Abilene City Officials Did the Right Thing

Moments ago, in a 4 to 3 vote, the Abilene City Council went against the tide and voted NO on joining an ill-fated lawsuit that will gut the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Not because they don't have any concerns about being accused of unintentionally violated the law - they clearly do. Instead, it was because they saw through the smokescreen being spread across Texas and correctly understand that an expected lawsuit being pushed by the City of Alpine and Texas Municipal League in Austin won't help them. Instead, they saw it for what it is: a legal attempt to strip the teeth out of the law by removing criminal penalties, including possible jail time.

Originally the item was scheduled for a vote without discussion. But after I contacted Abilene's City Attorney, Dan Santee, and urged him to have it re-posted for public comment he did so.

Santee also correctly pointed out to council members that they "didn't have to join the lawsuit" like three small cities have done but added that at the Texas Municipal League this is a "big topic of discussion."

Santee also said, "This issue is important enough that Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, came all the way to Abilene" to speak out against the lawsuit.

Mr. Santee of course is right on both points.

This issue should be of concern to all Texans. If you know anything about the Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandal of the early 1970's you understand why criminal sanctions are important. If you don't, it would be worth a quick "google" search to discover what can happen when politicians have nothing to fear when they conduct the people's business in private.

It's also questionable why a few Texas cities and their lobbyists all of a sudden want to remove part of the legal language that bans "a quorum of members of a governmental body from discussing business in secret." As it stands now, if they do and they get caught, the violation is an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

Proponents of the lawsuit contend this language — which has been on the books for 36 years with its jail and fine provisions — somehow infringes on, or prevents, council members from being able to talk to other council members outside of public meetings, to reporters or even to their own constituents. What? Since when?

Thank goodness the Abilene City Council didn't buy this load of you-know-what, and on behalf of FOIFT I was glad to visit their city and urge them to stand strong against other rogue cities, who do.

And for any other Texas cities sitting on the fence on this issue - if you can't understand what conducting public business in public view means - God help you as you consider more pressing issues in your area.

"Keep Information Confidential Until a Final Decision Is Rendered?"

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley is now the new Chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission. He was appointed by Governor Rick Perry. Since then, Bradley has promised a "disciplined, scientific approach" as the agency continues examining evidence that resulted in the 2004 death penalty arson conviction of a man from Corsicana named Cameron Todd Willingham. Unfortunately, Bradley has also indicated he has no intention of the TFSC conducting its business in the open - in public.

In a Dallas Morning News article, Bradley says "The commission does not decide whether persons are guilty or innocent of criminal offenses." On that point, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas certainly agrees.

However, FOIFT also feels strongly that the agency can most definitely help clarify a troubling question. Whether Willingham may have been executed wrongly and if so, what safeguards should be put into place to prevent it from happening again? FOIFT also believes this business, the people's business, should be conducted openly and in plain view of the public. How? By continuing to investigate new information that has come to light such as the Beyler report, a professional forensic review sought by the agency from one of the top arson expert's. Dr. Craig Beyler concluded essentially that the evidence did not support the crime.

That report, however, was never presented to the TFSC because just two days before he was scheduled to present his findings "Governor Perry replaced four of the nine commission members, including the Chairman."

Now, the Governor's new chairman is pushing for additional ways to keep the TFSC's business conducted in the dark, including "...new requirements to keep information confidential until a final decision is rendered." John Bradley has also asked the Attorney General for advice on how to better protect against "interference and improper outside influences."

The tough-on-crime prosecutor points out the commission was created four years ago "to determine only whether there was negligence or misconduct by an accredited laboratory" conducting the forensic evidence analysis.

In other words, it's okay for tax money to be used for second-guessing crime labs but not for more closely examining whether an innocent man was put to death for a crime arson experts now say he couldn't have committed. Really? Where's the Justice in that Mr. Bradley?