The El Paso Apartment Association is asking the state Attorney General to help force the city and the Public Service Board to release information in response to a Public Information Act request.
The Apartment Association claims that neither the city nor the PSB responded to a request filed May 29.
“The Open Records Act is there to ensure transparency and open government and we’re quite concerned that the City of El Paso and the PSB are brazenly ignoring this important law. We should have had answers and documents months ago,” said Jerry Carlson, executive director of EPAA, in a statement released to the press Wednesday afternoon.
By Thursday afternoon, the PSB responded. [psb response]
The Apartment Association is suing the city over the stormwater fee. [june 6, 2008, city responds to lawsuit] [june 7, 2008, compilation of background stories]
The Public Information Act, often referred to as the Open Records Act, requires government bodies to respond within 10 days to a request for information. The response can be to turn the information over, to ask the state Attorney General to rule whether it must be turned over, or to inform the requestor that the request will require a given amount of time and/or money.
In this case, the Apartment Association was asking for six things, including (see complete list via link below this story):
-- A copy of a Power Point presentation made by El Paso Water Utility CEO Ed Archuleta at the May 7, 2008 PSB meeting
-- A list of or documents that identify all capital improvement projects under consideration to be paid for with stormwater fees
-- A list of documents that reflect all capital improvement projects under consideration to be paid for with stormwater fees
-- Documents related to creation and televising of stormwater utility promotions
Bob Andron, the PSB chief lawyer, admitted that the utility may not have responded in writing within the initial 10-day period, but that it was acting in good faith to prepare the information.
"We're not saying any of it is not public. All we're saying is give us a chance to put it together," he said.
He pointed to a June 23 e-mail to EPAA lawyer Jim Martinez in which he stated that the utility was putting together an estimate for the cost and timeline to comply with the request.
On June 27, Martinez replied that "My PIA request is nearly a month old. Chapter 552 of the government code requires production of the requested material within 10 days or, if that is not possible, a written certification that it is not possible AND the specification of the date and hour when the material will be produced. I would politely request that the city and PSB immediately comply with these requirements."
Two weeks later, he wrote another e-mail stating that he still had not received an answer: "If the city will not voluntarily respond the request, pls let me know in writing so I can take the steps to compel it to do so."
The next day, July 11, Andron replied:
"As I informed you previously, the request you submitted asks for voluminous amounts of material and EPWU has been diligently gathering the material. The delay is unavoidable and in no manner is an illegal action.
"As soon as we get a handle on the amount of material and time it is taking, we will let you know the costs. As a matter of fact, EPWU has to this point not exercised its option under the PIA to demand a prepayment bond from you since we know the costs will exceed normal records preparation costs."
Andron said this morning that "nobody is trying to play hide the ball … This stuff is all public information as far as I'm concerned and as soon as the appropriate internal sections give it to me I'm giving it to the requestor."
Related Documents:
