NRH City Council Gag Rules

by Ron West

State law in Texas allows city councils to hold “closed sessions” regarding sensitive matters. It further precludes public release of the transcripts of such meetings to the general public without a court order. The law allows discussion of these specific matters in closed session but also precludes any votes or decisions being made that affect public interest in such sessions.

The attorney general of Texas has ruled that members of the council are not precluded from discussing any of the matters discussed in closed sessions with the public but they cannot release the transcript.

When our two newest council members were sworn into office, they were given a “Rule Book” which denies them the right to discuss the matters of the closed sessions with anyone. Recently, Ms. Bielik, requested a clarification from City Attorney George Staples and was effectively threatened with being charged with a felony and a fine of up to $2000 if she dared to discuss any closed session matter with anyone outside the council. The threat was not and has not been backed up with any reference to any law that Mr. Staples was relying on for his threat.

In the last closed session held on November 8^th at 5 PM, the council discussed the Hughes age discrimination lawsuit that has recently been lost in district court. They also discussed the Davis Wrongful Death lawsuit. Those of us outside the council do not know what transpired in the closed session but we can surmise that there were “wrongful” actions in that meeting.

Immediately following the meeting – before the regular council meeting, Mayor Trevino discussed the contents of the closed session with Star Telegram reporter John Kirsh and was quoted as saying “the council decided to appeal the Hughes case”. Herein is the problem:

1) By law the council was precluded from voting on any matter in closed session

2) By the rules of the council that Mr. Staples is trying to enforce, Mayor Trevino should have been restricted from “discussing” the content of the meeting with anyone!

Mr. Staples apparently uses his office and the “rules” (that may be in conflict with State Law) to intimidate council members where it seems to suit his purpose. Unfortunately, his efforts apparently do not include anyone friendly to his “position”. We call on Mr. Staples to provide the law that he is utilizing for this gag order of his and if no such law exists, then to publicly state what his authority is for the threats of fines and prosecutions for such discussions. We also call on Mr. Staples to explain why the actions of the Mayor in talking to Mr. Kirsh would not have violated this “rule” or law of his.

Since Mr. Staples is the legal advisor to the council, he is well aware that decisions or votes are not allowed in closed session. The voters have a right to see which council members are authorizing additional expenditures that will personally benefit Mr. Staples and possibly other law firms. If a vote was taken in closed session, there is a clear violation of the state Open Meetings Act. If no vote occurred, how did the council decide?

This “gag” action by Mr. Staples is but one of the steps the city has taken in recent years to exclude the citizens from the oversight of the local government. The more that can be hidden to avoid discussion, the better for the current management of the city. Anyone would acknowledge that publicity may create questions but when you are responsible for spending the money of others, such questions must be allowed to be asked. In the Hughes case, a jury found the city guilty of not only age discrimination but of knowingly illegal actions.

Publicity and questions are good for good government. There should be no “gag” order for our council members and they need good legal advice as to when they can and cannot make decisions.

Related Column now on http://www.localnewsonly.com – “Arm Chair Critic?”