyers, and elected people spend our money attending meetings and conferences that draw other people with similar jobs.  One of the things that happens at these conferences is that they share their clever ways to get around pesky requirements that they find inconvenient.

The documents probably contained copyrighted material or information that the vendor might claim to be proprietary.  This gave YISD an excuse to ask for an Attorney General ruling about the contents, thus delaying disclosure for weeks.  Notifying the vendor is required under the law.  Teaching the vendor how to effectively object to the release is not required.  YISD did that to try to avoid releasing the information.  If the vendor does not effectively raise the proper objections YISD may be ordered to release the documents.

The Times should have asked that YISD redact any such material.  After reading the released documents the Times could then decide if access to the redacted information was needed.

Open Records is a previous post that addressed some of the things to avoid or to specifically do when making a public information request.  One thing that the post did not suggest was requesting the right to inspect the documents in person.  This technique can eliminate opportunities for the agency to delay the process.  You are even allowed to make your own copies of the documents if there is nothing that the law requires to be redacted and as long as your copying equipment does not create a safety hazard or disrupt operations.  Think cell phone camera.

What YISD did here was despicable.  It is part of a technique that many public agencies (especially the City of El Paso) use to frustrate the process.

The thing to remember is that the agency will probably try to find a way to trip you up.  Read the earlier post and write your request in a way that avoids their tricks.

Vote in May to change the leadership of agencies that play these tricks.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Why are they stalling?

March 2, 2013

How much power do they need?

According to an article in  the El Paso Times the Texas Education Commissioner has “elevated”  his previously appointed monitor of the El Paso Independent School district “to what the state refers to as a conservator” who “has the power to overrule the district’s interim superintendent and the school board“.

There is also an on-going legal battle.  The commissioner wants to install his own board of managers.  Cato wrote about this in Disenfranchised.  The whole process negates our right to choose who leads the district.

What does the commissioner want?  According to the article “[he] has said that it may not take long for the board of managers to wrap up their work”.  Evidently there is some plan of action already in place.

Is there something that the commissioner wants the school board to do, or to stop doing?.  If the conservator can overrule the school board why not act now?

Are there people that need to be punished?  Are there changes that need to be made?  Can we start doing better right now?  Are we sacrificing our children’s interests over a political power struggle?

What are we waiting for?

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Hot potato

March 1, 2013

The proposed ordinance has another dark side to it.

“Any person in the private possession of a Local Government Record of the City of El Paso, Texas, where that possession is not authorized by law, is hereby ordered and shall immediately return and/or surrender any said record to Records Retention personnel of the City of El Paso, Texas, pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section202.005(a). Any person who seeks and follows documented instructions from retention personnel of the City, are deemed to have satisfied any and all duties created by this ordinance and State law.”

City staff and city council have something up their collective sleeves here and I have not figured it out.

The ordinance complains that the state laws are ambiguous.  Then they write this provision that is almost impossible to understand.

Does a copy of a record qualify?

If someone is given a document by a government employee must the document be returned?

Are there specific laws allowing you and I to possess various government documents?  Is there a law that says you and I can hold a traffic ticket in our possession?  Must we give it back to the police officer who issued it?  Sorry officer, this is a public record and by law I cannot hold on to it in El Paso.

This looks to me to be an attempt to get into the private files of local businesses.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

2 Comments | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Three too many or 4 = 1

February 28, 2013

The city lawyers evidently don’t worry too much about grammar or clarity in their own proposed ordinance.  They write:

An example of communications that are not the transaction of official business are:

1. Political communications by an employee, volunteer or elected/appointed office holder;

2. Communications by and between employees related to personal employee involvement in union related affairs;

3. Other communications by an employee, volunteer or elected/appointed official, had on behalf of another organization or entity while or in connection with transacting business on that organization’s behalf, whether the business is a for-profit, nonprofit, or other governmental or quasi-governmental entity; or,

4. Personal communications made in the individual’s personal capacity that are not communications made in the official capacity held by the person engaged in the communication.

Look at number 3.  An elected official transacting business for a non-city entity?  Are they trying to legitimatize this severe conflict of interest?  This should somehow not be public information?  Does getting elected to city council mean you can peddle influence and be protected from public exposure?  Can this be an accident of wording, or are these people that arrogant?

Then we have number 4.  “It wasn’t a lie if I had my fingers crossed” or “You didn’t say Simon Says”.  Who gets to decide if the official is communicating personally or officially?  I suppose these guys will say it is up to the individual.

Talk about ambiguous.  They use the singular article “an” and then list four things.  Does that mean that only the first one is an example of a transaction that is not official business?

This whole thing stinks.  The state law works quite well.  If they did not have something big to hide they would not be bringing this ordinance forward.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

3 Comments | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »