The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), signed into law in 1966, guarantees disclosure of documents controlled by the federal government. Texas has its own law, called the Public Information Act (PIA), which is in some ways stronger than the federal law, but open records requests are commonly called FOIA requests at all levels of government.
I've come across references to such requests in three separate places this week. That may be just a coincidence to you, but to me it's highly significant. The Dallas Morning News' Jim Mitchell explains, in an entirely different context, what having three of something means: "Let me piece together two news items. In journalism circles, this means that we're two-thirds of the way toward establishing a trend." In my case, I have that third news story needed to establish an official journalism trend.
First, Jeffrey Weiss tells us that the Plano ISD, supposedly notorious for requiring reporters (and presumably everyone else) to file FOIA requests to get the district administrators to reveal any bit of information, "set a land speed record releasing official secrets" this week, taking only one day to fulfill an FOIA request. The request? The DMN's Matt Haag asked for a copy of the "Top 10 List" joke told by the PISD superintendent at convocation. Why does the PISD seem to be reflexively reluctant to provide even innocuous information? Perhaps the answer is related to the next news story.
Richardson city manager Bill Keffler has had a bad week. He has had to spend way too much time talking to newspaper and television reporters, defending himself and his city. The charge? That he gets a car allowance. A pretty generous car allowance with pretty loose restrictions on how he can use that car. At least two FOIA requests, one by a private citizen and another by Ian McCann of The Dallas Morning News, revealed that 141 employees of the city receive car allowances. But slight differences in the responses to the two requests (annual data vs. monthly, year-to-date differences) led to a charge that the DMN is being used as a "propaganda and disinformation tool" by the city. Sigh. When you're dealing with a distrustful citizen who thinks he's being lied to, no amount of disclosure will ever be sufficient to satisfy (e.g., "birthers").
If you like the way things are going on the local level, you'll love the third story in this trend because you ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until President Obama gets the feds to open up. Wired magazine recently featured the US government's first-ever chief information officer, Vivek Kundra, and his radical idea:
"The Obama administration's most radical idea may also be its geekiest: Make nearly every hidden government spreadsheet and buried statistic available online, all in one place. For anyone to see. Are you searching for a Food and Drug Administration report that used to be obtainable only through the Freedom of Information Act? Just a mouseclick away. Need National Institutes of Health studies and school testing scores? Click. Census data, nonclassified Defense Department specs, obscure Securities and Exchange Commission files, prison statistics? Click click. Click. Click."
I can imagine that Richardson's Bill Keffler is thinking right about now that the day can't come soon enough. All the watchdogs, cranks, and believers in conspiracy theories will be distracted by the treasure trove of federal documents, leaving Keffler to go back to getting Richardson's potholes filled and summer softball leagues at Huffhines Park up and running again.
37 comments:
Thank goodness for the Texas Open Records Act. If it wasn't for this law, the city would even be in more of a "lock down" mode than it is today concerning information. The city frequently is late in fulfilling the requests, and the information is spotty at best. As you noted, the information may be inconsistent depending on who asked for it and when.
Yes, Bill has had a bad week, but it is his own fault - and the fault of his friend, fellow parishoner, enabler, and mentor of 22 years, Gary Slagel. As noted here and in other blogs, I suspect that Bill has witnessed (and potentially participated) in all of Gary's questionable business dealings - and is thinking, "so I drive the fleet car while my wife is driving my car; that's not so bad". Well, Bill, yes it is bad.
Until Richardson voters clean house and remove from Gary Slagel from the mayor's spot and the council once and for all, along with his 5 puppets, this kind of stuff just isn't going to go away.
-don't cry me a river
"river", thanks for the feedback. I'm all for the Open Records Act, too, even if over usage of it by chronic cranks sometimes makes it seem more like a city staff full employment act just fulfilling the requests. That's the price of an open democracy.
P.S. I don't think the chronic cranks help your cause in getting residents to vote the city council out of office. I'd go as far as to suggest it backfired in this year's election.
Ed, Don't presume the first anonymous poster is not a chronic crank. Anyone who thinks that Slagel really has puppets doesn't know how things work and doesn't know how things have been working since the election.
How many open records requests have been filed and how come so little has come of it? "Well there's all this corruption but its hidden," they say. They complain because they don't know about something but then they know it must be something evil? Huh? What's that again?
First, it was "transparency." Then it was golf. Now its cars. What's next? Paper clips? Too many management staff getting dry cleaning allowances?
It's so nice to have someone from the Richardson Coalition weigh in on this issue. See above. According to them, integrity and honesty aren't important for our public servants - as demonstrated by their continued mantra that issues which come to light concerning Slagel and Keffler just don't matter; they're insignificant. Huh? If honesty and integrity don't matter, then what does?
And, as usual, if you question anything, they brand you as a crazy or, in this case, a crank. The Richardson Coalition's brute force and scare tactics are growing old - even by those who initially supported them.
And, yes, Slagel does have puppets - you have Macy (worst), Murphy, Townsend, Solomon, and Omar (he's a coalition guy, but the jury is still out). You certainly don't see any of these gentlemen standing up to Slagel.
Anonymous at 8/21/2009 11:13 PM, I have no idea whether the first commenter is or is not a chronic crank. I know of only this one comment of his (hers).
Anonymous at 8/21/2009 11:49 PM, don't assume someone who doesn't agree with you is a member of the Richardson Coalition. That's conspiracy theory thinking and it tends to make you sound like a paranoid nut, which I trust you are not.
Also, I've heard no one argue that honesty and integrity are insignificant. I have heard people argue (I'm one of them) that the "issues" that have come to light (golf course, car allowances) are not cases of dishonesty or lack of integrity of any size at all.
"Blind ambition and ultimate trust" was what tripped up Nixon and his band of thieves. Yes, the man did a great deal of good, but in the end, his legacy is that he resigned because he got caught not telling the truth.
The public has been treated to countless lies and misrepresentations from the Richardson city administration so frequently that it has lead many to believe somebody at the top subscribes to the Lenin formula for brainwashing the public, "a lie told frequently enough becomes truth".
The reality is the Public Information Act has many legal loopholes, not the least of which is that governing bodies do not have to answer questions. Another fact is that the Act only pertains to documents that exist. If there is no document, there is "no document responsive to the request", which happens to be the response frequently given. Like so-called "unwritten policies" regarding the ethical behavior of public servants, there is nothing keeping misbehavior from becoming the normal course of conduct when offices are occupied by those who would exploit that fact. Such is the culture at our City Hall. Just because you choose to be blind does not make the reality invisible to others with their eyes wide open.
I am struck by Ed's characterization of the circumstance, "had to spend way too much time" (providing information that the public should have known about before the public discovered it on its own), "defending himself and his city" (as if to suggest there is some kind of entitlement that goes with the job of City Manager such that squandering public resources for personal benefit does not violate the rules).
In Richardson, the definition of the word "conservative" is being re-programmed in the minds of citizens who continually chant incantations praising liberal behavior at City Hall.
The backfire is that this inane mentality usually causes a social collapse of some kind. Does anybody see evidence of one in the future of Richardson if the public continues to choose ignorance over intelligence?
"The backfire is that this inane mentality usually causes a social collapse of some kind. Does anybody see evidence of one in the future of Richardson if the public continues to choose ignorance over intelligence?"
Yes, as poster Sherri points out somewhere else in a blog some comment, things like potholes and redevelopment ought to be more important than these other matters.
If a good part of the general population REALLY thinks these fishing expeditions are "progress," then we are, as you say, in an "inane mentality" that will cause "a social collapse of some kind."
I am still waiting for the great corruption scandal. We have been hearing this for sooo years and we haven't seen a thing. Where is it?
Everybody that disagrees is the "Richardson Coalition?" That's just cuckoo.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 10:52 AM, there is nothing actionable in your charges. No who, what, when, where. Only general charges of lies and misrepresentations and over the top allusions to Lenin.
That the Public Information Act applies only to documents that exist is not a "legal loophole." It's nonsensical to write a law to compel the release of documents that don't exist. D'oh.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 11:25 AM, defending oneself does not require one to feel "some kind of entitlement that goes with the job of City Manager such that squandering public resources for personal benefit does not violate the rules." All it requires is a false charge that one is squandering public resources.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 12:57 PM, I agree that Richardson is not headed towards "a social collapse of some kind." In fact, these vocal critics of Richardson City Hall reinforce that belief. If there ever is a corruption scandal, we'll hear it from them first. That they have been unable to turn up anything so far says something good about Richardson.
Like I said earlier, "Blind ambition and ultimate trust". Your defense of the things you refuse to acknowledge is telling. This is not an exercise in journalism, or an opportunity to present a courtroom case of plausible denial. This is the people talking in response to your yammering about your interpretation of open government. You don't know what you don't know. For you to defend those who have obviously abused public office for personal benefit in ways only self-serving people would is a testament to your system of values. Tell me old wise one. The public called for the Thursday packet to be published on line. Have you ever seen it, on, or off line? Anybody who has been a witness to a well-run, citizen-involved municipality recognizes one substantially opposite at a glance. It is real easy for a simpleton like me to understand. Either you get a straight-forward answer, or you get a line of unintelligible self-important blabber diverting from the core issue. The core issue is, open government, the fact that Richardson has been everything but, and what is being discovered from asking the question, "why?" Pay attention, get off your Coalition soap box, keep an open mind, and open your eyes. Meanwhile, blow smoke somewhere else. My eyes are burning and my dress is full, thank you.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 5:11 PM, you say, "For you to defend those who have obviously abused public office for personal benefit..."
I would never defend such people. The trouble is, you have failed to provide compelling evidence that the city council or city staff are made up of such people. It may be "obvious" to you, but it isn't to others. That may frustrate you, but that's the way it is.
What do you know about Ordinance No. 3712 and the loose interpretation of the laws that guide the underlying activity? Take a close look at what is going on before you say that smell in the air is not dead fish.
Nobody pretends to be ignorant in the face of questionable behavior except one who has no problem with bad behavior.
What sucks is that point in time during an argument when you realize you are wrong.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 5:30 PM, unless Ord. 3172 deals with car allowances, it's a red herring.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 5:40 PM, neither you nor anyone else has established that we are dealing with a case of bad behavior here. I know you don't like it. That doesn't make it illegal, unethical, immoral, or anything else other than simply unpopular among certain segments of the Richardson population.
I give up. You win. Mankind is inherently innocent. Greed and avarice do not exist. All the employees and citizens who have called out less than respectable acts on the part of public servants are lies. They are all just urban myths. God is black. And, it is possible to see the world as it is with your nose planted between the cheeks of the glutious maximus. Silly me.
Anonymous at 8/22/2009 6:25 PM, no one is claiming that "Mankind is inherently innocent. Greed and avarice do not exist" or any of the other gross distortions you make of opposing viewpoints.
Will the anonymous poster that claims greed and corruption are rampant please provide us with a detailed example with names, dates, and laws violated?
No vague statements. Be precise and complete. Put up or shut up. Ed isn't saying anything about human nature. He wants factual evidence. So do I.
After the amount of time spent on claiming incredible evil, then why do these complainers move from target to target without showing any fruit?
The post above is hilarious. What additional evidence do you need? Just check out the papers, TV, or, heaven forbid, www.garyslagel.info. I suspect that it will take seeing Keffler and Slagel handcuffed and being taken away by the FBI before these few skeptics believe that an issue(s) exists. These are the same people who say, "I need more proof". Honestly, that is just a stall tactic, as no amount of proof would convince them. I believe that the day of rekoning will soon come.
-can't you see the truth?
I have a novel thought. Why doesn't the illusive Ed provide a real identity? Who is this person milking the public for information? The tactics this person uses is typical of hostage negotiators, lawyers, or impostors. There is nothing this person has ever written to suggest they are not a sneaky snoop gathering information on everybody who posts here. I say we stop talking to the wall and require a little reciprocity. So Ed, tell us a secret and we'll tell you one. Let's start with your identity.
Ya Ed. Go fish in another pond. You are not welcome here any more.
"can't you see the truth?" wrote, "I suspect that it will take seeing Keffler and Slagel handcuffed and being taken away by the FBI before these few skeptics believe that an issue(s) exists."
Yep, that would certainly do it. But I'd settle for less than that. But it has to be more than the list of car allowances that the FOIA request turned up in this case.
Run me to that goofy .info Nathan Morgan run website. That website is a smattering of news links without any specific accusations of what is illegal. Some of those were a few elections ago. Why don't any of the links say someone was arrested?
I am still waiting for the evidence.
I'm with the above anonymous posts. If you look at "Ed's" posts, they don't make sense - or adhere to any reason. Notice, "Ed" never answered the questions about what was in the newpapers, TV, or if he has checked out www.garyslagel.info. If you haven't been to www.garyslagel.info, then you need go. It is frightening.
Sorry, "Ed", I had high hopes for you. You seem to have evolved in to simply an illogical front for Chuck Eisemann and the Richardson Coalition - and if that is the case, then everyone needs to throw all reason and logic out the window when communicating with you.
-come clean "Ed" :)
"come clean", I checked out that Web site months ago. It did a service linking to stories about some questionable behavior from several years ago, behavior that I believe was properly stopped partly in response to the publicity from the news stories cited on the Web site. But the last time I checked, that Web site said nothing about car allowances, which is the subject at hand.
P.S. I'm sorry if I've disappointed you that I don't take a reflexively anti-city council position on all topics. Believe it or not, I am sufficiently distant from all the players involved in these tempests to take independent positions. I guess you can call me an equal opportunity disappointer.
"Tell me old wise one. The public called for the Thursday packet to be published on line. Have you ever seen it, on, or off line?"
The City began publishing both the "Agenda Packet" and the "Handout(s)" on July 6th - nearly 2 months ago. See City Council.
Bill
McCalpin, you simply have to take your nose out from between Murphy's glutes and do more homework. Either you haven't seen the Thursday packet and are simply trying to yak the talking points, or you don't know enough about it to make a comment. Don't be stupid. The Thursday packet has much more than in formation on the topics of discussion for the next meeting. Pay attention man!
Ok, Mr. Ed is trying to pull words back into his mouth about his call for evidence by saying this thread is about car allowances. How trite is that getting? Let's get into the substance of the real problem with the Richardson city administration. Let's address the City Charter. Unless you are some kind of mental midget, you recognize the City Charter is, in fact, an extension of the State Constitution and Texas State Laws. If you have a hard time accepting that fact, or you want to argue otherwise, do your homework before we make you look like an idiot in the coming posts. Ready for some facts about the lawbreakers at City Hall? Get the Crisco out. This will not be pleasant for those who have been City Hall missionaries.
OK, let's divert the conversation and beat up on Nathan Morgan. Who has evidence he has anything to do with the garyslagel.info site? C'mon, don't be shy. We're all hungry for lunatic accusations. What's that you say? I can't hear you. Speak a little louder. Just as I suspected. All talk and no action. OK, let's debate about who Mr. Ed is? Does anybody believe somebody who refuses to recognize the difference between fact and fiction? I'm telling you, Ed is nothing more than a talking head.
Anonymous at 8/24/2009 2:04 PM, the topic of this post is FOIA in general and the open records request about car allowances in particular. As much as you might want to divert attention to the "real problem" in Richardson, I probably won't follow you there in this comment thread.
Anonymous at 8/24/2009 2:17 PM, no let's NOT "beat up on Nathan Morgan." Attacking individuals, instead of debating their arguments, is unwelcome.
"OK, let's divert the conversation and beat up on Nathan Morgan."
Well Nathan Morgan is commenting on this blog and beating up on us. Why not?
Maybe Morgan's internet track covering is not as good as he'd like it to be.
I do not know who you are calling a chronic crank but I think I heard one person tonight make a good case for some change in Richardson. She made some good points I thought. I want more information.
Also, Mr Ed how long have you attended council meetings and done research or made information requests to have an opinion in our community?
And the rest of you are just flame throwers and it is hard to take you seriously.
Anonymous at 8/24/2009 6:57 PM, I learned from my mother that just because someone else is doing something is not sufficient justification to do it myself.
Anonymous at 8/24/2009 11:40 PM, thanks for the feedback. There will always be the chronic cranks, the flame throwers and the people who make a good case for change. The challenge is to be able to tell them apart. I try to do that, not by focusing on the person, but on what the person is saying.
@anonymous at 8/24/2009 1:57 PM
Whenever an anonymous poster attacks me in a vulgar manner while presenting no evidence whatsoever, I am pleased, because I know I must be doing the right thing. In fact, outside of a short memo or two from the City Manager attached to the outside, the current Thursday folder contains exactly what I said it does and what is posted on the website. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Whatever you think you know, it's no longer valid.
Your enthusiasm for error reminds me of the author of a website that allegedly presents "news" about Richardson, yet manages to misrepresent, garble, and falsify information so badly that all of his conclusions are mistaken. Worse, he often comes to the Council meeting and shares his mangled and erroneous thinking with the Council and the public, frequently being corrected even in mid-sentence by those who actually know the facts.
Let me give you an example. Monday evening, the owner of that website spoke before City Council at the Visitor's Section of the Council Meeting. In the process of criticizing City Manager Keffler's compensation package, he said that he assumed that Mr. Keffler was in an executive session meeting on Dec 10, 2007 with the Council and directly negotiated his compensation package. Councilperson and former Mayor Steve Mitchell immediately corrected him by pointing out that Mr. Keffler was not in that meeting.
In embarrassment, the website owner then quickly shifted gears, and eventually claimed that while the City is allowed to discuss some things in the executive session, the City Manager's compensation package is not one of them.
The speaker admitted that the href="http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/openmeeting_hb2008.pdf">Texas Open Meeting Handbook states in Section 551.074 that "this chapter does not require a governmental body to conduct an open meeting...to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation [emphasis mine], reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee...". He claimed that because "compensation package" was not explicitly listed above, that to discuss such a package would not be a valid agenda item of an executive session.
Well, ignoring the fact that most reasonable people would assume that to discuss "employment" and "evaluation" might rightfully include discussion of compensation, the speaker missed another part of the Open Records Handbook that provides critical insight.
On page 49, the Handbook states: "This section [551.074] permits executive session deliberations concerning an individual officer or employee. Deliberations about a class of employees must, however, be held in an open session. For example, when a governmental body discusses salary scales without referring to a specific employee, it must meet in an open session."
Clearly, if the Attorney General was contrasting the treatment of a group of employees with an individual employee, and the subject he was discussing was "salary", then the only possible interpretation is that it must be permissible for the Council to discuss the salary of an individual employee in executive session; otherwise, the Attorney General's comments would make no sense.
I can see why the author of that website does not permit the general public to make comments on his website, as it would quickly become overloaded with proofs of how he is mistaken at every turn, just as your own statements show no merit whatsoever.
Again, thank you for confirming - through your vulgar, anonymous, and unsupported comments - that I am doing the right thing…
Bill
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, thanks for setting the record straight on matters brought before the council meeting during the Visitors Section.
"This section [551.074] permits executive session deliberations concerning an individual officer or employee. Deliberations about a class of employees must, however, be held in an open session. For example, when a governmental body discusses salary scales without referring to a specific employee, it must meet in an open session."
The EXAMPLE given for clarity refers to salary scales of employment classifications and only, by inference implies discussion of salary of an individual (could be?, would be?, should be?) permissible behind closed doors. There is nothing in the Attorney General's opinion handbook that directly refers to deliberation of compensation of any public official behind closed doors. To suggest deliberations about what the people will pay their top employee enjoys some kind of confidentiality is rediculous. Mr. McCalpin is reading between the lines in a handbook that attempts to put the law in plain language, and making assumptions not based in fact. The law is not open for loose, convenient assumptions. To assume, reasonable or not, that deliberating the employment or evaluation of an individual includes any other matter, including compensation is unfounded. The written text simply does not support the argument.
While Mr. McCalpin is reading and leaning on the handbook, he might take a look at the part about who may attend closed meetings and tell us why you think it is legal for others besides the governing body to be present while matters requiring confidential deliberation by elected officials are addressed. The opinion is clear in this section. So, why does the Council permit one qualified City Council employee, and other unqualified regular City employees sit during entire meetings?
Right again, Ed. Your story started out about FOIA. But, the rhetoric lost focus quickly. It is sort of like missing the point, or spinning reality to support a flawed understanding.
The clearly stated intent of the Open Meetings Act, as stated by the people and the Attorney General, is rooted in the belief that the affairs (even the office type, thank you RISD) of government is suppose to be open for public participation. There are very few, specific exceptions. Liberally assuming those exceptions include "reasonable" additions does not meet the test of open government.
It is obvious Mr. McCalpin has an ax to grind with "the owner of the web site". It seems that liberal interpretation of the rules is somehow related to Coalition senility. Birds of a feather, they say.
Anonymous at 8/27/2009 4:38 PM, you've given your interpretation of state law, William J. 'Bill' McCalpin has given his. Now, readers can decide for themselves which interpretation is most likely to stand up in court. IANAL, but my money is on McCalpin's interpretation.
@anonymous 8/27/2009 4:38 PM
"There is nothing in the Attorney General's opinion handbook that directly refers to deliberation of compensation of any public official behind closed doors."
Well, duh, didn't I say that?
My point - which I suspect you willfully chose to ignore - is that reasonable people interpret "employment, evaluation" to include discussions of compensation.
What sort of reasonable people? Well, just a few minutes' search on the Internet found that the following entities all have agendas online stating that they will review an employee's compensation in executive session:
Cities:
- City of Bellaire
- City of Round Rock
- The Housing Authority of the City of El Paso
- City of Friendswood
- City of Columbus
- City of Garland
- Business Development Corporation of Vernon, Texas
- City of Midlothian
- City of Dumas
- City of Gonzales
- City of Parker
- City of Watauga
- City of Rosenberg
- City of Dallas
Counties:
- Personnel/Compensation Committee Meeting, Dallas County Schools Board of Trustees
- Board of Directors, Montgomery County Hospital District
School Districts
- Pflugerville ISD
- Marfa Independent School District
- Conroe Independent School District
Other Agencies:
- Seguin Economic Development Corporation
- Denison Development Alliance
And in addition, please note the following STATE OF TEXAS agencies who hold compensation discussions in executive session and openly talk about it on the Internet:
- Office of Rural Affairs
- Texas Transportation Commission
- Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation
- Texas Public Finance Authority
- Texas Commission on Fire Protection
- Texas Corn Producers Board
- College of the Mainland, Board of Trustees
- Board of Trustees, Employees Retirement System of Texas
- Department of Information Resources Board
- Texas Board of Architectural Examiners
- University of North Texas
- Board of Regents, University of Texas
If your interpretation were correct, do you really think that all of these local, county, school, and state agencies would be broadcasting their errors on the Internet?
Bill Keffler said the other night that if you looked, that you would find that every governmental body in Texas interprets 551.074 this way...it looks like he is right...
Or else you would have us believe that you, somehow, know better than the elected officials and legal staff of thousands of city councils, hundreds of counties and school districts, and dozens of state agencies?
If you are so confident that you are correct and ALL these other thousands of people are wrong, why don't you apply to the Attorney General and get him to make a ruling in your favor? Yeah, I didn't think so...it's easier for you to keep making anonymous postings repeating your flawed theories than to actually test your theory under your own name...
Bill
Post a Comment