Excellent letter from Bill Hobby.

TML wants criminal penalties such as jail time stripped from the law, which has protected the public for more than four decades. They believe the current language is too punitive and argue “less restrictive penalties would not only continue to preserve the integrity of the Texas Open Meetings Act but would also recognize the fundamental right of city officials to free speech.”

In other words, if public officials break the law in the future by conducting business in secret — such as exercising their rights to free speech behind closed doors — then a slap on the wrist should be punishment enough.

And an editorial regarding same from another conservative Waco paper

The TML, which is a mainstay when the Texas Legislature is in session, says it has not decided whether it intends to pursue weakening this law legislatively.

If they do, we strongly believe that seeking legislative relief is a foolish exercise that would normally be laughable if it weren’t such a waste of taxpayer resources.

Taking taxpayer money to help fund an effort to weaken governmental accountability to these very taxpayers is not only a cruel irony, it is a slap in the face.

If the TML continues to pursue this insulting course, we would strongly urge all local municipalities to deliberate in public about the wisdom of this organization and to reconsider using our taxpayer money to pay their membership dues to this organization

Believe me, the dishonest ones just ignore the rules and you know it.

I am sure others will disagree but tightening the open meetings rules to a “gotcha” environment is counter productive.

I know what it is like to work against the incumbents, I am doing it now, but it can be done with simple communication to the electorate. Once you point out that a director is working against the residents, point it out and communicate it.

i don’t mean to butt in on this, but how would the public know if they are engaging in “non-corrupt, legitimate communications” if they over-turned these laws and no longer had the ability to request these records?

Another good example is the case of the mayor in Montgomery county right now who has been indicted for his backroom dealings that would have never been exposed if citizens weren’t watching and requested information under these acts. In this case the mayor, as many do, had business investments with the company he was pushing projects for. Haven’t we heard all this many times before right here in our community.

No keep the records open and the meetings very public.

Montgomery County mayor indicted accused of conflict of interest
by Michelle Homer
Posted on December 16, 2009 at 3:32 PM
MONTGOMERY COUNTY — The mayor of a small Montgomery County town was indicted Tuesday for violation of conflict of interest laws.
City of Oak Ridge North Mayor Fred O’Connor is accused of failing to disclose his financial link to a private company, Biofuels Power Corporation, that does business with the city. He also failed to abstain from city council discussions regarding business with the company, according to the indictment.
“Hopefully this indictment serves as the first step in obtaining some closure for the City of Oak Ridge North so that they can move on from this difficult chapter in the city’s history and forward with the city’s business,” said First Assistant District Attorney Phil Grant.
This violation is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in the county jail and up to a $4000 fine.

A meeting includes “a gathering . . . at which the members receive information from, give information to, ask questions of, or receive questions from any third person, including an employee of the governmental body, about the public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control . . . .”

Under current law, a violation occurs if any person attends an open meeting and asks a question or makes a statement about matters under the control of the elected officials if that item is not on the agenda.

The Attorney General has ruled that the circulation of a letter among City Council members could constitute a violation of the open meetings act.

The Attorney General has ruled that councilmembers merely listening, but not responding, to a verbal presentation can be a violation if the meeting is not posted.

The Attorney General has ruled that a City Council violates the act whether or not they engage in any deliberation of any matter if they are gathered without posting the meeting.

The Attorney General has ruled that telephone calls among members of the City Council violates the open meeting act, even if no decision is reached in such calls.

City Council members in one city were prosecuted for exchanging e-mails with each other over the question of whether or not to put an item on the city’s meeting agenda.

The laudable goal of the open meetings act is the suppression of corruption, or appearance of corruption. However, through the interpretations of the Attorney General and decisions of Texas courts, the open meetings act regulates political speech that is protected by the 1St Amendment and is not narrowly tailored to achieve its goal of preventing corruption.

Criminalizing the types of conduct described above prevents elected officials from communicating with those who know the issues the best and from whom they can learn the most; i.e. other elected officials. It prevents elected officials from serving their constituencies effectively.

We all want open meetings, but what is wrong with eliminating the criminal penalties which prohibit non-corrupt, legitimate communication among elected officials?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7115716

http://www.myfortbend.net/news/local/community/1275-sl-council-member-russell-jones-in-middle-of-mc-neighborhood-controversy

http://meadowcreekneighborhoodnews.blogspot.com/2009/11/homeowners-respond.html

It is evident we need more open government efforts on the books at all levels, not fewer. Once again if public officials don’t like it that is really too bad. They need to be kept under the microscope at all times. There are too many deals going on not to. For those that have trouble believing they should not just “trust” their politicians then go sit through a few years worth of local commission meetings, board sessions or council sessions. After a few dozen you begin to see the patterns and who matters at these meetings and, IMO, it isn’t the public. We’re viewed as deep pockets. The lawyers and lobbyist, along with their vendor clients, attend every session and work regularly on the elected officials. Some of the elected officials are actually urged to run and supported by some of these same interest. It really is government by and for the vendor, not the taxpayer or voter.

Stay tuned for much, much more!

PS Those of you who think the Texas Municipal League is a taxpayer advocate may want to view the past track record on this lobbying organization. They often take unpopular positions that are not in taxpayers best interest. This IMO is another one of them.

We already have a great many ‘crafty risktakers’. If they want to discuss issues with other elected officials make them do it in the open at the meetings. All they have to do is put it on the agenda. This is being set-up to effect just the opposite. Honest elected officials, as few as there are, have no problems speaking to their public under the current acts.

But I think making it a criminal offense for the first timers is a bit too intimidating. I can see a freshman politician making an honest mistake. But if they get caught doing it again, throw the book at them!

” i live in alpine and i have been involved as a litigant in a half dozen open government lawsuits. this situation is really about ” nimby

Nimby, how much has the lobby group compensated you for your testimony?