It's early 2011 in El Paso. KVIA sends a letter to the city asking for business-related text messages sent from city council members' phones. Not just their city-paid phones, but their personal phones, too. The City asks the AG a few questions about a few texts, but here's the kicker: it NEVER argues that it shouldn't hand over texts from private phones!
What does this lack of argument mean? That a year before Stephanie Townsend Allala's 2012 request for emails from city' officials' personal accounts, El Paso was quiet about any disagreement over the AG's order that officials must turn over communications from their private devices.
Of course, it could be that in 2011, council members didn't actually use their personal phones to send city-related text messages and instead only used city phones.
Still, council knew then that such messages would have to be released--they got educated about this requirement.
So what is suggested by the city's 2012 refusal to hand over communications from personal email accounts?
Your guess is as good as mine.
But when it comes to council members, one thing is certain: by 2012, all of them, including Steve Ortega, knew well that citizens had the right to see business-related communications from their personal devices.
This fact makes suspect Ortega's claim that the rules have changed.
They haven't.
Original Title
Once Upon a Time: When El Paso released council members' messages without arguing
It's early 2011 in El Paso. KVIA sends a letter to the city asking for business-related text messages sent from city council members' phones. Not just their city-paid phones, but their personal phones, too. The City asks the AG a few questions about a few texts, but here's the kicker: it NEVER argues that it shouldn't hand over texts from private phones!
What does this lack of argument mean? That a year before Stephanie Townsend Allala's 2012 request for emails from city' officials' personal accounts, El Paso was quiet about any disagreement over the AG's order that officials must turn over communications from their private devices.
Of course, it could be that in 2011, council members didn't actually use their personal phones to send city-related text messages and instead only used city phones.
Still, council knew then that such messages would have to be released--they got educated about this requirement.
So what is suggested by the city's 2012 refusal to hand over communications from personal email accounts?
Your guess is as good as mine.
But when it comes to council members, one thing is certain: by 2012, all of them, including Steve Ortega, knew well that citizens had the right to see business-related communications from their personal devices.
This fact makes suspect Ortega's claim that the rules have changed.
They haven't.
It's early 2011 in El Paso. KVIA sends a letter to the city asking for business-related text messages sent from city council members' phones. Not just their city-paid phones, but their personal phones, too. The City asks the AG a few questions about a few texts, but here's the kicker: it NEVER argues that it shouldn't hand over texts from private phones!
What does this lack of argument mean? That a year before Stephanie Townsend Allala's 2012 request for emails from city' officials' personal accounts, El Paso was quiet about any disagreement over the AG's order that officials must turn over communications from their private devices.
Of course, it could be that in 2011, council members didn't actually use their personal phones to send city-related text messages and instead only used city phones.
Still, council knew then that such messages would have to be released--they got educated about this requirement.
So what is suggested by the city's 2012 refusal to hand over communications from personal email accounts?
Your guess is as good as mine.
But when it comes to council members, one thing is certain: by 2012, all of them, including Steve Ortega, knew well that citizens had the right to see business-related communications from their personal devices.
This fact makes suspect Ortega's claim that the rules have changed.
They haven't.