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