Friday, January 23, 2009

The Open Meetings Act

I have been asked by many constituents how Commissioners get through the agenda in about an hour and have so little discussion about each item before we vote. I will try and explain. For more background, go here, here and here.

First, Commissioner's meetings are governed by the Texas Open Meeting Act.

The Open Meetings Act (the “Act”) was adopted to help make governmental decision-making accessible to the public. It requires meetings of governmental bodies to be open to the public, except for expressly authorized closed sessions, and to be preceded by public notice of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting. The provisions of the Act are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government.

That's the policy. As the law is written, it is pretty simple, "every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public,
except as provided by this chapter." That sounds easy, but the law is never as easy as it reads.

Each word in that simple sentence has a definition that is defined by the Act. You can read these definitions here. The common thread among the definitions is that there must be a quorum (3 members of the Court) present to deliberate or have a meeting.

If the Act is violated then the Court's actions could be voidable and if one conspires to circumvent the chapter then that person or persons are subject to criminal penalties.

Now, with the law out of the way comes the facts. Each Commissioner receives a separate request in draft form for each agenda item. In my office they mostly come over the fax machine. They can and do come from many departments in the County. Included with each agenda request is the back-up documentation. So far there have been no exciting agenda items. Each has been mostly mundane business of the County. One of my first requests was a request for a computer for my assistant. Hers crashed during the move and we had to have a new one. We sent out our draft to all of the Commissioners as well as the budget office and the auditor's office. We explained in our agenda request that we did not have the funds in our office to pay for the new computer and therefore it would come out of non-budgeted contingency. It was approved.

By the Monday before Court I have the draft agendas placed in a notebook where I review them to see if the backup and the request match. If I have a question about one of the items from another department I'll call that department and get them to explain it to me. At this point I'm new so I probably ask a lot of stupid questions, but mainly I'm just trying to understand what each document means.

My concern about this process lies with what occurs on the Thursday before Court. Staff members of some Commissioners have a regular meeting every Thursday and discuss the draft agenda. I believe that this meeting could (and I want to emphasize could) be in conflict with the Act. I have drafted this letter to Roy Cordes, the Fort Bend County Attorney. I believe the letter speaks for itself.




I would like to see these staff meetings open to the public. I believe that would solve all of the issues.

54 comments:

  1. Thank you Richard for setting this site up in your attempts to open up our local government to be more accountable to the public. Now if you could just get the ethics reform proposal on the agenda for an eventual vote. Let Bob and the others go on record as opposing ethics reform so it can be used against them when they come up for election.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've seen some of the commissioners defend this meeting in the local press and by doing so they send voters a strong message that we don't have a right to access these meetings. That was not the spirit or intent of open meetings legislation. This meeting should be subject to the law also.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's too bad the other commissioners don't want open access or have a website like this one. Thanks commish!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Way to go Richard, lets drown the court in bureaucratic red tape and to hell with the what good for the taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amazing what some will say in these threads. Opening up meetings won't "drown" them in red tape, but open them up to public scrutiny by those paying for it. Perhaps we'll catch more of the cronies at their own game! Repeat after me, transparency is good, transparency is good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. repeat with me bureaucratic red tape is bad

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm curious, if someone is told the Atty General's office said these meetings do not violate the ACT why write a letter asking the question again? Then fill the letter with brillant legal phrases like "Each word in that simple sentence has a definition", what's next the definition of is? Is this what we can expect from the new dem lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr Morrison, am I mistaken but I thought you were hired by the voters to be Precient 1 County Commissioner, and not the County Attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes the troll is multiple posting for his special interest fools again. The public demands more open government John and will keep the pressure up. One single poster attempting to harass an honest reformer for his crony bosses won't cut it.

    We support fully on this initiative Mr. Morrison and on the ethics reform proposal.

    Take it somewhere else John. You're only giving Hebert and his bunch a bad reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Mr. Morrison for providing a space for your public to speak and not censoring. This move speaks volumes over the other silent commissioners!

    ReplyDelete
  11. just so everyone understands if you ask a question you're a troll? Then why have a web site?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did you all read about this one:

    http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/01/29/35271#comment-894

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just found this site thanks to the chronicle. Congratulations Richard!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm glad to see at least one of our elected officials reaching out to his constituents through this method. It is about time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. did I miss Mr Morrison's reply? If Mr Cordes' office said the Atty Generals' office said the meeting did not violate the ACT why did he feel he needed to write a letter? This concerns me as a taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous (@ 3:13 pm),

    I appreciate your concern. As I stated in the letter to Mr. Cordes, "[I] believe such an opinion would provide a legal defense under the Act."

    Section 551.144(c)states:

    "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)that the member of the governmental body acted in reasonable reliance on a court order or a written interpretation of this chapter contained in an opinion of a court record, the attorney general, or the attorney for the governmental body."

    To qualify for the defense under the Act, the opinion must be written, not oral. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks for commenting.

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  17. sounds like the plan is to bog the court down in legalese at a great expense to the taxpayer. Well some wanted change here's change.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Many wanted change John, except for you. Many support Mr. Morrison and any attempts to reform this court. You might want to check out this piece before continuing to spam this site and this commissioner. Did you ever ask yourself why Mr. Morrison is the only court member actually running a blog or talking this way directly to the public...no, how could you.

    http://www.fortbendstar.com/Columns/burner.htm

    http://www.fortbendweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1095&Itemid=94#jreactions

    Have you asked yourself why the special interests and certain court members DON'T want to recuse themselves on voting on projects for companies that have contributed to them?

    We will continue to full support this reformer as long as he works to honestly represent the voters who live in this community and NOT your special interest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I would continue to hope that our elected leaders will work towards more openess and transparency rather than less, which appears to be the motive of those opposing open meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think it would be nice if all the commissioners would post their campaign finance reports on the county website so the public could easily access them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Congrats on this one http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/02/04/35418

    Amazing that these monopolies are even allowed to exist in a democracy. What ever happened to "free markets"?

    ReplyDelete
  22. in the 3:22pm post anon brings up the word change in the EDC agreement. This means that companies do not have to belong to the EDC to get the expertise and benefits of the EDC. So when the revenues fall at the EDC will the burden of funding the EDC fall on the tax payers? Mr Morrison this concerns me as a taxpayer that you may have caused my taxes to go up.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sounds like an edc troll is back. Any business can now go to the governmental entity and ask them directly what the process is and hopefully won't be steered to making contributions to politicians like so many edc members engage. Aren't free markets amazing along with open access to gov't?

    Monopolies are wrong and unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sounds right, why should one organization have this much power?

    ReplyDelete
  25. why do libs always resort to name calling? Because they can't offer a valid point.
    Once again, Mr Morrison will your action cause the taxpayer's taxes to go up if businesses choose to use the EDC services for free?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm sorry but, I don't see how your taxes will go up as a result of the change. It's now budget time in Fort Bend and I hope to cut all budgets in the County by 1 to 2%, including the EDC's.

    Any increase in public funding for the EDC would have to be increased by Commissioner's Court. I would not support such an increase.

    May I ask if you support funding the EDC with taxpayer dollars? And how much of a percentage would you support? And would you support a 2% cut in their current taxpayer funding?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Richard the EDC is currently funded by a combination of tax dollars and companies paying dues. Why because both benefit from economic development. But by allowing the companies to opt-out of dues/membership the burden of funding falls directly back on the taxpayer.
    Are you really trying to say by cutting the EDC's budget you're against economic development in Ft Bend, in particular new jobs in Ft Bend? If so tell us why?

    ReplyDelete
  28. No, I'm not against economic development in Fort Bend. I'm just trying to watch over the taxpayer's money.

    "Once again," may I ask if you support funding the EDC with taxpayer dollars? And how much of a percentage would you support? And would you support a 2% cut in their current taxpayer funding?

    ReplyDelete
  29. "It's now budget time in Fort Bend and I hope to cut all budgets in the County by 1 to 2%, including the EDC's.

    Any increase in public funding for the EDC would have to be increased by Commissioner's Court. I would not support such an increase."

    This is great news Mr. Morrison and just what we should be hearing from the other commissioners. Too bad we dont'!

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Once again, Mr Morrison will your action cause the taxpayer's taxes to go up if businesses choose to use the EDC services for free?" That's a pretty dumb question John to ask. More competition according to most economic theory lowers costs, it doesn't raise them. Why are you calling someone a "liberal" and then accusing others of calling names? Why don't you go TROLL the other commission members and ask why they haven't lowered your property taxes in quite awhile? Perhaps they are the corporate welfare queens (liberals) as you like to say.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh I forgot, you can't troll the other commissioners blogs because they don't talk directly to their public, right neocon John?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just found these related news pieces to the trust busting:

    http://halfempth.blogspot.com/2009/02/richard-morrison-trust-buster.html

    http://www.kissmybigbluebutt.com/#February_4

    http://www.fortbendweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1098&Itemid=1

    ReplyDelete
  33. Opps, googled this one too:

    http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com/2009/02/commissioner-morrison-leads-charge-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wonder if Neocon John is also my troll at Half Empty: Clark Bowers. Their writing styles are very similar.

    ReplyDelete
  35. once again why the attacks, can't libs stand for someone else to have a right to speak?
    Richard you asked me twice if I support funding the EDC with tax dollars and once again my answer is the same "the EDC is currently funded by a combination of tax dollars and companies paying dues. They both benefit the county gets new jobs and the company receives benefits". That seems fair.
    My question to you remains the same because you won't answer it. "If companies choose to not pay dues does the burden then shift to the tax payer?" You dodged my question by answering you plan on cutting the budget further.
    The course seems clear now, you plan on cutting EDC's budget. Why, doesn't EDC bring jobs to Ft Bend?
    Aren't new jobs more important than closing EDC down?
    Tell us why you seem so intent on shutting EDC
    down? Surely you're not just paying back a campaign promise as some have suggested. That would seem to be petty politics at the county's/taxpayer expense.

    Now let the troll attacks begin.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon @ 12:22 asked why I don't troll the other commissioners? My commissioner Mr Prestage doesn't have a web site or return phone calls. How do you suggest I troll him?
    He's a dem btw.
    I'm thankful Mr Morrison has taken the time to respond and doesn't see a conversation as trolling, and doesn't have to stoop to name calling or trashing the other posters.

    ReplyDelete
  37. If companies have already received a tax incentive in Texas in another County and are knowledgable about the process, they may feel that they don't need the assistance of the EDC.

    They now have the option.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mr Morrison thanks for your time, as you haven't answered the question I have to assume you won't.
    Hopefully you're actions won't cost taxpayers more or Ft. Bend jobs.
    Once again dems why would you be against me asking a question unless you're afraid the answer?
    As I've never heard of a blog called half empty you'd be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I'm thankful Mr Morrison has taken the time to respond and doesn't see a conversation as trolling, and doesn't have to stoop to name calling or trashing the other posters." (5:25p)

    Good point John and I agree, he is doing a heck of a job. We need Hebert, Meyers and Patterson to make the same kind of effort and to stop taking so much of the special interest funding and voting on those projects (maybe they could support the ethics proposal too and recuse themselves on these projects). Why don't you contact them and let them know and stop calling everyone who doesn't go along with you or your propaganda a "liberal". There is nothing "liberal" about honest and ethical government that is responsive to the electorate. You find ethical people in both parties and Mr. Morrison happens to be one that hasn't sold out.

    And John, I'm not a dem nor like you a faux conservative (neocon). I support proactive reform and free markets, which you apparently don't given your comment here and on other area blogs. Too bad for someone who spends so much time pointing his finger at others.

    What is really sad is that so many of our local republicans act more like corporatist and not conservatives. You might learn the difference and remember you can't praise Mr. Morrison in one post and then accuse him of NOT answering your question in the next when he has. That type of rhetorical attack doesn't even qualify for a freshman level HS debate class.

    I noticed he isn't censoring you like some have. He shames our local conservatives with his actions because they should have discarded this corporate welfare oligarchy/monopoly long ago in the name of Friedman. An ordinance like this limiting competition is IMO not constitutional or a conservative action. Obviously if Hebert, Paterson and Meyer didn't agree with RM they wouldn't have voted along on it.

    Isn't Hebert your elected official too? Didn't you ever try to contact him? Oh, I forgot, none of them have open discussions directly with their public.

    Do your homework and stop pointing fingers!

    ReplyDelete
  40. "the EDC is currently funded by a combination of tax dollars and companies paying dues."

    If the Chamber of Commerce can do this without our tax dollars why can't the EDC?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Aren't new jobs more important than closing EDC down?"

    When did he say he was going to shut down the edc? Because he is ending another monopoly? If they can't exist without advantage, why should they be given special favors? Shouldn't they have to exist in the free market the same as other organizations? Are you saying they can't exist without special government protections? Are you saying other non-tax supported entities aren't producing and attracting jobs? What are you saying are you only attacking like some hired pol. hack?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Maybe Hal Clark is "JBB"....

    ReplyDelete
  43. I must have struck a nerve to have so many libs with their panties in a wad.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I just wanted to say this open forum with the public was a great idea! Thanks commissioner.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry John/wadefishin (9:35) only you are name calling and defending monopolies and higher taxes (sounds pretty borrow, tax and spend fake conservative- neocon to me). Do you really intend to keep defending corporate welfare the remainder of your pseudo-retirement? Better go back and study up on your pol. science from HS, because you don't seem to understand basic philosophies.

    ReplyDelete
  46. what an interesting statement, "I noticed he isn't censoring you like some have". one site states "Censorship is the suppression of speech". Why are dems so into censorship? The liberal democrat is very scary. Be very very afraid of the censors.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Just my point John (1:13), he is the only commissioner reaching out, seeking ethics in government, more transparency, reduced budget and taxes and he doesn't take direction from the special interest. Quite a model for the other non-reform commissioners to follow. Maybe they will all learn to follow this model or at least get voted out for some others who will, who knows.

    So are you saying commissioner Morrison isn't typical? I would agree with that assessment. He seems to listen to his constituents.

    ReplyDelete
  48. no I didn't say that at all, so why try to put words into my mouth?
    What I did say very plainly was the poster saying I should be censored is a typical liberal dem and that is very scary.
    So are you in favor of Mr Morrison censoring those who may not agree with him as the one poster suggested? Most dems do that on their blogs in Ft Bend and does that bother you or do you also think only dems should post here?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I don't mind if you attack me, but I would appreciate it if you guys will refrain from attacking each other. I've tried to post all of the comments but I am considering not posting personal attacks against commenters. I will post all attacks against me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Actually you are misquoting John (wadefishin/JBB) as seems to be your norm throughout the blogging community in our area. The poster commented that this commissioner has an open site and has not censored, while other commissioners don't even offer this to their electorate. It is a wonderful opportunity for real members and voters to address him, besides you have admitted that he isn't in your precinct, so why camp out here and continually spin misinformation about him unless it is strictly campaigning on your part? Besides many real conservatives support and supported Mr. Morrison in his run because they were tired of the direction of the previous commissioner and because they believe this commissioner will act in the best interest of those that live here rather than your special interest bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Richard said...
    "I don't mind if you attack me, but I would appreciate it if you guys will refrain from attacking each other"
    and the attacks continue...
    will this be the norm here Richard?....voters ask questions and your nuts attack them?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Does anyone have an update to the original piece in this thread regarding the lack of open meetings and transparency?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I have talked to the County Attorney. He will have an opinion and guidelines regarding the Staff Briefing soon.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thank you Mr. Morrison for looking into this.

    ReplyDelete