PECOS — A West Texas judge upheld the Texas Open Meetings Act following a lawsuit by former Alpine city council members that claimed the law restricts free speech.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded the decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Junell as the best news yet that the Texas Open Meetings Act is alive and well constitutionally, and must be respected by all public officials as a beacon for openness.

“This law requires openness in conducting the public’s business; it’s that simple. I am pleased Judge Junell exhibited the clarity of mind to uphold one of democracy’s greatest treasures,” said Abbott.

“Public officials who seek ways to skirt the law governing public meetings, while asserting their right to ‘free speech,’ are not acting in the spirit of democracy and we must never tolerate these acts in a free country.”

In his ruling, Junell disagreed with a number of allegations brought by former Alpine city council members that the open meetings law restricts or chills “free speech” of public officials who are acting in their official capacities.

In October 2004, a quorum of the council, Avinash Rangra, Anna Monclova, Manuel Payne and Katie Elms-Lawrence, exchanged private e-mails about an engineering design contract for water improvements in the city, including discussion about the best candidate for the job. A few days later, the council convened a public meeting to discuss the same issues.

In reviewing the e-mail incident, the resulting indictments that were dismissed by the Brewster County district attorney, and the subsequent legal challenge brought by the councilmen, Junell cited several past cases. In one from Kansas Supreme Court case, he noted that customary private discussions of governmental affairs among citizens are always protected, but “everything changes ... when a person is elected to public office.”

The judge emphasized that, because closed speech by public officials threatens democracy, the open meetings act “simply requires speech to be open and public.”

Junell also overruled allegations that the open meetings law is overly broad in its application or vague on its face, pointing to long-held test that among publicly deliberating bodies, there can be no informal discussions.

“There is either formal consideration of a matter in compliance with (the law), or an illegal meeting,” he wrote in his decision.

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas filed a friend of the court brief in support of the attorney general’s position in the case.