Some public officials just don't get it, do they?

Austin American Statesman

It appears that some officials really just don't get it. I don't understand why officials are trying to make the act change. What do they have to hide from us so bad that they don't want to share with us what they are discussing in public? If they're trying to hide something, maybe they shouldn't be the ones discussing what we should do for the state. If they are discussing "public" matter, then it shouldn't need to be behind closed doors. If the officials feel that this is violating their freedom of speech rights, maybe they should not be in one of the elected chairs. Because the Texas Open Meeting Act, which was approved in 1967, the elected officials know that they do NOT have the privilege to discuss "public" matters behind closed doors. Personally, I believe this is not interferring with their freedom of speech rights. They are not, and do not, have to discuss private matters in public. The only thing the act states is that they have to talk about public things in public all private matters can be behind closed doors. Like it is stated in this blog: "...they all volunteered for the public offices they hold," meaning any of them have the right to leave at any time.

 

Concluding, I can agree that if the officials elected do not want to discuss public matters in public, they need to resign.   

Perry's Agenda on Frivolous Court Cases

Burka Blog: Texas Monthly

In this blog about Perry's changes to the justice system concerning frivolous cases, I think most of the ideas are good. There have been many cases in the past few years that are simply just silly. All they have done is waste time and money. I can agree with Perry on possibly making these new laws so that we don't have any just plain silly cases and wasting time.  His laws will make people think twice before they decide to sue someone. A great example of this is when  Stella Liebeck spilled a hot cup of coffee on herself thus trying to sue McDonald's for her own mistake. This is a little ridiculous when you try to sue someone for something no one else did but yourself. 


Perry makes four great points about the new changes. The first one being "Loser Pays for Frivolous Lawsuits." I can agree with this because it simply says it in the title if it is a frivolous case then the "plaintiff should be required to pay the defendant's attorney fees" because of the fact that they would be wasting the persons money. The second one being "Early Dismissal for Frivolous Lawsuits." I think this is Perry's strongest point. This would save everyone a lot of time and money if the judge decides it is over before it even begins. Some cases are more important and this time could be used on these cases. The third one saying "Legislature Determines New Causes of Action." I'm agreeing with "Burka Blog"  that I don't really know if judges cause more than needed, but this could help in some cases. The last point that Perry has is "Increase Access to Courts for Legitimate Claims." This is completely true because of some people with legitimate claims have long cases which cause their costs to skyrocket. 


Perry has four great points that should be changed to laws that way  every thing is played for fair in the court system.