UPDATED: Anti-sunshine bill HB 2564 becomes law

twisteddog, says:

I'm so in.

sisterhazel, says:

I sent my email.

allengwinn, says:

One other thing... if you look at the way the bill is written, national, state and local monthlies (like D Magazine, Texas Monthly, and maybe even Time and Newsweek) would be cast in the same bathtub as us "eeeevil" bloggers!

We're waiting to interview Senator Wentworth right now.

twisteddog, says:

Funny, there's no mention of this bill at all in the city's major newspaper.

homeless, says:

Putting up barriers to the Freedom of Information Act is freedom denied.

twisteddog, says:

I read the stories in the DMN when they were published, and they were informative.

I have two concerns: this is critical information for anybody who lives in this state and there is (or was?) still something they can do about it, yet it's not mentioned anywhere in the major newspaper or its site or on its blogs; also, the bill benefits corporate media at the expense of regular people, and not fully reporting on such an issue - that benefits the DMN bottom line - appears suspicious.

I want to see that information in my media outlets. It's what they're there for.

twisteddog, says:

Conspiracies aside, if a newspaper or other media outlet has a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then the issue should be reported fully and explained. How can we trust the media otherwise?

New conspiracy: I made a slightly inflammatory comment on the dmn blog about this subject and now can't access the dmn site or its blogs.Hmm. Anyway, I don't recall either of the dmn stories you point out addressing the specific issues of exceptions for mainstream media outlets or of tracking individuals who request public information. Did they?

I worked at the DMN for a decade. Many of the people there are definitely on the side of free speech. But, believe me, many don't even understand it.

There is considerable political pressure from Belo HQ and corporate types that wears down some of the biggest advocates of free speech there. A lot of them left in the last two-rounds of buyouts/firings/whatever you want to call them. Who's left? People who're at the job because it's a job and looking for another is a pain; people who can't afford to be idealistic because they have families to support; and people who're concerned more with personal advancement than journalism.

That's one of the reasons this particular issue is so important. People who really have the fire to report, dig, support free-speech and citizens rights are no longer at major media outlets. They're individuals with blogs or user sites like this one. They don't have the money, lawyers or resources that corporate media has. Yet, as you point out in the story, they're the ones who have to pay and be tracked. Screw that.

jefmelch, says:

An unusual feature of HB 2564 is that it either takes effect on September 1,2007 (if, the text of the bill states, it did not win 2/3rd vote in each house) or, immediately. (if it did gain such a super-majority.) The bill passed 136 to nothing (2 absent) in the House. The Senate vote is not found, that I can tell.

So what happens to open records requests that were submitted before the bill is signed but for which the gov't agency (Lancaster ISD) has days remaining on their deadline after the signing? Presuming Rick Perry has his usual deft touch on matters ...

I suppose the courts will be as eager to involve themselves in this one as they've been in Farmers Branch.

jefmelch, says:

I correct myself.

The House vote was 136-0 with 2 PRESENT, not voting. I'd mis-reported 2 ABSENT.

ANYhow, as much as I'd like to think our elected officials enjoy open government it appears they instead view it as an opportunity to turn records requests into a profit generating operation.

jefmelch, says:

Also, stating the obvious for the oblivious:

With super-majorities already voting in favor of this bill, the legislature has demonstrated control of enough votes to override the governor's veto, even if he did have an inclination to veto.

Again, the text calls for the law to take effect immediately.

Thunder, says:

Read the following to see if you might see the back door deal that was cut and why the Media was silent on this bill...: http://www.linklst.com/HB-2564_Texas_...

twisteddog, says:

Mother-effers.

twisteddog, says:

This is pretty interesting. The Thunder Memo definitely shows that Texas Newspaper Association Executive Vice President Ken Whalen was looking to protect newspapers' interests on April 26 when he contacted Kelly Hancock's Chief of Staff Kyle Kamrath. An amendment of the same wording in the Thunder Memo was added to HB 2564 on May 10. Yet, on May 17, Whalen told Congress that the bill would be "detrimental to open government by discouraging public information requestors."

I'd like to hear more on that for sure.

From the Texas Daily Newspaper Association and Texas Press Association "Bill Watch":

Search for HB 2564 here.

In his testimony against the bill on April 23, Ken Whalen, Texas Daily Newspaper Association, expressed concern that governmental bodies that wish to delay release of public information requests could exploit this proposed change in the law. Burnam amendment creates an exception for requests made by newspapers. (7:17) Sen. Wentworth explained House Bill 2564. Current law provides that a governmental body is authorized to charge a fee for the production or copying of public information upon a request. However, a person or persons may make more than one request per year for the production of public information. In addition, many types of requests require a substantial amount of employee or personnel time to comply with the request. Both of these factors raise the operation costs of a governmental body. This legislation authorizes a governmental body to establish a reasonable time limit on the amount of time that personnel are required to spend producing information in compliance with a request for public information. The bill also provides a process in which the governmental body may charge a fee if the time limit required for information production is exceeded. At May 17 hearing, Whalen testified that the bill would be detrimental to open government by discouraging public information requestors.

interestedcitizen, says:

I read the legislation. Why isn't Pegasus News a newspaper of general circulation that is published at least once a week? I see an argument that someone who writes for Pegasus News is exempted from the law. Who says a newspaper has to be printed on paper? I don't see anything in the legislation that defines a newspaper as something that is printed on paper.

In Lancaster, we need citizen journalists who will get the truth out. We rarely get coverage on important controversial issues, to such an extent that one of our citizens who seems intensely, blindly loyal to our school administration, outright denies facts that are published for the world to see at the TEA website and calls those who oppose her "racists, psychos, and anal." That vocabulary challenged writer says those who report directly from the TEA website or the school district's audit are "disillusioned," obviously meaning "deluded." That is, when we report the truth and cite to our original sources, that person still condemns us for reporting erroneous facts. That writer's solution is to go to the official mouthpiece of local government rather than original sources themselves, which are going to be more expensive to get under this legislation. That writer wants us to merely trust local authorities, without giving us the tools to cross examine and verify.

Our city and school district have public relations directors whose basic job is to spin information as positively as they can and hide the negative news from the public. Because their mission is clear and they are overwhelmingly biased, they aren't credible sources of the whole truth. City and school district published newsletters are nothing but superficial hype and don't help us be knowledgeable citizens.

The DMN is a newspaper of general circulation. It qualifies for the exemption because it can publish legal notices. However, it also circulates news on line. Is its paper circulation what makes it a newspaper, or does its web based outlet make it a newspaper of geneal circulation? "General circulation" refers to wide distribution of the news. Pegasus News has wide circulation, just as the DMN does.

Surely, in these days of environmental awareness and the call to save trees, the legislature wouldn't knowingly do something to give an artificial advantage to a newspaper printed on paper. A judge will interpret words in their ordinary sense and will probably say that the word "newspaper" does not include a web based news outlet. But, he might not. The term "web-based newspaper" might not be an oxymoron. It might be part of our common language, understood by legislators as well as judges and ordinary people. I think what the legislature was trying to do was to stop an individual from carrying on a campaign of harassment by abusing the open records laws. The general circulation requirement was to make sure that the public information was given to the general public rather than for a private use. Conservative judges don't like to legislate from the bench and invent new meanings for words, and I respect judges who refrain from doing an end run around the legislature by inventing a new meaning of a word. I think the word "newspaper" might be broadly understood to mean any medium where the news is reported. I can't see what government objective could possibly be intended by the legislature in saying a newspaper is only something printed on paper. I don't see what damage would be done by interpreting the word "newspaper" to include a web based news outlet. I'm not sure he would be doing an end run around the legislature by holding that a web based news outlet is a newspaper.

Here in Lancaster, we are so much in need of a newspaper that we look to Pegasus News as our local newspaper. Some of us monitor it at least daily. We obviously read and comment on news outside our community, just as we read and comment on news outside our community in the DMN. For some of us, Pegasus News is a superior outlet for the news.

Then we have the word circulation. Is a web-based news outlet circulated? Does circulation mean thrown on the ground or placed in a mail recepticle? I don't think it does necessarily. "General circulation" might be accomplished by posting to the web.

I'm not asking our judges to be self appointed legislators. However, if he legislature intentionally ommitted web based news outlets to give newspapers printed on paper a competitive advantage over web-based news outlets, there might be an anti-trust issue there. I consider web based news outlets superior to printed papers. They are certainly news media outlets. If I were a citizen journalist of Pegasus News, I'd make the claim that Pegasus is a continuously published newspaper that is published 24/7, which clearly meets the weekly published requirement. I hope citizen journalists will make and win this point.

interestedcitizen, says:

I just did a search using the term "web-based newspaper" and got thousands of links to web pages using that terminology. Clearly, the term "web-based newspaper" is a subcategory of "newspaper" and is included within the broad term "newspaper." If the legislature had wanted to exclude a "web-based newspaper" it would have narrowed the definition of "newspaper" to exclude a "web-based newspaper."

interestedcitizen, says:

Re read the law.

Note the use of the word "or" The phrase is "or is a free newspaper of general circulation and that is published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news."

The dissemination of news is free on Pegasus. Advertising is not. Does the word "free" refer to advertising or dissemination of news? As a news consumer, I consider Pegasus free. I consider it generally circulated, and I consider the news published there of interest to the general public. Clearly, it is not necessary in order for the exemption to apply that Pegasus qualify for publishing legal notices.

atlasslipped, says:

As a former Beloian and longtime newspaperer, I can assure you that no conspiracy theory is too far fetched. I implore you to fight the power.

twisteddog, says:

You can see Hancock explaining the bill to the State Affairs Committee and Ken Walter's testimony on April 26. If you have a Real Audio player installed, click here, and advance the video to about 43:00. There's no charge.

Ken's testimony is brief, but not limited to newspapers. He and Paul Walter made comments about the bill to the Galveston Daily News. What's disturbing - to me - is that Hancock and the committee have almost no idea how public information requests work or how it affects the public. It's hardly a new issue.

I can't find a specific mention of HB 2564 on any major newspaper site in the state. The Galveston Daily News is the only newspaper I can find with a story on the bill. If this isn't a conspiracy, at the very least it's horrible reporting on a massive scale.

Anybody know what the newswires' stance on this is? Is pegasus a member of TPA, or is it allowed to be?

twisteddog, says:

I hate to say it, but some sort of digital media PAC might be needed to drag the state legislature into this century.

jefmelch, says:

Twisted, Why a PAC?

I have nothing against a PAC, mind. But say a small news organization wanted to dig out records that previously had been free and now are subject to charge.

Just, exactly, what keeps the lead investigator from enlisting his boss, his wife, his son, his cleaning crew, his pool boy, his mistress, HER son, the pool boy's wife, her father, etc etc etc all to sign off on the series of open record requests?

As I understand the law it is restricting the ability of INDIVIDUALS to obtain records. A team, a group, a committee, sharing the load, seems to me to be somewhat harder for the law to beat.

Have I mis-read the letter of the law?

twisteddog, says:

I'm not saying a PAC is needed to make open records requests. I'm responding to Mike's joke that he "wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me." I'm not exactly a joiner myself. But a PAC that includes digital media organizations and bloggers (if it's not open to individuals I'm not for it) would help in educating people in government, keeping an eye on the legislature, and protecting individual access to public information.

[rant] Newspapers used to be good at protecting public information. But that was before the Web, blogging and easy access to digitized information, AND before the death of family-run papers, corporate consolidation and the steady decline of their business model. These days, papers and the companies that own them are concerned more with the bottom line than anything else. [end rant]

Individuals are key here. Many people are under the impression that "the press" has special rights. That's not the case.

Under the law, the press has the same rights as any citizen and no more. Any law, including HB 2564, that gives special consideration to "the press" opens the door to a host of trouble. It would allow the government to define who is and who isn't "the press." And that essentially leads to government control of the press as news organizations jockey to make sure that they're part of the definition. If they're not included, they're out of business.

That's not a good situation for the organizations who're supposed to be government watchdogs. And it's especially not a good situation for the public: Do you want information about the government to come from a government-approved publication or an independent publication?

The effects that HB 2564 have on newspapers or bloggers is only a small part of the issue. It affects people who need all sorts of things, such as documents needed for small-claims suits against companies or complaints against government agencies... hell, genealogy. Now people are faced with a bunch of arbitrary charges that they might not be able to afford, and a round of paperwork that, if it gets lost or they're too busy taking care of their dying mother to take care of it, kills the request if it isn't returned.

I understand the financial burden that malicious open records requests put on the budgets and personnel at government offices. But I'm willing to have my tax dollars go to trying to fulfill the requests or have the issue resolved in court than I am willing to give up my right to public information and open government.

MarjorieMorningstar, says:

I would be willing to help small local news outlets like this one. Put my name on the list next to the journalist's mistress.

A journalist's co-op might work, too. After I use up my time in my own town, I ask a buddy off in East Texas to file the ORR for me. I would turn around and file ORRs for him in his jurisdiction. One hand washing the other.

But first I think a simple backlash is appropriate. Anything we've held off digging for, whatever reason -- there's a reason now to stop holding off. Just to demonstrate the news won't be hostage to stupid laws.

J_Mortimer, says:

I wonder if an open records wiki is appropriate. File an open records request, get the data, add it to the wiki no matter what it is.

J

twisteddog, says:

I like the idea, but users could only submit data and not edit it or delete it. So I guess it couldn't be a true wiki. Then there's server space to consider. It'll take a lot. And some sort of concrete tagging system. Are you thinking of a privately run "wiki" or a government-run "wiki"? I can see advantages and disadvantages for both.

jefmelch, says:

A gov't run "wiki" kind of defeats several intents.

First, it's way too easy to alter, erase, or hide electronic documents. Dead tree pulp covered with dark stains -- that's what we want.

Second, the goverment is the agent of all people. Those are OUR records, not theirs. They don't decide what gets filtered, filed, indexed -- or published. Just keep all of it until somebody asks for any of it. Then turn it over promptly.

Third, we don't even one user or member of the public to have the only copy. Competition please. Ask, Google, Yahoo, Pegnews, DallasProgress, LancasterRackets, big guys, little guys, and kids with lemonade stands.

There are no doubt other good reasons to try something other than a gov't wiki but that's enougn to go on with.

Rorschach, says:

I made much the same suggestion to a few watchdog group members here in the Houston area. I suggested that perhaps one of the search engine companies might be interested in running such a database such as Google. A legislative carrot should be part of it to encourage public entities to participate. Such as freedom to ignore FIOA requests for any documentation that has already been supplied to the search engine company and a requirement to supply any information not supplied to the search engine to all requesters for free. In return, entities would get a few cents per viewing of their documents. The search engine co could run ads along side the data in order to recoup their costs much the way the search engine business model operates now.

Rorschach, says:

Chad, are you trying to say my idea stinks? or that the bill does?

If it is my idea that you think stinks, can you please explain what you see wrong with it?

Thunder, says:

http://www.openrecordsnetwork.net coming soon... a work in progress....

jtmbls, says:

Has this been a large cost for Peg in the past?