Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended the act, arguing that the lawsuit filed by former Alpine city council members Avinash Rangra and Anna Monclova was now moot.
The court’s en banc panel agreed and dismissed the case as moot by a 16-1 vote.
En banc means the entire court heard arguments, rather than just a panel.
Abbott called open, transparent government “fundamental to our democratic system of government.”
ABBOTT
“The Texas Open Meetings Act ensures that elected officials conduct the taxpayers’ business in the light of day and in a manner that informs the public about government decision-making,” Abbott said following the ruling. “Texans have a right to know about their government, their elected representatives and the policies that are being adopted on the public’s behalf.”
HO
Texas Solicitor General James Ho called the ruling “an important victory for the state.”
“It protects the fundamental principle of open government in Texas, and it preserves our federal court victory upholding the Texas Open Meetings Act,” Ho said.
In addition to defending open meeting act against constitutional challenge, the brief filed by Abbott in late August also argued that the case became moot when the plaintiffs left office. It argued that “only a ‘member of a governmental body’ covered by Texas Open Meetings Act can commit a crime under the Act – an ordinary citizen cannot.”
The brief explained that law no longer applied to either plaintiff because Monclova vacated her council seat in May 2006 and Rangra left the council in May 2009.
The court’s decision agreed with that argument and dismissed the case.
Rangra was indicted in February 2005 for violating Texas Open Meetings Act after sending e-mails to a quorum of the Alpine City Council. Because those e-mails discussed official government business, Rangra was charged with conducting an illegal, closed meeting. The charge was later dropped.
Rangra and Monclova, however, subsequently challenged law in federal court, claiming it violated the First Amendment. Their lawsuit sought an injunction preventing open meeting act’s enforcement.
The federal district court rejected the lawsuit, but a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit court later sent the case back to the trial court to review the statute under a stricter standard of review.
The three-judge panel ruling was vacated in July when the entire court decided to rehear the case at Abbott’s request.
Thursday’s opinion leaves intact the district court ruling that supported the Texas Open Meetings Act’s constitutionality.
“The Texas Open Meetings Act ensures that elected officials conduct the taxpayers’ business in the light of day and in a manner that informs the public about government decision-making,” Abbott said following the ruling. “Texans have a right to know about their government, their elected representatives and the policies that are being adopted on the public’s behalf.”
Could someone please make certain that all the KISD board members get a copy of this? Maybe then they’ll quit deciding things BEFORE they get to the open meeting and maybe they’ll stop letting committees make their decisions for them and maybe they’ll realize that each one of them should speak for himself/herself and that the board president isn’t their convenient mouthpiece.
Mary,
You are in a unique position as a former elected KISD School Board Trustee to answer my question. What exactly is the board able to discuss in closed door session and what are they NOT supposed to take up?
Seems to me when they come out of the closed door sessions even the items I thought were “public in nature” had been discussed and acted upon. It seems they are of the opinion that “since we are here already we might as well take up these other matters.” If this is the case, is it legal and what recourse do we have to push things further?
I know you are not an attorney although oddly enough we do have one on the Board. Your insight would be appreciated.
Very good point Mary. We still haven’t received all the TPIA information ordered released by the Texas AG office in our attempts in FBISD to expose the potential graft surrounding our “Taj Mahal Duplicate Museum”. Jenney first promised to deliver, then ignored, later claimed he had and is now sticking by this story. He never turned over the ordered release of his related phone records, all the related e-mails or his expense reports. The same vendor company involved with shilling this project was under FBI investigation earlier in the year for graft in another school district, but our superintendent and board, taking orders from him, has complete confidence in them regarding this 30-50 million dollar taxpayer supported duplicate museum project.
All this is on top of a near 20 million dollar budget deficit (doubling last years first ever deficit of 10)…..according to him all is operating smoothly as we sell more homes in the community….lol
..I’ve never been on a sinking ship like this one before…
Move over as yours is not the only sinking ship. We too are spending more than we take in at KISD and as a result the “rainy day fund” is being used to cover operating expenses. Some citizens have asked our Board what the long term plan is for solving the problem as costs will continue to rise and there is talk about our “need” for more bond money which in turn will require servicing.
To date, as far as I know, these requests have been met with total silence. Too bad we can’t file an open records request for what they are thinking on the subject as they clearly are not talking. Sadly, if they complied with that request I fear the report might come back as a totally blank sheet of paper.
FBISD, KISD, CFISD, Any Town ISD, can’t operate long term with a budget shortfall without having to take serious corrective action. The longer we let it fester the greater the shock to everyone’s pocket book or the more serious the cut to services or probably both will be. I don’t understand why this message has such a hard time getting through to those in charge. Maybe they won’t run for re-election the year before it all hits the fan and leave it for someone else to clean up?
Ross- I often wonder if this is a realestate development industry template for flight into ever expanding exurbia. The mammoth size companies come into an area, join the district foundation, local chamber and edc and then help pick your “yes” BOT. Then they use their PACs to push for more and more bond debt to build schools in their communities while charging full value for the land while giving a very small portion of it back through contributions for certain candidates and to the foundation and other related charity for the require photo-ops and then repeat as you build out and drive further into the newer exurbia. Leaving wreakage and debt in its wake (and falling home values).
Perhaps over-simplified, but I believe that KISD’s last superintendent had them all over his finance reports (district vendors and developers and their law firms). The PAC that Howard and the edc belong to helped push our last record bond debt ($430m), which has helped drive this huge/current budget deficit, that began last year and moved us into the top ten in the state for this type of debt for the first time in the district history (all the wrong firsts).
Once the district reputation is used up, then we all move again to the next latest and greatest and feed off another area and talk about what happened to district X. It just doesn’t seem sustainable and much like the planned obsolescence in other industries it is cyclical. All they have to do is keep certain politicians in power to insure this business template. How does one break the paradigm and move toward a sustainable school system that focusses on the families and the community, rather than what’s next when we dispose of this place?
You raise some very good points. Let’s talk land values and what we (ISD) pays for land in order to build a school. The last purchase was for almost $100,000/acre and we took down quite a few of them in anticipation of a new school going in.
Let’s roll the tape back:
In the beginning a developer comes to town and seeks out the local rancher or farmer and buys the land for not all that much. Then they set up a MUD to build out the water and sewer system and float bonds the eventual homeowners will pay off. Then they look around and see there is no school out here in the prairie but not to worry, they post huge signs saying this is a great neighborhood, always speak of low taxes (can you believe that part?) and how wonderful KISD schools are, so come on down and buy a home here for top dollar.
As the homes are built, the developer talks to the district and says its about time we got moving on a new school to service all these new neighbors who after all paid top dollar because of KISD schools. So the ISD agrees and then we purchase the land at TOP dollar, sometimes for more than 40 times what the developer paid for it a couple of years earlier.
So we float a few bonds to buy the land and some more to build the school and everyone is happy except the taxpayer.
I suggest we change the story line:
Developer buys land from farmer
Developer sets up MUD
Developer is told by ISD there will be NO school and we will set up a HUGE sign telling would be home owners their children will be BUSED to another location for classes.
If developer wants school, land is donated and makes a healthy deposit into the “lets build a school account.” This is similar to the account the developer uses now for, “pools, tennis courts, green belts, walking trails, club house, etc. Just add “school” to the list.
It sounds too simple to me, I must be missing something, can you help me?
Sounds right. We saw the developers in one of our communities us their PR office officials and developer HOA run board to steer voters to their BOT candidates. It was like watching “clock work orange”, but in reality. We also watch them use transfer fees along with our MUD money to build the subdivision and then the local mayor, chief county judge and school officials (they helped get in power and contribute to) all come out for a ribbon cutting and to pat each other on the backs, at our expense mind you giving the developer all the credit and declaring a special day for him.
I didn’t hear them thanking the taxpayers of the community for carrying the debt or tax burden or the full market commercial costs they charged on the once agricultural land. What was also interesting is these same large Houston and out of area interest advertise these schools (trade deception) in their communities on their signs and maps even before they are approved by that entity using them to sell to the unsuspecting masses.
What a template…..I’m tired of being a sheeple. What ever happened to set-a-sides on the land. They should be contributing the property at agr. costs at least since it is attracting their buyers to their bottom line.
Greed is an amazing thing. Once always wants more….
Perhaps Ross we should give up principles and join the biz???? . . . on second though. . . a big NA! It’s much more fun exposing them.
Here is the really scary part for some.
I truly believe what I posted is the best course of action and wish our school boards felt the same as this is an important step towards putting our financial house in order as roughly 27% of all tax money collected in our district goes to debt service!
I support the profit motive 100% and believe anyone willing to take the risk of developing a parcel of land ON THEIR dime should be rewarded for the effort if they are successful. The marketing of these new homes always includes a tag line about Katy ISD schools. It becomes “chicken or egg” thinking at best as we don’t need the new school if the developer stays away and by building a new neighborhood they ask the rest of us to subsidize their commercial effort with our tax dollar. They build it, they profit from it and all of us pay for it. A few benefit at the expense of the many.
Just as the developer makes a business decision about the potential profit of a parcel of land based on what he will have to do to get it ready they should be prepared to think about the positive impact of a neighborhood school AND the cost of that school. At bare minimum the land should be set aside for the school at no cost to the taxpayers along with a down payment towards construction costs.
Muckraker: just curious, but is that community Woodcreek Reserve? I have heard many things about the opening of the new Jr. High on Katy Flewellen Rd. that left many questions in my mind about that developer.
Shemp, we’ve seen this pattern/template with mostly the large well connected neighborhoods. I would caution anyone from naming them outright in a public forum because big development companies and builders keep a small fleet of lawyers on retainer for just such a purpose. They even get to make a business deductions for their legal expenses so they need to keep those corporate attorneys busy. Some have been even known to troll the blogs looking for victims. SLAPP-suits are the most common in that industry against consumers. It is though a fairly well documented pattern of consumer abuse and it does appear directed at the middle class.