Update on the release of the Leininger capitol video during the 2003 voucher battle. -Angela
Oct. 24, 2007, 10:33PM
Court hears appeal on Capitol surveillance video
By GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — It's a legal case that joins conservative Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott with a liberal political magazine against the Department of Public Safety over what a surveillance camera saw in a back hall of the state Capitol.
Lawyers for the Texas Observer argue that the camera is clearly visible and that the videotape is subject to scrutiny under the state's Public Information Act because it does not betray any confidential security measures.
Lawyers for DPS argue that bad guys, including potential terrorists, might be able to detect blind spots and weaknesses in the security system if the agency is forced to share video with the public.
"It's a very interesting case ... a very tough case," said Third Court of Appeals Justice David Puryear, who presided Wednesday over a three-member panel hearing the dispute.
The Observer wants to look at only one tape in an effort to validate reports that political mega-donor James Leininger of San Antonio camped out behind the House chamber May 23, 2005, to lobby legislators on a school voucher bill.
"We thought it was important that the public know that one of the largest campaign contributors in the state was talking to state representatives and trying to get them to change their vote on an issue of paramount importance to the future of the state," Observer executive editor Jake Bernstein said after the hearing.
The Observer has won the early rounds, including an attorney general's opinion that the tape contents belong to the public and a district court ruling along the same lines. But the nonprofit investigative publication has not yet seen the tape.
"We still want to know if, in fact, (Leininger) was on there or not," Bernstein said.
It could take the appellate court months to rule, with the losing party possibly petitioning the state Supreme Court. So far, DPS has spent at least $165,000 of to defend its position.
"The whole key of this case is the precedent that it would set," said Austin lawyer Raymond White, a partner in the law firm of Diamond McCarthy, which represents the agency.
Allowing the public to see the videotape from one surveillance camera means that every tape in each part of the Capitol would be subject to public scrutiny, he said.
Collectively, the videotapes show how the Capitol security system works, White told the justices.
gscharrer@express-news.net
Showing posts with label Leininger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leininger. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
DPS argument over tapes is weak and waste of money
The tapes should be made available to the public, period. -Angela
DPS argument over tapes is weak and waste of money
By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 03:35 PM
The Texas Department of Public Safety says its refusal to turn over videotapes of goings-on in a back hallway of the Capitol during a legislative session is a matter of state security. It’s a weak argument, and both Attorney General Greg Abbott and a state district judge have rightly rejected it.
But DPS continues to waste taxpayer money, paying $165,000 in legal fees so far to fight disclosure of the videotapes, shot from security cameras in the back hall behind the Texas House chamber at the Capitol.
The Texas Observer, the liberal publication, filed an open records request for copies of the tape in connection with a May 23, 2005, legislative battle over a bill to enact a pilot school voucher program, as American-Statesman staff writer Mark Lisheron reported in Sunday’s editions. The Observer wants to see if James Leininger, a wealthy advocate for school vouchers from San Antonio, was in the back hallway lobbying and, if so, with whom he met.
Jake Bernstein, the executive editor, said the magazine is engaged in “an exercise to see what we can find out” - a basic mission of a free press.
Citing the Homeland Security Act, DPS refused access to the videotapes. DPS and its lawyers aren’t saying much. But in court filings the department has claimed that the tapes “contain critical, sensitive information” regarding details of Capitol security.
Bernstein said he believes the department is worried most about setting a legal precedent that would make it easier for others under different circumstances to force it to give up more information about security procedures and plans.
The department’s position hasn’t passed muster with the attorney general, a conservative Republican who understands the importance of openness in government.
Abbott’s office told the department that it had “not adequately shown how the submitted video taken from Capitol security cameras relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public property from an act of terrorism.”
But the department persisted, even hiring private attorneys to pursue its case in the courts once the attorney general said it was wrong. A state district judge, Stephen Yelenosky of Austin, ruled against the department. The department then took its case to the 3rd Court of Appeals, which has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 24, and the department appears willing to go to the Texas Supreme Court, if necessary. The American-Statesman has filed a brief in support of disclosure.
Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, has criticized the department’s resistance to disclosure, saying it was “simply wrong on this issue. This has nothing to do with security. I can think of no conceivable reason why DPS should be using taxpayer funds to hire private attorneys” to fight the attorney general’s ruling.
Carona, the attorney general and the judge are right, and DPS ought to back down on this issue. There may be some security information that truly needs protection, but videotapes of people moving about in a public hallway in the Capitol during a legislative session don’t qualify.
DPS argument over tapes is weak and waste of money
By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 03:35 PM
The Texas Department of Public Safety says its refusal to turn over videotapes of goings-on in a back hallway of the Capitol during a legislative session is a matter of state security. It’s a weak argument, and both Attorney General Greg Abbott and a state district judge have rightly rejected it.
But DPS continues to waste taxpayer money, paying $165,000 in legal fees so far to fight disclosure of the videotapes, shot from security cameras in the back hall behind the Texas House chamber at the Capitol.
The Texas Observer, the liberal publication, filed an open records request for copies of the tape in connection with a May 23, 2005, legislative battle over a bill to enact a pilot school voucher program, as American-Statesman staff writer Mark Lisheron reported in Sunday’s editions. The Observer wants to see if James Leininger, a wealthy advocate for school vouchers from San Antonio, was in the back hallway lobbying and, if so, with whom he met.
Jake Bernstein, the executive editor, said the magazine is engaged in “an exercise to see what we can find out” - a basic mission of a free press.
Citing the Homeland Security Act, DPS refused access to the videotapes. DPS and its lawyers aren’t saying much. But in court filings the department has claimed that the tapes “contain critical, sensitive information” regarding details of Capitol security.
Bernstein said he believes the department is worried most about setting a legal precedent that would make it easier for others under different circumstances to force it to give up more information about security procedures and plans.
The department’s position hasn’t passed muster with the attorney general, a conservative Republican who understands the importance of openness in government.
Abbott’s office told the department that it had “not adequately shown how the submitted video taken from Capitol security cameras relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public property from an act of terrorism.”
But the department persisted, even hiring private attorneys to pursue its case in the courts once the attorney general said it was wrong. A state district judge, Stephen Yelenosky of Austin, ruled against the department. The department then took its case to the 3rd Court of Appeals, which has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 24, and the department appears willing to go to the Texas Supreme Court, if necessary. The American-Statesman has filed a brief in support of disclosure.
Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, has criticized the department’s resistance to disclosure, saying it was “simply wrong on this issue. This has nothing to do with security. I can think of no conceivable reason why DPS should be using taxpayer funds to hire private attorneys” to fight the attorney general’s ruling.
Carona, the attorney general and the judge are right, and DPS ought to back down on this issue. There may be some security information that truly needs protection, but videotapes of people moving about in a public hallway in the Capitol during a legislative session don’t qualify.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Capitol security at issue in court fight over videotapes
This is very interesting. This is a case that might makeit to the Texas Supreme Court. Access to the tapes has become a looming issue despite the fact that what started all this was a request for the tapes in order to see if philanthropist, pro-voucher supporter and funder, James Leininger, violated the law during the 2003 legislative session. We should all stay tuned to see how all of this develops.
A larger issue, of course, is freedom of the press, a constitutional right.
-Angela
Capitol security at issue in court fight over videotapes
DPS has spent $165,000 in effort to keep information from the public.
By Mark Lisheron
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Over the past two years, the Department of Public Safety has sent more than $165,000 of taxpayer money on attorney's fees to keep videotapes recorded by security cameras in a back hall of the Capitol secret. The case could go to the Texas Supreme Court — despite rulings by the attorney general and a state district judge that the tapes should be made public.
The agency has insisted from the start that it will not give the tapes to the Texas Observer, a small-circulation, nonprofit investigative newspaper, because they reveal details that would compromise security at the Capitol. Attorney General Greg Abbott and District Judge Stephen Yelenosky have ruled that argument baseless.
Undaunted, the DPS is pressing on. Its attorneys are scheduled to make their case again Oct. 24 before a panel of three judges at the 3rd Court of Appeals.
The department's persistence in the matter has infuriated the chairman of the state Senate's Transportation and Homeland Security Committee. Sen. John Carona has promised his committee will find out how the case has been allowed to go on this long. The committee is expected to meet in November.
"The DPS is simply wrong on this issue," said Carona, R-Dallas. "This has nothing to do with security. I can think of no conceivable reason why DPS should be using taxpayer funds to hire private attorneys. This is simply an agency giving political cover for the Legislature. This is a misuse of public funds."
DPS Director Tommy Davis declined to comment because the case is pending, a spokesman for the department said. Raymond White, the attorney representing DPS, did not return telephone calls.
Ernest Angelo Jr., chairman of the Public Safety Commission, a panel of appointees overseeing the department, defended the decision to hire private counsel with tax dollars.
"Security is the issue," Angelo said last week. "Obviously, we decided there was a principle to defend the agency's security measures. Any time you hire lawyers, it's going to cost big bucks."
Gov. Rick Perry, who appointed Angelo and is responsible for the other four appointments to the Public Safety Commission, has taken no position on the case because it is still being argued, spokeswoman Krista Moody said. Perry believes DPS has followed proper procedures in the case, Moody said.
The saga began on May 26, 2005, when the Austin-based Texas Observer made a formal request to the DPS, which oversees Capitol security, under the Texas Public Information Act, for tapes recorded on May 23, 2005.
Jake Bernstein, executive editor of the biweekly newspaper, was trying to verify rumors that on that day James Leininger, one of the state's wealthiest Republican campaign donors, was in the hall behind the House chamber lobbying lawmakers to pass a pilot school voucher program. Such lobbying just outside the chamber is against House rules.
An amendment to launch the pilot program failed in the House, and the DPS denied the Observer's request, citing the Texas Homeland Security Act.
The videotapes "contain critical, sensitive information that relates to many specifications, operating procedures and locations of the Capitol security system, of which they are an integral part," according to a DPS brief filed with the appellate court. A terrorist could capitalize on such information, compromising the ability of the department to protect people who work in or visit the Capitol.
After reviewing the tapes, Assistant Attorney General Ramsey Abarca wrote to DPS staff counsel on Aug. 26, 2005, that their contents had nothing to do with security.
"The department has not adequately shown how the submitted video taken from Capitol security cameras relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public property from an act of terrorism," Abarca wrote in a letter to DPS counsel. The department, Abarca said, must release the video to the Observer.
The department responded by asking the attorney general for permission to hire private lawyers to get the opinion of a district judge. On April 12, Yelenosky ruled that the DPS had five days to turn over the tapes. DPS attorneys immediately filed an appeal.
Bernstein said he thinks that speculation by Carona and others that the DPS is perpetrating some kind of political cover-up is off-base. Bernstein said he believes the department is convinced that giving up the tapes will set a precedent that will leave security vulnerable to increasingly intrusive open records requests.
The case for the Observer has become far less about Leininger's whereabouts and much more about the DPS abusing homeland security law at considerable expense to taxpayers, Bernstein said. When the Observer made an open records request to obtain invoices for its legal fees, the DPS complied, and the newspaper posted them on its Web site in late September.
"Beyond this being a frivolous lawsuit, what I find a little depressing is the DPS is proceeding like there is this bottomless bag of money from which to draw," Bernstein said. "It just never occurred to us that they would carry this as far as they have."
Should the department lose its appeal, Angelo said, he expects to take and supports taking the case before the Texas Supreme Court. Not only could taxpayer-funded legal fees double by then, but attorneys for the Observer could demand reimbursement from the state if the Supreme Court were to side with the newspaper.
So far, Kator, Parks & Weiser, an Austin law firm, has represented the Observer for no charge, in sympathy with the newspaper's open records argument, said Jeremy Wright, the lawyer assigned to the case. The firm will have rung up more than $75,000 in fees by the time the appeal is completed and could easily top $100,000 if the case reaches the state Supreme Court, he said.
"Their argument has been the same from the beginning," Wright said. "What you have is the government using the Homeland Security Act as an excuse to keep from the public basic information they are entitled to."
Carona said he is impatient with an increasing tendency of state agencies to go to court rather than give up materials the attorney general deems public. The number of lawsuits filed challenging an attorney general's ruling that records be made public was 88 in 2006, up from 76 in 2005 and 64 in 2004, according to the attorney general's records.
Whether the Public Safety Commission will continue to support the legal blockade cannot be determined because the commission lacks a quorum. Last session, the Legislature approved adding two seats to the three-member commission. Angelo continues as chairman, and Perry recently appointed San Antonio attorney Allan Polunsky to replace Louis Sturns, who stepped down to take an appointment as judge in Tarrant County District Court. The three other commission appointments remain unfilled.
The DPS position continues to have support from the top. "I'm a taxpayer too, but with the importance of homeland security, I think we have an obligation to follow this case to the end," Angelo said. "A lot of cases don't get resolved until you take them to the top."
mlisheron@statesman.com; 445-3663
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/10/14/1014tape.html
A larger issue, of course, is freedom of the press, a constitutional right.
-Angela
Capitol security at issue in court fight over videotapes
DPS has spent $165,000 in effort to keep information from the public.
By Mark Lisheron
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Over the past two years, the Department of Public Safety has sent more than $165,000 of taxpayer money on attorney's fees to keep videotapes recorded by security cameras in a back hall of the Capitol secret. The case could go to the Texas Supreme Court — despite rulings by the attorney general and a state district judge that the tapes should be made public.
The agency has insisted from the start that it will not give the tapes to the Texas Observer, a small-circulation, nonprofit investigative newspaper, because they reveal details that would compromise security at the Capitol. Attorney General Greg Abbott and District Judge Stephen Yelenosky have ruled that argument baseless.
Undaunted, the DPS is pressing on. Its attorneys are scheduled to make their case again Oct. 24 before a panel of three judges at the 3rd Court of Appeals.
The department's persistence in the matter has infuriated the chairman of the state Senate's Transportation and Homeland Security Committee. Sen. John Carona has promised his committee will find out how the case has been allowed to go on this long. The committee is expected to meet in November.
"The DPS is simply wrong on this issue," said Carona, R-Dallas. "This has nothing to do with security. I can think of no conceivable reason why DPS should be using taxpayer funds to hire private attorneys. This is simply an agency giving political cover for the Legislature. This is a misuse of public funds."
DPS Director Tommy Davis declined to comment because the case is pending, a spokesman for the department said. Raymond White, the attorney representing DPS, did not return telephone calls.
Ernest Angelo Jr., chairman of the Public Safety Commission, a panel of appointees overseeing the department, defended the decision to hire private counsel with tax dollars.
"Security is the issue," Angelo said last week. "Obviously, we decided there was a principle to defend the agency's security measures. Any time you hire lawyers, it's going to cost big bucks."
Gov. Rick Perry, who appointed Angelo and is responsible for the other four appointments to the Public Safety Commission, has taken no position on the case because it is still being argued, spokeswoman Krista Moody said. Perry believes DPS has followed proper procedures in the case, Moody said.
The saga began on May 26, 2005, when the Austin-based Texas Observer made a formal request to the DPS, which oversees Capitol security, under the Texas Public Information Act, for tapes recorded on May 23, 2005.
Jake Bernstein, executive editor of the biweekly newspaper, was trying to verify rumors that on that day James Leininger, one of the state's wealthiest Republican campaign donors, was in the hall behind the House chamber lobbying lawmakers to pass a pilot school voucher program. Such lobbying just outside the chamber is against House rules.
An amendment to launch the pilot program failed in the House, and the DPS denied the Observer's request, citing the Texas Homeland Security Act.
The videotapes "contain critical, sensitive information that relates to many specifications, operating procedures and locations of the Capitol security system, of which they are an integral part," according to a DPS brief filed with the appellate court. A terrorist could capitalize on such information, compromising the ability of the department to protect people who work in or visit the Capitol.
After reviewing the tapes, Assistant Attorney General Ramsey Abarca wrote to DPS staff counsel on Aug. 26, 2005, that their contents had nothing to do with security.
"The department has not adequately shown how the submitted video taken from Capitol security cameras relates to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of a security system used to protect public property from an act of terrorism," Abarca wrote in a letter to DPS counsel. The department, Abarca said, must release the video to the Observer.
The department responded by asking the attorney general for permission to hire private lawyers to get the opinion of a district judge. On April 12, Yelenosky ruled that the DPS had five days to turn over the tapes. DPS attorneys immediately filed an appeal.
Bernstein said he thinks that speculation by Carona and others that the DPS is perpetrating some kind of political cover-up is off-base. Bernstein said he believes the department is convinced that giving up the tapes will set a precedent that will leave security vulnerable to increasingly intrusive open records requests.
The case for the Observer has become far less about Leininger's whereabouts and much more about the DPS abusing homeland security law at considerable expense to taxpayers, Bernstein said. When the Observer made an open records request to obtain invoices for its legal fees, the DPS complied, and the newspaper posted them on its Web site in late September.
"Beyond this being a frivolous lawsuit, what I find a little depressing is the DPS is proceeding like there is this bottomless bag of money from which to draw," Bernstein said. "It just never occurred to us that they would carry this as far as they have."
Should the department lose its appeal, Angelo said, he expects to take and supports taking the case before the Texas Supreme Court. Not only could taxpayer-funded legal fees double by then, but attorneys for the Observer could demand reimbursement from the state if the Supreme Court were to side with the newspaper.
So far, Kator, Parks & Weiser, an Austin law firm, has represented the Observer for no charge, in sympathy with the newspaper's open records argument, said Jeremy Wright, the lawyer assigned to the case. The firm will have rung up more than $75,000 in fees by the time the appeal is completed and could easily top $100,000 if the case reaches the state Supreme Court, he said.
"Their argument has been the same from the beginning," Wright said. "What you have is the government using the Homeland Security Act as an excuse to keep from the public basic information they are entitled to."
Carona said he is impatient with an increasing tendency of state agencies to go to court rather than give up materials the attorney general deems public. The number of lawsuits filed challenging an attorney general's ruling that records be made public was 88 in 2006, up from 76 in 2005 and 64 in 2004, according to the attorney general's records.
Whether the Public Safety Commission will continue to support the legal blockade cannot be determined because the commission lacks a quorum. Last session, the Legislature approved adding two seats to the three-member commission. Angelo continues as chairman, and Perry recently appointed San Antonio attorney Allan Polunsky to replace Louis Sturns, who stepped down to take an appointment as judge in Tarrant County District Court. The three other commission appointments remain unfilled.
The DPS position continues to have support from the top. "I'm a taxpayer too, but with the importance of homeland security, I think we have an obligation to follow this case to the end," Angelo said. "A lot of cases don't get resolved until you take them to the top."
mlisheron@statesman.com; 445-3663
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/10/14/1014tape.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)