The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V38
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.
BANNER ADVERTISING PAYS ONLY FOR WEBSITE
***Publisher's Note: With rare exception, the cowardly failure of the
community to financially support this publication is stunningly pitiful
and selfish. Worse yet, the sickening defense and excuse of cowardice
by some is appalling. If readers care so little for this community and
each other, why should I? T.C.***
*************May 1, 2000************
Before continuing critique of the Garrett Deposition, there has
been an interesting development in the LMHS Marble Falls Community
Hospital fiasco, as well as a response from the County Judge to an open
records request regarding the Llano County Criminal Justice Center:
************************************
The County of Llano
Llano, Texas
April 25, 2000
Tim Chorney
Route 2, Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Texas 78609
Dear Tim:
I have received your letter pertaining to the Open Records request.
You are welcome to see what information I have here in my office.
A considerable amount of the information you are requesting is not
available through my office; for instance, invoices and proposals.
These can be viewed through a request either at the Auditor's Office or
the Treasurer's Office.
Please give Barbara a call at (915) 247-5054 to set up a time that is agreeable for everyone.
Sincerely,
J.P. Dodgen
Llano County Judge
JPD:bc
**************************************
Thanks J.P., for responding quickly to the open records request.
Readers should understand this is the first time any public official
has responded immediately. Interesting, isn't it? This is also the
first time management has elected to do so without sending it certified
mail return receipt requested, -- thus saving the taxpayers several
dollars. Excellent, J.P.. Extraordinarily thoughtful of you, sir.
Of course, nothing is ever quite THAT simple or easy, -- and there
is certainly never a dull moment in Llano County. While in town Friday
on other business, I stopped at the Judge's office to make the
appointment with his secretary, Barbara. Upon arriving, what appeared
to be a County maintenance worker was seated, shooting the breeze with
the secretary.
I identified myself and asked to make an appointment to review the
requested material. Although the secretary had typed J.P.'s letter, she
had no idea what was to be reviewed. I asked if she had indeed read the
open records request. She claimed she had not. Interesting, isn't it?
She asked if I was going to require copies. I replied I wouldn't know
until I reviewed the material.
She quickly added, however, there would be a charge, and I asked
how much. Incredibly, she replied she didn't know, and the still seated
maintenance worker snickered $1/copy. I had all I could do to stifle a
laugh, but successfully ignored him. The secretary then stated the
charge would indeed be $1/copy, but she'd call the County Clerk to make
sure.
Again, I had all I could do to maintain a straight face , but
glibly assured her a complaint would be filed with the Open Records
Division should the amount stand. A call was then made to the Office of
the County Clerk and, guess what, low and behold the charge was
confirmed. Imagine that. Now struggling to maintain a poker face, and
desperately trying not to laugh, I again assured the secretary a
complaint would be filed with the Attorney General should management
(i.e. the Judge) uphold the charge.
Had Mr. Dodgen been in his office, this could have been quickly
resolved one way or the other, -- immediately. ... If you elect to
stand by the charge, J.P., a complaint will be filed with the Attorney
General. Should the AG approve the charge, it will conveniently defeat
the purpose of the Open Records Act. Wouldn't mind that at all, would
you, Judge? I later confirmed the charge with the County Clerk. She
generously provided free of charge a copy of a document from the
Attorney General allegedly allowing her to essentially charge as she
pleases. Be interesting to see if it holds up when challenged. The
document is dated July 31, 1996, -- nearly four years old.
Interestingly, the Texas Open Records Act has been updated since.
Wonder what the maintenance worker was doing shortly after 11:00am
sitting in the Judge's office chewing the fat with the secretary? So do
I. What about it, J.P.? Coffee break time, sir? Or was the worker in
fact off-duty? ... The secretary certainly wasn't. -- And they were
indeed shooting the breeze.
The appointment to review the requested material was scheduled for
later this week. I'll be granted one hour. How generous, no? I assured
the secretary I'd be glad to return at a later time to continue the
review. ... After all, this is going to be a long-term ongoing project,
-- at least until the facility is completed. J.P., I intend to become a
fixture. Close scrutiny of the money trail demands no less.
If the $1/copy charge stands, I intend to transcribe longhand any
documents that are of significant interest, -- thus requiring
additional time in County offices. No problem, J.P.. I'm more than
willing to make the time, sir. I certainly won't line the pockets of
this greedy County with copy fees that amount to nothing more than
legalized extortion, -- if in fact they are legal.
Readers should understand a copy costs approximately two and a half
cents to make. Interesting, isn't it? ... Nothing quite like "open"
government, is there? -- Or the endless greed and guile of County
officials. After all, they "own" this County, don't they? Sadly,
dealing with government here ALWAYS affords a time warp back to 1959.
Aren't we lucky?
As public information officer for the County, Judge, it should not
be necessary to send additional formal open records requests to the
Treasurer and Auditor. If you so insist, however, I would be more than
happy to do so, -- immediately publishing each request on this website
as well. After all, it will indicate to taxpayers the County is indeed
dragging its feet. ... More fodder, you understand... ... I'm quite
grateful, sir.
More importantly, since there will be a need for continuing review
of documents as the facility is built, will you allow easy, ready
access, or require a formal request every step of the way? If you so
choose, J.P., again, I'd be more than happy to oblige, -- and of course
continue publishing them on the website as well.
Indeed, they'll also provide useful fodder. ... The choice is
yours, sir. One way or the other, the material will be reviewed. If
there's nothing to hide, and all is in fact on the up and up, why not
provide easy and continuing access without the formality of repeated
open records requests? By now, it should be clear to all, obstacles
only stiffen resolve, and just as importantly provide additional useful
fodder. I'm grateful, J.P.. Thanks.
Readers should clearly understand officials MUST by statute provide
access to public information. Erecting barriers and obstacles only
exposes officials for what they truly are, -- corrupt and abusive.
Readers have already seen several examples on this website. ... Sadly,
we haven't seen the worst of it yet. After all, the pressure is only
beginning to be ratcheted up on several of our most egregious
offenders. *****
On Friday, April 28, I made an unannounced visit to LMHS
Administrator/CEO Ernie Parisi to confirm a development in the Marble
Falls Community Hospital fiasco. Upon arriving shortly before noon, the
Administrator was not in. Executive Secretary Karen Kinard, however,
cordially welcomed me, and answered questions as best she could.
Recovering from an injury, she wasn't officially working and not fully
up to speed on the proposed hospital. The Administrator, however,
conveniently walked in the door as we spoke. Not surprisingly, he was
clearly NOT pleased to see me. ... Wonder why though, since I'm such a
"lovable" guy. ... A cuddly teddybear, no doubt. Right?
Mumbling something about not appreciating being called "arrogant",
I again had all I could do to stifle a laugh. ... If the shoe fits,
Ernie... -- What's your gripe, anyway? Every step of the way you've
disingenuously stonewalled, obfuscated, and conveniently "massaged" the
truth. More pointedly, serious questions regarding the validity of the
accounting reports remain unanswered.
Until this meeting, however, the Administrator had always been
glib, professional, and completely under control. Pressure finally
getting to you, sir? Time to develop a thicker hide, Ernie, --
especially as the proposed hospital farce...I mean...fiasco continues
to worsen.
Taking umbrage to "arrogance" when far more serious charges have
been leveled at Hospital management is laughable. ... You ought to hear
what people say about me. After all, my familial lineage is public
knowledge, and to most is decidedly and amusingly S.O.B.. ... I indeed
plead guilty.
All joking aside, I had paid a visit to the Administrator to
determine the status of the proposed facility. Mr. Parisi confirmed the
selected site was not "workable" according to an engineering study. The
Administrator refused to disclose the amount of money squandered on the
study itself, however, claiming it was privileged information belonging
to a 501C(3) responsible for the project. Is that right, Ernie? Haven't
we been down this road before?
Amusingly, here we go again, right? It's still a quasi-governmental
corporation subject to the Open Records Act, and you remain the public
information officer, sir. The Administrator abruptly informed me he was
no longer willing to talk. So what else is new, right? ... Ernie,
again, you've done absolutely nothing but disingenuously stonewall,
obfuscate, and "massage" the truth every step of the way, --
outrageously for months.
Parisi's continuing behavior is clearly a red flag. Something is not
quite right. Again, more importantly, serious unanswered questions
remain regarding validity of the accounting reports and how they've
been used to "support" the Feasibility Study. Although no final
decision has been made yet, it's time to release most if not all of the
results of the earlier open records request.
We're quickly reaching the point where more damage will be done to
taxpayers should this material not be released than to LMHS if it is.
It's a close judgement call I'm certainly not comfortable making since
the taxpayers indeed own LMHS. This is precisely why government should
not be in business. Sadly, there is clearly NO accountability, --
especially since we have a District Attorney who is apparently
unwilling to closely scrutinize government officials.
Apparently, Oatman has additional problems of his own regarding alleged
sexual harassment in his office. Interesting, isn't it? ... The saga
never ends. I assured Parisi, however, his refusal to disclose the
amount squandered on the engineering study would indeed quickly elicit
the following open records request:
**************************************
Ernie Parisi, Administrator
LMHS
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
RE: Texas Open Records Request
April 29, 2000
Dear Mr. Parisi:
This is a request for information under the Texas Open Records Act,
Ch.552, Gov't Code, Public Information. Answers to the following
questions are respectfully requested:
1. Regarding the engineering study conducted to determine the
suitability of the current site for the proposed Marble Falls Community
Hospital, (a)how much was spent to conduct the study? (b)Who conducted
the study? (c)What is the address of the firm that conducted the study?
2. At a meeting Friday, April 28, you confirmed results of the
engineering study indicated the planned site was not "workable". (a)Had
the property in question already been purchased? (b)If so, how much was
paid for it?
3. Other than the cost of the engineering study, and the purchase
price (if any), (a)have there been any other funds expended on the
current site? (b)If so, what was the nature of the expenditures, and
(c)how much was spent?
Sincerely,
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
cc: File
**************************************
Continuing critique of the Garrett Deposition, the Sheriff,
although ultimately responsible for jail personnel by statute, had no
interest in evaluating their performance:
pp. 74-76
Q. Do you evaluate Chief Lawson by completing a personnel or a performance --
A. No.
Q. -- evaluation form?
A. No.
Q. No?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever evaluated any of your jailers in
Page 76
writing?
A. No.
Q. Does Chief Lawson evaluate your jailers in writing?
A. I don't have that knowledge. I'm not sure.
Q. Well, you're the sheriff. Do you know whether or not your jailers are evaluated?
A. They're evaluated but not on paper.
Q. Okay. So describe to me how that works, being evaluated not on paper.
A. If they're performing their duties and everything is going fine,
that's the evaluation that Mr. Lawson gives me. He reports to me if
he's having any problem with his jailers.
Q. Now, if Melvin Lawson isn't on duty, how would you find out if there's a problem with one of your jailers?
A. I don't know. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Well, if Melvin Lawson has a day off and there's a problem with
one of your jailers, how would you find out whether or not there was a
problem that occurred during Melvin Lawson's absence?
A. Probably one of my dispatchers.
Q. They're on the second floor, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am. But they monitor the jail.
Page 76
Q. How do they monitor the jail?
A. On camera.
Q. So you're telling me every square inch of your jail is monitored on camera?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. How does Mr. Lawson give the jailer an evaluation if it's not in writing?
A. You'll have to talk to Mr. Lawson. I can't -- I can't answer that.
Truly fascinating, isn't it? Mr. Garrett clearly had no interest in
the jail, and apparently depended on the "Good Old Boys" to run things
as they saw fit. This critique will continue next week.
The visitor count stands in excess of 14,400. Another excellent
week. Yet, there has been egregiously little financial support to date.
Nearly all of you have been quite willing to COWARDLY allow this writer
to take the risk, do all the work, put up with the harassment, and
swing in the wind. Mighty neighborly, don't you think?
Despite an explosively expanding readership, businesses are too
afraid to advertise. As repeatedly asserted, the banner and pop-up ads
belong to Maxpages and pay for the website. _The Ledger receives no
income from either and remains non-profit. If you want desperately
needed change in our community, financially support this publication.
Regardless, _The Llano Ledger panders to NO ONE, and will remain
unbeholden. If you don't give a damn about the community, each other,
or this publication, why the hell are you reading this? Find something
better to do. Want feel-good fluff and propaganda? Read another
publication.
Tim Chorney, Publisher
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:19pm EDT