If I have the story correct, it appears our mayor may have violated
the Texas Open Records Act.
Here is what I understand happened: A request was made for
email by a reported (Brett Shipp), or someone else, in which the reported ended
up with a copy of an email between Jordan and Maczka. It appears the email was
edited before being turned over. The email contained two subjected, the
Palisades deal and some personal stuff.
A third person happened to have a complete copy of the email
in question and provided that complete copy to the reported.
Part of the email had to do with city business between and a
conversation about such between Maczka and the Palisades developer Jordan. The
second part of this email had to do with personal stuff, like hooking up and
going to Northpark to “play”. They were to meet at his office and take the Dart
rail to Northpark.
This was dated pre-December 2013. While there may not be
anything illegal with their actions, making a choice to release an edited version
of the email asked for by a FOI request seems to be illegal.
When may a governmental body refuse to release the
information I request?
If the information you request falls within one of the
exceptions to disclosure found in the Public Information Act, the governmental
body may refuse to release the information while it seeks an open records
decision from the Attorney General. Unless the governmental body has a previous
determination from a court or the Attorney General regarding the precise
information requested, a governmental body cannot determine on its own to
withhold information.
It would appear the government body or the representative of
the government cannot decide on their own to release some of a particular
email, and not release another part of the email on their own. It is up to the
attorney general to make that decision.
If this is what happened, there is probably going to be a
big problem.
Ruh, Roh!!!! so much for that Aggie honor code
ReplyDeleteYes, she sold out on that too. Most take it pretty seriously.
ReplyDeleteI think it will depend on the formatting of the email and the wording of the request. Was the email edited to exclude things or was it just that the prior emails in the chain were not included? If the prior emails weren't responsive to the request they don't have to be included. Just the portion that are. But you definitely can't edit out pieces of a single email that are unrelated.
ReplyDeletewiggleworm! That's exactly the kind of logic that has enabled the City of Richardson to hide embarrassing information and evidence of malfeasance. The people deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Of course, they would have to actually believe in God too. Otherwise, all bets are off.
DeleteWas it from her personal email or city account? Aimee Nemer takes information requests very seriously and I highly doubt she'd risk her own reputation to edit city emails prior to responding.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, it was her personal email account. It is my understanding it was Laura who deleted the personal part of that specific email in question. I think you call it right on Aimee, she seems to be an outstanding city secretary.
ReplyDeleteOh you nosy people. The time it takes to respond to Open Records requests is why City expenses are so high!
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing: Get Off My Lawn!
Tongue-in-cheek impersonation of Bob Townsend, I take it. That's funny.
DeleteThe incredible part of all of this is that had she just been truthful and recognized she had a responsibility to distance herself if she found herself in a relationship way back when, we could have moved along. Now, increased work for everyone, damage control, embarrassment all due to one person who wanted (still wants) the glory of the job and the guy too. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteThis all follows the pattern of municipal corruption we have come to recognize as how public servants in Richardson operate. Move along now. Nothing new to see here.
Delete