It was one of those defining moments. It happened between an elected official and a reporter. At the heart of the discussion: the public's right to know. It centered around construction of a new county jail.
Here’s what happened: Elected officials wanted an opportunity to let the jail's designer and the sheriff talk openly about the jail. So, they set up a meeting which elected officials would attend and listen to the discussion, but at which no business would be transacted and no decisions made - two things the law strictly forbids. It was only later that word got out about the private session which some contended was not properly posted because it wasn't posted at all.
It brought a somewhat pointed discussion between the reporter and the official that went something like this: “I think you violated the Open Meetings Act. It was an official meeting in which a quorum was present without posting notice of that meeting or what you were going to discuss.”
“We weren’t discussing anything,” the official answered. “We were listening. We wanted to give the principal parties the opportunity to openly discuss their concerns about the new jail. As I read and interpret the law, it says that we cannot meet to transact business or make a decision without giving public notice. We did neither. We only wanted them to feel free to speak frankly without the fear that it would wind up on the evening newscast or the front page of the newspaper.”
“Then, they really weren’t ‘openly’ discussing it, were they?” the reporter argued. “They were discussing the expenditure of more than a million dollars of taxpayer money in a private meeting, out of the presence of taxpayers.”
“But no decisions were made and we were not part of the discussion," the official insisted.
“Says you,” retorted the agitated report. “I don’t know whether you were part of the discussion or made any decisions or not, do I? I just have to take your word for it. If you did violated the law, who stands to lose more than you by admitting it? I find it hard to believe that none of you discussed what was talked about today…or will discuss it further in the future. As for making a decision, I certainly believe that at some point what was talked about will manifest itself in some decision. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so. And the only defense that you will have will be if there was an impartial party in there representing the public.”
It was a spirited discussion and in the end, nothing was ultimately resolved. I take that back. I understand that both acknowledged the need for officials to be able to conduct business as they were elected to do, but at the same time to make sure the "public" is protected from potential abuses. It wasn't the first such confrontation and was a catalyst for the Ombudsman program. An ombudsman sits in closed meetings and makes sure the laws are upheld, but who is forbidden to disclose what is talked about except to the proper authorities.
On September 24th, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will defend the Texas Open Meetings Act against those who want to do public business behind closed doors. The suit is filed by two former members of the city council in Alpine, Avinash Rangra and Anna Monclova. According to prosecutors, Rangra sent emails to a quorum of city council members discussing official business. He was charged with conducting an illegal, closed meeting. The charges were later dropped, but Rangra and Monclova subsequently challenged the Texas Open Meetings Act in federal court, claiming it violates their guarantees under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The federal court initially rejected the argument, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later sent the case back to the lower court claiming it should be reviewed under a stricter standard of review. In his brief filed this week, this is what Attorney General Greg Abbott said:
“Elected officials work for the people. They do not have a First Amendment right against the very people they serve. They suffer no actionable First Amendment injury from being required to conduct public business in public, rather than in secret, to the exclusion of the voters who elected them to office in the first place. In short, open meeting laws expand, not suppress communication. Such laws do not limit public discourse – they broaden it. Open government is precisely what the First Amendment envisions, not condemns. Like virtually every open meeting law across the country … the Texas Open Meetings Act is based on a simple premise: Because the decisions of governmental bodies are made not on behalf of the members themselves, but on behalf of the people they serve, the people have the right to view the decision-making process.”
You know, for the record, there is no such thing as your "right" to know. It is sort of hinted at in that portion of the Bill of Rights that talks about government not making laws abridging your freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but there really is "right to know what is going on". And that seems okay for a lot of people.
Sometime it seems like we turn our heads and look the other way when we should be standing up and being counted. I think the Attorney General makes a great case for defending us from the abuses of ourselves. I guess ultimately the court will decide.
Downing Bolls
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
New Media: A Wake Up Call
We are becoming an “online” society.
You look at where the news is going these days and it’s obviously headed to the internet, where you can instantly access it. In fact, we are invited to instantly comment on the story or participate in some form of opinion survey or online poll. Not everyone wants your opinion, however. The internet is the latest platform for the criminal element and that want nothing more than to take what you have. We better wake up and recognize that fact before we all suffer some form of irreparable damage.
I got an email Sunday from Customer Relations with Bell Canada, Canada’s largest communications company. It was short and simple: “Dear costumer,” it began, “This e-mail was sent by Bell Canada to notify you that we have temporarily prevented access to your account. We have reasons to believe that your account may have been accessed by someone else. Please verify your details by following the link below…”
Wow, looks important. But I suspected a scam and did some checking (without clicking on the link, by the way) and sure enough found that it was an identity theft scam. Here is the first clue that something is wrong here: the word “costumer” is misspelled. It should be “customer”; not “costumer”. A "costumer" is someone who makes costumes. Then, there was that other thing: “Bell Canada”. I don’t know anybody in Canada and I certainly don’t have any sort of account with them. One can easily see, however, how someone might go ahead and click on the link just to find out what this is all about. Unfortunately, in doing so, you may already be allowing a hacker to cut into your personal information.
I came across this story dated February of 2008. “Bell Canada has become the latest company to fall victim to the growing problem of personal information theft. On Tuesday, the company reported that the personal information of more than 3.4 million customers in Ontario and Quebec had been recovered from the home of a Montreal man. The case highlights a growing problem for businesses, as thieves continue to target large corporations for the personal information stored in their databases. The information could be sold to marketing firms, or used to commit identity theft.”
The story goes on to report that studies released in 2007 by the Ponemon Institute, a research organization specializing in privacy and security, show more than 85 per cent of businesses in the U.S. are estimated to have experienced some sort of data breach within the past two years, and more than 49 per cent of all data breaches come from lost or stolen laptop computers or USB memory cards.
Bell was at a loss to explain how the man in the Montreal case obtained the information found on a computer seized from his home — about 170,000 unlisted and unlisted phone numbers, names and a description of all the Bell services a person subscribes to. Maybe people just gave it to him.
It’s time for consumers to wake up and start being a little smarter about their online use. Here at KRBC, we have a rule: if you personally don’t know who and email is from, don’t open it. If it doesn’t have a “subject” entry, don’t open it. In no circumstance should you download anything that you are suspicious of. Oh, and one final note: if companies have a problem with your account, they will notify you by registered mail, not email.
It’s time to wake up and wise up.
You look at where the news is going these days and it’s obviously headed to the internet, where you can instantly access it. In fact, we are invited to instantly comment on the story or participate in some form of opinion survey or online poll. Not everyone wants your opinion, however. The internet is the latest platform for the criminal element and that want nothing more than to take what you have. We better wake up and recognize that fact before we all suffer some form of irreparable damage.
I got an email Sunday from Customer Relations with Bell Canada, Canada’s largest communications company. It was short and simple: “Dear costumer,” it began, “This e-mail was sent by Bell Canada to notify you that we have temporarily prevented access to your account. We have reasons to believe that your account may have been accessed by someone else. Please verify your details by following the link below…”
Wow, looks important. But I suspected a scam and did some checking (without clicking on the link, by the way) and sure enough found that it was an identity theft scam. Here is the first clue that something is wrong here: the word “costumer” is misspelled. It should be “customer”; not “costumer”. A "costumer" is someone who makes costumes. Then, there was that other thing: “Bell Canada”. I don’t know anybody in Canada and I certainly don’t have any sort of account with them. One can easily see, however, how someone might go ahead and click on the link just to find out what this is all about. Unfortunately, in doing so, you may already be allowing a hacker to cut into your personal information.
I came across this story dated February of 2008. “Bell Canada has become the latest company to fall victim to the growing problem of personal information theft. On Tuesday, the company reported that the personal information of more than 3.4 million customers in Ontario and Quebec had been recovered from the home of a Montreal man. The case highlights a growing problem for businesses, as thieves continue to target large corporations for the personal information stored in their databases. The information could be sold to marketing firms, or used to commit identity theft.”
The story goes on to report that studies released in 2007 by the Ponemon Institute, a research organization specializing in privacy and security, show more than 85 per cent of businesses in the U.S. are estimated to have experienced some sort of data breach within the past two years, and more than 49 per cent of all data breaches come from lost or stolen laptop computers or USB memory cards.
Bell was at a loss to explain how the man in the Montreal case obtained the information found on a computer seized from his home — about 170,000 unlisted and unlisted phone numbers, names and a description of all the Bell services a person subscribes to. Maybe people just gave it to him.
It’s time for consumers to wake up and start being a little smarter about their online use. Here at KRBC, we have a rule: if you personally don’t know who and email is from, don’t open it. If it doesn’t have a “subject” entry, don’t open it. In no circumstance should you download anything that you are suspicious of. Oh, and one final note: if companies have a problem with your account, they will notify you by registered mail, not email.
It’s time to wake up and wise up.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Dish It to Downing: There Are Always Consequences
A viewer contacted me the other day about a new state law that takes effect on September first than bans the use of cells phones and other electronic devices in school zones.
I told him that I knew a lot of local cities were looking at such bans and that the Texas Legislature had passed a bill addressing the problem, but I hadn’t heard if it had been signed into law by the governor. Obviously, it had and with little or no media coverage.
Here is what it does: it bans the use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices in school zones during times those school zones are active. It doesn’t ban their use outside of those times. Nor does it block the driver from using them when the car is stopped. You just can't be driving and talking at the same time. That means that from about 7:15 to 8:30 each morning and from about 2:15 to 3:30 in the afternoon, you can’t be on your cell phone, I-phone, blackberry, or any other communication device talking, testing, playing games, or anything else when you are driving through a school zone.
He asked me what I thought of that law and after giving it some thought it occurred to me that it’s a law that is probably needed, unfortunately, to protect us from ourselves.
It amazes me that people think driving is some kind of constitutionally guaranteed right in this country. It’s not. It’s a privilege and like all privileges, it can be taken away if you show you can’t handle the freedom of having it. That was one of the first things I learned as a child and even more so as a teenager. It’s all about actions and consequences, responsibility and irresponsibility. Unlike being grounded for a month, though, we are seeing increasing signs that people just don’t think before they act. I have to tell you, most of the people I see on cell phones while they are driving are adults: not teenagers, and adults should know better. My daughter is all grown-up now and has a night job. She calls me each night, usually on the way home from work, and I nearly always lovingly scold her about her talking on a cell phone while she is driving. It was the first lesson I ever gave her in learning to drive and a rule she knows by heart because she had to repeat it to me so many times. Here’s the rule: THIS IS A MOTOR VEHICLE AND IT CAN BRING YOU LOTS OF FREEDOM AND ENJOYMENT. IT CAN ALSO KILL YOU – OR SOMEONE ELSE -- WHEN IT IS NOT USED PROPERLY. When you are driving, you are responsible for the safe operation of your caR and the safety of everyone that is in it. Driving safely is your job and it is your only job. It is more important than applying make-up, talking on a cell phone, talking with other passengers, tuning the radio, changing CDs, or thinking about anything other than safety.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh for the first lesson, but it is more of a lesson than most people have apparently gotten.
I was painfully reminded of that earlier this week when a man riding on the hood of a pick-up truck lost his balance, fell forward, and was run over and killed. It was a senseless loss of life and an accident that could have – and should have - been prevented. He was 37-years old and should have known better. The driver of the truck was 48-year old and will probably stand trial for intoxicated manslaughter. He certainly should have known better. This accident didn’t happen on some deserted dirt road. It took place on one of Abilene’s busiest streets and at night when visibility of marginal at best. The victim became the 10th traffic fatality of the year here in Abilene and the 7th in an accident involving alcohol. With more than 300 drunk driving arrests already this year, Abilene is well on its way to setting a new record for DWI arrests.
Here’s the thing: police will be the first to tell you that there are not more drunk drivers out there; the police are just doing a better job of catching them and getting them off the road. It’s about time, too. Several years ago a drunk behind the wheel of a pick-up truck lost control of his vehicle, crossed a raised median and slammed into the front of KRBC. Had that happened during working hours, it would have killed the person sitting at her desk doing her job. So, like the new law or not, it's probably necessary, although I'm really perplexed as to why. It seems so simple: when you drive through a working school zone, hang up the phone, turn off the I-phone (or at least put the call on hold), stop “texting” and pay attention to your driving. People are taking chances these days with little thought of the consequences. But understand: there are consequences. There always are.
Downing Bolls
I told him that I knew a lot of local cities were looking at such bans and that the Texas Legislature had passed a bill addressing the problem, but I hadn’t heard if it had been signed into law by the governor. Obviously, it had and with little or no media coverage.
Here is what it does: it bans the use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices in school zones during times those school zones are active. It doesn’t ban their use outside of those times. Nor does it block the driver from using them when the car is stopped. You just can't be driving and talking at the same time. That means that from about 7:15 to 8:30 each morning and from about 2:15 to 3:30 in the afternoon, you can’t be on your cell phone, I-phone, blackberry, or any other communication device talking, testing, playing games, or anything else when you are driving through a school zone.
He asked me what I thought of that law and after giving it some thought it occurred to me that it’s a law that is probably needed, unfortunately, to protect us from ourselves.
It amazes me that people think driving is some kind of constitutionally guaranteed right in this country. It’s not. It’s a privilege and like all privileges, it can be taken away if you show you can’t handle the freedom of having it. That was one of the first things I learned as a child and even more so as a teenager. It’s all about actions and consequences, responsibility and irresponsibility. Unlike being grounded for a month, though, we are seeing increasing signs that people just don’t think before they act. I have to tell you, most of the people I see on cell phones while they are driving are adults: not teenagers, and adults should know better. My daughter is all grown-up now and has a night job. She calls me each night, usually on the way home from work, and I nearly always lovingly scold her about her talking on a cell phone while she is driving. It was the first lesson I ever gave her in learning to drive and a rule she knows by heart because she had to repeat it to me so many times. Here’s the rule: THIS IS A MOTOR VEHICLE AND IT CAN BRING YOU LOTS OF FREEDOM AND ENJOYMENT. IT CAN ALSO KILL YOU – OR SOMEONE ELSE -- WHEN IT IS NOT USED PROPERLY. When you are driving, you are responsible for the safe operation of your caR and the safety of everyone that is in it. Driving safely is your job and it is your only job. It is more important than applying make-up, talking on a cell phone, talking with other passengers, tuning the radio, changing CDs, or thinking about anything other than safety.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh for the first lesson, but it is more of a lesson than most people have apparently gotten.
I was painfully reminded of that earlier this week when a man riding on the hood of a pick-up truck lost his balance, fell forward, and was run over and killed. It was a senseless loss of life and an accident that could have – and should have - been prevented. He was 37-years old and should have known better. The driver of the truck was 48-year old and will probably stand trial for intoxicated manslaughter. He certainly should have known better. This accident didn’t happen on some deserted dirt road. It took place on one of Abilene’s busiest streets and at night when visibility of marginal at best. The victim became the 10th traffic fatality of the year here in Abilene and the 7th in an accident involving alcohol. With more than 300 drunk driving arrests already this year, Abilene is well on its way to setting a new record for DWI arrests.
Here’s the thing: police will be the first to tell you that there are not more drunk drivers out there; the police are just doing a better job of catching them and getting them off the road. It’s about time, too. Several years ago a drunk behind the wheel of a pick-up truck lost control of his vehicle, crossed a raised median and slammed into the front of KRBC. Had that happened during working hours, it would have killed the person sitting at her desk doing her job. So, like the new law or not, it's probably necessary, although I'm really perplexed as to why. It seems so simple: when you drive through a working school zone, hang up the phone, turn off the I-phone (or at least put the call on hold), stop “texting” and pay attention to your driving. People are taking chances these days with little thought of the consequences. But understand: there are consequences. There always are.
Downing Bolls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)