Comments on: Emails Saga Turns On Rarely Used Clause http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/ Sat, 17 May 2008 00:57:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Open records links; Tuesday round-up « Open Records http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-68072 Open records links; Tuesday round-up « Open Records Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:46:10 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-68072 [...] The Texas Observer observes that an open records e-mail saga turns on rarely used clause. [...] […] The Texas Observer observes that an open records e-mail saga turns on rarely used clause. […]

]]> By: John Washburn http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-67056 John Washburn Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:02:15 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-67056 The Governor's Office is of course ignoring rest of the section (e) which the <a href="http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/2004publicinfohb_1_07.shtml#7a" rel="nofollow">AG PIA site states</a> [empahsis mine]: <i>It should be noted, however, that the requirement of a deposit or bond in connection with a request <b>does not</b> affect the date the request is considered to have been received for purposes of a governmental body's obligations to seek an attorney general decision under subchapter G.</i> January 14, 2008 is too late to ask for an exemption. The Governor’s Office is of course ignoring rest of the section (e) which the AG PIA site states [empahsis mine]:

It should be noted, however, that the requirement of a deposit or bond in connection with a request does not affect the date the request is considered to have been received for purposes of a governmental body’s obligations to seek an attorney general decision under subchapter G.

January 14, 2008 is too late to ask for an exemption.

]]> By: John Washburn http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-67053 John Washburn Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:48:09 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-67053 It is ten business days. Saturday, Sundays, and state holidays (the 5th, 6th, 12th, and 13th) don't count. If you accept the 10 business day clock began ticking on January 2, 2008 for the November 6, 2007 request, then the request for exemption was due on January 16, 2008. If you accept the 15 business day clock began ticking on January 2, 2008 for the November 6, 2007 request, then the briefs supporting the request for exemption and examples of the materials claimed for exemption were due on January 24, 2008. None the less on January 25, 2008, the Office of the Governor sent a second batch of emails it claimed were exempt from disclosure to the AG. The claim is that the emails on the Governor's email server are 1) not the property of the Governor and 2) the emails are "sensitive intelligence" that is law enforcement related. It is ten business days. Saturday, Sundays, and state holidays (the 5th, 6th, 12th, and 13th) don’t count.

If you accept the 10 business day clock began ticking on January 2, 2008 for the November 6, 2007 request, then the request for exemption was due on January 16, 2008.

If you accept the 15 business day clock began ticking on January 2, 2008 for the November 6, 2007 request, then the briefs supporting the request for exemption and examples of the materials claimed for exemption were due on January 24, 2008. None the less on January 25, 2008, the Office of the Governor sent a second batch of emails it claimed were exempt from disclosure to the AG. The claim is that the emails on the Governor’s email server are 1) not the property of the Governor and 2) the emails are “sensitive intelligence” that is law enforcement related.

]]> By: William http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-66792 William Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:44:27 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/10/emails-saga-turns-on-rarely-used-clause/#comment-66792 They received payment on 2 JAN. They requested an AG opinion on 14 JAN. BUT, 2+10=12. So aren't they still 2 days late considering the law requires that either the documents be turned over or the AG be notified within 10 days? Though I suppose the 12th fell on a Saturday and they could say that their 10 days didn't end until the 15th. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate these people? They received payment on 2 JAN. They requested an AG opinion on 14 JAN.

BUT, 2+10=12. So aren’t they still 2 days late considering the law requires that either the documents be turned over or the AG be notified within 10 days? Though I suppose the 12th fell on a Saturday and they could say that their 10 days didn’t end until the 15th.

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate these people?

]]>