According to wire reports, elected officials in Sugar Land have joined a lawsuit challenging the Texas Open Meetings Act on the grounds that it violates the officials’ free speech rights.
The lawsuit includes the cities of Alpine, Big Lake, Rockport and Pflugerville as co-plaintiffs along with elected officials in Sugar Land, Wichita Falls, Arlington, Boerne, Hurst, Joshua, Leon Valley, Heath, Whitesboro and Rockport.
The Open Meetings Act prohibits a quorum of elected officials from discussing official matters outside of a posted public meeting. The lawsuit argues that Internet communication such as e-mail or social networking sites should be allowed.
FortBendNow.com has contacted the City of Sugar Land and will update the story as soon as more information is available.
Try a new line.
It’s a conspiracy I tell you!
In the update on this the city is denying participation now. I read a piece last week where Russell Jones, an HOA lawyer and city council member, supported the Municipal League lawsuit. I wonder why they are back peddling now? No need to play these obvious communications and misinformation games SL. Either you are using taxpayer resources to support this lawsuit or not. It’s a simple question.
southern comfort, you probably are paying for it. Your government always has to fund legal work to fight you.
Your last paragraph jbnimble is one I can fully get behind, but first you have to trust that someone will prosecute. Run the CFRs of the current and past 2 councils that were involved with this development company and find the strings via those reports and subsequent voting patterns (I wonder why those taking the financial support didn’t recuse themselves in this vote?). It’s easy to establish, but you still need someone to prosecute the wrong-doing. I heard this morning that about 95% of all prosecutions are settled out. What do you all think would happen with a project as big and well connected as this one? My guess is nothing. Just look at what is going in the ‘Global Taj Mahal’ vendor feeding project and that’s only a $30 million dollar building. Too bad it is the kids and families that will pay for that huge mistake as taxing authorities scramble to make up for the loss of those revenues.
I wonder how many millions are being diverted in that 30 year TIRZ with the involved taxing entities? I find it hard to believe that the project wouldn’t move forward without our tax dollars. Why don’t they finance it themselves since they stand to reap the greatest profit from it?
If this corruption is happening like some of you claim. Post some information that FBN can follow up on, or give them a call. This town is not that big and there are people who know what’s going on.
b tabor, while I understand your stament, at what point does the “tail” get so big that the “dog” can’t function properly? Why do you feel the vendors dictate and not the mgmt tryinmg to push a deal through? Why is everyone so quick to rollover?
Call the front office at city hall and ask for a copy of this RFQ-RSI or whatever it is for the new entertainment district…they don’t have any idea what your asking about, it’s public, but not listed on thier site as available to view and if you ask for the guy who’s been leading the charge on this for years, he’s not at the city anymore, or won’t be soon? why the secertcy about this project? oh yes, the govt. vendors and the tail !!!
“Vendor feeding”? Hmmm, you sound EXACTLY like ‘santhony’ aka ‘ragingbull’, aka ‘Jane L’, aka ‘Jim Calhoun 1′ aka ‘Buddy J’, etc etc etc. Quite a coincidence. Hmmmmm
Open meeting and records laws were created to protect the public from corporate fascist takeovers of communities. Now mind you, the takeovers don’t happen with enemy flags and baby burnings, but they do happen with TIRZs, secretive Home Owner Associations that secretively and systematically foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners, and unrestrained vendor feeding with unrestrained residential taxing. All this happens while they wave our own flag. Why do we allow our own flag to hypnotize and blind us?
JBnimble, you forget the tail wags the dog in here (the government vendors dictate the rules, not the public). The ‘art of the deal’ can’t exist in the public spot-light, or so they think.
free speech is one thing, but having off-site, closed door meetings or lunches at the taxpayers expense and discussing city business in another issue altogether…
I remember last year in Pearland their city council tried to pass a bond without first calling for a public vote. This was only discovered when residents spoke up and requested documents that supported their claims. The courts ruled in their favor because of these documents. It’s sad when elected officials work to eliminate transparency and instead prefer the old backroom politics of wheel and deal.
I hope the taxpayers of our city aren’t paying for this.