The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V39
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
*************May 8, 2000***********
Since results of two open records requests demand extensive coverage in
this edition, the critique of the Garrett Deposition will continue next
week. To his credit and although not present, County Judge J.P. Dodgen
apparently authorized uninterrupted access to a stack of Llano County
Law Enforcement Center-related documents approximately 8 inches thick.
The review took nearly 3 hours, Thursday, May 4, and of course is only
the beginning.
Unresolved are the copying charges to be imposed as well as whether
or not there will be need for continuing formal open records requests
as the new jail is built. Also unresolved is whether or not formal
requests will have to be made to the Auditor, Treasurer, and other
County officials in possession of related documents. As I told J.P.'s
secretary Barbara, I will shortly e-mail the Judge.
While the documents included correspondence to him from the
architect and others, few letters, faxes, and e-mails from Mr. Dodgen
himself were present in the material reviewed. Apparently, they must be
in possession of the Auditor, Treasurer, or other County officials.
This issue will also have to be resolved.
Apparently, the purchaser of the certificates of obligation is Dean
Witter Reynolds, Inc.. The closing time is tomorrow May 9, 2000 at
10:00am. As far as the debt service schedule is concerned, it runs for
15 years at an effective interest rate of 5.2584%. Llano County
taxpayers will be looted $3,950,000.00 in principal, $2,179,184.03 in
interest, for a combined P&I total of $6,129,184.03.
What a deal. -- For a boondoggle the Commissioners' Court has not even
demonstrated as necessary. Worse yet, the taxpayers haven't been
granted an opportunity to vote on this fiasco. The County Judge and the
Commissioners have effectively and conveniently disenfranchised the
vote, using a slick smoke and mirrors series of town meetings, poorly
attended by the public, to justify the sham. You've been fleeced.
Other than documents and diagrams from Huckabee, one proposal from
architect Frank Crockett of Horseshoe Bay was found. Interestingly, it
called for a total estimated project cost of $1,864,540, --
substantially less than that from Huckabee. It does not, however,
include the cost of office space. No assessment of the merits or the
lack thereof are presented here, since this inquiry is only beginning.
The following e-mail was sent to the hired architect on Friday, May 5, 2000:
Lamarr McDonald, Principal
Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Dear Mr. McDonald:
It is my understanding the cost of the Travis County Criminal Justice
Center has passed twice the original estimate. Precisely, how do you
plan to avoid such overruns at the proposed Llano County Law
Enforcement Center?
Sincerely,
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
http://maxpages.com/llanoledger
Rt 2 Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609
********************************
Switching gears, the following "response" to an earlier open
records request was received May 3 from LISD Superintendent Jack
Patton. To facilitate understanding, I took the liberty of including
the questions, inserting them between brackets before each "answer":
Llano Independent School District
200 East Lampasas
Llano, Texas 78643
April 28, 2000
Mr. Tim Chorney
Rt. 2, Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Texas 78609
Dear Mr. Chorney:
I am responding to your questions we received on April 25, 2000.
[1. What are the current student population figures for (a) the Elementary, (b) Junior High, and (c) Senior High Schools?]
1. The enrolled student population for Llano Elementary is 700,
Packsaddle Elementary-113, Llano Junior High-410, and Llano High
School-494.
[2. To date, what has been the amount paid to school architect Chuck Fields for professional services?]
2. The school architectural firm is Fields and Associates Architects, 3600 Bee Cave Road, Suite 202, Austin, Texas 78746.
[3. Other than the "goodness of his heart", is there, or has there
been, any quid pro quo for Mr. Fields' sponsorship of two LISD
recognized schools billboards?]
3. None that I am aware of.
[4. Would you kindly confirm final cost figures for the following
projects: (a)tennis court lighting, $26,600; (b)tennis court
windscreen, $3,985.00; (c)resurfacing and patching of tennis courts,
$11,295.00?]
4. The final cost for the tennis court lighting was $22,600, windscreen-$1,209 and resurfacing-$15,476.
[5. (a)Has lighting been installed at the baseball field? (b)If so, what is the final cost figure?]
5. The cost for the baseball field lighting was $7,568.
[6. (a)Was the bankrupt contractor, responsible for the $32,000
duplicate payment for the pressbox, bonded? (b)If not, why not? (c)If
so, why were the taxpayers twice looted? (d)What is the name and
address of the contractor?]
6. The construction projects you refer to were handled by previous
administrators. It will take further research to determine the answers
to your questions.
[7. How did the direct transfer of funds to two property poor school districts result in a $150,000 savings to LISD taxpayers?]
7. Llano I.S.D., a Chapter 41 school, is entitled to choose either
option 3 or option 4 in dispensing access local funds. For the first
time, Llano I.S.D. has chosen option 4 which enables us to have a
reduction of 1% of recapture. In addition, we may enter into a local
agreement with other schools for providing technology equipment. (see
enclosure)
[8. (a)Was former Business Manager Cynthia Bauer responsible for
the bond funds during her entire tenure? (b)Did she relinquish
responsibility at any time prior to her retirement?]
8. I was not here but I understand Cynthia Bauer was responsible for the bond funds on behalf of the school district.
[9. Has current Business Manager Carol Voit had uninterrupted
responsibility for the bond funds during her entire tenure as Business
Manager?]
9. Carol Voit, business manager, is currently in charge of all bond funds.
[10. (a)During our meeting Mr. Patton, you claimed to have ordered
an independent audit of all school finances. You could not, however,
provide the name of the auditor with certainty. Would you kindly do so,
sir, and provide the business address as well? (b)If there has indeed
been an audit, would you kindly provide access to the results, please?]
10. Our Audit firm is: Story and Stovall, 1300 South University Drive, Suite 308, Fort Worth, Texas, 76107.
[11. According to High School Principal Dennis Hill the taxpayers
were indeed looted to pay an $11,630.85 past debt due to Taylor
Publishing Company for yearbooks. Mr. Hill asserted the ultimate
responsibility for this fiasco, however, belongs to a retired female
employee, but did not disclose her identity. (a)Mr. Patton, who is she?
(b)Exactly what were the circumstances, and how was she responsible?]
11. This happened prior to my employment in the district and will require further research.
[12. (a)What is the final cost figure for the additional 50 acres
of land purchased to supplement the 48-acre industrial park used for
the new high school? (b)Who is the former owner of this supplemental
land?]
12. Again, this happened prior to my employment. My understanding
is that the current 100 acres, previously owned by the Moore Estate,
was not part of the 48 acre Industrial Park land.
[13. At our meeting, you claimed to have waived the $1500 transfer
or "tuition" fee to transfer students, thus negating the $3800
aggregate charge paid to the state and federal governments. Are Llano
County taxpayers then looted to pay for the cost of educating the
transfer student, or does the student's former district pay?]
13. As explained before, we waived the $1500 transfer fee thus
saving the district. It was costing Llano I.S.D. and taxpayers an
additional $3800 in recapture money for this fee thus saving some $2300
per student. In addition, each student or ADA makes our district about
$5600 in less recapture.
{14. With LISD receiving 5% of its revenue from state and federal
sources, precisely how did you arrive at your recent assertion
"recapture" is indeed well over $.30/$100?]
14. see enclosure
[15. With a current annual budget of $15,225,384 and a combined
school population of 1655, the annual cost per student is
$15,225,384/1655 or $9,197.63. Yet, you claim the figure is $6,847. How
precisely did you arrive at your figure, sir?]
15. see enclosure
[16. My "tour" of LISD facilities coincidentally occurred on a day
school officials had received a terroristic threat from a Junior High
student. Neither you, nor your three principals saw fit to inform this
writer. (a)Why wasn't this information immediately disclosed upon my
arrival? (b)Why wasn't the "tour" cancelled and then rescheduled for a
more appropriate time? (c)How was silence preferable to honesty and
candor? (d)Were you deliberately trying to withhold information from
the public to suit your own best interests? (e)In effect, were you
buying time to "massage" the truth and spin it to your advantage?
(f)Don't you think the public is smart enough to know the criminal
behavior of a child is a reflection on the offender, the offender's
parents, and seldom if ever the School District? (g)When will school
officials finally learn honest, open, and timely communication is vital
to securing and maintaining public trust?]
16. Let me address your concerns about safety on campus the day of
your visit. As you are probably aware, in many student matters, the
sensitivity of certain situations is an important concern and sometimes
the information I can release is limited. The student in question was
not in school beginning Wednesday of that week, which should relieve
any concerns you might have.
Sincerely,
Jack Patton
Superintendent
JP:gs
******************************
What do you think? Satisfied with the "answers"? Think the
Superintendent was responsive? Mr. Patton was well aware his letter
would be published. His views of this writer and publication are
irrelevant. What he thinks of taxpayers and readers is critical.
Obviously, he has absolutely no respect for your intelligence, -- or
the sensitivities of taxpayers.
Think this "educator" is qualified to be Superintendent of Schools?
Is this an official who assumes personal responsibility and is fully
accountable? The taxpayers have been bled $15,225,384 this year for the
"education" of our children. Yet, Mr. Patton has clearly refused to
answer questions germane to the running of our schools and the spending
of YOUR money. In the last Newsletter, it was asserted the worst was
yet to come regarding the stonewalling coming from our most egregious
offenders. Sadly, Patton's "response" is a glaring example.
The first sentence of his letter is disingenuous. The request was
dated April 15 and immediately mailed. How could he have received it
April 25? Was he on a taxpayer-funded junket? On vacation? All joking
aside, the law allows him ten business days to respond, -- and he was
indeed late (May 3). With the exception of the first and last
questions, he had been earlier personally presented with all the other
questions at our meeting of March 23. He could not or would not answer
them then, disingenuously agreed however, to pass on the information,
but continued stonewalling after the meeting as well as in his open
records "response" dated April 28.
The first question, however, was asked of High School Principal
Dennis Hill the same day he conducted my bum's rush "tour" of LISD
facilities. Hill had agreed to e-mail an answer, but failed to do so.
Interesting, isn't it? Also regarding Question 1, the total number of
LISD students given by Patton at our earlier meeting of Mar. 23 was
1655. The total given in his answer to the first question is now 1717,
or 62 more students than just a few weeks ago. Is the increase
credible?
The Superintendent claimed at our meeting the Packsaddle School was
well behind schedule in construction. Have they suddenly caught up and
completed the project? If not, why is he including an enrollment figure
for a school that is not even open yet? If the Packsaddle enrollment is
not considered, there appears to have been a DROP of 51 in total LISD
enrollment. More pointedly and regarding Packsaddle, Patton was evasive
at our meeting, March 23. His current assertion of a 113 enrollment
figure further adds to the confusion.
The Superintendent didn't answer Question 6. Understand his answer
to Question 7? I don't. ... There's an old but true adage that as an
"educator", you don't truly know your subject if you can't adequately
explain it to others. Is this how the Superintendent "educates" our
children? Equally pointedly, the enclosure he refers to is a 1/2 inch
stack of documents titled Texas Education Agency Manual For Districts
Subject to Wealth Equalization. -- It is no more decipherable than his
"answer" to the question.
Sadly, his answers to Questions 8 and 9 were non-responsive. To his
"credit", he partially answered Question 10. In part (b), however, I
asked for access to the results of the independent audit. He
conveniently ignored the request. Why? Was there even an independent
audit? Good question, still unanswered. He didn't answer Question 11.
His answers to Questions 12 and 13 are non-responsive. He certainly
hasn't demonstrated how the taxpayers have benefited from accepting
transfer students, or at least how they aren't gouged in the process,
has he?
His "answers" to Questions 14 and 15 regarding recapture and annual
cost of education per student are also non-responsive. The enclosure he
refers to in Question 14's "answer" is the undecipherable Texas
Education Manual referred to earlier. The enclosure he refers to in
Question 15's "answer" is a notice published earlier in _The Llano
News, -- NOT an explanation or answer to either Questions 14 or 15:
"Notice To Llano I.S.D. Taxpayers
Your total M&O (Maintenance and Operations) tax rate for Llano
I.S.D. is $1.47. Of that amount, approximately $.30 or three million
dollars ($3,000,000.00) goes to the State in the form of recapture
money to be distributed to other school districts statewide. The amount
of your money that is kept to operate Llano County Public Schools for
M&O is approximately $1.17. The State average M&O is
approximately $1.35. The combined revenue for Maintenance and
Operations and the voter approved Bonded Indebtedness per student is
approximately $6,430.10."
Interestingly, this last figure of $6,430.10 does not agree with the $6,847 figure given earlier at our meeting March 23.
Including the supposed Packsaddle "enrollment" figure, the
approximate true annual cost of educating LISD students is $15,225,384
Annual Budget/1717 Students or $8,867.43 per student. The Burnet
Chamber of Commerce has posted Burnet Consolidated Independent School
District (BCISD) statistics on its website. If accurate, they would
indicate a $15,250,024 Annual Budget/2734 Students, or $5577.92 per
student annual cost. Llano County apparently spends approximately 60%
more than Burnet County per student. This figure would jump to over 70%
if the Packsaddle "enrollment" isn't figured into the calculation.
Interesting, isn't it? Are we being looted? You decide.
Several days after the non-responsive open records letter from the
Superintendent, I received the following unsigned "Statement" in the
mail. It was not an LISD invoice or printed on School District
stationary, but appeared to have been created by an amateur hacker
using oversize fonts:
STATEMENT
April 28, 2000
To: Mr. Tim Chorney
1. 84 copies @10 cents = 8.40
2. research = 87.50
3. postage & handling = 10.00
Total $105.90
Remit to:
Llano I.S.D.
200 E. Lampasas Street
Llano, Texas 78643
********************************
Again, we have another clear example of the unfitness of our
illustrious Superintendent for office. ... And the "Statement" did come
from Patton. His return address is on the envelope. In addition to
responding late to an open records request, Mr. Patton is dishonestly
attempting to charge for copies and "research" that were not requested,
nor agreed to. If there were to be fees for "research", postage &
handling, unrequested copies etc., they should have been agreed to
PRIOR to the mailing of his non-responsive letter of April 25, 2000.
Ch.552.2615, Gov't Code, Public Information.
Regardless, Hell will indeed freeze over before you see a penny of
it, Jack. Why not have one of your legal beagles file a lien against my
property? It would certainly provide great fodder for this website.
Sadly, our fine-feathered friend is desperately trying to discourage
legitimate inquiry and scrutiny of School District operations and
finances. Why? What are you hiding, Jack? Egregiously stonewalling from
the time of the first open records request last year, Patton's latest
juvenile attempt at intimidation is pathetic and clearly
unprofessional.
Although flawed and nowhere near as powerful as a subpoena or the legal
process of discovery, the Texas Open Records Act is extremely useful.
Without it, Patton would have successfully escaped unflattering media
inquiry. With it, he was forced to display his true colors and
"management qualities" to the glaring light of day. Friends, we're
paying dearly for this. While the issue will be forced, Patton's
"response" is devastating to his credibility and raises serious
questions regarding his fitness for office.
A complaint against the Superintendent is being prepared and will
be filed with the Open Records Division. It will also be posted on this
website. Our dear bureaucrat has no respect for the Open Records Act,
its requirements, the taxpayers, or the readers of this publication.
The most frightening aspect of this egregious farce is that it
represents the "thinking" of the "educators" running LISD.
As pressure is ratcheted up on our illustrious officials, there'll
be much more of this. It will be interesting to see how nasty and
abusive our officials become. Their true colors will certainly be on
display, -- as is the case with our Superintendent. With a budget well
in excess of $15 million, there are big money interests involved who
clearly resent and strongly resist inquiry and close scrutiny.
Sadly, this is a classical struggle between a well-heeled,
egregiously over-funded, bloated, bureaucratic governmental "Goliath"
and a non-profit, unfunded publication with no assets or resources, yet
determined to expose the corruption, waste, and abuses. Who better to
do it than someone with literally nothing to lose, and beholden to NO
ONE.
With regard to your pathetic attempt at intimidation, Jack, wake
up. The District Attorney made a similar mistake several weeks ago.
(March 20, 2000 Newsletter) It didn't fly. Think you'll do any better?
Think again, friend. More pointedly, pal, the hustle didn't work then
or now. ... Just increased my determination to expose you for the inept
and abusive bureaucrat you are, -- regardless of the personal
consequences to this writer. More pointedly, Jack, from your "answer"
to Question 16, it's now clear the terroristic threat from the Junior
High student did NOT occur on the day of my "tour", March 23. How do
you explain or excuse your erratic and highly unprofessional behavior
during our meeting that day? (March 27, 2000 Newsletter)
The visitor count stands in excess of 15,100. Another excellent week.
Yet, there has been egregiously little financial support to date. If
readers care so damned little for this community and each other, why
the hell should I?
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:18pm EDT