fbpx

Public Information

Auditor faults Austin’s public information process

The City Council’s Audit and Finance Committee spent less than 20 minutes this morning listening to and discussing a presentation by the City’s Audit...

Law Enforcement Lobby Blocking Family Access to Info About Deceased Suspects

Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas persuades Governor Abbott’s office to threaten veto A House amendment to legislation that would have eliminated an existing exception...

Court Guts Open Meetings Act

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturns conspiracy provision enacted in 1973 The nine-member Court of Criminal Appeals today delivered a brutal blow to the public’s...

Appeals Court Demands E-mail Release

The Austin-based Third Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision that e-mails sent or received by a county commissioner Adkisson are public records and must be released to the requestor.

Commissioner Daugherty’s Criminal Case Delayed

Criminal complaint concerns an alleged violation of the Texas Public Information Act for not turning ove correspondence related to the proposed controversial State Highway 45 Southwest.

Chris Riley Nailed for Back Taxes

Chris Riley Nailed for Back Taxes

Council member had a homestead exemption
on his entire house, including two rental units

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:03pm
Updated Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:25am to add additional document links

Chris RileyIn January 2002, Council Member Chris Riley bought a house at 1310 San Antonio Street in downtown Austin. For 11 years he enjoyed a homestead for the entire property—despite the fact that two upstairs units have been rented for most if not all those years.

An anonymous complaint filed with the Travis Central Appraisal District June 20 resulted in removal of the homestead exemption for the 46 percent of the property that is rented. Riley retains the right to claim 54 percent of the property for his homestead.

Yesterday Riley responded to an inquiry from The Austin Bulldog and provided a copy of an e-mail he sent to the Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) June 19, 2014, the day he found out about the complaint.

“I was made aware of this issue via a constituent letter received by my office on June 19, 2014,” Riley stated in his response to our inquiry. “I immediately called TCAD about it, and based on their instructions I sent the following e-mail that night.” (A copy of Riley’s e-mail received by the appraisal district is linked at the bottom of this story.)

The Travis County Tax Office billed Riley for $7,294.87 for back taxes for the tax years 2009 through 2013. Riley paid that amount August 15, said Susan Zavala, tax supervisor for property tax collections in the Travis County Tax Office.

Although Riley paid back taxes for the years 2009 through 2013, he was not billed for $1,208.21 that he would otherwise have owed for the tax years 2003 through 2008, because the law permits removal or reduction of a homestead exemption for only five years.

Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues

Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues

 Key issue is whether it is permissible to
redact officials’ private e-mail addresses

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2013
Posted Friday June 7, 2013 11:25am

How could you find out if Austin City Council members participated in an illegal quorum discussion about city business using their private e-mail accounts—a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act?

The short answer is: you can’t.

Under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) you may request copies of e-mails exchanged by public officials about public business and you would be entitled to get them—including e-mails sent or received on private accounts (although in the past, the private-accounts issue has been a matter of legal contention).

But the e-mails you get from the public officials’ private e-mail accounts would not include their private e-mail addresses. Those addresses would be blacked out, redacted—to the point you would not be able to determine who sent or received a given e-mail, or whether a quorum of the governing board had illegally participated.

That was what The Austin Bulldog encountered in 2011, in response to a public information request for the e-mails about government business exchanged by the mayor and council members.

The Austin Bulldog eventually obtained copies of e-mails about government business exchanged by these elected officials using their private e-mail accounts—but only after filing a lawsuit to get them.

Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws

Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws

Attorneys criticize criminal penalties and public
access to elected officials’ private e-mail accounts

Part 3 of a 3-Part Series

by Ken Martin
© 2013 The Austin Bulldog
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:00am

The audience was indeed sparse but two lawyers were nonetheless passionate in addressing what they perceived to be improper actions by the Texas Attorney General in how his office enforces the Texas Public Information Act and how prosecutors enforce the Texas Open Meetings Act. Both attorneys have fought what so far have been losing battles in court over these issues.

A third attorney on the panel titled “Open Government: Litigation Developments” (click the link to watch the video) provided an analysis of the inconsistencies in decisions rendered by Texas courts with respect to how the Texas Public Information Act applies to the ability of requestors to obtain records involving public-private partnerships.

Jacqueline CullomAfter being introduced by Assistant City Attorney Jacqueline Cullom at the City of Austin’s Open Government Symposium held April 17 at City Hall, these attorneys individually provided their interpretations of how the Act plays out in actual practice.

Criminal penalties unnecessary, McKamie argues

Mick McKamieAttorney Mick McKamie of the San Antonio-based firm McKamie Krueger LLP (with offices in Austin, Dallas, and Laredo) led off the discussion. He was co-lead counsel in the plaintiff’s appeal in Asgeirsson el at v. Abbott (No. 11-50441) that was recently denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That case involved 15 elected officials who contend the Texas Open Meetings Act’s criminal penalties established in Government Code Section 551.144 (for knowingly participating in a closed meeting that is not permitted) violate the officials’ First Amendment rights. The possible punishment includes a fine of $100 to $500, confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six months, or both the fine and confinement.