Home > Postcards > Archives > Open government category
Open government
August 19, 2008
DPS appeals open records ruling
The Texas Department of Public Safety has appealed the ruling of a state District Court judge that the agency must release travel documents submitted by Gov. Rick Perry’s security detail.
Three newspapers, including the Austin American-Statesman, had requested the travel vouchers from the DPS troopers that accompany Perry last year under the state’s Public Information Act.
But the information was not released because Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office said it would compromise the governor’s safety. In court, lawyers for the paper said state law explicitly states that vouchers are public information.
On Aug. 1, state District Judge Scott Jenkins ruled that the information had to be released.
The appeal was filed Monday in the Third Court of Appeals.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment Categories: Open government
January 25, 2008
See e-mails from governor's office
Now that the Wisconsin open government activist who’s been fighting for access to e-mails from Gov. Rick Perry’s office has received a batch, he’s posted them online.
The guv’s policy is to delete e-mails after a week. But John Washburn, a computer consultant who lives in the Milwaukee area, threw a kink in that practice by sending frequent, computer-generated requests for information to Perry’s office.
This week, Washburn succeeded in getting a couple thousand e-mails from four days in November 2007. He paid around $600 for them.
A quick look at the e-mails might leave the impression that the world wouldn’t be missing much without them. For example: There are several random baby photos and a message about someone bringing sweet potatoes to the office.
BUT there are some interesting exchanges buried in the pile, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Let us know what you find.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Open government
January 15, 2008
Stanford: I wanted to be a spy
Austin’s Jason Stanford, the consultant who managed Democrat Chris Bell’s 2006 bid for governor, tends to keep a low profile. For instance, he declined comment last week when I asked him what he made of State Rep. Rick Noriega’s campaign strategy and team.
But he ain’t a fool about publicity — and so it is that he’s featured in a Web article on politico.com (brought to my attention by the avid link chasers at Texas Weekly.
In the piece, Stanford describes his approach to opposition research.
An excerpt:
“What we do is hold politicians to publicly documented facts,” Stanford said. “This job is tailor-made for a high-achieving debate nerd.”
The story goes on to suggest Stanford’s career choice is “considered a social faux pas in some circles, and even his own mother is hesitant to talk about it.” And it reveals that Stanford once wanted to be a spy for a living.
Peek at the tale here.
Permalink | | Categories: Elections, Governor, On a Lighter Note, Open government, U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate
May 21, 2007
Recorded votes measure could be back on track
Despite a Friday crash-and-burn on the House floor, a measure asking voters to mandate the recording of legislative votes on final passage of legislation could soon be on track for resurrection.
The twist: The proposal will be revised to apply solely to the House.
Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, suggested this morning that House members didn’t cotton to a Senate-approved version envisioning more recorded votes (including meaningful preliminary approvals).
The beef? The language made it look like the Senate would be disclosing more to the public than the House. Fact is, the Senate already records votes on both preliminary and final actions; a constitutional mandate would reinforce existing practice.
Carona’s solution, with the session almost over, will be to send the House a revised version that limits the constitutional mandate to final approval of measures in the House. That’s as far as the House appeared willing to go this year.
Carona said he’ll follow up in the 2009 session with a proposal limited to the Senate.
Assuming the House goes along, “that’s a step forward,” Carona said. “And they should be applauded for that.” And voters would have their say at the polls in November.
For the record, here’s a (potentially moot) weekend statement from the League of Women Voters of Texas in reaction to Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, knocking aside the recorded-votes mandate via a point of order Friday:
“After six years of actively pursuing a constitutional amendment to record all substantive votes in the Texas Legislature, the League of Women Voters of Texas is very, very disappointed that the House is unwilling to arrive at a compromise with the Senate by continuing discussion on this legislation.
“Eighty-four percent of Texans surveyed favored requiring legislators to record their votes by name, and eighty percent favored a constitutional amendment to accomplish this (Scripps Howard Texas Poll, 2003). The League was pleased that the House passed a bill, first time ever, to at least record their votes on final passage.
“Unfortunately, some legislators would have teachers and students and other groups held accountable for their actions, while unwilling to hold themselves to a standard that would require them to record their own votes throughout the legislative process.”
Permalink | | Categories: Elections, House, Open government, Senate
May 18, 2007
UPDATE: Screeeee-ch on mandating recorded votes
A proposal mandating the recording of individual legislator’s votes on legislation screeched into limbo after Rep. Robert “Torpedo” Talton, R-Pasadena, raised a point of order noting that the Senate added tweaks to the measure not germane to the original topic.
Sponsoring Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, said afterward he hopes the Senate reacts by stripping out the amendments. Bottom line: The Senate would have to take out language specifying the recording of votes on preliminary approval of measures rather than final approval only.
So what? The rub is that those preliminary approvals (or so-called second readings) are often the most significant indicators of where each legislator stands. Final approvals are almost always perfunctory — and not indicative of where a member stood when the outcome was in question.
Branch said other Senate changes also would have to go bye-bye for this proposal to survive. They include a stipulation that votes confirming or rejection nominees be recorded.
“I’m still hopeful we can work it out,” Branch said. Earlier, he said it’s in the equivalent of the Capitol’s intensive care unit.
If the Senate gives ground, voters would still have final say because it is a proposed constitutional amendment requiring voter approval at the polls.
Talton, by the way, said it’s on the Senate to fix this.
“The burden of who kills the bill, if it dies, is on the Senate,” he said. He said he favors the House original, for requiring only recorded votes on final passage of measures.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: House, Open government
May 14, 2007
House agrees: Some search warrants could be sealed
Without debate and by voice vote, the House tentatively approved a Senate proposal authorizing a district or appellate court to seal an affidavit when there is a compelling state interest for doing so, for up to 60 days. Since it wasn’t amended by the House, the proposal could head to Gov. Rick Perry on final House approval as soon as Tuesday.
Under the measure, the judge is allowed to order the affidavit sealed if the attorney representing the government establishes a compelling state interest in that the public disclosure of the affidavit would jeopardize the safety of a victim, witness, or confidential informant or cause the destruction of evidence, or that the affidavit contains information obtained from a court-ordered wire-tap that has not expired at the time the state’s attorney requests the sealing of the affidavit.
The Texas Municipal Police Association and law enforcement officials from Houston, Amarillo, Fort Worth and Dallas testified or registered in favor of the change at a Senate hearing in March. A representative of the Freedom of Information Foundation spoke against it, with representatives of the ACLU, Texas Association of Broadcasters, Texas Daily Newspaper Association and Texas Press Association registering opposition.
Permalink | | Categories: House, Open government
February 28, 2007
A.G. gives county clerks reprieve on privacy law
Attorney General Greg Abbott this morning issued a letter that allows county clerks statewide to release public documents with private information on them, such as Social Security numbers.
Abbott last week issued an opinion on a law passed in 2005 that directed clerks to black out Social Security numbers before releasing copies of documents to the public. Abbott said that, indeed, Social Security numbers are private and warned that clerks who did not redact private information could face jail time and a fine.
County Clerks, knowing that millions of their public records bore Social Security numbers, went a little berserk over the last several days, closing their Internet document viewing sites, turning away people who make their livings poring over these documents and in at least two cases, draping their records in yellow crime scene tape to make darned clear to the public that they meant business.
Recognizing the Legislature had passed a law with potentially millions of unintended consequences, Rep. Jim Keffer on Tuesday filed House Bill 2061, repealing the Social Security exception and the redaction requirement. The bill was scheduled for a hearing today before the House Energy Resources Committee. The bill is expected to get a quick push, and if two-thirds of the 150 members of the House approve, the law could be struck down immmediately.
What remains unanswered is the issue of the Social Security numbers. Are they private, as Abbott ruled, and what to do about them if they are. Fort Bend County Attorney Roy Cordes Jr., who asked for the Attorney General’s opinion in the first place, might be scratching his head this morning. The clerks, at least for 60 days, can roll up and put away the tape.
Here is the text of the Attorney General’s letter:
Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 28, 2007 www.oag.state.tx.us
CONTACT: Press Office at (512) 463-2050
New Information about SSN Opinion
If you are unable to view the text below, you can view the PDF of this New Information about SSN Opinion on our website:
February 28,2007
The Honorable Roy Cordes, Jr.Fort Bend County Attorney301 Jackson Street, Suite 728Richmond, Texas 77469-3 108
Opinion No. GA-0519
Re : Release and redaction of social security numbers under the Public Information Act, section 552.147 of the Government Code (RQ-0418-GA)
Dear Mr. Cordes:
In Attorney General Opinion GA-0519, we opined that the social security number (“SSN”) of a living person is confidential and subject to mandatory exception from required disclosure under section 552.147(a) of the Public Information Act (“PIP”). See generally Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0519 (2007). As we stated in our opinion, ” … Texans have a legitimate expectation that their SSNs will be kept confidential.” See id. at 5. The plain text and legislative history of TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. Section 552.147 (Vernon Supp. 2006), coupled with numerous other state and federal statutes, all clearly protect the confidentiality of SSNs, and thereby prohibit governmental bodies from disclosing SSNs under the PIA.
Immediately after the opinion was issued, legislative leaders contacted this office with serious concerns about logistical implications surrounding the rapid implementation of statutorily-mandated SSN confidentiality. Complex problems were faced by county clerks responsible for decades-old documents that are frequently laden with SSNs. Some clerks were left grappling with transitioning to a law that ensures SSNs are always kept confidential. The real-world consequence was a virtual halt to a tremendous amount of business and commerce in Texas. In response to these problems, a number of legislators have stated their intention to take immediate action to address the issues and conclusions discussed in Opinion No. GA-0519.
In light of these developments, I hereby abate Opinion No. GA-0519 for a period of 60 days in order to allow the Legislature ample time for thorough deliberation and action. During the time of this abeyance, Opinion No. GA-0519 will have no force or effect.
Sincerely,
Greg AbbottAttorney General of Texas
Permalink | Comments (10) | Categories: Open government
January 9, 2007
Lege action is online, for 4,000 at a time
Tuning in to the live video feeds from the House and Senate on Texas Legislature Online? You’ll get a great view of the action — that is, if you can see it.
Only about 4,000 people can view the videos at any one time, according to the Texas Legislative Council, which oversees the Web site.
Normally there aren’t 4,000 people at once who want to see the Capitol action online.
But could today, the first day of the session, be different? In the House, we have an actual speaker’s race! In the Senate, we have the arrival of outspoken Houston radio personality Dan Patrick!
Just how many are expected to tune in today via the Web site?
“We have no way to predict this information,” said Araminta Everton of the Texas Legislative Council.
Well, if you can’t access the videos online, there are plenty of other ways to watch the action.
Most people in the Capitol complex can watch the House and Senate on closed-circuit TV. And several open-access channels around the state also carry the proceedings.
In Austin, cable Channel 6 will show live House proceedings. Live streaming of Channel 6 is available on the City of Austin Web site. The Austin Independent School District’s cable Channel 22 will show the Senate live.
If all else fails, drag yourself to the Capitol to watch the show in person.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Open government
