Texas Open Meetings Act Does NOT Restrict Freedom of Speech-Judge Rules on LawsuitSomervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


 
Smackdown to Texas Municipal League (TML)

Texas Open Meetings Act Does NOT Restrict Freedom of Speech-Judge Rules on Lawsuit
 


26 March 2011 at 6:23:02 PM
salon

We've been waiting for what seems like a very long time to find out what the courts would say, AGAIN, about a lawsuit brought by TML and some other plaintiffs, including Mel LeBlanc of Arlington. Some elected officials had been discussing government business over email with a quorum of officials and argued that this did not violate Texas Open Meetings Act (this has also been done at a local level), and in fact, that their freedom of speech rights were being curtailed by having to discuss business, gasp, in public, at an open meeting, instead of over email. The plaintiffs in a related case had been ruled against in 2006, Court saying that TOMA did not violate Plaintiffs .. First Amendment rights because open meetings were required pursuant to their official duties on Alpine City Council. From pg 3

Once again, this Court confronts the question of whether the criminal provisions of TOMA, specifically Section 551.155 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A core purpose of TOMA is to enable the public to have access to the actual decision-making process of its governmental bodies. ...

The Plaintiffs argued that TOMA is unconstitutionally vague because Texas officials do not know what is proscribed, that it is overbroad because it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct,  violates the First Amendment because it causes Plaintiffs to suppress their speech in fear of criminal prosecution and discriminates against speakers based on their identity.

I like this, from page 13. The principle below is why I felt (and still do) strongly about this.

Texas citizens are entitled to more than a result. They are entitled not only to know what government decides but to observe how and why every decision is reached. The explicit command of the statute is for openness at every stage of the deliberation.

TML (Texas Municipal League) was leading the charge on this. (Listen also to the Texas Senate meeting last year)

Do Open Meetings restrict governmental officials free speech because they have to discuss ideas at a posted open meeting INSTEAD of over email with the group? Nope. p 16

By requiring open meetings, TOMA ensures that ideas or viewpoints are injected into the marketplace. Plaintiffs and Texas public officials, in general, are not in danger of having their ideas or viewpoints driven from the marketplace by TOMA. Instead, their election to public office allows them a bullhorn for their ideas. Plaintiffs are merely asked to limit their group discussions about these ideas to forums in which the public may participate.

Here's the PDF from the Texas OAG (Attorney General) website that has the entire ruling.

As Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

“Openness in government is a First Amendment virtue, not a First Amendment violation."

 

Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 1710 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Why are Paul Manafort's defense attorneys helping Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman today?
More Posts You Might Enjoy
Republican Lies and Hypocrisy- in COURT to KILL ACA Including Pre-Existing Conditions
On the lawsuit Luminant against Titus County Appraisal District (Sep 2016)
Federal Lawsuit filed by Turks Against Somervell County Hospital District and Ray Reynolds
Somervell County Judge Mike Ford and Violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)
Comments!  
1 - salon   12 Oct 2012 @ 12:25:44 PM 

And another-federal court upholds TOMA

A long-running legal attack on the Texas Open Meetings Act has failed another legal test, with a federal appeals court ruling today that the law meets First Amendment requirements.

City Council members from around the state and the Texas Municipal League have argued that the act violates free-speech rights. Elected officials, the plaintiffs say, should not be prevented from communicating with one another outside public meetings.

But the act is not a “content-based restriction on political speech,” the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said in upholding a trial court’s ruling. “The statute does not apply to government officials because of any hostility to their views.”

The appeals court reiterated the lower court’s summary of the harm caused by closed meetings: They “(1) prevent transparency; (2) encourage fraud and corruption; and (3) foster mistrust in government.”


Latest Blog Post by salon -Why are Paul Manafort's defense attorneys helping Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman today?
 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



Guest
Today Is  
Thursday, October 17, 2019






Latest Posts

Why are Paul Manafort's defense attorneys helping Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman today?
salon 10/10/2019

Money Laundering 101- Trump seeks to get rid of regulations on offshore money
salon 10/10/2019

Pete Sessions wrote letter then got lots of moolah from Republican PAC
salon 10/10/2019

So are christians accepting of Trump's actions with Turkey-slaughter of the Kurds?
salon 10/10/2019

Today In Trump's Grifterville -10/10/2019 Impeachment Edition
salon 10/10/2019

Did we elect a monarch? Bah to the Constitution? Trump and the Ukraine
salon 9/21/2019


More Blog Headlines
 



Comments

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 salon@glenrose.net 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

 

%>