Updated Sunshine Policy Document: Agenda Item 19

[Shane Saum]

Fellow Councilmembers,

After discussions with a couple councilmembers, the City Attorney and City Secretary, I have made an overhaul to the Draft Sunshine Policy I submitted in the packet. Please disregard that document and use this document for our discussion on Thursday. I anticipate this policy will take a few council meetings for us to refine.


Lago Vista currently does not have a formal policy outlining how the City handles Open Records Requests (ORRs). This new Sunshine Policy addresses that gap and sets consistent, citizen-first procedures for fulfilling requests in compliance with the Texas Public Information Act. I’ve drafted the policy based on best practices from other cities, with improvements tailored to Lago Vista’s transparency goals and practical needs.


Key additions and updates include:
Clear Mission Statement: Reinforces that our City’s mission is to get citizens the information they are legally entitled to—quickly and with minimal resistance. Staff are instructed to err on the side of transparency whenever possible.


Transparency Portal: Creates a centralized webpage for budgets, minutes, development documents, and frequently requested items. The portal will also show real-time data on how many requests are open, fulfilled, or referred to the Attorney General.


Council Subcommittee: Establishes a three-member subcommittee to review any request that may involve waiving attorney-client privilege before it is elevated to full Council in executive session.


Legal Review and Redaction Protocols: Formalizes when the City Attorney must be consulted (e.g., for juvenile records, bodycam footage, sexual assault, pending litigation) and how redactions and AG rulings should be handled.


Criminal Justice Records: Clarifies that police reports often require careful legal review and redaction, and refers citizens to the Municipal Court’s online records portal for citation and case history searches.


Requestor Redaction Option: Notifies citizens—through the portal and request forms—that they can authorize routine redactions upfront, which can significantly speed up response times.


This policy gives our staff clear procedures, protects sensitive data, and helps us better serve the public. I welcome your feedback ahead of a future agenda item to formally adopt it.

---

 

[Adam Benefield]

Love this Counselor Saum. I fully support this measure.

 

[Paul Prince]

Shane,
I'm trying to figure out what in here is not already in state law around public information. To the best of my knowledge the city has always been compliant with state law. Said another way, I am fully in favor of public information being available to all citizens, and I share answers in great detail whenever a citizen asks me questions. It's possible I'm just not aware of a problem that you are trying to fix here. If we're going to do an ordinance I think it would be helpful to be clear on what we're adding as new requirements on staff. Maybe you can clarify that.

Also, what cities did you find that you used for best practices?
Thanks,
Paul

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Councilor Saum.

You have dedicated considerable time and thought to this effort, and I believe it will provide our citizens with clear information and expectations when they request Open Records Requests (ORRs). I noticed that the City of Dripping Springs adopted a Public Information Policy last year, which includes more details than your concise policy recommendation. This is a commendable initiative for promoting transparency.

I believe we can engage in a discussion about the application process and address any potential concerns residents may have regarding the privacy of those making requests. I have attached the Dripping Springs policy as an example from another city that could be helpful for this item.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thanks Councilor for your thoughtful questions—I appreciate your support for transparency and your willingness to share detailed information with citizens. You’re right that much of the Sunshine Policy is grounded in what the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) already requires. The goal here isn’t to imply that the City has been out of compliance, but rather to codify and clarify expectations for staff and the public, improve efficiency, and reduce the number of ORRs we receive through proactive disclosure. This is also a policy and not an ordinance.

I have attached the Dripping Springs PIA document which heavily influenced the one I wrote. And the Round Rock portal can be found here. I think this format of putting all of these document links on one landing page could save the City a lot of time on requests as citizens and council are still complaining how not user-friendly the website is: https://www.roundrocktexas.gov/city...ration/city-clerk/public-information-request/

To your main question—what’s new or beyond state law—here are the key additions this policy includes that are not already required under TPIA:

---

What’s Different from State Law​

1. Centralized Transparency Portal (Section V)
   
   • TPIA does not require cities to maintain a single landing page for budgets, minutes, development records, or frequently requested documents.
   • This portal helps citizens find what they need without filing a formal request—saving time for them and staff.
2. Council Subcommittee for Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege (Section IV)
   
   • This establishes a clear internal process for Council to review any public information requests that may require waiving privilege, instead of leaving it entirely to staff or legal.
   • This is a governance transparency tool, not part of TPIA.
3. Publication of ORR Metrics (Section V.D)
   
   • The policy requires that our portal display data on how many ORRs were received, fulfilled, or referred to the AG.
   • Also requires inclusion of this data in the City Secretary’s monthly report.
   • TPIA doesn’t require tracking or publishing these stats, but it builds public confidence and helps us measure workload.
4. Upfront Redaction Consent Option (Section III.I)
   
   • While redactions are allowed under TPIA, providing an explicit option for requesters to authorize common redactions up front (e.g., personal emails, license plates) can expedite responses.
   • This is a service and efficiency enhancement.
5. Clarification of Legal Review Triggers (Section III.L)
   
   • The policy lists types of content (juveniles, suicide, bodycam, etc.) that should always be flagged for legal review.
   • This helps staff make consistent decisions and avoid accidental release of protected info.
6. Guidance on Temporary Custodians (Section II.C)
   
   • Reiterates the duty of employees holding city-related records outside the central system to return them promptly.
   • TPIA touches on this, but the policy reinforces timelines and discipline as a formal expectation.
7. Municipal Court Record Linkage and Explanations (Section III.J)
   
   • Adds user-friendly direction to the court’s online search system for police/citation records—TPIA doesn’t require this but it aids transparency.
8. Codified Use of ORR Management Software (Section III.C)
   
   • The policy confirms we log all requests—regardless of how submitted—into the City’s portal (NextRequest), ensuring centralized tracking and auditability.

---

Best Practices from Other Cities​

This policy draws best-practice elements from:

• Dripping Springs (formalized redactions, public portal with stats, cost waivers)
• Austin (clear signage and multi-channel submission methods)
• Texas City (policy-style documentation of roles and responsibilities)
• Keller and Lakeway (streamlined police and development records portals)

---

The intent is to set Lago Vista apart as a model of open local government—not because we’ve failed to comply with the law, but because we want to go beyond the minimum. If this helps us reduce ORRs and build trust with citizens while giving staff clarity, it’s a win on all sides.


Happy to walk through it line-by-line with anyone who’d like to workshop it.

 

[Shane Saum]

Council,

Thank you for your openness and discussion last night on this policy. I have updated the language based on our conversation. I removed the subcommittee section. I updated the mission language per the conversation with Councilman Benefield. I also updated the language on the portal sections that staff shall look into this, but it doesn't create any mandates or put us on a clock to do so, even though it is the best and quickest fix to the scattering of documents on our website today.

Please let me know your thoughts.

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Councilor Saum. This updated draft addresses the questions I had, and I appreciate your thoughtful revisions and responsiveness to the discussion. I especially value the clarification on the portal language and your effort to balance flexibility with the need for better organization. Thank you for your work on this.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Hi Shane,

Thanks for posting the latest version of the draft ordinance. I just wanted to note that Section IV(A) still reflects the prior language (“frequently requested documents”) rather than the updated “super-public” language that we discussed and unanimously agreed to in open session, following the City Attorney’s recommendation.

To ensure the public version reflects Council’s direction, that section should be updated accordingly. Appreciate all your work pulling this together.

—Paul