DOCSLIB.ORG

PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT Handbook 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT Handbook 2020 Dear Fellow Texans: In 1888, James Bryce wrote that sunlight kills the germs of corruption that can infect a government, and his words remain true today. As Attorney General, I make it a priority to encourage open government and to enforce the laws that mandate it when necessary. The Texas Public Information Act assures that government entities give citizens access to information about what public servants are doing on their behalf—information they need to gain a more complete understanding of how their government works and hold their public officials accountable. Texas government does not belong to elected officials, but to the people of Texas. This updated guide is intended to help both public officials and the people they serve understand and comply with the Texas Public Information Act. You can view or download the handbook by visiting www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/publicinfo_hb.pdf. Where further help is needed, my office’s Open Government Hotline is available to answer any questions about open government in Texas. The toll-free number is 877-OPEN TEX (877-673-6839). Texans have the right to see how their government is spending their tax dollars and exercising the powers they have granted it. That knowledge is essential to preserving the rule of law, protecting the democratic process, and defending the liberty we all cherish. The Public Information Act is a critical protection for that right, and I am proud to offer this guide in service of that goal. Best regards, Ken Paxton Attorney General of Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS A PREFACE TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDBOOK .................................................................... i PART ONE: HOW THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT WORKS ............................................................. 1 I. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 1 A. Historical Background ................................................................................................. 1 B. Policy; Construction ..................................................................................................... 1 C. Attorney General to Maintain Uniformity in Application, Operation and Interpretation of the Act ............................................................................................... 2 D. Section 552.021 ............................................................................................................ 2 E. Open Records Training ................................................................................................ 3 II. ENTITIES SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT ....................................................... 7 A. State and Local Governmental Bodies ........................................................................ 8 B. Private Entities.............................................................................................................. 8 1. Private Entities Supported by Public Funds .....................................................8 2. Private Entities Deemed Governmental Bodies by Statute ..............................8 C. Certain Property Owners’ Associations Subject to Act .............................................. 9 D. A Governmental Body Holding Records for Another Governmental Body ............ 10 E. Private Entities Holding Records for Governmental Bodies .................................... 10 F. Judiciary Excluded from the Public Information Act ............................................... 12 III. INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT ............................................ 14 A. Public Information is Contained in Records of All Forms ....................................... 14 B. Information Held by a Temporary Custodian ........................................................... 15 C. Exclusion of Tangible Items ...................................................................................... 15 D. Exclusion of Protected Health Information ............................................................... 16 E. Personal Notes and E-mail in Personal Accounts or Devices ................................... 16 F. Commercially Available Information ........................................................................ 18 IV. PROCEDURES FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION ........................................................ 19 A. Informing the Public of Basic Rights and Responsibilities Under the Act .............. 19 B. The Request for Public Information .......................................................................... 19 C. The Governmental Body’s Duty to Produce Public Information Promptly ............. 22 D. The Requestor’s Right of Access............................................................................... 25 1. Right to Inspect ...............................................................................................27 2. Right to Obtain Copies ...................................................................................27 E. Computer and Electronic Information ....................................................................... 28 V. DISCLOSURE TO SELECTED PERSONS ................................................................................... 30 A. General Rule: Under the Public Information Act, Public Information is Available to All Members of the Public .................................................................... 30 B. Some Disclosures of Information to Selected Individuals or Entities Do Not Constitute Disclosures to the Public Under Section 552.007 ................................... 31 1. Special Rights of Access: Exceptions to Disclosure Expressly Inapplicable to a Specific Class of Persons ....................................................31 2. Intra- or Intergovernmental Transfers ............................................................34 3. Other Limited Disclosures That Do Not Implicate Section 552.007 ..............35 VI. ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES WHETHER INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION ................................................................................................................. 36 A. Duties of the Governmental Body and of the Attorney General Under Subchapter G .............................................................................................................. 36 B. Items the Governmental Body Must Submit to the Attorney General ..................... 40 1. Written Communication from the Person Requesting the Information ..........41 2. Information Requested from the Governmental Body ...................................41 3. Labeling Requested Information to Indicate Which Exceptions Apply to Which Parts of the Requested Information .................................................42 4. Statement or Evidence as to Date Governmental Body Received Written Request ..............................................................................................42 5. Letter from the Governmental Body Stating Which Exceptions Apply and Why ..........................................................................................................42 C. Section 552.302: Information Presumed Public if Submissions and Notification Required by Section 552.301 Are Not Timely ..................................... 43 D. Section 552.303: Attorney General Determination that Information in Addition to that Required by Section 552.301 Is Necessary to Render a Decision ...................................................................................................................... 44 E. Section 552.305: When the Requested Information Involves a Third Party’s Privacy or Property Interests ...................................................................................... 45 F. Section 552.3035: Attorney General Must Not Disclose Information at Issue ........................................................................................................................ 47 G. Section 552.304: Submission of Public Comments ................................................. 47 H. Rendition of Attorney General Decision ................................................................... 47 I. Timeliness of Action .................................................................................................. 48 VII. COST OF COPIES AND ACCESS ............................................................................................... 48 A. Charges for Copies of Paper Records and Printouts of Electronic Records ............. 49 B. Charges for Inspection of Paper Records and Electronic Records ........................... 51 C. Waivers or Reduction of Estimated Charges ............................................................ 52 D. Providing a Statement of Estimated Charges as Required by Law .......................... 52 E. Cost Provisions Regarding Requests Requiring a Large Amount of Personnel Time ........................................................................................................... 54 F. Complaints Regarding Alleged Overcharges ............................................................ 55 G. Cost Provisions Outside the Public Information Act ................................................ 55 VIII. PENALTIES AND REMEDIES .................................................................................................... 56 A. Informal Resolution of Complaints ..........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • ICO – Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook

    ICO – Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook

    Using this handbook Part 1 – Background information Part 2 – The PIA process Appendix 1 – The PIA screening questions Appendix 2 – Data protection compliance checklist template Appendix 3 – PECR compliance checklist template Appendix 4 – Privacy strategies Using this handbook Back to ICO homepage Advice on using this handbook Because organisations vary greatly in size, the extent to which their activities intrude on privacy, and their experience in dealing with privacy issues makes it difficult to write a ‘one size fits all’ guide. The purpose of this handbook is to be comprehensive. It is important to note now that not all of the information provided in this handbook will be relevant to every project that will be assessed. The handbook is split into two distinct parts. Part I (Chapters I and II) are designed to give background information on the privacy impact assessment (PIA) process and privacy. Part II is a practical “how to” guide on the PIA process. The handbook’s structure is intended to enable a reader who is knowledgeable about privacy to quickly start working on the PIA. Background information on privacy and PIAs is provided for other readers who would like some general information prior to starting the PIA process. It is also important to note that some of the recommendations in this handbook may overlap with work which is being done to satisfy other requirements, such as information security and assurance, other forms of impact assessment or requirements to carry out broader consultations during the development of a project. A PIA does not have to be conducted as a completely separate exercise and it can be useful to consider privacy issues in a broader policy context.
  • Identity Theft Literature Review

    Identity Theft Literature Review

    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Identity Theft Literature Review Author(s): Graeme R. Newman, Megan M. McNally Document No.: 210459 Date Received: July 2005 Award Number: 2005-TO-008 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. IDENTITY THEFT LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared for presentation and discussion at the National Institute of Justice Focus Group Meeting to develop a research agenda to identify the most effective avenues of research that will impact on prevention, harm reduction and enforcement January 27-28, 2005 Graeme R. Newman School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany Megan M. McNally School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark This project was supported by Contract #2005-TO-008 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
  • Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights

    Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights

    Privacy and publicity Privacy and publicity: the two facets of personality rights hyperbole. In this context, personality In this age of endorsements and rights encompass the “right of privacy”, tabloid gossip, famous people which prohibits undue interference in need to protect their rights and a person’s private life. In addition to coverage in the media, reputations. With a growing number images of celebrities adorn anything from of reported personality rights cases, t-shirts, watches and bags to coffee mugs. India must move to develop its This is because once a person becomes legal framework governing the famous, the goods and services that he or commercial exploitation of celebrity she chooses to endorse are perceived to reflect his or her own personal values. By Bisman Kaur and Gunjan Chauhan, A loyal fan base is a captive market for Remfry & Sagar such goods, thereby allowing celebrities to cash in on their efforts in building up Introduction a popular persona. Intellectual property in India is no longer Unfortunately, a large fan base is a niche field of law. Stories detailing also seen by unscrupulous people as an trademark infringement and discussing opportunity to bring out products or the grant of geographical indications services that imply endorsement by an routinely make their way into the daily individual, when in fact there is no such news headlines. From conventional association. In such cases the individual’s categories of protection such as patents, “right of publicity” is called into play. trademarks, designs and copyright, IP laws The right of publicity extends to every have been developed, often by judicial individual, not just those who are famous, innovation, to encompass new roles and but as a practical matter its application areas of protection.
  • Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality Vs

    Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality Vs

    Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality vs. Public Disclosure* by Boris I. Bittker* * I. INTRODUCTION This article will examine the relationship between the individual's interest in privacy, reflected in such recent statutes as the Privacy Act of 1974, I and the public's right to know, which underlies legislation like the Freedom of Information Act. 2 The subject is of intrinsic impor­ tance, but it is particularly appropriate for an article in this lecture se­ ries, since privacy3 and disclosure4 were values of special interest to Justice Douglas. Neither the individual's right to privacy5 nor the pub­ lic's right to know6 is explicitly protected by the Constitution, but both do have constitutional overtones, and both are protected by various statutory provisions. Using federal income tax returns as the centerpiece of the discus­ sion, I propose to show how privacy and disclosure can come into con­ flict-a possibility that has been insufficiently recognized by the courts and the commentators. The leading treatise on political and civil rights,7 for example, treats the two subjects in separate chapters with virtually no acknowledgement that they are related, let alone that they • Copyright 1981 by Boris I. Bittker. •• Sterling Professor of Law. Yale University. This article is the modified text of a speech delivered at the Fifth Annual William O. Douglas Lecture Series. October 30. 1980. I. Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 3, 88 Stat. 1897 (amended 1975 & 1977) codified at 5 U.S.C § 552a (1976». 2. Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 (1966) (amended 1967, 1974, 1976 & 1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C § 552 (1976».
  • Motions Explained

    Motions Explained

    MOTIONS EXPLAINED Adjournment: Suspension of proceedings to another time or place. To adjourn means to suspend until a later stated time or place. Recess: Bodies are released to reassemble at a later time. The members may leave the meeting room, but are expected to remain nearby. A recess may be simply to allow a break (e.g. for lunch) or it may be related to the meeting (e.g. to allow time for vote‐counting). Register Complaint: To raise a question of privilege that permits a request related to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be brought up. Any time a member feels their ability to serve is being affected by some condition. Make Body Follow Agenda: A call for the orders of the day is a motion to require the body to conform to its agenda or order of business. Lay Aside Temporarily: A motion to lay the question on the table (often simply "table") or the motion to postpone consideration is a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion. Close Debate: A motion to the previous question (also known as calling for the question, calling the question, close debate and other terms) is a motion to end debate, and the moving of amendments, on any debatable or amendable motion and bring that motion to an immediate vote. Limit or extend debate: The motion to limit or extend limits of debate is used to modify the rules of debate. Postpone to a certain time: In parliamentary procedure, a postponing to a certain time or postponing to a time certain is an act of the deliberative assembly, generally implemented as a motion.
  • Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey

    Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey

    JeXo C[dZ[b ^h i]Z AVl J^[_cfehjWdY[e\j^[h_]^jje Egd\gVbbZ9^gZXidgl^i]6GI>8A:&.!<adWVa 8VbeV^\c [dg ;gZZ :megZhh^dc! V aZVY^c\ _d\ehcWj_edehj^[h_]^jjeadem_iWd ^ciZgcVi^dcVa ]jbVc g^\]ih C<D WVhZY ^c _dYh[Wi_d]boYedijWdjh[\hW_d_dj^[ AdcYdc! V edh^i^dc ]Z ]Vh ]ZaY [dg hdbZ iZc nZVgh# >c i]Vi XVeVX^in! ]Z ]Vh ldg`ZY cekj^ie\Z[l[befc[djfhWYj_j_ed[hi" ZmiZch^kZan dc [gZZYdb d[ ZmegZhh^dc VcY g^\]i id ^c[dgbVi^dc ^hhjZh ^c 6h^V! 6[g^XV! Y_l_bieY_[jo"WYWZ[c_Yi"j^[c[Z_WWdZ :jgdeZ! i]Z B^YYaZ :Vhi VcY AVi^c 6bZg^XV! ]el[hdc[dji$M^Wj_ij^_ih_]^j"_i_j gjcc^c\ igV^c^c\ hZb^cVgh! Xg^i^fj^c\ aVlh! iV`^c\XVhZhidWdi]cVi^dcVaVcY^ciZgcVi^dcVa h[WbboWh_]^jWdZ^em^Wl[]el[hdc[dji WdY^Zh! VYk^h^c\ C<Dh VcY \dkZgcbZcih! VcY ZkZc ldg`^c\ l^i] d[ÒX^Vah id egZeVgZ iek]^jje]_l[[\\[Yjje_j5J^[i[Wh[ YgV[ig^\]iid^c[dgbVi^dcaVlh#>cVYY^i^dcid iec[e\j^[gk[ij_edij^_iXeeai[[ai ]^h ldg` l^i] 6GI>8A:&.! ]Z ]Vh egdk^YZY ZmeZgi^hZ dc i]ZhZ ^hhjZh id V l^YZ gVc\Z jeWZZh[ii"fhel_Z_d]WdWYY[ii_Xb[ d[ VXidgh ^cXajY^c\ i]Z LdgaY 7Vc`! kVg^djh JCVcYdi]Zg^ciZg\dkZgcbZciVaWdY^Zh!VcY WYYekdje\j^[bWmWdZfhWYj_Y[h[]WhZ_d] cjbZgdjh C<Dh# Eg^dg id _d^c^c\ 6GI>8A: \h[[Zece\_d\ehcWj_ed"WdZWdWdWboi_i &.!IdWnBZcYZaldg`ZY^c]jbVcg^\]ihVcY ^ciZgcVi^dcVa YZkZadebZci! ^cXajY^c\ Vh V e\m^Wj_imeha_d]WdZm^o$ hZc^dg ]jbVc g^\]ih XdchjaiVci l^i] Dm[Vb 8VcVYVVcYVhV]jbVcg^\]iheda^XnVcVanhi 68dbeVgVi^kZAZ\VaHjgkZn Vi i]Z 8VcVY^Vc >ciZgcVi^dcVa 9ZkZadebZci ;gZZYdbd[>c[dgbVi^dc/ 6\ZcXn8>96# ÆJ^[\h[[Ôeme\_d\ehcWj_edWdZ_Z[Wi IdWn BZcYZa ]Vh ejWa^h]ZY l^YZan! b_[iWjj^[^[Whje\j^[l[hodej_ede\ 6 8dbeVgVi^kZ AZ\Va HjgkZn Xdcig^Wji^c\ id cjbZgdjh 6GI>8A: &.
  • A Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for New York City Community Boards

    A Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for New York City Community Boards

    CITY OF NEW YORK MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, MAYOR A GUIDE TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FOR NEW YORK CITY COMMUNITY BOARDS Mayor's Community Assistance Unit Patrick J. Brennan, Commissioner r. 2003/6.16.2006 Page 2 A Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for NYC Community Boards Mayor's Community Assistance Unit INTRODUCTION "The holding of assemblies of the elders, fighting men, or people of a tribe, community, or city to make decisions or render opinion on important matters is doubtless a custom older than history," notes Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. This led to the need for rules of procedures to organize those assemblies. Throughout history, the writers of parliamentary procedure recognized that a membership meeting should be a place where different people of a community gather to debate openly and resolve issues of common concerns, the importance of conducting meetings in a democratic manner, and the need to protect the rights of individuals, groups, and the entire assembly. Parliamentary procedure originally referred to the customs and rules used by the English Parliament to conduct its meetings and to dispose of its issues. Some of the unusual terms used today attest to that connection -- such terms as "Lay On The Table" or "I Call The Previous Question." In America, General Henry Martyn Robert (1837-1923), a U.S. Army engineering officer was active in civic and educational works and church organizations. After presiding over a meeting, he wrote "But with the plunge went the determination that I would never attend another meeting until I knew something of... parliamentary law." After many years of study and work, the first edition of Robert's manual was published on February 19, 1876 under the title, Robert's Rules of Order.
  • Spotlight On… Protection of Sensitive Data Including Personal Information

    Spotlight On… Protection of Sensitive Data Including Personal Information

    Spotlight On… Protection of Sensitive Data including Personal Information Purpose On Sept. 7, 2017 media reports indicated that a large American credit score bureau had been breached, exposing the personal information of millions of consumers in the U.S. and in the U.K. and potentially affecting 8,000 individuals in Canada. On November 28, 2017 the Canadian arm of this U.S. company posted information on its website indicating that an additional 11,670 Canadians had been affected by the breach, bringing the total number of Canadians affected to about 19,000. In response to CCIRC partner questions concerning this event, this product provides information on what organizations can do to reduce the risk of sensitive data, such as personal information, being exfiltrated from their organization. Information in this note includes: . The Canadian statutory definitions of personal information . Upcoming regulatory changes to data breach reporting in Canada . Examples of reported breaches of Canadian personal information . Tactics, techniques, and procedures employed to target Canadian personal information . Tips for safeguarding sensitive information . Advice from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for individuals who believe their personal information may have been compromised What is “Personal Information”? According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), these are the statutory provisions relevant to the meaning of “Personal Information” in Canada: Section 2(1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents
  • How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: a New Study

    How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: a New Study

    TIM BROOKS How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: A New Study The following article looks at how U.S. copyright law affects the availability of older recordings. Among the issues covered are how many “historic” recordings are still under legal restrictions, how many are available to the public today via reissues, and what pro- portion of reissues are from rights holders vs. non rights holders. The article also suggests how to determine whether a specific older recording is controlled by a rights holder or is “abandoned,” and thus free to disseminate. The article is based on a paper presented at the 2005 ARSC Conference, with much of the information drawn from a study by the author commissioned by the Council on Library and Information Resources for the National Recording Preservation Board and the Library of Congress. The full study is available at www.clir.org. __________________________________________________________________________________ n recent years entertainment companies have secured sweeping expansion of copy- right laws and new limits on the public domain, making the subject of copyright Iincreasingly controversial. The world, they say, is changing and the law has to “keep up”. However, those who seek to care for and disseminate our recorded heritage feel jus- tifiably threatened by laws that seem to restrict their activities at every turn. While many in the academic and collecting communities lament these developments – witness the heavy attendance and passionate response at a session on “Music Downloading and File Swapping” at the 2004 ARSC Conference – there is surprisingly little solid data on the effects of current law on recordings.1 Such data is necessary to influence policymakers.
  • Annual Privacy Report

    Annual Privacy Report

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNUAL PRIVACY REPORT THE CHIEF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OFFICER AND THE OFFICE OF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OCTOBER 1, 2016 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 1 (MULTI) ANNUAL PRIVACY REPORT MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OFFICER I am pleased to present the Department of Justice’s (Department or DOJ) Annual Privacy Report, describing the operations and activities of the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer (CPCLO) and the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), in accordance with Section 1174 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. This report covers the period from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2020. The Department’s privacy program is supported by a team of dedicated privacy professionals who strive to build a culture and understanding of privacy within the complex and diverse mission work of the Department. The work of the Department’s privacy team is evident in the care, consideration, and dialogue about privacy that is incorporated in the daily operations of the Department. During this reporting period, there has been an evolving landscape of technological development and advancement in areas such as artificial intelligence, biometrics, complex data flows, and an increase in the number of cyber security events resulting in significant impacts to the privacy of individuals. Thus, the CPCLO and OPCL have developed new policies and guidance to assist the Department with navigating these areas, some of which include the following:
  • Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States

    Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States

    Issue Brief January 2017 Repealing Federal Health Reform: Economic and Employment Consequences for States Leighton Ku, Erika Steinmetz, Erin Brantley, and Brian Bruen The mission of The Commonwealth ABSTRACT Fund is to promote a high Issue: The incoming Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are seeking to repeal performance health care system. The Fund carries out this mandate by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), likely beginning with the law’s insurance premium tax credits and supporting independent research on expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Research shows that the loss of these two provisions would lead health care issues and making grants to a doubling of the number of uninsured, higher uncompensated care costs for providers, and to improve health care practice and policy. Support for this research was higher taxes for low-income Americans. Goal: To determine the state-by-state effect of repeal on provided by The Commonwealth employment and economic activity. Methods: A multistate economic forecasting model (PI+ from Fund. The views presented here Regional Economic Models, Inc.) was used to quantify for each state the effects of the federal are those of the authors and spending cuts. Findings and Conclusions: Repeal results in a $140 billion loss in federal funding not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, for health care in 2019, leading to the loss of 2.6 million jobs (mostly in the private sector) that officers, or staff. year across all states. A third of lost jobs are in health care, with the majority in other industries. If replacement policies are not in place, there will be a cumulative $1.5 trillion loss in gross state Established in July 1997 as the School products and a $2.6 trillion reduction in business output from 2019 to 2023.
  • Mary Jones: Last First Lady of the Republic of Texas

    Mary Jones: Last First Lady of the Republic of Texas

    MARY JONES: LAST FIRST LADY OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS Birney Mark Fish, B.A., M.Div. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2011 APPROVED: Elizabeth Hayes Turner, Major Professor Richard B. McCaslin, Committee Member and Chair of the Department of History D. Harland Hagler, Committee Member Denis Paz, Committee Member Sandra L. Spencer, Committee Member and Director of the Women’s Studies Program James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Fish, Birney Mark. Mary Jones: Last First Lady of the Republic of Texas. Doctor of Philosophy (History), December 2011, 275 pp., 3 tables, 2 illustrations, bibliography, 327 titles. This dissertation uses archival and interpretive methods to examine the life and contributions of Mary Smith McCrory Jones in Texas. Specifically, this project investigates the ways in which Mary Jones emerged into the public sphere, utilized myth and memory, and managed her life as a widow. Each of these larger areas is examined in relation to historiographicaly accepted patterns and in the larger context of women in Texas, the South, and the nation during this period. Mary Jones, 1819-1907, experienced many of the key early periods in Anglo Texas history. The research traces her family’s immigration to Austin’s Colony and their early years under Mexican sovereignty. The Texas Revolution resulted in her move to Houston and her first brief marriage. Following the death of her husband she met and married Anson Jones, a physician who served in public posts throughout the period of the Texas Republic. Over time Anson was politically and personally rejected to the point that he committed suicide.