Legislators from both political parties are igniting interest in transparency and creating the opportunity for all lawmakers to protect the people’s right to know. They’re carrying on our state’s legacy of openness.

When the reform-minded 1973 Legislature enacted the Texas Public Information Act, known then as the Open Records Act, it established one of the nation’s strongest transparency laws. This year marks its 50th anniversary. Court rulings and other actions have weakened the law, but as we celebrate open government during Sunshine Month throughout March, let’s rally around the bills Texas legislators have filed this session to fortify the landmark act:

Kelley Shannon is executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, a nonprofit based in Austin.


(6) comments

Charlotte O'rourke

Thanks for a great editorial. Open government is a must have to ensure fiscal accountability and transparency. But the laws don’t have a lot of teeth to make government comply with the law.

A community needs a good newspaper and advocates to help in ensuring government complies with both open meetings and open records laws. The press should then disseminate information that the public has the right to know to help achieve transparency.

It’s past time that both of our city boards receive an internal audit that the city tried to conduct in 2019, but the boards shut down through political pressure.

I bet most newspaper readers do not know that the Port shut down the city internal auditor in 2019 from assessing the port’s FEMA liabilities only to receive the bill in 2021 for $10.7 million. The question is, why not?

Wayne Holt

This much-needed editorial comment, along with your amplification on the role of a free press and unbiased community voices, shows the exceptional wisdom of the Founders of our republic. They understood that organizations with the breadth of power that government wields ALWAYS will eventually degenerate into self-protecting behaviors. This is not mindless anti-government blubbering; it simply is a recognition of human nature and its tendencies when it is not checked effectively.

Perhaps I'm imagining things, but it seems to me one very salutary result of recent revelations of government deceit at all levels is that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. From indifference to government excess, there seems to be, all over America, a new enthusiasm to force transparency and demand the people's business be available for examination without running a gamut of impediments designed to avoid doing what should be done in any truly free society.

The next, even greater hurdle, will be the movement to enforce the law top to bottom, and to obliterate the two-tier system of justice that openly prevails in this country. (179)

Wayne Holt

Sorry, have to train to 150. And that's all I have to say about that.

Diane Turski

Thank you for the update regarding transparency in government information!

Jose' Boix

According to this Guest Column, in 1973 Legislature enacted the Texas Public Information Act, known then as the Open Records Act (ORA), implementing one of the nation’s strongest transparency laws.

Now during our Texas legislators have filed 15 Bills this session to fortify the landmark act:

• Contracting transparency: SB 680 and HB 2492.

• Public records business days: SB 618; HB 2135; and SBills 43 and 44.

• Dates of birth: SB 46 and HB 2309.

• Public records and attorneys’ fees: HB 2874.

• Searchable-sortable records: SB 965, SB 45 and HB 2493.

• Additional proposed transparency measures deal with public meetings, police accountability and other timely subjects. HB 30.

• Addressing public notices: SB 943, and HB 2178.

Why do we need 15 Bills to “fortify ORA”? Why not fix the base problem and “reword” ORA? Just my thoughts. (135)

David Hardee

There is an excellent and very astute point in the comment that, in essence asks, "why not just rewrite the existing legislature to incorporate the clarity and forcefulness needed?"

Considering how these constant legislative adds, revise, append, replace, clauses have created a circuitous multi hyphenated read which stupefies a straight line context for any reader. That reading difficulty leads to asking, why is that methodology always adopted?

A simple conclusion is that these methods serve some undisclosed value or personal desire.

A highly critical evaluation could arrive at the conclusion that the purpose of this method is to give the acknowledgement desired by those that make the incremental changes. An offering of legislation gives the author(s) personal recognition i.e. (sponsored by, attaboy) whereas a total rewrite would require a broad consensus approval and dilution of individual's acknowledgement. This maybe a cynical opinion, but does provide a probable reason that our statutes and laws are difficult ( a lawyer delight only) for interpretation.

Welcome to the discussion.

Internet forum rules ...
Real names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it clean. Don't use obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be brief. Keep posts to 150 words or less.
Edit yourself. No more than two posts per thread and stay on topic. Do not link to sites outside galvnews.com.
Be aware. All posts are property of The Daily News and may be republished in print.
Be proactive. Use the "Report" link on each comment to let us know of rule violations.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.