Sunday, July 22, 2012

Some you win.

I am always amazed how condescending government employees can be when confronted with a public information act request. They explain how they do this every day and attend annual training on the subject.

Take a moment to consider Attorney General Request #459770. An arrest affidavit was requested and when furnished, it had been redacted. Requestor was of the opinion that a document on which a magistrate relied to make a probable cause determination was not subject to redaction.

Please note the person who determined requestor was not entitled to the information was not some lowly clerk making just above minimum wage. Ms. Cost is a licensed attorney and Assistant General Counsel for the Texas Department of Public Safety.

It should be noted the communication related to this request were very professional and no implication otherwise is intended.

The point of this write up is simply that if an attorney can be wrong, and an average citizen prevail in an interpretation of the Texas Public Information Act, why would you take the word of a clerk in your local police department? Why would you rely on the determination by a city manager or your commissioner?

DPS7-20-201202 DPS7-20-201203

It is pretty common for the Office of the Attorney General to “gig” an agency who makes a request that has already been answered. In the letter above, that “gig” is found in the next to the last paragraph.
I have not read the original request referenced in that paragraph but it appears someone put together a scheme to dispense with dealing with all the annoying public information act requests. It appears the plan was to have an opinion on had so they could simply reject a request with no further scrutiny. The AG doesn’t do that.

Photo of Phillip Adkins  So does it sound like General Counsel Phillip Adkins (pictured left) is following the spirit of the the Texas Public Information Act?

From the Act: The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.

You have to wonder if Phil ever read that part of the law.

No comments:

Post a Comment