Posted 6:25 am Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Commissioners Vote on Lawsuit Against Attorney General's Office
By ADAM RUSSELL
Staff Writer
The Smith County Commissioners Court voted unanimously during its Monday meeting to assist in filing a lawsuit against the Texas Attorney General's Office in response to a ruling that would effectively make all county jail plan documents, including detailed schematics, public.
The county has until Oct. 16 to file the lawsuit in Travis County (Austin). Commissioners also approved $1,500 for any expenses, court costs or local legal representation that may be required to proceed with the lawsuit.
The court deliberated in executive session with Assistant District Attorney Stan Springerley and Sheriff J.B. Smith and determined that they would support the sheriff's opinion that releasing the floor plans would pose a hazard to his officers and citizens.
Smith said he had been in contact with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and the Sheriff's Association of Texas, and all agree that not appealing the office's ruling could have state and nation-wide ramifications.
"We are going to object to (the ruling) and have to see that (the lawsuit) is filed," Smith said after the vote. "It's good that (the court) is in full support of objecting to this opinion. I am not going to allow the release of the security plans of the jail unless I have a court order in my hand and I am forced to.
The decision was levied after the county requested a ruling by the attorney general to clarify any ambiguity within the Public Information Act regarding the confidentiality of security schematics due to security concerns.
In a letter to Springerley, who advises the Commissioner's Court on actions, the attorney general's office threw out Springerley's argument that "executive session will be necessary to 'ensure that there are adequate security features for the new facility'" and ruled that the requested information "must be released."
Springerley said, in the courtroom on Monday, that the Texas Public Information Act is broadly drafted and many confidentiality protections exist within it including, jail physical information, social security numbers, criminal justice records specific to an individual case and judicial records but said security schematics are not listed as protected.
He said he does not fault the panel that made the decision because there is ambiguity in the law that needs to be addressed by a court, the TCJS, or by the Texas Legislature.
A decision by the attorney general's office is processed by a panel of assistants and can be appealed while an opinion is signed by the Attorney General Greg Abbott. The Oct. 6 decision was signed by Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division Christina Alvarado.
The county requested the ruling in response to a public information request filed in July by local lawyer and member of the "What Part of No Don't You Understand?" political action committee Ken Good.
Good said he requested "any and all documents pertaining to the plans for the new jail" and has received none. Generalized jail plans have been released to the public and were printed in the Tyler Morning Telegraph July 30.
Good said he filed the public information request to expose violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act by County Judge Joel Baker and JoAnn Fleming.
Springerley said Abbott filed a 2007 opinion focusing on the definition of a meeting.
"A meeting, and this is a quote (from the opinion) 'an advisory committee without authority,' for example the authority to enter into contract, 'does not hold a meeting under the Open Meetings Act and is not subject to the Act,'" Springerley said. "It doesn't turn on the question of whether you call a meeting or not, it turns on the question of the formality, it turns on the question of if there is a quorum, it turns on the question of contracting power."
He said the key point is that the committee did not "start from scratch, they reduced the scope of the project" and "they reduced the amount of the money for the project."
There was no quorum, the committee had not been appointed by the court and had no contracting power.
Good addressed the court during public session and asked that the court file a request for clarification from the Attorney General regarding the meetings.
"I would be more than happy to do that," Baker said.
After the meeting, Good said he expects the attorney general's opinion will be that a violation did occur.
Baker said, after the meeting, he was confident the meetings were appropriate under the Open Meetings Act and that he would ask Springerley to request an opinion on them by the Attorney General.
"We asked for (Springerley's) opinion before, during and after the meetings took place," he said.
Smith said he had been in contact with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and the Sheriff's Association of Texas, and all agree that not appealing the office's ruling could have state and nation-wide ramifications.
"We are going to object to (the ruling) and have to see that (the lawsuit) is filed," Smith said after the vote. "It's good that (the court) is in full support of objecting to this opinion. I am not going to allow the release of the security plans of the jail unless I have a court order in my hand and I am forced to.
The decision was levied after the county requested a ruling by the attorney general to clarify any ambiguity within the Public Information Act regarding the confidentiality of security schematics due to security concerns.
In a letter to Springerley, who advises the Commissioner's Court on actions, the attorney general's office threw out Springerley's argument that "executive session will be necessary to 'ensure that there are adequate security features for the new facility'" and ruled that the requested information "must be released."
Springerley said, in the courtroom on Monday, that the Texas Public Information Act is broadly drafted and many confidentiality protections exist within it including, jail physical information, social security numbers, criminal justice records specific to an individual case and judicial records but said security schematics are not listed as protected.
He said he does not fault the panel that made the decision because there is ambiguity in the law that needs to be addressed by a court, the TCJS, or by the Texas Legislature.
A decision by the attorney general's office is processed by a panel of assistants and can be appealed while an opinion is signed by the Attorney General Greg Abbott. The Oct. 6 decision was signed by Assistant Attorney General Open Records Division Christina Alvarado.
The county requested the ruling in response to a public information request filed in July by local lawyer and member of the "What Part of No Don't You Understand?" political action committee Ken Good.
Good said he requested "any and all documents pertaining to the plans for the new jail" and has received none. Generalized jail plans have been released to the public and were printed in the Tyler Morning Telegraph July 30.
Good said he filed the public information request to expose violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act by County Judge Joel Baker and JoAnn Fleming.
Springerley said Abbott filed a 2007 opinion focusing on the definition of a meeting.
"A meeting, and this is a quote (from the opinion) 'an advisory committee without authority,' for example the authority to enter into contract, 'does not hold a meeting under the Open Meetings Act and is not subject to the Act,'" Springerley said. "It doesn't turn on the question of whether you call a meeting or not, it turns on the question of the formality, it turns on the question of if there is a quorum, it turns on the question of contracting power."
He said the key point is that the committee did not "start from scratch, they reduced the scope of the project" and "they reduced the amount of the money for the project."
There was no quorum, the committee had not been appointed by the court and had no contracting power.
Good addressed the court during public session and asked that the court file a request for clarification from the Attorney General regarding the meetings.
"I would be more than happy to do that," Baker said.
After the meeting, Good said he expects the attorney general's opinion will be that a violation did occur.
Baker said, after the meeting, he was confident the meetings were appropriate under the Open Meetings Act and that he would ask Springerley to request an opinion on them by the Attorney General.
"We asked for (Springerley's) opinion before, during and after the meetings took place," he said.
