Open Meetings laws challenged

Viewpoints

November 20, 2009

Phil Riddle, Democrat Editor

Anonymous The Weatherford Democrat Fri Nov 20, 2009, 02:43 PM CST

It is the slipperiest of slopes on which more than 20 city councils in Texas have decided to tread.

Alpine, Pflugerville and Rockport city fathers are challenging a state law requiring open government meetings.

According to reports, Lewisville, Carollton, Boerne and 15 others have also joined the lawsuit.

How can this happen, ever, but especially in our current political climate?

In Red State Texas, voters are openly upset with the way government is being run. A lack of trust, discontent with decisions being made on their behalf and the feeling they are being ignored permeates poll and survey results across the country, as well as the Lone Star State.

Open meeting laws are necessary for constituents to keep a finger on the pulse of govenrment entities. Without them, the absolutely necessary accountability is gone.

The laws are not on the books to harass councils attempting to do a difficult, often thankless job. They include regulations which force the publishing of agendas within a specified time frame, specific agenda items to be discussed at meetings, and forbid the gathering of councils to make official decisions without the aformentioned published agenda.

We cannot abide boards, panels and commissions doing business with ever-growing piles of tax money without having to answer, face-to-face, for their decisions.

The oppotunity to participate in our government and to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Let me be clear, no mention of joining the lawsuit has been made by a Weatherford or Parker County officials.

But the movement is getting closer.

Besides the Metroplex communities listed as ready to join the suit, the City of Abilene is considering becoming part of the legislative revolt.

Earlier this week, Abilene Council members, faced with a request to join the suit, voted 4-3 to table the issue. Which means it will come up again, possibly when there is less publicity surrounding the vote.

Thankfully, the courts have, thus far, supported the laws intended to keep politics as open as possible. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a similar lawsuit in October, that had been filed by Alpine council members. The Alpine City Attorney has voiced plans to re-introduce the suit in Pecos before the end of the year.

One question must be asked.

Why?

Why do the councils of these cities feel the need to conduct their business behind doors closed to the people funding their decisions?

Whatever the answer, it’s not good enough.

Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. said officials have nothing to fear from present law if they’re “doing business out in the open.”

If they are not doing their business in the open, it is the taxpayers and constituents who may need to fear.

Phil Riddle

Text Only

The Komen Foundation recently cut ties (before announcing they would reinstate them) with Planned Parenthood and stopped funding breast cancer screenings — was that a good thing?

Viewpoints

Search Results