BANNER ADVERTISING PAYS ONLY FOR WEBSITE Publisher's Note: The following Letter to the Editor was submitted both to this publication as well as _The Llano News. Mr. Klee is referring to an article in _The Llano News and not one on this website. The issue he raises, however, is of interest. T.C. A recent article appeared in your publication [_The Llano News] which attempted to explain why "Llano is classified as a rich school district" (Let's Think About This..., 3/2/00). The answer was never forthcoming but one can surmise from the article that it has something to do with the number of school enrollments and the total value of properties in the community as determined by either the Llano County Appraisal District Office or the Llano County Tax Assessors Office. The article seemed to refer to these two Offices interchangeably, --as if they were one and the same. My understanding, however, is the Appraisal District determines the value of property and the Assessors Office determines the tax due based upon their appraisals. The Offices have separate and distinct functions and are independent of one another. Contrary to what the article states, I also understand that a citizen over age 65 who makes substantial improvements to their property may be subject to a reasessment of their property which, in turn, might very well result in a higher tax rate and corresponding increase in their taxes. In other words, they are not "locked in rates in their homes" nor is it true that their "properties cannot be affected by tax increases". But my point is, since it is the Appraisal District which does the property evaluations and thereby places Llano in a rich school district category, why congratulate them for a job well done? It's bad enough being shafted with "Voodoo" property appraisals and consequent across the board tax increases, without putting on a "Happy" face while they're doing it to you. Harvey H. Klee, Esq. Bluffton March 7, 2000 ***************************** ******Disenfranchisement Of The Vote......******* If what I'm reading in the local papers is correct, the Llano County Commissioners' Court wants to incur $3.95 million in debt for a "law enforcement center" (closer to $7.5 million when one adds interest to the principle obligation), $700,000 to refinance debt (this usually amounts to paying interest on interest), $170,000 for a new computer system, another $170,000 for a roofing project at the Llano Library, etc.. The latter two items I understand will be paid through the issuance of bonds -- which will almost double what the taxpayers will have to pay back. It appears that the Court is very effective at spending money, but totally incompetent when it comes to saving it. To add insult to injury, the Court wants to deprive the citizens of the right to determine if they want the County to incur $7.5 million in debt (which the taxpayers will have to pay) to finance a new jail. They want to issue certificates of obligation rather than put the issue up for a vote by way of a bond election. The Court claims that "going the certificates of obligation route" would be free while the bond "process would cost the County about $8,000". Putting aside for the moment that it really is a cost to the taxpayers-- not the County, why is the Court so intent on disenfranchising the taxpayers of their right to decide the issue? Afraid the taxpayers would vote it down? It certainly is not out of concern to save money. For example, because the County Commissioners' Court decided to keep its present four judicial precincts for reasons of political expediency, rather than revert to a single judicial precinct when they had the chance, it will cost the taxpayers over $330,000 a year. As I pointed out in a previous Letter to Editor, if the County had only a single judicial precinct from the beginning (which was all State law required up until November of last year), the savings would have approximated $3.5 million! Plenty of money to pay for the Court's wish list. It's a pity that more fiscally responsible candidates are not running for office this time around. Harvey H. Klee, Esq. Bluffton March 7, 2000 *********************************** Llano Independent School District February 14, 2000 Mr. Tim Chorney Rt. 2, Box 464A Buchanan Dam, Texas 78609 Dear Mr. Chorney: Our office has received a request from you through Mr. David Short of the Open Records Division of the State of Texas. The information you requested is as follows: 1. Cost of Llano ISD recognized schools billboard on Highway 29 $200.00 per month 2. Cost of Llano ISD recognized schools billboard in Kingsland $200 per month 3. Cost of all other billboards-N/A 4. Both of the above billboards had a sponsorship As I stated in the written response on July 15, 1999, please direct any further questions in writing to the above address and I will respond as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Jack Patton Superintendent JP:gs cc: Tere Hutto, President Llano ISD Board of Trustees David Short, Open Records Division State of Texas ******************************* Publisher's Note: Mr. Patton's response was incomplete and disingenuous. The following two letters will be snail-mailed to Patton and Tere Hutto. T.C. ******************************* Jack Patton, Superintendent LISD 200 E. Lampasas Llano, Tx. 78643 Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger http://maxpages.com/llanoledger Rt 2 Box 464A Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609 Re: Open Records Request Dear Mr. Patton: In response to your Feb. 14 letter and for the record, are you saying ONLY two LISD "Recognized Schools" billboards exist in our community? Just as importantly, who are the people sponsoring these road signs? Since your letter of Feb. 14 was also misleading as to the origin of my earlier Open Records request of Jan. 12, 2000, the attached letter dated February 18, 2000 was sent to Tere Hutto. Sincerely, Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger cc: File ************************** Llano Independent School District Tere Hutto, President LISD Board Llano, Tx. 78643 Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger http://maxpages.com/llanoledger Rt 2 Box 464A Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609 Re: Open Records Request February 18, 2000 Dear Ms. Hutto: I recently received a letter from Jack Patton dated February 14, 2000, -- a copy of which he forwarded to you. Mr. Patton's last sentence makes it appear he had received the open records request only through the Attorney General's office. This is simply not the case. The request was made initially informally by e-mail. When Mr. Patton ignored the inquiry, a formal Open Records Request dated Jan. 12, 2000 was sent by U.S. mail to the Superintendent. That request was also ignored, leading to the complaint filed against Patton and LISD with the Open Records Division. Mr. Patton has still not fully answered the formal request. For the record, are there only two LISD "Recognized Schools" billboards in the community? Just as importantly, who are the people sponsoring these road signs? Having been extremely critical of Mr. Patton and the current School Board on _The Llano Ledger website, the Superintendent's reluctance to communicate is quite apparent. As long as the egregious waste continues, however, so will the relentless pointed criticism. Kindly find attached the original open records request as well as the complaint. Sincerely, Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger cc: File ************************ Publisher's Note: The following is a copy of the complaint filed with the Open Records Division. T.C. ************************ David Short Investigator/Paralegal Open Records Division Texas Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Tx. 78711 Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger Rt 2 Box 464A Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609 Re: Open Records Complaint January 30, 2000 Dear Mr. Short: This is an open records complaint filed against the Llano Independent School District (LISD) and LISD Superintendent Jack Patton. Kindly find attached a copy of the open records request sent by U.S. mail. Mr. Patton has conveniently ignored it. Be advised he had also failed to respond to an earlier informal request sent by e-mail. Wonder what he's so afraid of? Sincerely, Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger http://maxpages.com/llanoledger cc: File ******************************* Office Of The Attorney General State Of Texas John Cornyn February 10, 2000 Jack Patton Superintendent, LISD 202 E. Lampasas Llano, Texas 78643 Dear Mr. Patton: Our office has received the attached complaint from Tim Chorney regarding a request for information made to the Llano Independent School District pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act ("the act"), chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code. Mr. Chorney contends that he has yet to receive the requested information. Our records do not indicate that you have requested an attorney general's decision seeking to withhold the requested information pursuant to section 552.301 of the act. Chapter 552 makes the Texas Attorney General responsible for enforcing the statute. Although our office takes that responsibility seriously, we prefer to work with the parties to try and resolve complaints informally if at all possible. The easiest way to resolve these open records complaints is to provide the information that was requested (assuming that the requested information is not confidential by law). Please contact us to discuss resolving this situation. Our phone number at the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline is 512-478-6736, and our fax number is 512-463-2092. Our address is shown below. Please use ID#133731 when referring to this matter. We would appreciate your response within five business days. Sincerely, David Short Investigator, Open Records Division Enclosure cc: Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger Rt.2 Box 464A Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609 Post Office Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548 TEL: (512)463-2100 WEB: www.oag.state.tx.us ********A Rose By Any Other Name?....******* Mr. Parisi is correct. The Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 264.003(d) provides: "The authority does not have taxing authority". It may be a distinction without a difference, however. H&S Sec. 264.041(a) provides the authority with the power to issue revenue bonds "for any of the authority's purposes". The bonds are paid by a tax levied by the Commissioners' Court. H&S Sec. 282.101. The authority is a creation of the County Commissioners' Court, and of course, they have the power to tax. H&S Sec.264.003(a). Perhaps, Mr. Parisi can clarify the significance or distinction of a hospital authority, as opposed to a hospital district (which incidentally, has the power to tax, and issue general obligation and revenue bonds). It appears to me that the authority is an administrative arm of the district, but it may function in other ways as well. To me, the most significant thing from a taxpayer's point of view is that the authority can burden taxpayers with the obligation to pay the principle and interest on bonds issued by the authority and approved by the Commissioners' Court. It's still a "tax" for all practical purposes. Harvey H. Klee, Esq. February 8, 2000 Bluffton ************************************************* Publisher's Note: I'm grateful to Mr. Klee for his clarification. What about it Mr. Parisi? Do you have a response? Without question, there are at least several legal eagles regularly reading this publication. What do you think? ... Don't be bashful.... T.C. ************************************************* *************No Pierced Ears? ....*************** I am not sure if I am wasting your time. If so, I am sorry. Please hear me out. I have a daughter in the 7th grade at Llano Jr. High. She has gotten her upper left ear pierced [during] the first part of January. Last week, there were two incidents. Mr. Barry pulled her from science [class] and ordered her to remove the earring, or ISS [In School Suspension]. She called me and removed the earring. She endured pain each night reinserting it. She never got the information missed, essential for her studies that day in science. She was again checked the next day, Friday [apparently by Mr. Barry]. We ran late neither [of us] thinking of the earring. She was stopped in the hall and told to pull her hair back, so he could see if the earring was there. Now, she is serving 3 days ISS. I understand he has a long list of students in his office that have these earrings. I do not understand why 2 piercings on the lower quadrant of the ear is okay, but not 2 piercings on the [upper] ear. I have recently begun a petition to try to help these students, but need assistance. I have had some positive feedback that the school should spend time on more important things than harassing children on an earring issue. For a gold post earring worn in the upper ear, you are given 3 days ISS, then alternative school, then suspension that is 24 hrs. in school suspension. Can they not concentrate on their drug problem, rather than such a small matter? Please let me know if you are interested in helping. Rebecca K. Ervi February 3, 2000 Bluffton ***************************************** Publisher's Note: This publication is a forum for the exchange of a diversity of views. What do the readers think? Does Ms. Ervi have a point? Are school officials too petty? While earrings hidden by a child's hair may be inconsequential, how far do we go? Would parents support noserings? Wouldn't they be clearly disruptive to good order and discipline in the classroom? What do you think? Ms. Ervi is indeed serious about the issue. She e-mailed the following petition she wishes to have circulated. What do you think? T.C. ******A Petition to School Officials....******* Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Parents must sign for any piercing on a child, and give their consent. Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children largely as they see fit, without undue influence. Schools adopt rules that are arbitrary and must enforce them fairly. We understand that. We do not feel that the School should exceed the scope of authority of a parent. These students have the right to be heard. Piercing of parts of the ear other than the lower quadrants is a mere discomfort generated by an unpopular position, and does not justify suppression or sanction of a student. Therefore, we request that earrings worn in the lower quadrants of the ear in even number be revised, since most of these are covered by one's hair. Again, thank you so much for your time. Anyone can mail me a letter to take to the School Board. Rebecca K. Ervi February 3, 2000 P.O. Box 33 Bluffton, Tx. 78607 ************************************ Publisher's Note: Again, what do readers think? ... I'm so glad I have no children, and don't have to directly deal with such issues. What do you parents think? Does Ms. Ervi have a point? Parents understandably champion "parental rights". Where do they begin? Where do they end? Where do you draw the line? Let me know what you think. I'm indeed grateful to Ms. Ervi for her contributed material. T.C. *************LMHS Administrator Responds...******* Tim Chorney Llano Ledger Dear Mr. Chorney: Llano County Hospital Authority does not have taxing authority. The enabling legislation that created all County Hospital Authorities specifically states "The authority does not have taxing power." Sincerely, Ernie Parisi Administrator/Ceo February 1, 2000 ************************************* Publisher's Note: My thanks to the Administrator for responding quickly to the inquiry. T.C. *************LMHS Taxing Authority....*********** Your most recent article concerning the LMHS states that it has no taxing authority. My understanding is that it does. Within the last two years (as best I can recall) the Llano Hospital Authority was formed which took control of the hospital from Llano County. By doing so, two things were possible: The hospital could expand outside the County of Llano without the County Commissioners' Court's permission and, it gave them the AUTHORITY TO TAX. Bill Willoughby, President of the LMHS Board of Directors, was the one who spearheaded the establishment of the Hospital Authority. He told me at the time that although the Authority had the power to tax, the system was in good shape financially and the need to assess a tax in the future was highly unlikely. I didn't believe him then and I don't believe him now. Time will tell. Harvey H. Klee, Esq. January 31, 2000 Bluffton ******************************************** Publisher's Note: I'm deeply grateful to Mr. Klee for his timely message. During two meetings with LMHS Administrator Ernie Parisi, I was informed the Hospital had no taxing authority. Other sources have also made the same assertion. Since truth is indeed a moving target in Llano County, I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Parisi. I'm awaiting a response. T.C. ******************************************** (January 31, 2000) LMHS Ernie Parisi, Administrator Dear Mr. Parisi: During our two meetings, you twice stated LMHS had no taxing authority. Other sources have also indicated the same. Since I do not tape record conversations, there is the possibility I may have misunderstood your response to my question. For the record, can you confirm whether or not the Hospital indeed has any taxing authority? Sincerely, Tim Chorney, Publisher The Llano Ledger ***************************************