Perry-where are you going and why?

The Texas Public Information Act provides a citizen the right to access government records upon request, since all government information is presumed to be available to the public; however, certain exemptions may apply to the disclosure of information. In 2007, three major Texas newspapers asked the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the agency that handles the security of out-of-state trips for Gov. Rick Perry and his family, to provide travel documents to establish what expenses are charged to taxpayer’s money. DPS would not disclose the records saying it would compromise the Governor’s safety. The State Attorney General’s office decided that a summary of the Governor’s spending could be released but not the actual documents themselves, which in return had the newspapers sue for forcible disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. The lawsuit went to two Texas courts both agreeing that releasing the records would not pose a danger to a person. However, when it was presented to the Texas Supreme Court the ruling changed.

           

According to the Editorial Board at the Austin American-Statesman, on Friday, July 1, 2011 the Texas Supreme Court essentially decided that government officials can deny information requests due to the safety of the person, even though the information is months after the event happened. The problem the DPS has now is to prove how some information is a risk instead of a vague claim. The Statesman editorial board agrees this is a good idea but the overall ruling is horrible. The other big part of the ruling was it made the Public of Information Act not just a matter of the Texas Legislature, who constructs our laws, but turned it into a court matter, which has never has happened before.

I understand to the full extent the editorial board’s opinion towards the Texas Supreme Court ruling July 1^st because it does limit them on sources of information that their own newspaper can acquire for future articles dealing with Gov. Rick Perry. The thing I am worried about in this ruling is that it made future public information issues more the matters of the courts that a legislative matter, which could be detrimental to the publics right for information.

Also, it appears one of the reasons the Statesman wanted to know the cost of these trips to the taxpayer is because he has presented no reason for doing these travels that would benefit the people of Texas but maybe benefit his desire to run for President of the U.S.-that possibly would not be legal, if true. This information is important to not only the people of Texas but also the citizens of the U.S.