Are the "open" records really open.....or are other hands on the keys.

[madfloridian]

Closing Open Records

OR "What George Bush and Rick Perry don't want you to know"

SNIP..Closing the Door
"During recent years, state agencies have increasingly begun stamping documents as confidential or indicating that the work is subject to attorney-client privilege. The practice has a counterpart among federal documentation -- the "secret" classification, for example -- but even sensitive federal papers may be automatically declassified after 15 years, while no statutory time limit exists on the "confidential" papers of state agencies in Texas..."

SNIP..."At the Texas State Library the assumption had long been that once a state document reached the archives, it was open to public inspection, whatever the original nature of the document. Only those exceptions mandated by law (home telephone numbers of state officials, some Social Security information, e-mail addresses, etc.) would be blocked out, or "redacted." Gradually, however, because of the increasing number of state documents designated as classified, archivists have increasingly been required to seek attorney general opinions before opening them to the public...."

AND several other paragraphs, then this:
SNIP..In the future, if Gov. Perry, for example, decides that a document out of Gov. Bush's files -- an opinion by Al Gonzales might be a good example -- should be treated as confidential, it will now be submitted to the attorney general for a ruling (the same attorney general who just endorsed the idea of attorney-client privilege for state officials). In the past, there was a presumption of openness -- and with all due respect to his position, the governor would have been told to go fish. Now -- gradually, and then abruptly -- Gov. Rick Perry has laid his hands on the keys to Gov. George W. Bush's filing cabinet. ....."

A long read, but it is worth it to understand what is meant by "open" records in Texas.

[slinkerwink]

1. good point...

;-)

[AP]

2. That article was published on 11-7. Wasn't there a judicial order since...

...then (November Twenty-something?)? I thought that's what the thread yesterday claimed.

[madfloridian]

3. I did a search, unable to find.

Would love to see it if there is something newer.

[madfloridian]

14. Did you ever find the judicial order?

Let me know if you do. Thanks.

[madfloridian]

4. Whoopsy, this just keeps dropping and dropping.

Since Dean is being condemned by his own party, he will be opening his up. Let us watch and see who opens their files the most?
What do you say, all of you who went ballistic here about Dean's files? You won.

[AP]

5. Do you think it's wrong that we'll get a closer look at what Dean's about?

Don't you think that'll be a really good thing in terms of the primary?

[slinkerwink]

6. not if he's the front-runner and some repug decides to

twist a letter from a constituent about the civil unions in the worst way possible.

[madfloridian]

7. It does not bother me. It bothered you, remember?

You are getting your wish. I have a feeling it won't actually hurt Dean, but will hurt others. I am not that concerned.

I am more angry over the ugliness the Democrats are displaying. You know exactly what I mean.

It has nothing to do with primary, it is like people coming here with a purpose. It is not about the primary, it is just about hating Dean.

I don't understand it, but that is the way it is. I did some blog searching today, BTW. It is just not my style to post what I found, and I would probably be called down by the mods if I did.

[AP]

9. I just don't understand how anyone can be angry about having

more information upon which to base their opinions.

You should also be happy that this will no longer be a general election issue.

[madfloridian]

10. The GOP and the ones here who attack will find another reason.

I am not angry that he is having to release them. I am angry over the ugliness here....I think you know what I mean.

[Hep]

13. YEah

I want names and phone numbers of HIV positive and homosexual Vermoners. Then I'll really know what Dean's about.

[madfloridian]

8. A kick before this disappears.

I think it is important to know that these records are not really open. Geez, this thing just keeps dropping.

[slinkerwink]

11. :kicks:

here's to you, madfloridian!

[madfloridian]

12. A lot of people did not see this article.

It describes Texas "open records", and it shows that Bush did not open his voluntarily, if in fact they are really open?

[madfloridian]

15. A kick for "open" records that are not really open.

:kick:

[andym]

16. Here are the other relevant articles

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature3.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature2.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature4.html

Bottom line is that the Texas attorney general can be asked to rule on
whether the document can't be released under attorney/client privelege

The attorney general is currently a Bush supporter.

Apparently, he recently denied one request by the Austin Chronicle.

Other problem is that the archivists are still going through the records and cataloging them. They won't be done for two years according to the article (after the election).

So the records are open (as required by law), but there are barriers in place to impede public access.

[madfloridian]

17. Good post. Also very few archivists to do the work.

Or at least that is my understanding.