The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V16
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.
******************November 1, 1999****************
Readers are reminded the election is tomorrow November 2. Be sure to
vote. The examination of the jail booking records continued last week
and will resume Thursday. For the second week in a row, the first
security door leading to the Sheriff's Department and the jail was
locked upon my arrival. For the third week, I saw no trustys during my
visit. I certainly hope the apparent improvement in security is real,
and not merely staged for my benefit.
Llano Memorial Healthcare System (LMHS) Administrator Ernie Parisi
has responded to the snail-mail request for information filed under the
Texas Open Records Act. His lengthy and informative response was
apparently intended for publication, and will be published in its
entirety with no editing, nor error correction. Analysis and commentary
will follow.
*******************************************
LMHS
Llano Memorial Healthcare System
Llano Memorial Hospital-Hoerster Clinics
October 25, 1999
Mr. Ken Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
Rt 2 Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Texas 78609
Re: Information Requested
Dear Mr. Chorney:
I am taking this opportunity to respond to your request for
information dated October 14, 1999, which we received October 18, 1999.
Please be advised that Llano County Hospital Authority has requested an
opinion from the Attorney General of the State of Texas, pursuant to
Section 552.301 Tex. Gov't. Code, on whether the information you have
requested is excepted from disclosure to the public. It is our belief
that this information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section
552.104 and 552.110 of the Tex. Gov't Code. Please be assured that it
is not our intent to keep information from the residents of our
community. In fact, I take exception to your recent claim that the
hospital never provides information freely or willingly. The Hospital
regularly responds to Open Records Requests and does so in a timely,
courteous and comprehensive manner. We take our role as a public
hospital very seriously and are ready and willing to provide the public
information about all aspects of our operation. We have in the past,
and I expect that we will in the future, respond to many requests for a
wide variety of financial and operational information and data from the
Hospital.
However, in very rare instances, we have found it necessary to
protect information from public disclosure. As you are aware, the
information that you have specifically requested is a very detailed
analysis performed on our behalf for the proposed Marble Falls
hospital. This analysis was done at substantial expense to the Hospital
and was designed to provide our Board some detailed information upon
which they could make certain decisions with respect to that proposed
facility. As you may be aware, healthcare is a very competitive
endeavor.
We believe that the disclosure of the information that you have
requested, to our competitors would provide substantial benefit to them
as we attempt to make decisions about the Marble Falls proposal. We
believe that this represents one of those rare instances where the
public disclosure of this information actually results in harm to the
public that we serve. Therefore, we have chosen in good faith to
request an opinion of the Attorney General as is allowed by law.
We appreciate your request and will inform you as soon as the Attorney General has responded to us.
Very sincerely,
Ernie Parisi
Administrator/CEO
*************************************************
Indeed, there is considerable comic relief in all this, no? Apparently,
Mr. Parisi has confused this publisher with another far better known in
the community. ... As long as he gets the name of _The Llano Ledger
correct, that's all that matters. Had he not, THAT I certainly would
have taken personally. -- So would Mr. Wesner. All joking aside, I
publicly thank the Administrator for his recent letter.
I call the attention of the readers to two consecutive statements
in the first paragraph of Mr. Parisi's response: "Please be assured
that it is not our intent to keep information from the residents of our
community. In fact, I take exception to your recent claim that the
Hospital never provides information freely or willingly." I certainly
wish the Administrator had been more specific as to exactly which
"claim" he was referring to. I surmise he may have been referring to
the first paragraph of the October 18, 1999 Newsletter, particularly
the last sentence: "... Readers should understand government
bureaucracy nearly never provides information freely, willingly, or in
a timely fashion."
Readers should understand I was not only referring to LMHS in the
previous quote, but also to every other branch of Llano County
bureaucracy targeted by this publication over the last 7 months. The
Hospital bureaucracy is indeed only a small part of a much wider
problem. While the Administrator may indeed have taken exception to
this paragraph, I suspect Mr. Parisi is more chafed about pointed
remarks made about the disingenuousness of his earlier e-mail message
of October 11, and subsequent reneging of that agreement during our
nearly pointless meeting on October 13.
To spare the Administrator further embarrassment, I previously
deliberately limited the scope of remarks about the disingenuousness of
his message as well as that during our meeting. Since Mr. Parisi has
decided, however, to request a ruling from the Attorney General and is
apparently continuing to assert the Hospital's supposed openness to
information requests, further commentary has become necessary.
Had the Administrator simply admitted a mistake had been made in
his earlier message of October 11 offering access to the data, a charge
of disingenuousness would never have been made in this publication. In
all candor, the reneging of the agreement would indeed have drawn fire
here regardless. His intent or motive, however, would never have been
called into question. To allow a scheduled meeting to proceed without
e-mailing that a change of mind had in fact occurred, is highly
questionable and certainly inconsiderate.
Perhaps, the Administrator thought he could finesse the situation.
Clearly, not so. When I pressed Mr. Parisi at the meeting by asking if
he was indeed refusing to provide the material as requested under the
Texas Open Records Act, he responded he was not in effect doing so,
since the material was unavailable. When I pressed further by pointedly
asking if he and his colleague were indeed in possession of the
material, he responded saying that was certainly true. He further
asserted I was not being denied the material, or singled out for
denial, since no other publication had in fact been granted access. ...
Readers should understand _The Llano Ledger was clearly created to
combat such double talk from governmental bureaucrats. More pointedly,
this is clearly a classical example of Orwell's _1984, no?
As reported earlier, the Administrator during our meeting had
handed me a copy of Section 551.085 of the 1998 Texas Open Meetings Act
Handbook as a defense to disclosure. Having spent a considerable amount
of time studying both the Open Records and Open Meetings Acts during
the past week, this defense could not have come from an attorney. -- At
least not a competent one. In the 1998 Texas Open Meetings Handbook
under Section IX: Open Meetings Act and other Statutes, Subsection A:
Open Records Act, there is a sentence that reads: "The mere fact that a
document was discussed in an executive session does not make it
confidential under the Open Records Act."
Apparently, Mr. Parisi has since secured better legal advice. LMHS
is now asserting Sections 552.104 and 552.110 of the Government Code as
a defense to disclosure:
"Section 552.104 Exception: Information Related to Competition of
Bidding Information is excepted from the requirements of Section
552.021 if it is information that, if released, would give advantage to
a competitor or bidder."
"Section 552.110 Exception: Trade Secrets, Commercial Information, or
Financial Information. A trade secret or commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and privileged as confidential by
statute or judicial decision is excepted from the requirements of
Section 552.021."
For readers' edification, the following is Section 552.021 Availability
of Public Information: "Public information available to the public at a
minimum during the normal business hours of the governmental body."
Sadly, both Handbooks are written in "legalese", -- by attorneys
for attorneys. The fact that LMHS has requested an opinion from the
Attorney General, however, means new ground is being broken by my
request for information. LMHS legal counsel is required by these
statutes to research previous opinions to determine this. If LMHS is
not acting in good faith, there are penalties prescribed in the
Government Code.
Although not an attorney, it seems to me LMHS is stretching both
sections of the Code. It will indeed be interesting to see if the
Attorney General agrees. While the Administrator is quite correct in
his assertion "healthcare is a very competitive endeavor", Mr. Parisi
has also apparently and conveniently forgotten LMHS is a public entity
and the people have a right to know whether the proposed Marble Falls
facility is indeed a sound business move, -- PRIOR to the arrangement
of financing and the breaking of ground.
While the information requested was expensively obtained for the use of
the LMHS Board, it ultimately belongs to we, the people, who "own" LMHS
and its facilities. As I suggested to the Administrator at our meeting,
the mere fact that a study was conducted and a decision made by the
LMHS Board to proceed with construction of a new facility in Marble
Falls could be enough for any competitor to decide there is in fact
reason to expand there themselves. More pointedly, if the market is as
rosy as determined by LMHS, why hasn't Seton taken advantage of it?
Readers should clearly understand there has been no truly
independent study conducted to determine if the proposed Marble Falls
facility is indeed a sound business move. By the Administrator's own
admission, LMHS has spent a considerable amount of money to have its
study conducted. Why should it NOT contain exactly what LMHS expected
and dearly paid for? This is precisely why it is so critical for the
media to be granted access. Readers should further understand the
verification audit is NOT an independent study.
Having been formally schooled as a research psychologist with a
background in statistics and study construction, I certainly could have
quickly determined whether the commissioned study was indeed
reasonable, credible, and well-constructed. Although highly critical of
our abusive officials and strongly outspoken in the last seven months
as well as earlier in other area publications, I'm no "loose cannon".
... I very carefully select my targets. Regarding Hospital plans, I
certainly understand the stakes involved here, as well as the
importance and magnitude of the required funding.
The Administrator's original instinct to share the study and fully
explain its findings was the correct one. Too bad he didn't have the
guts to follow through. He would have spared himself and LMHS the loss
of credibility and what will certainly be a most determined effort to
scrutinize all facets of LMHS operations in the coming months.
This publication certainly has no interest in publishing the LMHS
study itself. Readers should understand a well-constructed, executed,
and written study is extraordinarily boring and dry. If not, the
motives of the researchers must be closely and critically questioned.
My only interest is to determine if the proposed facility is indeed a
wise and warranted move. The taxpayers are certainly entitled to a
truly independent assessment. ... That's the function of the media, --
particularly an investigative publication such as this.
Mr. Parisi's assertion the study is proprietary and not subject to
disclosure is, in my not-so-humble view, a sham designed to allow the
Board to conduct Hospital business in private. Further study of the
Texas Open Meetings Act indicates the Attorney General may not in fact
have the authority to investigate Open Meetings Act violations:
"Section VIII D. Absence of Attorney General Enforcement Rule. The
Attorney General is not authorized by the Open Meetings Act to
interpret or enforce its provisions." ... Interesting, no? I'm waiting
to hear from the AG's office on this issue as well. As stated in an
earlier edition, I believe it's quite possible LMHS is conducting all
proposed Marble Falls facility business in executive session to avoid
discussing a vital part of Hospital business in public. Again, the
people clearly have a right to know whether their funds are being
wisely and properly spent. Currently, the public is being denied this
right, -- at least as far as the future facility is concerned.
A legal opinion from the Attorney General could take 60 to 80
business days. -- This is quite an advantage to LMHS since it expects
financing arrangements to be completed in approximately 3 to 4 months
from now. While the Administrator asserts LMHS is acting in good faith,
the request for a ruling could indeed be a ruse and convenient
stonewalling technique.
Since time is of the essence, any disgruntled LMHS employees and
Board members are strongly urged to courageously come forward with
information. I will indeed protect your identity. While I suspect the
requested material will support the Board decision to proceed with the
new facility, I do want to review the data to make sure it does so
credibly and reliably, -- before financing is arranged and ground
broken. Again, the people have a right to know. After all, the facility
will belong to all, not only Mr. Parisi or the Board.
Months ago, a reader e-mailed a financial horror story experienced
by a family member treated as an out-patient at the Hospital. The story
was so outrageous I asked the reader to submit it as a letter to the
editor. The individual declined, citing the matter was still being
considered by the insurance provider. I urge the reader to reconsider.
If not, I would be more than willing to publish the story if granted
permission. I urge other readers with similar problems to step forward.
... Readers should understand this publication has withheld a
substantial number of horror stories in all areas of Llano County
government, due to lack of permission being granted by the victims. It
is time for this to change and for people to courageously stand up. The
only way these abuses will finally end is by their exposure to
sunlight.
LMHS clearly has a public relations problem. Public reaction to the
proposed Marble Falls facility has not been positive. It is certainly
unsettling to taxpayers for a Llano County entity to be considering
doing big business in Burnet County. The closing of the Community
Clinic has not been well-received. While the Administrator has claimed
the services will be available at the Hoerster Clinics, I wonder how
long? Equally troubling, many citizens consider LMHS to be in effect
nothing more than an abusive HMO. Some 40 million of us in this country
have no health insurance. How will LMHS address this problem as many
uninsured eventually present themselves for treatment at Hospital
emergency rooms with advanced medical problems requiring highly
expensive care? Public dissatisfaction with medical services and costs
will only grow.
Since _The Llano Ledger is non-profit and unfunded, any legal
challenge of LMHS will be up to the Attorney General. ... Readers
should understand I'm not holding my breath. All joking aside, I'm
deeply grateful to all of you. At seven months, _The Ledger has had
nearly 3400 hits. Thank you dearly. Our most egregious officials have
taken quite a pounding on this website, -- and will continue to. Being
unfunded, they must indeed wonder how long this will continue. The
answer is nearly indefinitely. Although clearly not a right-wing wacko,
I've long been a survivalist and outdoorsman, -- needing incredibly
little to survive.
I do, however, want to publicly thank the people who have been so
helpful over the last seven months. ... I received a load of firewood
last Friday from a supporter. A dear lady and strong supporter provided
two bags of fresh pears earlier this summer. A good friend and faithful
supporter has also supplied business cards made on his computer. -- As
usual, I need more. ... If you don't mind. I also want to thank all of
you who have stopped and offered a ride. Again, considering who I
target, it's just as well my truck remains parked in the driveway. ...
More importantly, thumbing also allows me to stay in touch with what
people are thinking.
I also want to particularly thank a fine civic organization that
has twice provided badly needed assistance, -- without being asked. I
assure all I intend to continue figuratively and energetically kicking
the butt of our most egregious officials, -- with relish and gusto. ...
Count on it.
Tim Chorney, Publisher
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:33pm EDT