Open Government Austin

Court update and the new Chronicle

We got to get started right at 9AM in Judge Yelenosky's court. The hearing is underway as I write this. Buck Wood, election attorney for the plaintiff's started with the testimony of Kathy Mitchell, of the ACLU, and Glen Maxey, former state representative.

The issues for today are whether the language amounts to prohibited electioneering and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute about the ballot language at this stage of the game.

In other news, the Austin Chronicle is out and has coverage about the amendments and last week's press conference. I noticed one thing I would like to point out.

King's article, Greens vs. Greens, has Ted Siff quoted as saying "part of the reason for the bond election postponement [from May to November] was the introduction of these amendments." On the opposite page, in Beside the Point, Dunbar addresses the same issue and states that

"The latest council spin is that the "open government" amendment pushed the bonds back to November – because the cost is so high, those poor bonds would just have to be re-jiggered. Never mind the fact that the decision to delay the bonds was made before the signatures were dry on the amendment petitions."

Supporters of the Open Government Online amendment met early on with the City of Austin about the impact of the amendments and the City had already decided to delay the bonds. The bond delay is not a result of this amendment, and we believe that when the dust settles that the amendment will cost far less than what the City says and not have any impact on bond money.

posted by opengovaustin @ Thursday, March 30, 2006