More about Bush's not so open records.

[madfloridian]

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html

SNIP..."Restrictions on Access
Records in process: Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public Information Act exceptions, an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed for research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions of the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by mail, fax, or email including enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the archivist to accurately identify and locate the information requested. If our review reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a decision.Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.
Records series described in this finding aid have access restrictions specific to each of them. The terms of access are found following the series' descriptions....."

I keep hearing his open records referred on the news and in some posts here. My points:
1. How do you request something that is detailed enough if you don't have details?
2. The archivist has 10 days. That is if they are not overworked. May take longer.
3. The Attorney General has 45 days to reply. Then he may reply in the negative.
4. He may allow some to be redacted and removed, and you may view the rest.

Is this my definition of open records? Nope.

[goodhue]

1. Is this a definition of sealed records?

nope

[kentuck]

2. Yep!

Sealed.

[sendero]

3. kinda depends...

... on the AG now doesn't it?

[goodhue]

7. not sealed

This is my limited understanding, not being a Texas data practices lawyer . . .

The AG opined that the records must be "available to the public" pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 441.201. The records are in the custody of the director and librarian of the the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. Any requests not surprisingly go thru the custodian. Certain records may be classified under statute protecting privacy as confidential and redacted. That is how it works with most data practices schemes. Requesting info under FOIA is also burdensome and time-consuming and may produce records that have non-public data redacted. Very common. Confidential and non-public data however is generally not "sealed." Sealing is a whole nother level of protection in that that the records are literally closed and cannot be opened absent removal of the seal.

I certainly acknowledge that the Bush records may be difficult to get to but they are not "sealed" in the legal sense. Dean's records are so sealed. Apples and oranges.

Notice how the Dean party line has shifted from Dean will not unseal his records until Bush does so, to attacking the burdensome procedure by which the Bush records are (or are not) available to the public.

This will all be moot in any event as Dean surely will unseal or else this will continue to dog him. Can't imagine what would be in records that would be worse than continually dealing with this annoying issue.

[goodhue]

4. Texas AG Op

Entire opinion is here:

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op49cornyn/jc-0498.htm

Some excerpts:

Pursuant to section 441.201, then-governor George W. Bush in December 2000 signed a Designation Agreement naming the George Bush Presidential Library, a federal facility under the authority of the National Archives, as the alternative repository for his gubernatorial records.

A series of questions has arisen with respect to this designation. In particular, these questions concern ownership of the records, the applicability of the Texas Public Information Act to these records, and the role of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission (the "Commission") in the designation process.

As we understand it, the Office of the Governor takes the view that the Commission need not be a party to the Designation Agreement and that the agreement need not "incorporat all the specific requirements of the Texas Public Information Act."

It is also our understanding that the Commission believes that its participation in the agreement is necessary and that the Texas Public Information Act continues to apply to these records.

We conclude that the records in question are the property of the State of Texas, that the records are subject to the provisions of the Texas Public Information Act and that the Commission is a necessary party to the "memorandum of understanding, deposit agreement, or other appropriate documentation."

* * * *

Given that section 441.201 requires that the records be "available to the public," see Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 441.201 (Vernon 1998), and that the ordinary standard for what constitutes the "availability" of Texas public records such as these is that of the Texas Public Information Act, we conclude that the public availability mandated in section 441.201 is governed by the Texas Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. The director and librarian of the Commission, which retains constructive custody of the records on behalf of the state, see id. §§ 441.006(a)(8), .193 (Vernon 1998 & Supp. 2002), is the public information officer with respect to them for purposes of the Texas Public Information Act.

[rucky]

5. Then this is what Dean should do

and make it clear that he's doing it to make a point

it:

gets the heat off of him
keeps the playing field level
and exposes *'s idea of "open" records, so Dean can stay on message about transparency in the WH.

[madfloridian]

6. Closing Open Records, What Bush and Perry don't want you to know.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature.html

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.

[realFedUp]

8. "open"....if you can get passed the armed guards

:-)

[madfloridian]

9. Dems against Dean don't even care about Bush's stonewalling.

You would rather go after Dean. If Dean opens his records wide for all to view, you will find something else to fuss about.

[underpants]

14. I think this is more about pre-emptive campaigning from the RNC

Sure there is something in Dean's (or anyone's) records that can be used against him but I think this has more to do with establishing an image in the 'Murkan peoples' minds about him should he get the nomination. Also it serves to deflect attention even though it normally would raise quesitons. Thus is your American media.

[Eloriel]

10. Oh, definitely

a :kick:

Eloriel

[JNelson6563]

11. up is down, black is white, closed is open

;-)

[madfloridian]

12. Think the media will cover Bush's not so open records?

Nope. No more than they will cover the serious dangers of the Medicare bill. They are too busy playing with numbers about the economy. They don't care about anything but Dean's records, that is all.

I think this needs some media attention. Dean will be forced to open his records......Bush still will not have open records..

Who cares? Not DU, not the press. Just get that darn Dean.
He is already being attacked by someone who did not want their letter opened. He can not win, whether he opens them or not.

[Terwilliger]

13. I agree...Dean should never have to reveal anything

since the media didn't care about Bush, why should they care about Dean?

[HootieMcBoob]

15. but the problem is that they do

Dean should be able to use this to his advantage. "unseal" his records in the same way that Bush has and challange the media to get access to and review both. My guess is that they would have a really hard time getting any real access to Bush's records. Then Dean will be able to turn the table on Bush and the GOP by demanding that Bush make his records accessible. He can also demand that the Cheney energy meetings, his pre 9/11 intelligence briefings and the 28 pages be open as well. Like Al Franken says...use ju jitsu on them.

[madfloridian]

16. Excellent point.

They should both "unseal" the same way. :evilgrin: