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