The Llano Ledger


Newsletter Text V13

This Website Is Full. Starting With The December 25, 2000 Newsletter, All Future Editions Will Be Posted In The Llano Ledger 2, Found By Clicking http://maxpages.com/llanoledger2.

*****************October 11, 1999*****************

There are two main topics to be addressed in this week's edition. Before doing so, however, readers are advised the pop-up ads and banner advertising belong to Maxpages and only pay for this website. This publication receives no income from either.

The Llano Memorial Healthcare System (LMHS) Board recently made the decision to expand operations to the Marble Falls area. A new facility is to be constructed costing $13.5 million. This decision was made after completion of an independent study by an outside consultant. LHMS Administrator Ernie Parisi has ignored an informal request made by this publication for information regarding the identity of the consultant and the substance of the study.

Consequently, a formal request for information under the Texas Open Records Act has been e-mailed to the Administrator. The following is a copy:

**************************************************

Llano Memorial Healthcare System
Ernie Parisi, Administrator
103 West Lampasas St.
Llano, Tx. 78643

Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
http://maxpages.com/llanoledger
Rt 2 Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609

October 9, 1999

Dear Mr. Parisi:

This is a request for information made under the Texas Open Records Act, Government Code, Ch.552, Public Information.

Regarding the LMHS Board decision to build a new healthcare facility in Marble Falls, would you kindly provide the name of the independent consultant, as well as a copy of the study, please?

As mentioned in an ignored informal request dated October 1, to save time, effort, and postage, I could pick it up at your office.

The Texas Open Records Act requires you to act on my request within 10 days. As the Chief Administrative Officer, the Act (Ch.552.201) identifies you as the officer for public information. The Act also provides civil as well as criminal penalties for your failure to act in a timely fashion. Thank you for your consideration and anticipated cooperation.

Regards,
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger

**************************************************

There are a number of disturbing unanswered questions regarding hospital expansion into Marble Falls. LMHS is a quasi-governmental agency. If the project goes belly-up, guess who pays? Is it really to the advantage of taxpayers to have government essentially in business? Should any governmental agency (quasi or otherwise) make decisions to the tune of some $13.5 million without voter approval?

Of course, most of us don't care. Approximately one in ten registered voters even bothered to cast a ballot in the last School Board election. Consequently, we received exactly what we deserved, -- an enormous tax increase. Why should our self-serving new Superintendent of Schools Jack Patton or his cronies on the School Board care when we apparently don't?

For years, Llano County elderly have had to travel for advanced medical care, -- most of the time to Austin. Instead of constructing a new facility centrally located here, our hospital system has chosen to serve the needs of themselves and Burnet County residents by electing to build in Marble Falls. It may indeed turn out to be a brilliant business move. The question to be asked, however, is who ultimately benefits? The jury is indeed out.

If the project fails, how insulated will Llano County taxpayers be from the debacle? If it is stunningly successful, how will our elderly benefit since they'll have to travel for care regardless? More pointedly, Llano County patients will never see their medical expenses drop no matter what. Again, who ultimately benefits? Good question, no? This publication will be carefully studying the issue.

On a totally different subject, I spent two more hours studying the jail booking records last Thursday morning. The Chief Jailer was again accommodating and helpful. Examination of the first three months of the year is now complete. The process is slow and painstaking, and I'll return again later this week to continue.

While it's indeed too early for any meaningful statistics, the early impression from eye-balling the raw data for January through March remains the same as stated last week. There are quite a few prisoners moving quickly through the system. They stay usually a day or two on relatively minor charges. Again, this is only an early impression.

While the Chief Jailer has been helpful with identifying agency affiliation of some of the arresting officers, he is not, however, familiar with all of them. When I complete examination of the records, I'll have to sit down with the Sheriff to determine agency affiliation of the remaining officers.

Many prisoners are briefly held on writs. The writs are usually only numbered. Their origin or nature is not always clear. The inmate may have been stopped for a traffic violation, and then is jailed when the officer is made aware of the writ or warrant by Dispatch. While more digging is required, many of the writs can't be all that serious since the prisoner is often quickly released on a personal recognizance bond, pays a fine, or agrees to a payment plan. Occasionally, the fine amount is listed in the booking records. Often, it's small. One has to wonder whether there isn't a better or more efficient method of handling many of these offenses.

The most striking impression after four hours of examination of the data is the paucity of information in the booking records. It is stunning the jails are not required by statute to maintain complete records of each prisoner including the amounts of all fines paid as well as the dollar figures of all bonds imposed. Why aren't all writs and warrants clearly identified as to nature, date, and issuing magistrate? Is the Sheriff holding out? Apparently not. To do so would clearly place him in violation of the Texas Open Records Act.

It is equally stunning the data I'm seeking is not apparently centrally located in a computer system easily available to all agencies or interested parties with a legitimate reason to seek access. Without centrally located data, how can the courts, law enforcement, and other regulatory agencies have any reasonable idea as to how efficiently or prudently the jail is being run?

Initially, I was highly skeptical when the Sheriff asserted he didn't have much of the data I was seeking. Having spoken further with him as well as other sources, the Department is woefully undercomputerized. Officers still file most of their reports in longhand. Not all use computers. The Sheriff himself doesn't have a PC yet and is considering a refurbished machine.

Computerization of law enforcement is a two-edged sword, however. After all, we don't want to live in a fascist police state. Centralized information can be a nightmare for civil liberties, and be easily abused by overzealous officers. Indeed, I have grave concerns about a social security card and thumbprints being required for driver's license renewals. It is an outrageous invasion of personal privacy of innocent citizens. ... Our illustrious state legislators must have had their heads securely lodged in a bodily orifice that seldom sees the light of day. The magnetic stripe on the license itself is ominous and subject to abuse by law enforcement. More pointedly, what provision has been made by the state to allow the average citizen access to the information stored there, and more importantly its accuracy?

Yet, reasonable computerization of law enforcement is a must for efficient day to day operation, as well as to the capture of wanted criminals. Indeed, it is a question of where to draw the line. To require officers to waste valuable time by filing longhand reports, rather than providing laptops, seems asinine and an issue of false economy.

While I certainly intend to complete a thorough examination of the booking records, the information available is scanty. I will probably have to access public data from the four JP's as well as the County and District Courts. Should I decide to proceed, it will be an interesting battle using the Texas Open Records Act to force access to judicial computer records.

It will be even more interesting to see how much will ultimately be made available. Will booking and court records agree? We'll see. Readers should understand this is going to be a long and protracted fight. The people, however, do have a right to know. The mindless bureaucracy does all it can, however, to prevent access, or at least make it as difficult as possible. Again, is the Sheriff holding out? For his sake and the Department, I certainly hope not. ... Stay tuned. There is much more to come.

Finally, the Friends of the Lakeshore Library will hold a fundraising Country Store Bazaar on October 22 & 23. Readers are urged to support the Llano County Library System. Taxes pay only a portion of the operating expenses. Our libraries also depend on fundraisers, donations, and the selfless service of numerous volunteers. Our fine librarians and their dedicated helpers are providing a vital public service that truly benefits the entire community. Indeed, where would we be without quick and easy access to information?

P.S.: LMHS Administrator Ernie Parisi has chosen to respond to the earlier informal e-mail request for information regarding the independent study. He has offered to meet in his office to discuss the matter. I will certainly take him up on his gracious offer.

Tim Chorney, Publisher



Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609

llanoledger@mailcity.com

Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:35pm EDT