Page 3
By E-mail From Mayor Leffingwell to a City Commission Member: “I’m not copying all others on this because I think the e-mail, if there are re-sponses among Council Member(s) to a quorum of members, violates the Open Meetings Act.” Certainly knew by this time. It doesn’t take anattorney or Judge to figure out the meaning of this.So Leffingwell knew and we can reasonably suppose the Council knew. After all they were supposed to complete a course of instruction on the Actshortly after their elections. Were their intentions to circumvent the letter or the spirit of the Open Meetings Act? What is their problem with con-ducting city business in full view of their constituents? Oh my God, should they be expected to actually listen to the citizens before they make uptheir minds and vote? Oh my God, just think of the amount of Staff time that is tied up, how difficult it is to conduct city business under such oner-ous conditions! How can we do the People’s business if we can’t meet and talk quietly, in private? Stop acting like a bunch of kindergartners andat least pretend to listen to your real bosses, the citizens and voters of the City of Austin, Texas.
Open Meeting Act Violations by Austin City Council
On January 25, County Attorney David Escamilla received a complaint about violations of the Open Meetings Act by Austin City Council and Mayor and has launched an inquiry. On January 28, the City Council, in closed-door session approved $159,000 of tax payer dollars to pay three attor-neys to provide legal advise and counsel on the Texas Open Meeting Act issues resulting from the complaint.“The 2010 calendars of four council members published with the January 25 story provide evidence that the city has, in effect, maintained an
insti-tutionalized conspiracy
to conduct a daisy chain of meetings involving the mayor, every council member, and the city manager immediately preced-ing each council meeting for the purpose of circumventing the Texas Open Meetings Act,” according to
The Austin Bulldog
report.Reported by
The Austin Bulldog
, March 1, “In emails from
Glen Coleman, policy aide to Council Member Randi Shade, sent emails to all the other council members’ executive assistants detailing how to disable the chat system’s ability to track the history of communications and sidestep therequirements of the Texas Public Information Act.” “In the heat of a council meeting, you may wish to communicate sensitive information thatwould not be appropriate for all of us to read in the (
Austin American
-)
Statesman
the next day,” Coleman stated in an e-mail at 9:22am July 8,2009, addressed to all council executive assistants. It would seem Mr. Coleman does not believe the public has a right to know.
To read the law- suit and exhibits go to www.theaustinbulldog.org
Austin American Statesman
Finally Takes Notice! Austin NAACP Files Ethics Complaint Against Mayor & Mayor Pro Tem
The head of Austin's NAACP has filed a complaint against Austin’s mayor and mayor pro tem after controversial emails became public.
- The ethics complaint from Nelson Linder says Lee Leffingwell and Mike Martinez a acted unprofes-sionally.- Regarding Austin Fire Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr, Leffingwell wrote Martinez, “Biggest snow job I’ve seen ina long time. Kerr is definitely a ‘company man’ and will not earn the respect of her firefighters, in my opin-ion.” Martinez responded, “It was the worst...nothing will change in that department with her in charge.They played this hard. McDonald put pressure on Bobby [Austin African American Firefighters Association president Bobby Johns] to write thatletter via the black community. Truly sad and Kerr’s lowest moment.”- Linder told KEYE TV Tuesday the city of Austin has pending lawsuits in regards to the Austin Fire Department and its policies and that Leffing-well and Martinez’s comments could undermine those pending cases. He also said making those types of comments against employees isagainst city charter.”
American Statesman, March 2, ‘11
Left: LeffingwellRight: Martinez
March 1, 2011,
The Austin Bulldog
filed a lawsuit in state district court to sue the mayor and each council member in their individual capacity,and the City of Austin, for failure to promptly and fully respond to
The Austin Bulldog’s
requests filed under the Texas Public Information Act(TPIA), Chapter 552 of the Government Code.—The city’s decision to withhold certain government records, including records involving public business that were created or received on themayor and council members’ cell phones or personal computers, lays bare a major problem preventing citizens from obtaining complete informa-tion about the affairs of government. To withhold records created or received on officeholders personal computers and cell phones is to effectivelygut the Texas Public Information Act. To allow this to stand would amount to an open invitation for city officials and employees to conduct businessin the shadows.
—
Withholding these public records from disclosure as requested by
The Austin Bulldog
on January 19, 2011, and January 27, 2011, and doingso without seeking an Attorney General’s opinion, only adds to the city’s previously reported problems in governmental transparency, evidencedby
The Austin Bulldog’s
story which exposed the ongoing violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Gray Panthers of Austin,
Convener: Gary Dugger 512-225-4789; Ofc: 512-458-3738 www.graypanthersaustin.org
Austin Bulldog Files Lawsuit to Compel Compliance With Public Information Law
What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?
Add a Comment