|
It depends on what the
definition of "Is" is.
This website was started because Betty Brown
refused to answer a constituent's letter asking for information about her record. Well, she finally responded--not
to my original letter of August 17, but to an open records request I sent on October 30. The problem? Betty
doesn't understand what the definition of "Is" is. Pulling a page out of Bill (or perhaps Hillary)
Clinton's playbook, her response was a remarkable display of evasion, obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of facts. On
November 2, 2007, the Athens Daily Review ran a front page story about Betty Brown's support for Proposition
11 (the recorded votes amendment): "Brown said, a key principle of democracy is open government and the voters'
ability to hold their elected officials accountable." [sic]
Three days before that quote ran in the
paper, on October 30, 2007, I had exercised the rights granted to citizens under Open Government laws and had faxed
an open records request to Betty's Austin office. Anyone can do the same thing; it's not a right reserved for
a select few. The request involved seven types of information, including state-paid-for phone records, schedules, correspondence,
and the like. After faxing it, I dropped the original in the mail to her local office.
In Texas, Open
Government laws mandate that an elected official respond to a request like this within 10 business days. The governing
body must either provide the information, give a date by which the information will be provided, or contact the Office of
the Attorney General to argue that some of the requested records should not be turned over, due to confidentiality concerns.
That is how it is supposed to be done--it is not how Betty did it.
Betty knew at least enough of the law to realize she
was legally required to respond. However, the content of her response was something altogether different.
Betty's letter, sent to me by certified mail on November 9, was a four-page model of mealy-mouthed bureaucracy
which, when you strip away the excessive wordiness, boiled down to one thing: she wasn't turning any information over
to me. Not a page, not a word, not a receipt--nothing.
Remember, this is the woman who
just the week before was waxing poetic about the need for "open government" and "holding elected officials
accountable." I guess she meant other elected officials, because she is not applying that ideal to herself.
If you believe Betty's letter (and I wouldn't recommend it because she is dead wrong), your elected representative
has the right to bypass the Attorney General entirely and determine for herself what records should be released. What
Betty's assertion means for Texans: a person whose formal education stopped at getting a high school diploma should
have the ability to supercede the Attorney General's opinion, and if she decides to deny citizens' right to review
information their tax dollars generated and paid for, then the decision should be hers and hers alone. In addition,
despite the fact that she claims she possesses this absolute authority, she had a hard time figuring out what I meant
in the majority of the request. For every item, she said either she did not have to provide the information or that
she needed "clarification" on what I meant.
I don't know about you, but it scares me to think that
a local representative would be shameless enough to falsely inform constituents that we are not privy to what our government
does and that the representative (not the statewide elected Attorney General) is the sole determiner of what should be released
and what should be withheld.
Betty Says, "I don't have to..." and
"I don't understand...."
I will post the entirety of my request and Betty's
response here soon. Below are some highlights from Betty's letter, listed in the order in which she addressed them:
**Betty said: Her fax machine in Austin is not working properly, so I need to send communications
to her "in writing by a method other than by sending them to my Austin fax machine." That's an overly
wordy way to say, "Don't fax anything to my Austin office." I thought Betty's statement was weird
because I had gotten a confirmation on my end that the fax went through successfully. Something didn't smell right
about that claim, so I called her Austin office on November 13 and asked for the fax number. The staffer who
answered the phone gave me the same number I had used previously and, when I asked, he affirmed that if I
used that number, the fax would get to the right place. Just in case Betty tries to punish the staff member
who answered the phone: it's not his fault he didn't cover for her misrepresentations.
He was doing his job and was courteous and professional on the phone. If Betty was as responsive to constituents as
her staff member was, this website wouldn't exist.
**Betty said: "I am exercising
my rights to withhold that information." She was referring to parts of phone bills (including the phone numbers),
email addresses, and mailing addresses. I disagree that portions of phone bills can be redacted, but, like Betty, I'm
not a lawyer either. However, it's irrelevant. Her "rights to withhold" are subject to Attorney
General approval and do not exist unless he authorizes her to do so. Making the decision independent of the AG is a
violation of the Texas Public Information Act.
**Betty said: "I may seek a decision
from the attorney general [sic] as to whether certain information must be disclosed." Sorry, Betty, there's
no "may" about it. Representative are legally required to contact the Attorney General if they
want to withhold information from public view. The process is extensive and thorough, but it's not optional.
**Betty said: "Although I am making every effort to comply with your request in a timely
manner, there are some items that need clarification before I am able to do so." I don't know why she expects
anyone to believe she's "making every effort" after she sent four pages of stonewalling and delays. However,
Betty will be Betty, and this won't be the last time she tries to make a statement like that with a straight face.
The part that is
disturbing for anyone who values open government and real responsiveness is that Betty asked for "clarification"
on every item I requested. Just so we're clear: Representatives have a right to ask for clarification
on vague requests. No problem there, but I had guessed she might try to use the need for "clarification"
as an excuse to delay, so I made it a point to be exhaustively detailed about the information I wanted.
Take requested
item #1 as an example. Instead of simply writing, "I would like phone records for the past two years,"
I asked for the following:
"1. Telephone records, Jul. 1, 2005, to Present--records for publicly
funded phones in House District 4 (HD 4) offices and Capitol office, including all information related to incoming and outgoing
calls on land lines (both phones and fax machines) and mobile phones. Available names, phone numbers, dates and times
of calls, lengths of calls and phone charges should be included."
All seven items I requested are
similarly detailed. It was a pain in the neck to write, but in this case, I thought it necessary because I did
not believe that Betty would honestly apply open records law, especially to a request from me. Unfortunately, she
once again proved just how low a disdainful representative is willing to stoop. The inanity of her need for clarification
is staggering: I'm not fan of Betty Brown, but even I believe Betty has the intelligence required to understand
the meaning of phrases such as "relating to" or "requests to which you or your staff responded."
Yet she sent page after page saying that she needs for me to explain them to her in further detail. She's stalling,
plain and simple.
If Betty's behavior wasn't such an insult to the
right of citizens to keep tabs on government, it would be funny. But it's not--it's as serious as a heart attack,
and just as fatal for open democracy. If Betty can get away with evading legitimate citizen input, we in Texas
do not live under a government as transparent as it needs to be.
**The rest of what Betty said: After Betty got through with her insatiable need
for clarifications, she addressed some other items.
1. She quoted some disjointed sections
of government code and explained her interpretations of them.
2. She said that she was "unable
to make the necessary determination" on whether or not the fee for the documents will be waived (if it can be shown that
requested documents will be used to benefit the general public, then the fees for those documents can be waived). I
personally think this website is providing an invaluable public service, but we can agree to disagree on that point.
3. Betty discussed the issues involved in charging a fee. Even though she can't figure out what
information I want and isn't sure she has to release it anyway, she is convinced that the "copies of public information
almost certainly will result in an imposition that exceeds $40."
4. And, finally, Betty Brown
graciously informed me that she would promptly consider a withdrawal of my request.
There you have it: when you finally get a response from Betty Brown, that is what it looks
like in a nutshell. Hillary would be proud.
Let's Ask the Attorney General
Betty
may think she can play evasive games that violate her duties under Open Government laws, but it is sickening that she
would try to do so. This is serious stuff. Citizens pay for Betty Brown's paycheck, office space, office
supplies, computers, paper, pens--everything. Citizens pay for every iota of state government. When citizens ask
to see information resulting from taxpayer dollars, they have a right to do so, and more importantly Betty has an obligation
to provide that information as quickly and in as helpful a manner as possible. When did she forget she is a public
servant and start acting like a ruler of her own personal fiefdom?
Betty would have been perfectly happy to have a series of
letters back-and-forth in which I provided "clarification" and she asked for more. She could have stalled
indefinitely, but there was no way I was going to get into a tit-for-tat with an elected representative who is refusing
to do her job.
So I contacted the Attorney General's office. At their suggestion,
I filed a complaint against Betty Brown. My complaint was faxed to the Attorney General's office on November
12 and included my request, Betty's response, and my contention that she is withholding information without AG authorization
and asking for clarification when no clarification was needed.
I also sent a copy of that complaint, along with a cover letter to Betty Brown's office. For
this time and this time only, I honored her request to mail all communications to her, although she may be wishing I didn't
because she got that piece of correspondence several days after the Attorney General got it. I will post all the letters
related to this issue in the next couple of days, so you can read them for yourself and make your own independent determination
in the matter.
|