Last week’s ruling on the Odessa American’s three-year battle with the City of Odessa was a disappointment, but not a huge one.
Because there, throughout both the majority opinion and the 28-page dissent, was our (and the public’s) issue with the City of Odessa.
“The record leaves little doubt that future noncompliance should reasonably be expected. It shows a consistent pattern of delays in producing basic information — in violation of the rights of the public and the press.”
That little gem was in Justice Bruce Williams’ dissent from the 2-1 ruling that was released March 16 by the 11th Court of Appeals.
Even the majority opinion opined that the City of Odessa is gaming the rules and delaying the release of information that is ALWAYS owned by the public.
The majority opinion detailed: “The record before us demonstrates that the City — which at one time was willing and capable of providing basic information to media sources “within hours” — is now delaying the production of the same information for days, weeks, and even (in the case of the mass shooting) months. The City has offered little justification or reasons for its abrupt change in its policy and practice of releasing requested information, other than that it simply wanted to change it.
Sure, some local elected officials and their henchmen (who are, of course, sitting on numerous boards appointed by the same untrustworthy elected officials), are out there spreading their usual lies. The OA wants money. The OA wants to print sensitive information that is always protected. The OA is a former daily paper. (Quick response — we are a daily paper. We print a digital edition seven days a week and a print product two days a week).
Our mission is to produce a news product that informs and entertains readers in both our legacy print product and our digital edition and on our website.
Part of that mission requires access to information the Legislature of the State of Texas has deemed open. Open in a reasonable amount of time — not four months after two people are shot to death at a local car wash or 138 days after a mass shooting or any of the many other delays cited by both the dissent and the majority opinion.
And, again in the majority opinion: “Appellant’s (the OA) pleadings are not merely directed at Appellee’s (the City) failure to produce basic information regarding local crime, but rather its regular failure to timely produce such information. Indeed, the record documents hundreds of requests to the City of Odessa for information with delayed responses of weeks and months.”
Despite what’s been suggested, we have not, nor will we ever seek to interfere with a police investigation, nor would we ever print rape victims’ or child abuse victims’ names and addresses. Nor are we going to provide the bad guys with information about our law enforcement officers.
In fact, every single time we fill out a public records request we click three boxes. The first one states: Please send me only non-confidential information. The second: I hereby expressly exclude such information from the scope of my request and authorize the city to remove or redact such information from the responsive records without seeking a ruling from the Attorney General and the third: I seek only basic information. And yet, the city continues to waste the AG’s time by seeking its opinion on the release of “confidential” information we neither asked for nor expected! Each time, the AG reassured the city they were right to withhold it noting “your request does not present a novel or complex issue.”
Whomever wrote the city’s press release on the ruling must have had input from Mayor Javier Joven, because it clearly suggested our lawsuit is about our desire to jam up the police and to print victims’ names to drive up our subscription rates. Again, our obligation is to inform the community about crimes in the interest of public safety!
The AG is so backlogged by the City of Odessa’s opinion requests, the AG apparently hasn’t had the time to research and offer its opinion on non-police related TPIA requests.
We asked for three years’ worth of human resource complaints in December. Still waiting. In early January we asked for emails and witness statements pertaining to the closed and now re-opened Odessa Fire Rescue cadet investigation. Still waiting.
Are those frivolous topics? We think not.
Despite what has been repeatedly spouted by the city, the OA is NOT going after the city’s deep pockets. Don’t believe us? Read this, straight out of the Court of Appeal’s dissent opinion. “Importantly, Appellant’s petition in the trial court seeking statutory relief, when reviewed as to its constitutional claims, does not seek money damages, rather it is a suit for equitable remedy. A plaintiff whose constitutional rights have been violated may sue the state for equitable relief.”
Has the City spent more than $300,000 of tax dollars on this fight? Yes. But that is the fault of our City Council. The council last year was offered the opportunity to simply sign an agreement that they would follow Texas law to the letter and produce information in a timely manner and stop needlessly seeking the AG’s opinion on basic information.
That’s it. That is all they had to do and they could have cut that number by half. But, guess what? They didn’t and now they want to complain the OA has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Actually, this newspaper has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of its own money on attorneys fee on behalf of ALL Odessans to fight for their right to information that has always been considered public.
That number will continue to climb as we ask the Texas Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. In fact, the same lying elected officials also have created an atmosphere so toxic most of the legal staff at the City resigned or retired after the firing of former City Attorney Natasha Brooks.
Sure, our mayor spouts off “promises made, promises kept” about the much smaller legal staff as if he or any of his crew actually saved tax dollars by creating a leaner legal staff. Nope. They did not, and now the City must hire outside law firms for hundreds and hundreds of dollars per billable hour not just to fight our lawsuit but also to handle other legal issues that well-run cities typically use city staff to handle.
Ask yourselves this: Why would Mayor Joven & Co. continue to fight this battle? Is it really because they believe they’re in the right or is it because they hate the OA? Could it be related to the fact that in recent months, the OA has been shining a light on their shenanigans with a whole heck of a lot of help from the TPIA? Why else would they continue to slow down the TPIA process by needlessly asking the AG for permission to deny us information we never even sought?
But back to our lawsuit. Our commitment continues to fight for not just ourselves but for the right of the public to access information that state law has clearly defined as open.
We will continue the good fight and we will continue to point out when those who hold public office are not being transparent and truthful.
And we’ll end with this. Again, from Williams and his dissent, which clearly illustrates why we will continue our fight:
“The majority affirms the trial court’s order on the grounds that the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) does not waive sovereign immunity for mandamus relating to the lack of promptness in providing public information. I disagree, and would further hold that the issue is not moot since Appellee has not, among other things, met its ‘formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’”
