donate

 inn_logo_blue_final1.png

lion_memberbadge_horiz.160.png

spj-vert

ire

guidestar

Print E-mail
(2 votes, average 5.00 out of 5)

 Daugherty Wins SOS Round One

Judge Yelonosky rules mostly in favor of county
commissioner but leaves room for further action

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2015
Posted Monday July 27, 2015 4:20pm

Stephen YelonoskyStephen YelonoskyIn the public information lawsuit the Save Our Springs Alliance initiated against Travis County Precinct 3 Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, which was argued in court July 13, District Judge Stephen Yelonosky denied most of what the plaintiff sought.

But the judge left the door open as to whether the SOS Alliance could persuade the court to order Commissioner Daugherty or Travis County, or both, to change recently enacted policies regarding retention of and access to public records.

“There remains a question of the court's jurisdiction, as a pure question of law, over a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking to enforce the Public Information Act. The parties have not adequately briefed this, so the court must defer a ruling on the plea to the jurisdiction in this regard until they have,” the ruling states.

Although the lawsuit is technically about whether Daugherty has properly complied with the Texas Public Information Act by providing all records requested by the SOS Alliance May 31, 2013, the larger issue is whether SOS can find ammunition in those records for slowing or halting plans to build State Highway 45 Southwest over the sensitive Barton Springs portion of the Edwards Aquifer.

SOS may seek to settle out of court

Lauren Ice, Kelly Davis, and Bill BunchLauren Ice, Kelly Davis, and Bill BunchKelly Davis, a staff attorney with the SOS Alliance, today told The Austin Bulldog that is too soon to know whether the organization will appeal Yelonosky’s decision.

Tony Nelson and Gerald DaughertyTony Nelson and Gerald DaughertyAlthough neither SOS nor Tony Nelson, the assistant county attorney representing Daugherty, have contacted each other in the wake of the July 23 ruling, she said, SOS will try to “work out a policy for Precinct 3 to comply with the Texas Public Information Act, which seems to be the remaining issue in the case. We will at least try to resolve that out of court.”

Nelson told The Austin Bulldog, “Obviously we are pleased with Judge Yelonosky’s rulings, which we believe are correct under the facts and laws that govern this case.”

“As for the SOS attorney’s desire to settle, it’s not our practice to negotiate our cases in the press. We will review the ruling and determine what steps to take next in representing Travis County and Commissioner Daugherty,” Nelson said.

SOS Alliance Executive Director Bill Bunch also filed a criminal complaint against Daugherty over the same public information request. That case was referred to an appointed county attorney pro tem for investigation and assigned to the court of a retired judge. The criminal case has been held in abeyance until the civil lawsuit is resolved.

If not successful, more action possible

Failing an out-of-court settlement, Davis said, she anticipates that SOS Alliance will file further briefings.

“We have common sense and fairness on our side,” she said, but her research has not yet found judicial precedent for ordering policy changes to ensure compliance with the Texas Public Information Act governing citizen access to government records or retention of those records under the Local Government Records Act.

If further legal action is needed, Davis said, SOS may seek an “affirmative order from the court that Daugherty’s Precinct 3 and/or Travis County need to adopt a more comprehensive, specific document retention and retrieval policy.” She said these current policies talk about document retention but not retrieval.

Retrieval of records was one of the big issues in Daugherty’s initial response to the SOS Alliance’s public information request, Davis said.

“His staff didn’t search what they were supposed to search,” she said. “We need procedures regarding retrieval of information.”

The court order

The court ruling handed down July 23, 2015, regarding Save Our Springs Alliance v. Gerald Daugherty, in his official capacity as Travis County Commissioner for Precinct 3, Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003876 contained three court orders:

• Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, granted as to request for in camera review of documents and denied in all other respects. The judge reviewed contested e-mails in chambers to determine if they, in fact, met the legal requirements to be withheld from disclosure under attorney-client privilege, and ruled they did.

• Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denied.

• Order on Respondent’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, granted with respect to the mandamus claim under the Texas Public Information Act and deferred, pending further briefing, in all other respects.

The Austin Bulldog operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to publish investigative reporting in the public interest and depends on the community it serves. You can help fund our reporting by making a tax-deductible contribution.

Links:

Plaintiff’s Original Petition in Save Our Springs v. Gerald Daugherty, November 12, 2013

SOS Alliance v. Daugherty Oral Deposition, February 20, 2014

SOS Alliance v. Daugherty Oral Deposition Changes, February 20, 2014

SOS Alliance Criminal Complaint re: Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, March 17, 2014

Chapter 42 of Travis County Code, County Records, adopted by the Travis County Commissioners Court March 24, 2015

Respondent Gerald Daugherty’s Plea to Jurisdiction, April 8, 2015

Plaintiff Save Our Springs Alliance Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, May 7, 2015

Plaintiff Save Our Springs Alliance Motion to Compel Production of Documents, May 18, 2015

Respondent’s Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, May 21, 2015

Plaintiff Response to Respondent’s Plea to Jurisdiction, May 21, 2015

Respondent’s Response to Motion to Compel, May 28, 2015

Plaintiff Supplemental Response to Respondent’s Plea to Jurisdiction, July 6, 2015

Respondent’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Respondent’s Plea to Jurisdiction, July 10, 2015

Plaintiff Post-Argument Correction and Clarifications, July 17, 2015

Respondent’s Supplemental Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Plea to Jurisdiction, July 17, 2015

Ruling of District Judge Stephen Yelonosky, July 23, 2015

Related Bulldog coverage: This is the 55th story covering local government agencies’ problems and progress in dealing with open government issues.

SOS v Daugherty Pending Decision: Travis County seeks dismissal of lawsuit against county commissioner, SOS wants more records, July 21, 2015

City Sued Over Public Records: Brian Rodgers lawsuit alleges failure to lawfully respond to requests on three high-profile topics, June 12, 2015

Surfing New Wave Open Government: Symposium panelist says local efforts show potential but Austin not open government leader, April 23, 2015

Ethics Bills Face Complex Dynamics: Open government legislation would move public official investigations, open financial reports, April 20, 2015

Open Government Aids Defendants Too: Criminal cases opened through Michael Morton Act makes big difference for prosecutors as well, April 15, 2015

County Attorney Reports Lessons Learned: His investigation of Austin City Council’s open meetings violations resulted in improvements, April 15, 2015

Why Acting Ethically, Legally Matters: Many a high-profile scandal persisted for years because nobody stepped forward, April 14, 2015

City Holding Open Government Symposium: Continuing legal educations for lawyers and great information for advocates of open government, April 8, 2015

Want More Open Government? Key lawmaker and nonprofit advocacy group pitch for public support on pending legislation, March 19, 2015

Appeals Court Demands E-mail Release: Third Court of Appeals decision once again requires e-mails on private accounts or devices to be released, March 10, 2015

Commissioner Daugherty’s Criminal Case Delayed: Statute of limitations will expire in May, attorney investigating alleged offense had health issues, February 23, 2015

Criminal Complaint Hits Commissioner Daugherty: Save Our Springs Alliance files complaint a day before vote to fund State Highway 45 project, March 17, 2014

Bulldog Open Records Lawsuit Continues: Key issue is whether it is permissible to redact officials’ private e-mail addresses, June 7, 2013

Litigation Challenges Open Government Laws: Attorneys criticize criminal penalties and public access to elected officials private e-mail accounts, April 24, 2013

Social Media’s Impact on Open Government: Few government organizations have dealt with how Facebook, Twitter use affects compliance, April 23, 2013

City Hosts Open Government Symposium: Lawyers attending for education credits abound, much of the day had little to do with city practices, April 22, 2013

City Spent $157,636 to Defend Council Violations: Payments for private lawyers for mayor, council members in criminal investigation, April 8, 2013

City Hosting Open Government Symposium: Follows county attorney’s investigation of City Council open meetings violations, March 19, 2013

Deferred Prosecution Ends Open Meetings Investigation: Mayor and five current council members sign agreements waiving the statute of limitations and requiring major reforms, October 24, 2012

Austin Board and Commissions Get E-mail Policy: Fifteen months after City Council ordered changes, board and commission members to be assigned city e-mail accounts, August 23, 2012

Open Meetings Investigation a Year Old Today: County attorney says investigation of whether City Council violated Open Meetings Act is still ongoing, January 25, 2012

City of Austin Moving, Slowly, Toward Greater Transparency in Electronic Communication: New system for board and commission members targeted for first quarter 2012, October 27, 2011

Employee E-Communication Policy Drafts Show Each Revision Weakened Rules: Policy that was near fully compliant on first draft crippled by changes, September 13, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Second Lawsuit Against City of Austin for Withholding Records: City not responsive to open records request concerning water treatment plant construction, September 1, 2011

City Manager Establishes Policy for Employees’ Electronic Communications: Open government legal experts say policy is seriously flawed, but it’s an important start, August 10, 2011

City of Austin Dragging Its Feet on Implementing Lawful E-mail Practices: City employees, board and commission members still not covered by city policies, July 13, 2011

E-mails Exchanged by Council Members Expose Private Deliberations and Political Maneuvering: More than 2,400 pages of e-mails published here in searchable format, July 6, 2011

Taxpayers Footing Big Bills to Correct City of Austin’s Open Government Issues: $200,000 spent on attorneys so far and no end in sight, June 24, 2011

Treasure Trove of Public Documents Made Available in Searchable Format: E-mails, text messages, meeting notes obtained through open records, lawsuit, May 12, 2011

County Attorney’s Office ‘Cannot Determine’ City of Office Committed Alleged Violations: Bulldog’s complaint was the first presented for violation of the Texas Public Information Act, April 22, 2011

Council Staff Training Lapsed from 2007 Until Lawsuit Filed: Only one current staff member had taken training, city records show, April 20, 2011

Austin City Council Adopts Policy to Improve Compliance with Texas Public Information Act: Policy does not cover all city employees or all city board and commission members, April 15, 2011

City of Austin and Council Members File Answer to The Austin Bulldog’s Lawsuit: Answer challenges standing and claims requests for open records fulfilled, mostly, April 11, 2011

Call for Public Help in Analyzing City Council Members Private E-mails, Text Messages: Volunteers needed to review correspondence and provide feedback on any irregularities, April 9, 2011

City of Austin’s Records Retention Undermined by Lack of Controls Over Deletion of E-mails: Missing records likely more important than gossipy tidbits, April 6, 2011

Council Member Laura Morrison Releases E-mail on City Business from Gmail Account: Morrison second council member to turn over more e-mails responsive to The Austin Bulldog’s requests, March 30, 2011

Private E-mails About City Business May Be Pulled Into City of Austin Records Retention: City Council votes to consider policy draft at council meeting of April 7, March 29, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Civil Complaint Against City of Austin and Council Members: Travis County Attorney David Escamilla has legal authority to force compliance, March 23, 2011

Expired: The Austin Bulldog’s Offer to Settle Its Lawsuit with City, Mayor and Council Members: Does this mean these elected officials want to continue to violate state laws?, March 18, 2011

Council Member Spelman’s City E-mails on UT Account Will Not Be Provided: University of Texas will seek opinion from Texas attorney general to withhold, March 18, 2011

The Austin Bulldog Files Lawsuit to Compel Compliance with the Law: Mayor and city council members not in compliance with statutes for public information, records retention, March 2, 2011

Smoking Gun E-mail Shows Council Aide Advocated Evasion of Open Meetings Act: Provided detailed guide to allow chats with council members on dais but leave no trace, March 1, 2011

Council Member Bill Spelman Goes On the Record About Private Meetings, Fifth in a series of recorded question and answer interviews, February 20, 2011

Council Work Sessions Stir Concern Over Tying Up Staff for Two Meetings: City manager presents summary of options for council consideration, February 15, 2011

Mayor Claims Lawyers Okayed Private Meetings But City Won’t Release Proof: City pledges cooperation with county attorney’s inquiry but is withholding these key documents, February 13, 2011

County Attorney Asks City of Austin for Records Related to Open Meetings Complaint: Former Mayor Wynn and Former Council Member McCracken included, February 9, 2011

Council Member Randi Shade Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Fourth in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 9, 2011

City of Austin Commits $159,000 for Advice in County Attorney’s Open Meetings Act Inquiry: Three attorneys hired for $53,000 each, February 7, 2011

Council Member Chris Riley Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Third in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 6, 2011

Council Member Sheryl Cole Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: Second in a Series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 3, 2011

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez Goes On the Record About Private Meetings: First in a series of recorded question-and-answer interviews, February 2, 2011

Will I Said Come On Over Baby, Whole Lot of Meetin’ Goin’ On: Council Member Chris Riley tops the chart with 256 private meetings, January 30, 2011

County Attorney Reviewing Complaint, Brian Rodgers Will Not Run for Council, January 25, 2011

Open Meetings, Closed Minds: Private meetings to discuss public business shows Austin City Council may be violating Open Meetings Act, January 25, 2011

 

 

Only registered users may post a comment. Please register or login to share your comments.