A follow-up on the City of Ranger’s handling of a public information request the Gazette first reported on July 10.
Listen to this article
This audio version reads the article aloud. The full text below serves as the transcript.
Most requested records released
The City of Ranger has released most of the records at the center of a public information request it previously acknowledged mishandling, providing the requestor with an incident report and other records and leaving requested video footage as the only outstanding item.
How the deadline was missed
In reporting first published July 10, the Gazette detailed how the City failed to respond to the request within the deadline set by the Texas Public Information Act. A resident submitted the request on June 15, 2026, and the City confirmed receipt the same day but did not respond within the statutory window.
On July 2, City Manager Charlie Archer acknowledged in writing to the requestor that the City “did not respond … within the required time period,” released a portion of the records, and committed to providing the remainder no later than July 17.
As part of that July 2 response, the City stated that certain requested dispatch information, identified as “CAD” data, is not retained by the City and therefore could not be produced.
On July 4, the requestor pressed the City on the timeline, writing that July 17 was “well over a month” from the original request and asking the City to explain the continued delay.
Incident report released; video remains
On July 17, City Secretary Bethany Brown provided the requestor with the responsive incident report.
On the requested video, Brown wrote that “the redaction process is taking longer than originally anticipated due to the length of the recording,” and that the City would provide a redacted copy “as soon as it is complete.” The message did not set a date.
What the Public Information Act requires
Under the Public Information Act, a governmental body that seeks to withhold information must ordinarily ask the Attorney General for a ruling within 10 business days. The City did not seek such a ruling within that period. As a result, the requested information is presumed public under state law, and the burden falls on the City to show a compelling reason for any portions it redacts.
The City has attributed the remaining delay to the time required to redact the footage rather than to any claimed legal exception.
What remains outstanding
The requestor has asked the City to commit to a specific date for the video’s release.
With the incident report and the earlier records now provided, the video is the sole item the City has not produced or otherwise accounted for. The Gazette will report whether the City delivers the redacted footage, and on what timeline.
Gazette visual edition
Select either page to open the full-resolution Gazette graphic.
