The Llano Ledger


Newsletter Text V18

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 29, 1999******************

As previously mentioned, the pop-up and banner advertising belongs to Maxpages. _The Ledger receives no income from either, and remains non-profit. As always, this publication needs and appreciates donations from readers. Sadly, no other publication is willing to challenge corrupt and abusive officials. Readers can expect continued aggressive, relentless, officious, tireless pursuit of our most egregious offenders. ... Figuratively speaking, a "take no prisoners" approach. Things CAN change in our community. Be a part of it. Help me to help you.

Llano Memorial Healthcare System (LMHS) Administrator Ernie Parisi has responded to a second request for information. The following is a copy of the letter:
**********************************************
Llano Memorial Healthcare System
Llano Memorial Hospital-Hoerster Clinics

November 23, 1999

Mr. Tim Chorney
The Llano Ledger
Rt.2, Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, TX 78609

Re: Response to Open Records Act Request Regarding Certain Billing Invoices Dated November 13, 1999

Dear Mr. Chorney:

Please allow this letter to serve as a response to your Open Records Act request letter dated November 13, 1999. In your correspondence you requested the billing information itemized below:

1. Feasibility study for the proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility;
2. Verification documentation from the outside auditing firm;
3. All legal fees to date for proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility;
4. All other fees to date for proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility, excluding items 1-3 above; and
5. All legal fees to date to process request for Attorney General decision regarding exemption from disclosure of information requested by Tim Chorney under the Texas Open Records Act.

I will address each of these requests in order below:

a) Invoice for the feasibility study for the proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
b) Billing invoice regarding the verification documentation from the outside auditing firm is attached to this letter marked as Exhibit B (Unrelated portions of the invoice have been omitted);
c) In response to your request No. 3 above, Llano Memorial Healthcare System has not received at this time an invoice regarding legal fees for the proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility at this time;
d) In response to your request No. 4 above, we are uncertain as to what documents you are seeking and pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act request that you provide a more specific request of the documents which you seek; and
e) In response to your request No. 5 above, regarding legal fees for an attorney general's opinion, Llano Memorial Healthcare System has not received at this time an invoice for legal fees regarding these services.

Upon receipt of your clarification regarding your request No. 4 as listed above, we will endeavor to respond accordingly.

Copy charge pursuant to Open Records Act are $.90. We are providing copies to you in advance as an act of good faith. Please remit copy fees generated as a result of your request.

Sincerely,
Ernie Parisi
Administrator/CEO

Enclosures
**************************************************

The following is a table compiled from the billing sheets provided by the Administrator:

Fig. 1. Exhibit A & Exhibit B Billing Invoice Table.

Exhibit A:
05/03/1999 PMT#34388 $8,750.00 Health Care Facilities LLC
3/2/1999 Inv.No. 798 $8,750.00 Health Care Facilities LLC

Exhibit B:
09/25/99 Special Report Regarding
Demographic Report and Feasibility $3,500.00
08/25/99 Special Report Regarding
Verify Demographics $2,960.00
08/25/99 Feasibility Study and
Related Accounting-Interim Bill $1,000.00
06/25/99 Feasibility Study and
Related Accounting-Interim Bill $14,000.00

Total: $38,960.00
*************************************************

Well, well, well... The Administrator has generously chosen to provide two of five items requested. Impressive? Certainly. -- At least it's better than the performance of the Sheriff's Department. Readers will recall Mr. Garrett responded with just one of ten statistics requested. So much for "openness", no? Then again, this is Llano County, isn't it?

Mr. Parisi can rest assured he'll certainly receive the 90 cent copying charge. After all, LMHS needs all it can get for the proposed Marble Falls expansion. Amazing how the Hospital can overcharge for "services", no? Having received five billing sheets, the charge is apparently 18 cents/copy. -- Earlier last week, the Llano City Manager charged 5 cents/copy for similarly requested public documents. Then again, we ARE talking about a hospital. ... Wonder what they charge patients for an aspirin? Luckily, the Open Records Act prohibits excessive charges for copying services. -- Otherwise, I imagine LMHS would be charging $5/copy if it could. ... More for egregiously officious public irritants such as this one.

All joking aside, an open records complaint has been filed against LMHS for its failure to comply with the request. The Administrator and his hired legal gun are apparently playing linguistic games similar to the President's artful sophistry regarding the definition of the word "is". Mr. Parisi and his legal beagle... I mean eagle... know exactly what documents are sought in Item 4. Counsel is cleverly exploiting a provision of the Open Records Act to stonewall. The Act requires a "specific request" be made to protect government bureaucrats such as the Administrator from being subject to a "fishing expedition". -- It is certainly a flaw in the Act that provides an unwarranted advantage to our illustriously reluctant officials.

Mr. Parisi is clearly receiving better legal advice than earlier. Readers will recall the Administrator had initially offered a provision in the Open Meetings Act to justify denying a previous Open Records Request. Furthermore, LMHS legal counsel Fletcher H. Brown had earlier missed the ten business day deadline for providing my copy of the five page request and argument for an exception ruling. As promised in an earlier edition, this document and others will be published after a ruling is rendered by the Open Records Division.

Readers should kindly understand there is a substantial discrepancy between a statement made by Mr. Brown in the aforementioned document (October 28), and Mr. Parisi's latest letter (November 23). Mr. Brown on page 4 had stated "In fact, the Authority has spent in excess of $40,000 in developing this information...". According to the billing sheets provided by Mr. Parisi in his letter of November 23, the figure stands at $38,960. (See Fig. 1.) The discrepancy is precisely the information sought in Item 4.

Since the exact nature of these fees and their origin are unknown, Mr. Parisi and his hired gun are cleverly using this to their advantage to deny access to the data. This is the "specific request" provision designed to protect government flunkies from fishing expeditions. -- A "Catch-22" in effect. Certainly crafty and exquisitely clever. In fact, a "tribute" to the guile of the legal profession, no? Regardless, the people have a right to know. LMHS is indeed a public entity. Parisi and counsel are denying the taxpayers critical information. So much for LMHS openness to records requests. So much for honesty and candor. After all, we're talking about government bureaucrats and their attorneys, aren't we?

Mr. Parisi's assertion "Llano Memorial Healthcare System has not received at this time an invoice regarding legal fees for the proposed Marble Falls Acute Health Care Facility at this time" is NOT credible. Since the phrase "at this time" is repeated twice, could it be they received an invoice previously, but not "at this time"? ... Possibly blatant sophistry at work here? It's simply not credible LMHS would have gotten to the point where they've conducted a feasibility study, verification audit, are looking for real estate and the arrangement of financing, WITHOUT having incurred legal expenses.

... Perhaps, I incorrectly named the proposed facility in the formal request, and legal counsel is using it to his advantage to stonewall. (Mr. Parisi has broken the word "Healthcare" into two separate words. I had not done so in the open records request.) Interesting, no? Far-fetched and fantasy? Hopefully. A possibility, regardless? Certainly. After all and sadly, we're dealing with "legalese" and the awesome and limitless guile of the legal profession. All joking aside, LMHS has lost credibility and done needless damage to its image regardless of the legal outcome of both open records requests. If you work for LMHS or are on the Board and can resolve the discrepancy in the figures, kindly contact me. Your identity will be protected.

In regard to Item 5, it is not credible LMHS has not received an invoice for the legal expenses incurred in requesting the exception to disclosure ruling. Unlike this writer, Mr. Brown is not working for free. ... Other than this publisher, who indeed would be stupid enough to work for nothing? Notice also, Mr. Parisi has NOT offered to provide invoices for Items 3 & 5 when they supposedly become available. Apparently, the strategy of legal counsel is to necessitate another records request. Brilliant, no?

Friends, we're PAYING for this obfuscation. This is certainly one of the reasons medical bills are as outrageous as they are. Clearly not an attorney, my only interest is to expose the truth to the readers of _The Llano Ledger. -- Regardless of whose toes are stepped on, feathers ruffled, or tail feathers plucked. The Administrator and counsel are cleverly exploiting weaknesses in the Open Records Act to stonewall and deny the people their right to know. Why is this government bureaucrat so jealously guarding public information? What is he hiding? What is he so afraid of? It's only a hospital, Ernie. -- Not a defense plant.

Readers should also understand much of the billing sheets are blackened out. (Supposedly "unrelated" according to the Administrator. In addition, the name of the auditing firm does not clearly appear on any of the copies. As asserted earlier, a second complaint has been filed with the Open Records Division. Regardless of the outcome, LMHS will be vigorously investigated by this publication. When will our bumbling bureaucrats finally learn that honesty, candor, and forthrightness are the only way to effectively deal with a determined, outrageous, and outraged public irritant?

Tim Chorney, Publisher



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

llanoledger@mailcity.com

Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:32pm EDT