Perry signed these open government and First Amendment protection bills Friday. They are among the major legislation supported [...]]]> Legislation updating the Texas Public Information Act and Texas Open Meetings Act along with measures that further protect freedom of speech and the press have been signed by Gov. Rick Perry and will become state law.

Perry signed these open government and First Amendment protection bills Friday. They are among the major legislation supported by the non-profit Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas during the 2013 regular legislative session, which concluded May 27.

Here are some of the leading open government bills signed into law:

SB 1368: Modernizes the Texas Public Information Act by specifying that electronic messages dealing with official business are public and providing that contracts between a state governmental entity and a vendor involving the exchange or creation of public information contain a provision that requires the vendor to make the information publicly available. (SB 1368 was authored by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, and sponsored by Rep. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston. It was amended with the electronic communication language of SB 1563, authored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and sponsored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi.)

SB 1297: Allows members of a governmental body to communicate in writing about official business between meetings on a publicly accessible, real-time online message board. (Authored by Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and sponsored by Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas.)

HB 1759: Provides a framework for someone who believes he or she has been defamed in a publication or broadcast to come forward in a timely fashion to request a retraction, correction or clarification or else seek only limited civil damages. (Authored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, and sponsored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.)

HB 2935: Clarifies the right to appeal protection for whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers in lawsuits filed with the intent of clamping down on free speech. (Authored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, and sponsored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.)

Continuing demands by a University of Texas System regent for records from the Austin campus amount to an “abuse of power,” according to two fellow regents.

Regents R. Steven Hicks and Robert Stillwell charged in emails this week that the actions of Regent [...]]]> Ralph K.M. Haurwitz, Austin American-Statesman
Originally published on June 12, 2013

Continuing demands by a University of Texas System regent for records from the Austin campus amount to an “abuse of power,” according to two fellow regents.

Regents R. Steven Hicks and Robert Stillwell charged in emails this week that the actions of Regent Wallace Hall Jr. are intended to discredit the leadership of UT-Austin.

The emails, copies of which were obtained by the American-Statesman, signal stepped-up internal strife on what is arguably the most prestigious of hundreds of boards and commissions in state government. The UT System Board of Regents oversees 15 academic and health campuses, 216,000 students, a $14 billion operating budget and about $30 billion in higher education endowments and other funds.

Hall is seeking emails and other records involving UT-Austin President Bill Powers, Powers’ deputy Nancy Brazzil, the School of Law, the Law School Foundation, current and former elected officials, leaders of a coalition formed to defend UT-Austin and regents.

Hall previously obtained dozens of boxes of open-records materials dating back more than two years from the Austin campus.

Hicks said in an email to regents Chairman Gene Powell and other regents that Hall’s actions constitute “an abuse of power and are clearly targeted to discredit the leadership of our flagship institution. Is there any action that you as Chairman can take to put a stop to this witch hunt? It reflects poorly on the Board as a whole and might lead to more actions to limit our authority in the future.”

Powell said he has been assured by the board’s general counsel that Hall’s requests for records do not violate any law or policy.

Hall, in a statement first reported by the Texas Tribune, said: “This is the first I’ve heard of Regent Hicks’ email, but it is inconceivable to me how a request for transparency for legitimate board purposes is an abuse of power.”

Stillwell said in an email to fellow regents that he endorses Hicks’ views.

“In our context, and going back to the beginnings of this whole mess, how ‘transparent’ was dropping Rick O’Donnell in our midst to carry out his long-planned agenda?” Stillwell wrote. “That seemed pretty sneaky at the time, at least to me.”

Stillwell was referring to Powell’s surprise hiring in 2011 of a special adviser to the regents who put together an exhaustive list of every faculty member’s compensation, teaching load and other matters in a much-criticized effort to assess faculty productivity.

Powers was outspoken in asserting that the information took no account of the quality of teaching and research.

State lawmakers became so frustrated with what they called micromanagement of UT-Austin and Powers by some regents that they approved legislation last month that would scale back some of the authority of the state’s 11 boards of regents. For example, a board could not fire a campus president unless the system’s chancellor had recommended doing so.

Sunday is the last day that Gov. Rick Perry, who appointed all of the state’s regents, can sign Senate Bill 15, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.

The state attorney general’s office is investigating the Law School and the foundation following disclosure of a since-discontinued program of forgivable loans to faculty members. The UT board had voted to hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation but agreed under pressure from lawmakers to ask Attorney General Greg Abbott instead.

FOIFT board members from across the state testified in favor of these leading open government proposals and [...]]]> AUSTIN _ Texans will gain greater access to the records and actions of their public officials under several measures supported by the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (FOIFT) and approved in the 83^rd Legislature.

FOIFT board members from across the state testified in favor of these leading open government proposals and First Amendment protections that won House and Senate passage, and now head to Gov. Rick Perry.

“This is a tremendous step forward,” said Laura Prather, a First Amendment attorney with Haynes and Boone. “We applaud the lawmakers who worked so hard to pass these bills. The people of Texas are the winners because more light will shine on the workings of our government.”

Among the session’s open government successes is an update of the Texas Public Information Act, bringing it into the modern age and codifying attorney general decisions about its application so as to avoid future confusion and wasting of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary litigation. Electronic communications relating to official business would be accessible by law to the public, even if sent from a private email account or mobile device.  And, contracts between a state governmental entity and a vendor involving the exchange or creation of public information will be made available to the public.

The attorney general’s office has already ruled that such information is public. The newly passed legislation – championed by longstanding First Amendment proponents, Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi – codifies the attorney general rulings into state law as part of the 40-year-old Texas Public Information Act.

“When the law was originally written, there were no such things as email and text messages,” Prather explained.

Lawmakers approved a bill authored by Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and sponsored by Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, allowing members of a governmental body to communicate in writing between meetings through a publicly accessible online message board without violating the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Another notable piece of approved legislation protecting free speech would encourage those who believe they were defamed in a publication or broadcast to come forward early to request a correction or clarification, thereby reducing any perceived damage and limiting the number of libel lawsuits.

Yet another successful measure clarifies the already existing appeals provision in the anti-SLAPP statute passed in 2011 that aims to protect whistleblowers, news reporters and individuals exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out about matters of public concern. The existing law allows the dismissal of frivolous court cases known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” or SLAPP suits.  The clarification solidifies a movant’s right to quickly appeal a judge’s decision not to dismiss a case.

Overall, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas tracked and spoke out on more than 150 bills during the session that were aimed at further opening government or that threatened to close off public information.

“The people have a right to know what their government is doing,” said Arif Panju, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. “The First Amendment protects all speech, including political speech to facilitate self-government, and its exercise depends on access to government information.”

Laura Prather and Arif Panju serve as board members of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and co-chair its legislative committee.  The FOIFT is a non-profit organization that promotes open government and the First Amendment.  Since 1978, the foundation’s goal has been to ensure the public’s business is conducted in public.

Follow the FOI Foundation on Facebook and on Twitter @TxFOIFT.

                                                          ***

KEY OPEN GOVERNMENT BILLS, 83^rd LEGISLATURE

SB 1368: Modernizes the Texas Public Information Act by specifying that electronic messages dealing with official business are public and providing that contracts between a state governmental entity and a vendor involving the exchange or creation of public information contain a provision that requires the vendor to make the information publicly available. (SB 1368 was authored by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, and sponsored by Rep. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston. It was amended with the electronic communication language of SB 1563, authored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and sponsored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi.)

SB 1297: Allows members of a governmental body to communicate in writing about official business between meetings on a publicly accessible, real-time online message board. (Authored by Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and sponsored by Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas.)

HB 1759: Provides a framework for someone who believes he or she has been defamed in a publication or broadcast to come forward in a timely fashion to request a retraction, correction or clarification or else seek only limited civil damages. (Authored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, and sponsored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.)

HB 2935: Clarifies the right to appeal protection for whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers in lawsuits filed with the intent of clamping down on free speech. (Authored by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, and sponsored by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.)

                                                                          ###

Contact: Kelley Shannon, Executive Director

kelley.shannon@foift.org

Mobile: 512-914-9222

Originally published by the Galveston County Daily News on May 24, 2013

GALVESTON — The city council Thursday voted to hold a special meeting next week to discuss their legal options against The Daily News after an article unveiling the city’s plans for potential legal action over [...]]]> By JOHN WAYNE FERGUSON

Originally published by the Galveston County Daily News on May 24, 2013

GALVESTON — The city council Thursday voted to hold a special meeting next week to discuss their legal options against The Daily News after an article unveiling the city’s plans for potential legal action over future public housing on the island.

The Texas Senate and House have passed legislation that’s supposed to rein in judges who are abusing or misusing their authority.

It’s a problem KERA looked at last year in a special series, Texas Judges: Out of Order.

On the House floor last [...]]]> By Shelley Kofler
Originally published by KERA on May 21, 2013

If you’d like to come in early, on Thursday, Aug. [...]]]> The 2013 Bernard and Audre Rapoport State Conference is set for Friday, Aug. 9, at the Sheraton Austin – Capitol located at 701 E. 11th St. Conference in downtown Austin. For more information on registration, contact the FOIFT office at 512.377.1575 or email us at foift@foift.org.

If you’d like to come in early, on Thursday, Aug. 8, you can book a room now at the low rate of $159. If you’d like to stay the weekend – Friday, Aug. 9 and/or Saturday, Aug. 10 — the same rate will apply on a space available basis. For more information, Sheraton’s designated Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas web page.

This is one in a series of occasional stories about ethics and transparency in the part-time Texas Legislature.

All session long, freshman state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione has been clamoring for greater transparency, trying to force lawmakers and their relatives to disclose their contracts with government agencies and [...]]]> By Emily Ramshaw and Aman Batheja
Originally published, May 16, 2013 

This is one in a series of occasional stories about ethics and transparency in the part-time Texas Legislature.

All session long, freshman state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione has been clamoring for greater transparency, trying to force lawmakers and their relatives to disclose their contracts with government agencies and shine a light on closely held state pension benefits. When his first transparency bill got a committee hearing, his senior House colleagues effectively showed him the door.

But when it came time this week to vote on Senate Bill 346, a measure that would force certain tax-exempt, politically active nonprofits to disclose their donors, Capriglione, R-Southlake, was a “no.”

Capriglione said he voted against the bill — which ultimately passed the House without amendments to ensure its safe arrival to the governor’s desk — because it includes language that exempts labor unions. (It’s terminology the bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, had vowed to clean up in an omnibus ethics bill headed to the floor next week.)

“I would have voted for the bill if it didn’t have that exemption,” Capriglione said, “though still with concerns.”

Opposition to the bill from Michael Quinn Sullivan, a conservative activist whose nonprofit Texans for Fiscal Responsibility was a key backer of Capriglione’s campaign and of his transparency efforts, was much more pointed. In an email blast and several social media postings, Sullivan, whose group is a 501(c)(4) — the federal tax code category SB 346 is meant to apply to — called the bill an “Obama IRS-style attack” that would open up every donor to conservative groups to “vicious attack.”

In this session’s transparency fight, ethics watchdogs suggest there has been plenty of irony to go around.

The Legislature’s veteran Republicans — tired of Tea Party groups and far-right activists like Sullivan working to defeat them via politically active nonprofits — backed a bill requiring such groups to report their donors. But they intentionally let a bill to subject lawmakers and their relatives to greater financial scrutiny, Capriglione’s House Bill 524, die on the vine; it made it out of committee but never to the House floor.

“We’re subjecting them to transparency,” state Rep. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, said during House debate on SB 346 early this week. “Yet some in this body don’t want transparency that directly affects them.”

Meanwhile, Sullivan and other conservative activists actively promoted lawmaker transparency measures like Capriglione’s, but tried to defeat legislation requiring them to reveal their groups’ donors.

“The people that holler the most for transparency,” Geren said during debate on SB 346, “are the ones fighting it now.”

Reached via email, Sullivan said there was no contradiction.

“Pretending like they are the same is intellectually dishonest at best,” he said.

He argued that Capriglione’s lawmaker transparency bill, which would’ve required legislators to disclose government contracts with businesses in which they or their immediate family own at least a 50 percent stake, was “targeted at deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption.” Forcing certain politically engaged nonprofits to reveal their donors “is designed to thwart the right of citizens to engage in anonymous political speech,” Sullivan said.

“Those legislators who want to hide their contracts and family sweetheart deals are no doubt eager to make this dishonest comparison,” he added.

But Craig McDonald, executive director of the left-leaning money-in-politics group Texans for Public Justice, said it’s a fair comparison. His group is also a 501(c)(4) and will have to provide details about its donors under the legislation. He said the back-and-forth on the ethics bills working their way through the Legislature just goes to show that “transparency is good unless it applies to you.”

The full House may yet get a chance to vote on Capriglione’s government contracts measure; he has said he’ll offer it as an amendment on Monday to an omnibus bill to renew the Texas Ethics Commission. The donor disclosure bill will likely get another vote that day too. Geren has said he’ll offer it as an amendment to the Ethics Commission bill — without the exemption for labor unions — to give the measure a shot in the event Gov. Rick Perry vetoes SB 346.

There’s a decent chance Perry could nix that bill. The labor union exemption, which even the bill’s supporters suggest is problematic, could give the governor grounds for a veto.

 This is one in a series of occasional stories about ethics and transparency in the part-time Texas Legislature.

Six months before the Texas Legislature kicked into gear, Gov. Rick Perry told reporters that candidates for public office should be as “transparent” as they can possibly be with their [...]]]> By Emily Ramshaw, Texas Tribune
Originally published, May 1, 2013

 This is one in a series of occasional stories about ethics and transparency in the part-time Texas Legislature.

Six months before the Texas Legislature kicked into gear, Gov. Rick Perry told reporters that candidates for public office should be as “transparent” as they can possibly be with their personal financial interests.

It has remained the term du jour for state leaders this legislative session, used by everyone from House Speaker Joe Straus to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to endorse honesty in budgeting, improve grant-making in the state’s troubled cancer agency and get to the bottom of conflicts in higher education.

But with just four weeks remaining in the legislative session, there has been little to no pressure from the top — including key committee chairs — to pass measures that would force greater transparency upon Texas’ elected officials.

While Dewhurst has not been out promoting lawmaker transparency bills, the lieutenant governor said that “government transparency has always been a priority of mine.” He is supporting legislation the comptroller proposed to help taxpayers better understand state finances, and added that “the Legislature has also reacted strongly this session to [the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas'] lack of transparency as well as transparency issues with the UT Board of Regents.”

Straus said while he believes ethics reforms that directly affect lawmakers are important, he wants to “let the process work.” (The bill to reauthorize the Texas Ethics Commission, which could potentially be loaded up with transparency amendments, could hit the House floor as early as this week.) Straus also pointed to his own appointees to the board that oversees the Ethics Commission, and said he expected them “to take the lead on many of these issues.”

Perry wouldn’t comment on specific legislation. While he has voluntarily released his own tax returns for years, and said that “transparency and accountability to the people of Texas is extremely important to me,” he has stopped short of publicly backing measures that would force legislators to disclose more information.

Instead, he said, “Texans deserve a much higher level of transparency when it comes to their tax dollars. We need to make it easier for them follow how their hard earned dollars are spent in Austin.”

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, said it’s one thing to call for transparency in state government, another entirely to hold lawmakers to higher standards. “Anytime a bill impacts the legislators directly, it seems to go nowhere,” she said. “It shields us from transparency.”

Several bills in the House and Senate that would improve reporting on lawmakers’ outdated personal financial forms or put the archaic paper filings online haven’t even gotten hearings in the three committees where they’ve been referred: Senate State Affairs, House State Affairs and House Elections.

Three bipartisan bills aimed at slowing the revolving door that sends elected and appointed officials directly into the lobby appear jammed; two haven’t received hearings and one has been pending in committee for weeks.

And a measure with 25 co-authors that was nearly derailed during a tumultuous February hearing — Rep. Giovanni Capriglione’s bill to require lawmakers and their immediate families to report contracts with governmental entities — is still tangled up in House State Affairs. The Senate companion filed by Davis hasn’t gotten a hearing.

Asked about the fate of such ethics legislation, House State Affairs Committee Chairman Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, said it’s not that legislators are opposed to shining a bright light on their own affairs. “The whole issue with transparency is, let’s deal with it in a forthright manner,” he said. “If we’re going to advance transparency, let’s make sure we do it right.”

His Senate counterpart, State Affairs Chairman Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, said he’s not opposed to such measures, but that they should be executed in the context of comprehensive reform, rather than with “single-shot” bills from lawmakers fresh off the campaign trail.

“In the system of ethics reform that we operate under, I think most members believe that these single-shot bills shouldn’t be heard, and we shouldn’t deal with ethics reform on a piece-meal basis,” he said.

So far, the only “transparency” legislation getting real traction would establish interim studies on ethics, require elected officials who run for higher office (i.e., Perry) to cover their travel and security expenses with campaign funds and force politically active nonprofits to reveal the identities of their major donors. None of those bills change the level of disclosure for lawmakers themselves.

Capriglione, R-Southlake, expressed frustration with the process. He said that the lower chamber has already passed an interior decorating bill, but not meaningful transparency legislation. “I thought we’d be a lot farther along by this point, given the conversations we were having prior to the session,” he said.

A spokesman for Dewhurst said that while the lieutenant governor has disclosed his own personal finances (in the form of tax returns during his failed bid for U.S. Senate), legislating lawmaker transparency can be complicated. He noted that the Center for Public Integrity ranked Texas fourth for financial disclosure by lawmakers.

“Texas needs to require sufficient disclosure to allow voters to make informed decisions and help avoid conflicts of interest,” said Travis Considine, chief spokesman for Dewhurst. “But we don’t want to unnecessarily discourage good people from running for office because the process is too invasive for them and their family.”

WASHINGTON — States may have little reason to restrict public records access to their own residents, but the practice is not unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision, allowing Virginia to favor its residents under its Freedom of Information Act, goes against media organizations [...]]]> By Richard Wolf, USA Today
Originally posted, 4.29.13 

WASHINGTON — States may have little reason to restrict public records access to their own residents, but the practice is not unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision, allowing Virginia to favor its residents under its Freedom of Information Act, goes against media organizations and professional data miners that had sided with the law’s out-of-state challengers.

During oral arguments in February, several justices had questioned whether the state’s law served any purpose, since non-residents can hire residents to get information. In his ruling, Justice Samuel Alito noted much of the data is available on the Internet.

Still, Alito said, the state law “did not abridge any constitutionally protected privilege or immunity” because access to public records is not a “fundamental” privilege, such as employment.

While the Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause “forbids a state from intentionally giving its own citizens a competitive advantage in business or employment, the clause does not require that a state tailor its every action to avoid any incidental effect on out-of-state tradesmen,” Alito said.

The decision had been expected, since most of the justices’ questions during oral argument focused on the rights of states to favor their own residents. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted states can restrict who votes in their state. Justice Antonin Scalia said perhaps the state “didn’t want outlanders mucking around in Virginia government. Why isn’t that reasonable?”

The federal government and all 50 states have laws giving people the right to inspect some government records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The laws are used by journalists, researchers and a growing industry that mines data from government records, which are used to do everything from selling real estate to setting credit scores.

At least seven states restrict that right to residents of the state. Their laws are protected by the Supreme Court ruling, but it doesn’t necessarily extend to other state laws that treat residents differently from non-residents.

The challenge to Virginia’s law began when Mark McBurney, a Rhode Island resident who used to live in Virginia, asked state officials for copies of records he hoped would shed light on why they hadn’t enforced an order requiring his wife to pay child support. Officials rejected his request because he had moved to Rhode Island.

McBurney and another man, Roger Hurlbert of California, sued, arguing that the residents-only limit violated the Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause and amounted to an improper restriction on interstate commerce.

Gannett Co., USA TODAY’s parent company, joined an amicus brief asking the court to invalidate Virginia’s residents-only provision.