Bright lights

The latest salvo in the battle between the University of Texas Austin, Board of Regents and the Texas legislature has landed on the desk of the State Attorney General Greg Abbott. The UT System Regents Chairman Gene Powell has asked for an Attorney General memorandum opinion on whether the Regents must comply with a request by the lawmakers to turn over documents.  Such a written opinion by the attorney general interprets a legal provision requested by a public official, but it is only advisory.

Texas, like other states, has open records laws or sunshine laws put in place in the early 1970s to give such access.  The laws give a “right-to-know” legal process that is free or low-cost so citizens can request government-held information and ensure government accountability.

So what’s the problem?

The Texas laws include a provision giving legislators privileged access to the documents, and lawmakers have requested information related to an investigation about UT-Austin Law School and an independent foundation. There are also allegations that the Board of Regents Chair, Gene Powell, is fighting for his job and that lawmakers are seeking to trim the Board’s power.  Lawmakers do not want an investigation, but the Regents do.

Looks some additional heat is coming from the Board itself as they convene  in a special meeting this week to discuss whether the Board should comply with the records request.  The state legislature can hold oversight hearings (meetings to review the actions) of the Board.

Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), Senate Higher Education Committee Chair may be hoping that some of the heat could be turned down, and he has suggested that Governor Perry address the issue directly by scheduling a meeting with all the concerned parties.  That makes sense, because Gov. Perry appointed all nine of the current Regents.

And speaking of trying to take the heat off, last week’s vote on women’s health care resulted in gains for 170,000 low-income women who will receive additional health care coverage under a compromise plan. The credit is being given to Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place) who worked to ensure bipartisan support.  Davis, a pro-life moderate on abortion issues when laws interfere with the doctor-patient relationship (the private consultations between both) also negotiated funding for the Women’s Health Program (the low-income program for family planning). That program had federal subsidies (financial support with tax dollars) pulled after Planned Parenthood clinics were removed from Texas’ health care programs.  Monies that were restored replace millions of dollars in federal family-planning dollars (called Title X a comprehensive family planning and contraceptive program) cut under the Obama administration.

How did Davis do it?

Through multiple negotiations she convinced her GOP colleagues that cutting funding for women’s health programs could alienate conservative women.  Closer public scrutiny might make it look like the Republican party didn’t care about women’s health care.

Sometimes maybe the glare of the lights is a good thing.

Let the sunshine in

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the state of Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) which requires that most local and state government meetings be held in public.  The 1967 law makes violating the act a misdemeanor crime punishable by a fine up to $500 and from one to six months in jail. TOMA is like all the other sunshine laws in different states that provide public access to governmental records and makes the decision-making process of government more visible to the general public.   These sunshine laws are sometimes called open records laws or public records laws, and there is also a federal counterpart in the federal Freedom of Information Act which mandates access to government records at the federal level.  Such laws are designed to allow the public to have greater contact with the work of government because deliberations must be made public.

Sounds good doesn’t it? The law provides greater accountability and requires that government have greater transparency about the decision-making process.  So what were the two public officials accused of doing?

It seems the two city council members were brought up on criminal charges under TOMA because they discussed the scheduling of a council meeting about a contract matter through emails in which 2 other council members were included.  Technically there was a quorum (the minimum number of members of a committee/organization who must be present for official business to be transacted) because there were four persons on the emails, so the appellate court found that the officials were conducting business on emails.  Those comments, the appeals court noted, should have been made in public meetings.

Attorney General Greg Abbott declared the decision a victory for open government, but the two city council members who were brought up on charges under TOMA said they will appeal (even though the charges were later dismissed) because their concern is that it violates their free speech rights.