| January 2008 | |
|
FrontlinesAG: College must release e-mail information AUSTIN — The Attorney General’s Office has ruled that Coastal Bend College must release all public information requested by the Alice Echo-News Journal and must justify why it wants to charge between $900 and $10,388 for the information. On. Aug. 9, the Echo-News Journal requested copies of or access to Kathlyn Patton’s e-mails and memorandums as well as her copy of a DVD that has been at the center of litigation since summer. The newspaper also questioned the charges the college was trying to assess. In a ruling on Oct. 30, the AG’s Office ordered the release of all public information related to the request. The AG’s office also addressed complaints of overcharges brought against CBC by the Echo-News Journal. The college must establish the length of time it will take staff to locate, compile, redact and reproduce the files in a step-by-step manner to show how the college came to its charges. The battle for the records began in May when the Echo-News Journal and the Beeville Bee-Picayune originally obtained a copy of two DVDs placed in the protection of the 79th District court, but later returned them after fighting an injunction filed by the college against the newspapers and several attorneys who also had obtained copies. SA judge dismisses libel suit SAN ANTONIO — A Bexar County judge has agreed to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought against the San Antonio Express-News by Premier Management Enterprises, a Louisiana-based company that formerly ran Bexar County Jails commissaries. In the lawsuit filed in February 2006 against Hearst Newspaper Partnership, the Express-News and reporter Elizabeth Allen, Premier’s principals, Patrick and Michael LeBlanc and Jan Williamson, claimed the newspaper published two stories and one editorial containing false and misleading statements accusing them of conduct that was unethical, incompetent and, in some cases, illegal. Judge David Berchelmann of the 37th District Court signed an order after both parties agreed to dismiss the suit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. As part of the agreement, the newspaper acknowledged three errors that ran in Allen’s stories and in a subsequent editorial in December 2005.
|
|