Tech, ASU Want Public Info Shielded from Press

HUMAN RIGHTS

According to an electronic communication from the legal department at Texas Tech University sent early Monday evening, Angelo State University is seeking an opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office that would allow the public university to keep private certain emails related to the LGBTQ+ policy changes earlier in the year.

The original request for the records was sent by The Concho Observer on Oct. 10, seeking:

“all documents, information and internal communication in any format, including but not limited to hard copy printed, emails, text messages, or other electronic or internet-based messages, related to instructions or guidance to be provided to the faculty and staff of any institution in the Texas Tech University System, including but not limited to Angelo State University, regarding complying with any laws, regulations or executive orders issued by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, or Federal or State laws regarding transgender identity, issues, persons, discussions or speech. This request includes but is not limited to the letter/memorandum issued by Angelo State University Provost Don Topliff, PhD, to the Angelo State faculty dated September 26, 2025, or on any of the following topics.

• That there is to be no discussion of transgender topics or any topics that suggest there are more than two genders as determined by one’s biological sex at birth.
• Information in syllibi about transgender topics must be removed.
• Instructors must refer to students by their given names and not their preferred names
• Safe-space stickers, LGBTQ flags, etc. are not allowed and must be removed.
• All employees are to remove pronouns from email signatures.
• The university will not back up or defend faculty who teach these topics or discuss them in class.

The AG brief notes that in its final form, The Concho Observer’s “request is like previous requests submitted by ASU for review to the Attorney General’s Office on October 7, 2025, and given OAG Tracking ID OR25046009 and October 14, 2025, and given OAG Tracking ID OR25047212.”

The brief concludes by stating:

We have marked the documents to which section 552.111, deliberative process privilege, applies.

a) In general, the fact that the documents are communications between TTU representatives or employees in a common deliberative process on an associated project should be self-evident on the documents.

b) In general, the fact that the documents represent the drafter’s advice, opinion and recommendation regarding the governmental body’s policies or practices or the form and content of a final document that will be released to the public should also be self-evident as some of these documents are preliminary drafts and discussions regarding the drafts and policy decisions affecting the drafts.

c) These documents were all communications between TTU representatives and employees, and they were not intended to be disclosed to outside parties.

d) The final versions of these documents will eventually be released to the public.

Initial Response and Narrowing of Scope

An initial response from the university was received via email on Oct. 20, exactly 10 days after the first email, asking The Observer to narrow the scope of its request.

TTU seeks to discuss with you how the scope of your request might be narrowed and/or clarified pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 522.222(b). TTUS requests that you narrow or clarify the scope of your request(s) as follows.

You have requested “all documents, information and internal communication in any format, including but not limited to hard copy printed, emails, text messages, or other electronic or internet based messages, related to instructions or guidance to be provided to the faculty and staff of any institution in the Texas Tech University System, including but not limited to Angelo State University…” Searching the entire system (including five separate institutions) and communications from, potentially, more than 10,000 employees will result in significant costs to you. Please consider narrowing your request by specifying which institution you are requesting from and what specific individuals or administrators you are requesting information from.

You have also indicated that, “This request includes but is not limited to the letter/memorandum issued by Angelo State University Provost Don Topliff, PhD to the Angelo State faculty date September 26, 2025, or on any of the following topics.” Please consider providing a specific timeframe to which your request applies.

Please simply respond to this request and let us know if you are willing to narrow/clarify the scope of your request in the manner suggested or in some other manner. Please note that we may be required to send certain information to the Texas Attorney General for review prior to release. That process could take 2-3 months.

Rounds 2 & 3

An amended records request was sent to the university the following day.

[The Concho Observer] will narrow the request to … information related to Texas Tech University and Angelo State University.  The time period I am requesting is from January 20, 2025 to the present.

Exactly 10 days later – at 5:12 p.m., The Observer received an estimate for the cost of the publicly owned information we had requested.

Informing the Public Isn’t Cheap

The cost estimate to provide the requested emails from the university was $3,949.02, which was detailed as covering 219.39 hours of human time at $15 per hour ($3,290.85), plus an “overhead” surcharge of 20 percent, which amounted to $658.17.

After providing the estimate pursuant to sections 552.2615 and 552.263 of the Texas Government Code, the university stated:

The requested information is not currently available in a form suitable for public release, and since the request involves manipulation of data, documents are not feasible to retrieve, will result in substantial interference with ongoing operations and can only be provided at a cost that covers the manipulation of data and other costs, you are entitled to an estimate of the costs and time to provide the information in the requested form.

On Nov. 10, a further narrowed request was sent to the university, seeking: “emails, and other communication from or to Angelo State University President Ronnie Hawkins; and, communications from or to, or statements issued by Provost Don Topliff on this topic.”

According to the email response from the university, sent at 5:08 p.m., which informed us the school was seeking an attorney general opinion to shield some of the emails, “Therefore, the deadline to request an open records decision is November 24, 2025, as evidenced by the November 10, 2025, email.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

The reason The Concho Observer phrased its initial request with a broad scope was to see every possible piece of advice that was offered for consideration to the people making these decisions for the employees and students at the public institutions funded by the people of the Great State of Texas.

We believe the advice of counsel is germane to the discussion, and feel that if they have something they would rather the public not see, we are obliged to insist on its disclosure.

The decision to make a White House Executive Order on transgender policy into a statewide policy implemented hastily, and without regard to the human rights of the students and faculty impacted by the decision is not indicative of good policymaking.

Everything that goes on at a public university, or that is related to anything that goes on there — with a few reasonable exceptions — is public, and discoverable in a court of law.

Nadir of Sunshine Laws in Texas

According to critics, including many the press, the last two attorney generals in Texas have combined to hinder transparency in government for more than 20 years.

Greg Abbott’s tenure was marked by several legal opinions and rulings that allowed governmental bodies to expand the use of exceptions to the Public Information Act.

Beginning early in his first term, Abbott’s office began by issuing a few key rulings to keep certain sensitive information, including the location of hazardous chemical storage, and information about pharmacies supplying drugs used in the execution of prisoners, from public view.

In one ruling on a high-profile case involving the death of an individual in police custody, Abbott’s office agreed local police departments could withhold records if the case didn’t result in a conviction, which limits public access to details surrounding the incident.

Critics argue this trend toward less transparency has continued during Abbott’s time as governor, including claims that — as governor — he was also a “member of the public” and entitled to shield certain records from disclosure.

This made headlines recently as Abbott’s ongoing legal battles to protect his email communications with Elon Musk have met with resistance in court.

AG Ken Paxton

Similarly, Ken Paxton’s office has been involved in multiple lawsuits filed by dozens of media organizations and watchdog groups who accuse his office of stonewalling on a broad array of matters.

Watchdog group American Oversight’s records request related to matters including Paxton’s communications surrounding the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack, and communications with gun lobbyists following the Uvalde shooting have cost the State of Texas more than $700,000. That’s on top of the $4.2 million estimated cost to taxpayers for his impeachment trial.

A Travis County District Attorney previously determined that Paxton’s failure to release Jan. 6 communication records violated the state’s open-records law, a claim Paxton called “meritless.”

Lawyers for those seeking information routinely claim Paxton’s office issues overly-broad exemptions — especially attorney-client privilege — to shield records from disclosure.

The Texas Supreme Court recently sided with Paxton and Gov. Abbott in a ruling that stated executive officials could not be compelled by lower courts to release certain emails, a decision that narrows the public’s legal options to challenge officials under the open records law.

Paxton has also fought to keep his personal divorce records sealed, which media organizations argue should be public given his position and the nature of the allegations.

Transparency advocates point to Paxton’s repeated efforts to shield his office’s own records from public scrutiny through litigation and expansive claims of privilege.

Paxton was indicted in 2015 on three felony counts: two counts of first-degree securities fraud and one count of failure to register as a securities agent.

Following a nine-year legal battle, the case was resolved in 2024 when Paxton agreed to a pre-trial diversion program that did not require him to admit guilt.

In May of 2023, Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives voted for 20 articles of impeachment, including charges of bribery and abuse of office, related to allegations of using his power to benefit a friend and donor, Nate Paul.

The Texas Senate found him innocent of all charges.