COMMENTARY
|
Hobby: |
Open government - with no strings
attached - |
Bill Hobby, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
Friday, November 27, 2009
In Texas, the law is clear. Governing bodies must conduct the people's
business in public or face serious penalties. The statute has protected the
public and elected representatives alike for the past 42 years with a basic
premise: Public bodies should deliberate in public.
The days of making backroom deals are a thing of the past because
the Legislature outlawed it by passing the Open Meetings Act in 1967, and
strengthening it in 1973.
Yet there are some serious and troubling actions that could open
the door for that very thing to recur. At least three Texas cities and the
Texas Municipal League are endorsing a legal challenge in the courts that will
render Texas' Open Meetings laws ineffective. TML, which is supported by your
tax money in the form of membership fees, is urging more than 1,100 Texas
cities to sign on to a federal lawsuit.
The details of the challenge are stated simply: Public officials
claim the Texas Open Meetings Act unconstitutionally restricts their right of
free speech under the First Amendment. Of course, they are free to say anything
they wish to anyone they wish at any time they wish. However, when they are
meeting as a quorum of a governmental body, they must say it in front of the
public at an open meeting.
More importantly, the First Amendment cannot be a shield to
prevent accountability of public officials.
TML wants criminal penalties such as jail time stripped from the
law, arguing that the language is too punitive and that "less restrictive
penalties would not only continue to preserve the integrity of the Texas Open
Meetings Act but would also recognize the fundamental right of city officials
to free speech."
In other words, if public officials break the law in the future by
conducting business in secret — i.e., exercising their rights to "free
speech" behind closed doors — a slap on the wrist
should be punishment enough.
It defies logic, and apparently not all of TML's members agree
with that position. As reported in The Brownsville Herald on Nov. 21, TML board
member and Mercedes Mayor Joel Quintanilla said, "Either I misunderstood
the entire meeting or something is happening. The way I understood it, we all
(board members) voted in favor of keeping the restrictive penalties, not
lessening them." He went on to say, "We didn't want elected officials
to get comfortable."
He was not the only one confused by TML's action. Mercedes City
Commissioner Ruben Guajardo is also quoted as saying, "The consensus (of
the TML Resolutions Committee) was that things were fine the way they were
(with the Texas Open Meetings Act) and that trying to reinvent the wheel was
not in the best interest of everyone involved. \u2026We (the resolutions
committee) felt that to change something (in the meetings act) was just not
correct. It really wasn't right. The consensus was to leave the Texas Meetings
Act the way it is."
I couldn't agree with Guajardo or Quintanilla more. As a member of
the public, I am left confused by what is happening and why.
Join me in supporting the idea that the Open Meetings Act should
be left intact and open government, with no strings attached, should continue
to be the law in Texas. Contact your city leaders and encourage them not to
join in an effort that could weaken open meetings laws.
If clarifications are needed to address modern-day changes such as
electronic and digital communications, then they should be made at the
statehouse — not city hall. At a minimum, point out to your public servants
that any discussion on this or any other issue involving "free
speech" should be debated in a public meeting instead of a rubber-stamp-style
vote to please lobbyists.
Hobby was Texas lieutenant governor from 1973-91.
Published in the Austin-American Statesman, November
27, 2009