New Law Limits Access to Public Information
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Sat, 05/26/2007 - 10:38.
ANTI-SUNSHINE BILL IMPOSES NEW CHARGES FOR REQUESTS BY INDIVIDUALS / BLOGGERS
MAY ALSO IMPACT NATIONAL STATE AND LOCAL MONTHLY PUBLICATIONS
A piece of legislation intended on restricting individual access to a school district's public information was quietly passed by the Texas House yesterday. It is sitting on Governor Rick Perry's desk awaiting his signature.
House Bill 2564, pushed by Texas Representative Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, and co-sponsored by San Antonio Senator Jeff Wentworth allows school districts to levy additional charges against individuals requesting public information.
One of the most disturbing things about the bill is that it tries to draw a distinction between print/broadcast media organizations and electronic newsletters or blogs--a disturbing trend in politics nationally.
"It is an attempt to punish activists for digging up embarrassing information on some school districts," said one parent.
The bill would allow governmental bodies to keep track of individuals who request information (except for select news organizations, politicians, and academic researchers) and bill for employee time spent above 36 hours.
The bill does not specify how governmental bodies are to determine and track time spent--nor how much individual requesters will be billed. It does, however, draw distinctions as they relate to news organizations. Exempt from the new laws are radio, television stations, newspapers that are "qualified under Section 2051.044 to publish legal notices," and "free newspaper(s) of general circulation [that are] published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news."
The bill, as written, may impact national publications such as Time Magazine as well as State and Local publications like Texas Monthly and D Magazine. It could also impact broadcast organizations such as CNN who distribute content by cable or satellite TV--and who do not necessarily have FCC issued licenses for their broadcast stations.
One attorney we spoke with provided this analysis:
This is an irrational and arbitrary classification of "requestor" – it is an attempt to make this section constitutional under the First Amendment right to free press. It not only targets sites like [Dallas.Org], but the ordinary citizen who inquires as what his government is doing, which is also contrary to the state and federal constitutional rights of citizens to open government and the right to seek redress from governmental wrongs. I could go on and on, but I take your point from your prospective. The provision is constrictive as to "who is the press", something the legislature cannot do under separation of powers.
Bloggers, watchdogs and activist organizations, who have been the source of information leading to high-profile investigations and convictions of corrupt officials, would be penalized the most under the new legislation.
The bill, at this moment, sits on Governor Perry's desk awaiting his signature which is expected today. Dallas.Org will update this information as more becomes available.
Individuals wishing to express an opinion may write Chelsea Thornton in Governor Perry's office: chelsea.thornton@governor.state.tx.us.
See also Law Changes Fees for Public Information (Galveston Daily News)
RAPIDLY DEVELOPING THROUGHOUT THE DAY
Back Door Media Deal
Well a little research will show when the "hounds" are silent then someone threw them a "bone." If you read the email from the head of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association, you can see that a deal was cut to keep them out. Perhaps this explains their silence, whereas there was an outcry with SB 889 and a major editorial on this.
Can we call this a "back draft" or a game of "8-ball" in the side pocket on "break?"
A picture is worth a thousand words and this one has fewer than that but will tell how the "cow did not eat the cabbage" in this case....
http://www.linklst.com/HB-2564_Texas_Daily_Newspapers_backdoor-Deal.pdf
Incorrect on HB2560
So I read the email that was posted, then I read the bill as it was filed and as it came to the floor of the house.
Not only was NONE of the language in the email included in the original bill, nor was it included as the bill came out of committee, but after speaking to Rep. Hancock's office, I learned NONE of Ken Whalen's language was accepted by Hancock.
That was an amendment that was tacked on by Democratic Representative Lon Burnam. Once again, you are completely misinformed, and appear to be utterly incapable of blogging facts.
[Ed Note: The comment you're responding to did not come from us (it was a comment by a reader). However, just to be clear, you're saying that Hancock didn't add this language, Burnam did? Where did you find this documented, and would you mind sharing your source?]
Misinformed on Hancock
We've followed Hancock throughout the session, and he's done a stand-up job as a freshman. He's going to pass 6-8 bills in his first go-around. That's pretty rare. He's already tackling big issues such as problems in public schools with school boards and superintendents, mutual aid issues in the aftermath of Katrina, and a wide variety of important environmental and pollution issues.
Somethings to consider about this bill: Take a look at the amendments that he accepted in the House, but were stripped off in the Senate. Also, consider that the 36 hour limit is just a minimum, and may be bumped up by any agency. Don't forget, there are so many bills out there that get edited and fixed in following sessions. Instead of ranting about it, someone should figure out some sensible changes to the bill, and get them in next session.
Finally, this bill passed u-n-a-n-i-m-o-u-s-l-y in both houses. If it were such a bad bill, why didn't it get any opposition?
[Ed Note: I can't answer that last question--but I suspect that many people don't bother to look over the details. However, now that it's law, the only way to change it is through a lawsuit (or to get someone to amend it next session which is unlikely to happen). No, he needs to justify this to his electorate, and we have a duty to make sure they're well informed.
By the way, this story has had almost 2,700 reads--and it has barely been up half-a-day. Dallas.Org is a relatively highly-hit blog, but this is heavier than normal. So I surmise that this is a topic of interest for many of people.]
Hancock Let The "Media" Off
http://www.linklst.com/HB-2564_Texas_Daily_Newspapers_backdoor-Deal.pdf
Looks like he let the media off on this one.
[Ed Note: Yes, we have a copy of this. My first thought was "well, that's where that came from." We have more, and we'll post them shortly. Thanks.]
HB 2564 and TEA
As a ten year veteran of the information access wars with TEA, I can assure anyone naive enough to think this bill isn't designed to hide the actions of public schools from the people who pay for them that you are sadly mistaken.
No doubt a court challenge will follow, but this makes it abundantly clear that Texas politicians will do anything in their power to ensure secrecy--as if we didn't know this already.
I'm sure there are some voters who won't forget--including this one.
Center for Citizen Media - Onboard
http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/26/texas-erecting-barriers-to-citizen-j...
Pegasus News is Onboard
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/may/26/anti-sunshine-bill-hb-2564-governor-perrys-desk-to/
Note the link on Paul Watler in our sidebar -- IF this is signed, he's the guy to spearhead the legal challenge.
I've emailed the Gov too, for whatever good it will do.
[Ed Note: This is another in the long line of "anti-blogger" laws that seem to be popular among unpopular politicians. Unfortunately, one thing that many of these guys don't count on is that some of these "bloggers" just happen to have a lot of money to fight these things!
With respect to print publications: in the past, we've mounted post-card campaigns to inform constituents of their elected official's activities. However, under this law, we'd have to do that weekly to qualify. Maybe we will!]
How Can Hancock?
I know Kelly Hancock, and don't see how he could possibly sponsor this. I'm just aghast. I have kids in Richland Hills, and this is a very scary trend.
Can anything be done?
[Ed Note: I don't know, yet. Our attorneys are looking into it. One thing for certain, we're not going to forget a couple of legislator's names!]
Hancock naive?
Freshman Rep. must have been naive and handed the bucket of fire water to carry that was labeled "Ice Water" and he ran with it.
Someone needs to tell him that he will have a primary opponent, so I hope he has enough to fund his next campaign for being the "Smurff" on this bill.
Poor kid... we don't need RINOS like this in the Legislature as that is how we get bad bills.
Reminds me of the school yard and how gangs are formed, windows get broken and lives get ruined out of stupidity.
[Ed Note: We're told by someone close to this situation that he has been trying to do this for a long time. We're still investigating him and his participation. You can count on us to inform his voters!]
I Still Can't Believe It
Yes, I hear what you're saying. I just can't believe that Kelly would be involved in this. I was a big supporter of his last year.
[Ed Note: Why does this remind me of the old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished?"]
RINO or Stupid?
No one could reach this guy and he would not listen and he wanted "gang appreciation"... we now need a replacement for next term, as he carried a bad bill for someone that was 200 miles away and he had no knowledge of.