Dish It to Downing: Defending Your Right to Know

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