Tuesday, June 28, 2011


(UPDATE:  It is not my policy to announce everything I am doing.  I do have a lead I am following.  A source told me to check a specific email to a city employee.  I did an open records request for that email.  It is very targeted to a specific day.  The city just called me and they are telling me the fee is $15.00 an hour for a search of 8 hours (the estimate) to recover one email on a specific day.   I said no way.  It is being checked on.  My point is, if one email from a specific day is going to cost me $120.00, what are all the emails Quintanilla is requesting going to cost?  Who is going to pay for it? - just saying - and BTW I will not pay $120.00 for one email.)

As to the merits of the request, I have no problems with any of the questions.  They will get to the facts - the problems is - he seems to have hung himself.

By threatening to sue a lot of people he has made a public comment that he intends to use the records for litigation.

Yea - the law says no -

Practical Tips on Writing Effective Briefs to the Open Records Division

  1. The Public Information Handbook published by this office is your primary resource in writing effective briefs to the Open Records Division.
  2. Follow the standards set forth in the Handbook to meet the requirements of your claimed exceptions. For example, if claiming exception under section 552.103 (the "litigation exception"), you must explain how the litigation is either pending or reasonably anticipated AND how the documents at issue relate to the pending or anticipated litigation.



 (a) Information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 if
it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal
nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a
party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political
subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment,
is or may be a party.
(b)  For purposes of this section, the state or a political
subdivision is considered to be a party to litigation of a criminal
nature until the applicable statute of limitations has expired or
until the defendant has exhausted all appellate and postconviction
remedies in state and federal court.
(c)  Information relating to litigation involving a
governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body
is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the
litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that
the requestor applies to the officer for public information for
access to or duplication of the information.

All the COB has to do is show litigation is reasonably anticipated and they are free to deny the request.  Will they?  Does Sossi even know the law?  Who knows?

All of the questions are valid questions - the problem is, he has been promising litigation related to Fly  Frontera ever since BEDC issued its report.  The COB if it chooses can withhold the documents. This would be sad because the people will then be denied the information for no better reason that Quintanilla cannot control himself.


Anonymous said...

Now Mr. Cervantes you have become a houdini, it is amazing how you can read Quintanilla's mind.

Anonymous said...

Your logic spells doom for the City if litigation is reasonably expected then the city must be worried that it is guilty of something. If they have nothing to hide release the info requested by Quintanilla.

BobbyWC said...

Just because Mr. Quintanilla claims he is going to sue does not mean he will win - how does this translate into the city losing?

If he sues he still gets the information - I think the law is bogus and goes agsinst the intent of open government - you will never hear me defend this law.

But the law does say if the City believes they are going to sued based on his claims he will sue, then under the law they can withhold the information until discovery is conducted during the lawsuit. He still gets the information - I also think he will pay less for the information.

In my view he is entitled to everyhing he is asking for - but he made the mistake of claiming they will sue - also if you remember during the campaign I believe it was Atkinson who claimed Quintanilla's home was used as the address for Fly Frontera because the lawsuit would be in Dallas - so the city has clear evidence of an intent to sue

Again - I think the law is wrong and goes 100% against the intent of open government

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I just read another blog about Conflict of Interest. Did Melissa file a Conflict of Interest Statement relating to Aeromexico and is she required to file one by law.

BobbyWC said...

I have no idea - but you are presuming she is being paid - there is zero evidence she is getting paid - all you have is an allegation - that is not evidence

If it is your position that every elected official who volunteers their time with the BEDC needs to file a conflict of interest statement then we are in a lot of trouble.

Further, there has been no vote with the commission on this issue - so why would she have a conflict of interest if she is not voting on the matter.

It is amazing to me what people can do with rumors and unsubstantiated rumors.

But it would seem to me that any commissioner with a financial interest in any vote must file a conflict of interest statement.

It seems to me Montoya and Quintanilla did not complain when Escobedo brought the motion which resulted in a vendor being denied a contract because Escobedo's brother was denied the contract -

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Escobedo abstained.