TML moves forward with resolution to ease penalties for meeting violations

A controversial resolution that seeks to lessen penalties against elected officials who violate the Texas Open Meetings Act is raising debate throughout the state.

According to the Austin-based Texas Municipal League, a nonprofit organization that, for a fee, represents the interests of more than 1,100 cities in the state, the resolution was adopted by TML’s board at its annual conference. The TML in turn will lobby state representatives and senators during the next legislative session to replace the enforcement provisions of the act with less restrictive penalties.

That the resolution passed, however, came as a surprise to at least one member of TML’s board who as of Friday believed that the resolution had not been adopted during the late October conference in Fort Worth.

"I am shocked," TML board member Mayor Joel Quintanilla of Mercedes said.

"Either I misunderstood the entire meeting or something is happening. The way I understand it, we all (board members) voted in favor of keeping the restrictive penalties, not lessening them," Quintanilla said. He also recalled that a good bit of discussion was had among the board. "We didn’t want elected officials to get comfortable," Quintanilla recalled.

Quintanilla said he would be contacting TML officials to find out what is going on.

Quintanilla sits on the TML board because he is the regional president of TML’s Region 12 that covers Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy and Cameron counties.

Before the board voted on the resolution, TML’s Resolutions Committee also provided its input.

"The consensus (of the TML Resolutions Committee) was that things were fine the way they were (with the Texas Open Meetings Act) and that trying to reinvent the wheel was not in the best interest of everyone involved," city of Mercedes Commissioner Ruben Guajardo said.

"We (the resolutions committee) felt that to change something (in the meetings act) was just not correct. It really wasn’t right. The consensus was to leave the Texas Meetings Act the way it is," Guajardo said. He added that there were 60-75 elected officials on the resolutions committee and that only a handful disagreed and wanted harsher penalties.

TML did not respond to numerous requests to explain the resolution-approval process.

The city of Brownsville is a member of TML and pays membership fees — from taxpayer funds — of $10,177 a year.

No one from Brownsville was on the resolutions committee or is a member of the Region 12 board, but City Manager Charlie Cabler said Friday that he is not overly concerned about the penalties in the act.

As Cabler sees it, "You shouldn’t worry about penalties if you are following the law."

But Cabler noted that he believes part of the concern for some people has been "the vagueness" of the act. He said that under the act, if a quorum of officials meet, it is an automatic violation, whereas some officials say that the act should not apply if they are not voting or making policy decisions.

The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits elected officials from discussing public business outside of an open meeting. An elected or appointed official of a board also commits a misdemeanor offense if one or several meet in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations. They could be fined up to $500 and spend up to six months in jail if they have secret deliberations.

The resolution that supposedly was passed at the TML conference states that the criminal provisions of the act are unreasonable and possibly unconstitutional, preventing officials from communicating with colleagues regarding even the most benign information.

It notes that less restrictive penalties would not only continue to preserve the integrity of the act, but would also recognize the fundamental right of city officials to free speech.

Fred Hartman, chairman of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association’s Legislative Advisory Committee, said the issue boils down to one question: "What are elected officials afraid of?"

"They should not have any fear of doing the public’s business in open," Hartman said. Hartman pointed out that the meetings act has been in effect since 1973.

"It’s an excellent law. It hasn’t been a problem. If any penalties are changed, it will be a gigantic step backward," he added, noting that without penalties, there is not an incentive for elected officials to obey the law. "People don’t want more corruption in our government and more scandals."

Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that the meetings act is clear. "The only thing the act says is that elected officials must conduct the people’s business in public. It is not that difficult to figure out," Elkins said.

"It has not been a problem for 36 years," he said, adding that boards from the state level to the local level have figured out how to conduct public business and not run afoul of the law, "and all of a sudden it’s a problem?"

The city of Sugar Land presented the resolution to TML as several cities move to challenge the meetings act in federal court.