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