Attorney, correctly applying the law and procedural aspects
of
the Act, requested an opinion
of
the Texas Attorney General that the remaining information sought
but
undisclosed was notsubject to the Act. (See Exhibit B -
03110/2010
15
Day Brief).
5.
The Texas Attorney General, ignoring the clear and unambiguous statutory definitionsprovided by the legislature and the well reasoned legal briefing by the Bexar County DistrictAttorney's Office, impermissibly re-wrote and unconstitutionally applied Texas law by notonly expanding the definition
of
a "governmental body" to include all local officials and all
"
local employees, but expanded the definition
of
"public information" beyond constitutionallimits. Compare the Texas Attorney General's own recital
of
§
552.002(a) from his opinion,with his self-pronounced revision
of
the very same statute in the very same opinion,
as
provided below:
Legislative Definition
of
§552.002(a):Section 552.002(a) provides
that
"public information" consists
ofinformation
that
is
collected, assembled,
or
maintained
under
a law
or
ordinance
or
in
connection with
the
transaction
of
official business: (1) bya governmental body;
or
(2) for a governmental
body
and
the
governmental body owns
the
information
or
has a
right
of
access to it.
Attorney
General's
Definition of §552.002(a)
Information
is within
the
scope
of
the
Act
if
it
relates
to
the
officialbusiness
of
a governmental body
and
is maintained by a
public
official
or
employee
of the
governmental body.
(See Exhibit C -
05124/2010
0R2010-07537). This impermissible and wholesale revision
of
the legislature's definition must be corrected by order
of
the Court. Upon making his self-proclaimed amendment to Texas law, the Attorney General went on to admonish theCommissioner with the threat
of
possible criminal sanctions
if
he did not comply with theAttorney General's opinion
of
what the Attorney General believes the
law
should
be.
Id.
Plaintiff's Original Petition for Declaratory JudgmentPage 3
Add a Comment