The day after the employee Christmas Party the City of San Angelo restricted a key democratic right, access to public information about government operations. This Grinch-like move had been in the works for over four years.
City Council-member Tommy Hiebert wrote staff on August 21, 2018
Just to be certain I understand the request is to strengthen HB3107 as written and to add to that existing statute ... if they use 36+ hours of staff time in a fiscal year they then can be labeled vexatious and no further requests made for that fiscal year, correct?
Should the city council simply pass an ordinance stipulating the 36 hours rather than codifying it into state law? Or is there a matter for the greater good that if the state would simply state any municipality receiving requests totaling more the 36 hours that person is finished for the remainder of that fiscal year?
Deputy City Clerk Julia Antilley replied that day:
As currently written in Texas, once a requestor is labelled vexatious they can be charged for additional requests. For our office, charging an additional fee does not help. We would propose that once a requestor is labeled vexatious (after using 36+ hours of staff time within a fiscal year) they are unable to make future requests until the next fiscal year.
One week later Hiebert contacted Rep. Drew Darby's office with a request:
...was wanting to see if Drew would be open to strengthening HB 3107 that deals with vexatious open records requests. Vexatious open record requests are consuming more and more staff time. What is currently allowed is to charge for requests. While it is helpful to be able to charge, the real issue is the staff time consumed by vexatious requests.
In order to deal with the growing time component, it would be most helpful to have the law state after 30-35 hours of staff time which has been consumed by the vexatious requests of one individual, that specific individual could no longer make any open records requests for the remainder of the year.
If you might need further info or have questions, please feel free to call me.
Restricting access to public records was not discussed at City Council, not raised in any strategic planning session or any committee of City government. Rep. Drew Darby is a former City Councilperson. His office confirmed receipt of Hiebert's request in September 2018 and gave him a contact phone number.
The public first learned of this effort on Thursday, December 8, 2022 when the City Council background packet was released to the public. Anyone interested in challenging the proposed policy had no chance to obtain internal documents, like those excerpted above.
City Manager Daniel Valenzuela said during the 12-13-22 Council meeting:
"I know for a fact one individual at times, maybe not this year but previous years will have 7 to 15% of the requests that come through from this one individual....if you are that individual, you know who you are, requesting numerous per year and it's taking up a lot of staff time and it's effecting you, yes you."
Interested in knowing if Valenzuela was referring to me I reached out. Public Information Office Brian Groves wrote:
I do not have any information regarding this.
City Manager Valenzuela responded with:
I will neither confirm or deny that it was you that I was referencing.
Daniel's words have a rich history in the U.S.
The tricky evasion has become the bane of watchdogs and journalists -- but its utility for those seeking to keep things on the QT has withstood the test of time.
Valenzuela couldn't be open about his desire to be less open, which has secretly been in the works for over four years. Fitting.
Democracy is fragile. You have to fight for every bit, every law, every safeguard, every institution, every story. You must know how dangerous it is to suffer even the tiniest cut.--Maria Ressa
No comments:
Post a Comment