As you may or may not know, Emma Acosta has put an item on tomorrow’s city council agenda asking for discussion and action limiting the release of open records under the Texas Public Information Act to individuals that have been convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes involving moral turpitude. We all know that this measure directly targets Jaime Abeytia.
Emma Acosta is utterly wrong for even contemplating this measure. It is even worse that she put it on the city’s agenda.
Whether you like Abeytia or dislike him, the fact remains that public information is not a commodity that can be parceled out or traded. It is a right afforded to everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike. (much the chagrin of some of you who hate my blog) As a right, no public official should be thinking, much less officially putting measures for public discussion that seeks to limit access to government records.
Many of us believe that Emma Acosta is posturing to run for mayor. Whether her attempt to limit access to public records is a way to ensure that unflattering information about her is kept from the public dialog, or simply because she dislikes Jaime Abeytia is immaterial because she is seeking to limit a fundamental right everyone has.
In recent months, more so the last few weeks, city council has been publicly debating how material ends up on the city council’s agenda. As a result, certain procedures have been implemented to forestall agenda items that are there for political purposes and items that expose city staff to undo burdens. City council has vacillated between allowing elected officials to post items without back up materials and having to wait two weeks before it appears on the agenda to allowing elected officials to post material to the agenda only hours before the agenda is officially posted.
With all of that agenda debate it boggles the mind about how Emma Acosta was allowed to have this item posted to the city’s official agenda.
I just spent the last week analyzing the Ross Fisher report tying it together with the public corruption that I believe El Paso is infested with. Much of what I write about centers on the secrecy in government that has allowed the corruption to remain unimpeded.
Now, the city has a public official asking for a measure to keep even more secrets.
This only happens on a corruption-infested city like El Paso.
Why shouldn’t she block access ? It’s an accepted practice at the city and county. I agree it’s a very risky idea that can only lead to even secrecy. The local government entities lie or hide information as well as the media.
Why is the perv so interested in these council members emails ? What does he know or suspect and why is she driven to block access ? Perhaps it’s a political fishing expedition ? However the matter in she reacted leads me to believe there is something there.
Don’t like the guy myself, but to approve her proposal is very risky ! It’s legitimizing with holding of public records. Isn’t that what got local and national politicians in hot water ?
Are we ready to forfeit another right ? We need the truth good or bad or be prepared to surrender everything we fought for.
On another note, I got a good chuckle at Ann Lilley Morgan’s letter to the editor. She is a hypocrite, liar, and still pending legal action for two assaults on city employees. Another reason we need to clean house. Especially the DA !
Emma Acosta is a moron.What she proposes is a violation of state laws. Sorry Emma you do not get to pick and choose which citizen get have have public records. Then violating Texas law seems to have became a standard for the CC and the city of El Paso
So Emma let me help others and you out here on the issue.
Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of
representative government that adheres to the principle that
government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is
the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless
otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete
information about the affairs of government and the official acts
of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to
know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may
retain control over the instruments they have created. The
provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to
implement this policy.
(b) This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of
granting a request for information.
Maybe Ann Lilly has some dirt on her 🙂
Finally, you are talking about something else. I zoned out with the other five-part series.
If the item is not deleted from the agenda by Tuesday, this will be another indicator of the corruption of our city government and the abuses of power for an individual’s (a representative’s) personal agenda. It also speaks volumes on the lawyership of Sylvia Firth who would be the first one to object to such a discriminatory policy being considered. Are we to anticipate that people who request records will have to submit to some criminal background checks, piss tests, polygraphs or other such criteria before a determination is made on whether to provide those records or not?
Dora is Emma’s Jaime Abeytia but she is not as dirty the Pedafile is.
Comments are closed.