Some winners and losers under the OGO
Like any change, there will be some winners and losers under new legislation such as the Open Government Online (OGO) amendment. There are several groups that will benefit from greater openness and transparency here in Austin:
- Austin Taxpayers – The amendment will save money in the long term from streamlining the open records process, by giving Austin better development and tax abatement deals, and by exposing waste and inefficiency in city government;
- Neighborhoods – The amendment will allow neighborhood groups to be early and effective participants in the development projects that directly affect their property values and their quality of life;
- Community groups and individual citizens – Any community group or individual citizen that wishes to become more active in local politics will quickly and easily get the tools and information needed to become active participants in local issues;
- Press – Members of the press will get complete and timely access to important issues and will, in many cases, not have to go through the laborious and sometimes expensive process of open records requests to get crucial information. The role of the press will be enhanced because reporters will be able to review complex documents in the timely fashion they need to meet tight deadlines, and the public still needs the independent and balanced assessment reporters can provide;
- Council members – Council members need effective access to information about the City more than anyone. Opening up many of the records and information contained in the Open Government Online Amendment will allow Council members to more quickly and efficiently keep tabs on the wide variety of activities that make up City business;
- City staff – Much like council members, city staff need effective and quick access to important documents. Under this amendment, policy manuals and other crucial documents will be available online for quick and easy reference;
- City Auditor – The City Auditor’s office, which oversees Austin business, will have quick and easy access to important contracts and other documents needed for the effective oversight of city affairs;
- Companies doing business with the City – Companies wishing to do business with the City will gain because they can get better feedback on their bids by easily analyzing winning contracts. This will allow them to become more competitive for future contracts by gaining insight into the contracting process;
- Police officers – The majority of police officers follow all the rules and do their jobs without any taint of misconduct. Because police misconduct files are hidden, the majority of honest cops get the taint of misconduct every time there is an allegation of misconduct that can’t be cleared up or balanced by information about the actual record of most officers.
Some groups will not, of course, benefit from the Open Government Online Amendment:
- Police officers with a history of misconduct – The small minority of officers that have committed some sort of misconduct will lose some of the secrecy that currently surrounds their behavior.
- Special interest lobbyists – Any lobbyist or group that depends on keeping their meetings with officials a secret will lose the edge over the public that secrecy brings, but they will no doubt change with the new policies and continue to meet with council members and provide input into the processes that affect them.
- Corporations bringing proposals not aligned with community interests – The Open Government Online Amendment makes community groups and neighborhood associations early participants in the development process. Any corporation trying to bring a development that is not aligned with community interests will no longer be able to use secrecy and delayed notices to shield their efforts.
Charter amendment would open police misconduct records
I first became aware of the City of Austin's decision to close most police misconduct records after the infamous
Cedar Avenue Valentines Police Riot in 1995, when more than 80 officers descended on a junior high schoolers' Valentine party and maced or beat up most of the African American kids there. The episode happened in my neighborhood and involved longtime family friends.
When we tried to use the public information act to investigate records of officers involved in that incident, we drew nearly a blank - almost nothing was publicly available. But if the same incident had occurred involving a Travis County Sheriff's Deputy, we learned, all those records would be open.
Since that time, working with
ACLU of Texas' Police Accountability Project, I've seen the same situation continue to thwart civil rights groups and families of police brutality victims who can't get information about controversial cases. Under Texas' civil service law the City can choose to close most records about police misconduct, but more than 2,000 other Texas law enforcement agencies operate right now with the same information public.
Some opponents of the Open Government charter amendment have
obfuscated how this key provision would work. The proposed change regarding police records is essentially similar to that proposed by the Sunshine Project for Police Accountability in 1998, and unanimously
recommended by the Austin charter review commission in 2002. In 2001 then-state Rep. Glen Maxey, now leader of the
CleanAustin.org campaign,
carried legislation that would have opened some of these records - the bill passed the Texas House but died for lack of time in the Senate. So these are records the community has been seeking to open up for a long time.
Here's a clearcut summary of the provision on police records from
CleanAustin.org in their
section by section analysis (Word doc):
Under the Texas civil service code, which covers records about misconduct for Austin police officers, two personnel files are described. Cities "must,” maintain a file where public records about discipline are kept, and "may" keep a second file where they can store records that become closed (Local Government Code 143.089 a-g). All civil service cities (about 70) including Austin use the two-file system to close as many files as possible, while the disciplinary files of the other 2,400+ Texas law enforcement agencies are governed by the more generous Texas Public Information Act (Government Code 552.108). By maintaining only the mandatory file under this amendment, APD records will be open to the same extent they are presently open down the street at the Travis County Sheriff's Department and in most other cities.
So the new amendment doesn't propose any radical new revelation of police records -- it would only open records about allegations of police misconduct to the same extent as they're presently public at police departments in Dallas, El Paso, and "down the street at the Travis County Sheriff's Department." It's an elegant and much-needed fix -- a decisive exercise of local control to open critical records to the public.
The Open Government charter amendment would also make negotiating meetings public between the City of Austin and the police officer's union over their "meet and confer" contract. A new law that took effect last year covering most other Texas cities made their labor negotiations public, so this provision just brings Austin into compliance with established practice throughout the rest of Texas.
Most police officers never engage in serious misconduct. But for the few who do, they deserve the same public scrutiny as sheriff's deputies or police in Dallas and El Paso. Transparency, really is all we're talking about. Police administrators would still make all disciplinary decisions, it's just that the public would know a lot more about the outcomes.
Debate Thursday at St. Edwards over Props 1 and 2
Please mark your calendars and plan to attend!
Public Forum on Prop. 1 and 2
OPEN GOVERNMENT ONLINE AMENDMENT
&
SAVE OUR SPRINGS AMENDMENT
Moderated Debate & Question/Answer Session
This Thursday, April 13, from 6:30-8:30pm, a public forum on this decade’s two most important Austin charter amendments will take place at St. Edward’s University.
SAVE THE DATEWHEN:
Thursday, April 13 2006, 6:30-8:30pm (doors at 6:00)
WHERE:
St. Edwards Campus: Jones Auditorium in the Ragsdale Center—the debate will be in Room 100, on the west side of the bottom floor (Ragsdale is the long building in the middle of campus).
WHO:
Speaking In Support:
Bill Bunch, Executive Director of Save Our Springs Alliance
Glen Maxey, former State Representative and Clean Austin Campaign Director
Speaking In Opposition:
Gus Garcia, former Mayor
Daryl Slusher, works for Austin Energy and former City Council member
Presenting the most passionate, informed, and open discourse on these crucial issues, Thursday’s forum is designed to thoroughly expose, educate, and involve the public in the “Open Government Online” and “Save Our Springs” debates.
Debate hosted by the Environment Science and Policy program of the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences at St Edwards University.
Free parking for event. Campus Maps at:
www.stedwards.edu.
Austin can't afford secrecy
How much will the Open Government amendment cost? No one knows, though we know for sure the City's cost estimate is
vastly overstated and the City
conceded in court the amount would
not be enough to require a tax increase.
The real question is how much would open government save? Business and governments, including the City of Austin, already are racing to do their work on the Internet because it is so much more efficient.
Just as important, how much would we save by changing the culture of city hall to reduce the influence of special interests? If public scrutiny means the City refrains from approving just a handful of these all-too-common back-room-deal tax giveaways, like the ones to Home Depot and AMD where all the important decisions were made behind closed doors, the amendment would assuredly pay for itself.
The question isn't can we afford open government in Austin. The question is whether Austin can afford continued secrecy surrounding how the City conducts business.
