Audio from 4b Tax Committee Meeting from August 3, 2009Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


Audio from 4b Tax Committee Meeting from August 3, 2009

12 August 2009 at 10:47:43 AM

MP3  (thank you to Mygnonne T for the audio tape creation!)

What the heck! Have to put in my comments here as I listen to this. There's a committee that was appointed and it almost seems like it meets NOT subject to open meetings act, to do design??? So you have the 4b committee, a design committee that was appointed by 4b, and then city council to approve it. (Chris Bryant). More input on who went on the design committee (Ricky Villa). If there's something on that committee that the city doesn't like, then wasted time and money. Less formal meeting with wants and needs, put out to their friends and neighbors. Informal process (Mike Jones). -Design will be open for public comment. Riverwalk committee reference - Connally Miller. [But Riverwalk Committee is open and has to publish when their meetings are. ]

Let me stop right now. Even if the 4b committee appoints a committee to do other things like design doesn't mean that the people on it can meet privately OR THROUGH EMAIL or just let their friends and neighbors know! No. According to the Open Meetings Made Easy  PDF, what has to be determined first if the appointed committee is advisory in nature or not. (See page 7)

a committee may not be considered "advisory" if the governing body generally "rubber-stamps" the committee’srecommendations into final policy.

Seems to me that if the appointed committee is one that is hammering out all the details on the design and then would probably be rubberstamped, it ought to be subject to open meetings. If there are any members of the governing body on the committee, that also factors in. But regardless, the spirit of having open meetings is negated if they are private, only heard about after the fact and only possibly available through email requests.  IF complying with Open Meetings Act, the committee has to publish when they are going to meet 72 hours in advance so that the public can come and then they either have to audio record their meeting or do minutes. (p 16 of the Open Meetings Made Easy PDF) They CAN'T JUST DISCUSS THIS OVER EMAIL. The public who wants to know about what happens at a meeting doesn't have to do an open records request to get emails of some discussion. And HAS to know in advance when a meeting occurs so that they can attend. Yes, the details of working out Oakdale stuff may be as dry as toast and lengthy and it may be tempting for people to say "Well, let's just do all this back and forth in email". but that defeats the whole principle of participatory, open government. At the very least, even if the public can't jump up and intervene with comments and disrupt a committee process, they can still GO and hear so that they can, again, at the very least, put in input AFTER the meeting. I'm sure that's why, in some cities, they actually have their own rules and laws requiring ALL committee meetings to be open and posted. That way, there's no ambiguity and the citizens of a community, in my opinion, are fairly served.

Here's an example of the law as of July30 2009. Some council people who were discussing business over email said the Open Meetings Act was a violation of their 1st amendment speech freedoms and a federal appellate court is going to rehear about the constitutionality of the Open Meetings Act.  Here's what the Reporters Court said.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) to rehear a case in which a panel of the court questioned the constitutionality of the Texas Open Meetings Act. The Reporters Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Texas Attorney General, who is defending the law.

In the case, Rangra v. Brown, two Alpine City Council members were prosecuted under the Texas Open Meetings Act for exchanging e-mail messages about the time and content of a meeting. The council members were accused of violating a provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act that requires all deliberations and actions of government officials to be taken with a quorum in a public meeting. In response, they brought a lawsuit against the state of Texas arguing that the law violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Let's repeat this. The Texas Open Meetings Act REQUIRES all deliberations and actions of government officials to be taken with a quorum in a public meeting.  NOT OVER EMAIL.

On April 27, a panel of the Fifth Circuit held that the Texas Open Meetings Act potentially restricted the free speech rights of elected officials and thus was subject to a heightened constitutional standard of review.

"If this decision is allowed to stand, local elected officials throughout the 5th Circuit could violate the open meetings laws in their states with impunity," said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish. "Such a scenario would make a mockery of open government in those states."

Here's what the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said in an editorial on August 6, 2009

[The Texas Open Meetings Act]  straightforwardly requires that public officials discuss and conduct public business in the open and give the public notice beforehand that officials plan to meet and what they plan to talk about.

and that would include those who are appointed BY public officials on committees.

A knowing violation of the law could result in a fine between $100 and $500 and jail time up to six months.

Rangra and another council member at the time were briefly indicted in 2005 over an e-mail exchange discussing engineering firms the council was considering hiring to fix a local water problem. Because Monclova and another council member were copied on the e-mails, a quorum of the council was in on a discussion of public business without proper public notification.

The council people were not convicted and the statute of limitations ran out but they still asked the 5th circuit to hear it.

Still, the 5th Circuit panel concluded that the open meetings law restrains officials’ speech based on its content so that it must meet the highest legal hurdle for constitutionality — it must be a narrowly tailored restriction furthering a compelling government interest.

The panel has it wrong, though. The law isn’t trying to prevent the public from hearing speech the government doesn’t like; it’s designed to make sure members of the public know what elected officials are doing on their behalf.

This is why when the FULL 5th court of appeals hears this, it will undoubtedly be reversed. Or why bother to have open government at all if everyone that's elected or appointed can just discuss stuff without public meetings or hearings and off the record (unless someone knows to ask) in email?????

Let me ask this another way. Is there a good reason, even if one could say that an appointed committee (particularly one for doing the DESIGN of Oakdale) for wanting to prevent the public from knowing about and attending or from finding out from emails that one must do an open records request for? Particularly when it's pretty easy to just REQUIRE that any committee deailing with the public's business should follow Open Meetings Act requirements, EVEN IF NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC GOES but would have the opportunity?

Okay. I'll listen to some more of this audio later.

     Views: 1799 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Should Govt Be able to exercise pardons for horrible people (Matt Bevins-KY)
1 - James   12 Aug 2009 @ 11:41:01 AM 

It must be me, for all the hard work put into the Oakdale project, is there still not a basic plan. The only thing I have figured out, is that some are determined to redesign it rather than remodel it, which seems counter historic in the first place. There is a budget but no plan, I don't get it.   At this rate, it could get sold to someone else. I feel the riverwalk was hijacked from the orginal idea, and most people still don't know what is being done. I would not argue that us citizens can be a real pain, but that's the job they took on. 

2 - James   12 Aug 2009 @ 11:45:26 AM 

Oh, and I second the Thank You to Mygnonne.

3 - WRCM   12 Aug 2009 @ 12:43:57 PM 

This advisory comittee recommendations won't be rubber stamped by the 4b or the council.  This group will report to the 4B board and the 4B will meet with the design firm.  Once a preliminary design has been made it will be presented in a public meeting for citizen comment and probable revision.  This group was constructed to allow some outside opinions of a diverse group of citizens.  The purpose of the project is to keep the historical importance of Oakdale while giving it a much needed update.  Oakdale became a 4B project because of its historical significance to Glen Rose.  Oakdale can be expanded and have new opportunities without losing its historical significance.

4 - salon   12 Aug 2009 @ 1:04:30 PM 

Connally, I believe that the design process should be conducted in full sunshine, at open meetings. I understand what the focus is, but I think the citizens should be able to hear and give input, even after these meetings DURING the  process and not just when the design is finished.

Latest Blog Post by salon -Should Govt Be able to exercise pardons for horrible people (Matt Bevins-KY)
5 - salon   12 Aug 2009 @ 1:29:12 PM 

One more quick comment. Open meetings are not *public* meetings-that is, the public doesn't have a right to disrupt or participate except in, for example, citizen comments places or if invited from the dais. Therefore IF there was an issue about people attending, and keeping ideas from flowing, that's moot. On the other hand, if citizens, after watching the meeting, flooded the 4b, committee or council with concerns and it slowed down the process a little, that also is not a problem. It's a lot of money that is to be spent and the more people can know DURING THE PROCESS where they can also put in their 2 cents, the better.  Again, I can't imagine why NOT having this happen would be a consideration-what reason would there be for not having open meetings for those who are making design decisions about Oakdale?

Latest Blog Post by salon -Should Govt Be able to exercise pardons for horrible people (Matt Bevins-KY)
6 - wrcm   12 Aug 2009 @ 1:37:53 PM 

The 4B is the one making decisions about design about Oakdale Park, and we are subject to open meetings act.  This group just gives a place to start.

7 - salon   12 Aug 2009 @ 1:45:14 PM 

I understand what 4b is for, understand that the committee was appointed, but, at least to me, since they are going to be doing the design plans IN ORDER to present to 4b, I ask again, is there some reason why the committee cannot be open meeting where the public can partiicpate even as listening spectators?

Latest Blog Post by salon -Should Govt Be able to exercise pardons for horrible people (Matt Bevins-KY)
 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting


Click Here for Main Page

Today Is  
Sunday, December 15, 2019

Latest Posts

Somervell County Clerk Michelle Reynolds office posted inaccurate minutes for County Commissioners November 18, 2019 meeting
pharper 12/14/2019 Views 186

Should Govt Be able to exercise pardons for horrible people (Matt Bevins-KY)
salon 12/13/2019 Views 37

How Specific Does TOMA Notice Need to be (City of Austin v Lake Austin Collective, Inc)
salon 12/13/2019 Views 39

House Judiciary Committee Votes to Send Articles of Impeachment to the Full House for a Vote
salon 12/13/2019 Views 138

Video re: Danny Chambers Drag Racing Around the Square In Youth (Glen Rose)
salon 12/11/2019 Views 93

Video-Somervell County Commissioners Court Dec 9 2019 Regular Meeting- FULL
salon 12/10/2019 Views 86

More Blog Headlines


salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS