The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V79
Accessing The Llano Ledger Website Without Generously Providing
Financial Assistance To This Non-Profit Publication Not Only Denies
Desperately Needed Funds For Investigative Expenses, But Amounts To
Theft Of This Writer's Labor.
BANNER AND POP-UP ADVERTISING PAYS ONLY FOR WEBSITE
Welcome. This Website Is Indeed An Expansion And Continuation Of The
Llano Ledger. Earlier Editions, Letters To The Editor, Llano County
Jail-Rape Depositions, And Numerous Other Documents Can Be Found By
Clicking http://maxpages.com/llanoledger.
Publisher's Note: Posting of the February 19, 2001 Newsletter has
begun early. Be sure to read the current edition, February 12, 2001, on
Newsletter Text V78. T.C. February 15, 2001.
*************February 19, 2001***************
The following snail-mail was received from the General Services Commission:
General Services Commission
P.O. Box 13047
Austin, Tx. 78711-3047
February 12, 2001
Mr. Jack Patton
Superintendent
Llano Independent School District
200 E. Lampasas
Llano, TX 78643
RE: COMPLAINT OF OVERCHARGES-TIM CHORNEY
Dear Mr. Patton:
In an effort to close this matter, please note the following:
* I misquoted your statement of May 30, 2000. I should have put "$200" rather than "200 hours."
* Mr. Chorney did not make any payments, and did not come to inspect the information.
* It is determined that overcharges did not occur. The charges were
calculated in accordance with the law and the rules of the General
Services Commission. However, some of the calculations were erroneous
because they assumed that Mr. Chorney requested copies, which he
didn't. Please note that the choice to inspect or receive copies is
made by the requestor, not the governmental body. Additionally, the
District did not follow new sections in the law, which are required
when the charges will be more than $40.00.
* Therefore, the charges that may be owed are: $.10 per page for
any page that contained confidential and non-confidential information,
and the confidential information had to be redacted before the page
could be released for inspection (See #4). This charge applies even if
the requestor does not take the copies. If the records fulfilled the
criteria established by Ch.552.271(c), charges may be $18 per hour
(personnel, $15.00 plus overhead, $3.00) for the time to prepare
records that were older than five years and which took more than five
hours to prepare for inspection (See #3).
Also, I believe that the following suggestions would avoid future misunderstandings:
1. Do not use the term "Research" when a personnel charge will be
applied. It is less confusing to use "Labor" or "Personnel." Actually,
the word "research" does not appear in the law, except in Ch.552.227.
"Research of State Library Holdings Not Required." Additionally
"Personnel" is defined in the rules as "the actual time to locate,
compile, and reproduce the requested information."
2. Remember that the itemized statement of estimated charges must
be provided before any work is done. The requestor must be given the
choice to accept the charges or amend the request. If that choice is
not given, the requestor owes nothing. Conversely, if the requestor
does not answer in ten calendar days with a choice, you need not
fulfill that request because the law deems it automatically withdrawn.
Be sure to inform the requestor that the deadline for the written
answer is ten calendar days.
3. The personnel charge that is authorized under Ch.552.271
applies only to those records that actually fall under the criteria.
Example:
- You receive a request for records from 1/1992-12/2000.
- The entire request took seven hours to prepare for
inspection.
Personnel can be assessed only for preparing the records from
1/1992-12/1995 IF preparing those records for inspection took more than
5 hours. (GSC Rule 111.65(a)(3)) Redacting confidential information
from the 1/1992-12/1995 files that fall under the criteria is part of
compiling the information, thus can be charged as "preparing the
records for inspection."
4. You may still be able to assess charges for inspection if the
records do not fall under the two-prong criteria of Ch.552.271(c) but
do qualify for Ch.552.271(b). Example:
- You receive a request for records from 1/1996-12/2000 (exactly five years)
- The request will result in 10,500 pages, of which 3,850 have confidential information mixed with public information.
- You may charge the requestor $385.00 before you allow the
inspection of the information. You may even request a bond for the
entire amount or a deposit of $192.50 before you start the task of
copying and redacting. (GSC Rule 111.67(e))
- Please note that you are allowed to charge for only one copy of
each page with co-mingled information, and no charges for personnel are
allowed.
Additionally, I strongly recommend that all communications with
requestors be in writing and sent by US Mail, email, or fax. It is more
time consuming, but it will pay off in a reduction of
misunderstandings, complaints, and confrontations. Ms. Morrison sent me
several samples of form letters that she proposed to use for your
requestors. I think the letters will be very helpful, and encourage you
to use them.
Finally, I want to assure you that I do understand the constraints
you face. However, as public servants we have an obligation to the
public. The law does not require you to drop everything that you are
doing to reply to an open records request, but it does expect a good
faith effort and a prompt answer. If you ever have any questions
regarding allowable charges, timing of the itemized statement, or any
other concern related to Subchapter F or any of the other sections that
deal with charges to requestors, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Hadassah Schloss
Open Records Administrator
cc: Tim Chorney
Publisher
The Llano Ledger
Rt. 2 Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, TX 78609
**************************************
The following e-mail was quickly sent in response:
Hadassah Schloss
Open Records Administrator
General Services Commission
Austin, Tx. 78711
Re: Feb.12, 2001 Letter To LISD Supt. Jack Patton
February 14, 2001
Dear Ms. Schloss:
In response to your letter of February 12, 2001 to LISD
Superintendent Jack Patton, respectfully understand Patton arrogantly
played you for the fool. -- To protect himself and his cronies from
consequences of release of public information highly unflattering to
School officials at the very least, if not worse.
No unreasonable blanket request of documents, as implied by the
substance of your most recent letter, was ever made to the
Superintendent. Patton conveniently interpreted the May 25, 2000 Open
Records Request as such, however, in an attempt to justify unrequested
copying charges of 2000 pages of documents and the supposed "labor
costs", or as he put it, "research" involved in producing them for
inspection. -- A ruse, Ms. Schloss. Clearly designed to avoid release
of damaging records.
Your letter of February 12 to the Superintendent was apparently
designed to give Patton "wiggle room" and a way to "save face". --
Despite the demonstrable fact he lied like hell in his earlier letter
of October 27, 2000 to you. Quite clearly, madam, the Superintendent
deserves no slack.
What he deserves, however, is a criminal investigation. ... Which,
of course, will never happen. After all, the Superintendent has only
followed the example of District Attorney Sam Oatman, -- who himself
unethically and illegally stonewalled an unrelated Open Records Request
dated March 12, 2000 in a strikingly similar fashion.
Bottom line? The Superintendent has deliberately and willingly
attempted to charge $515.90 for "access" to public information. -- In
an effort to protect himself and his cronies from the consequences of
thousands of dollars, at the very least, in financial irregularities.
Your suggestion to the Superintendent he supply "form letters" for
requestors of public information is ludicrous. Such form letters would
only serve to make it easier for bumbling, recalcitrant bureaucrats to
more effectively stonewall open records requests.
Most pointedly, the Open Records Request of May 25, 2000 was
clearly, concisely, and crisply crafted. Any idiot could understand it.
Why should a requestor be limited to submission of "form letters"
"conveniently" provided by the bureaucrats targeted? Where does Ch.552,
Gov't Code, Public Information limit open records requests to "form
letters"?
Kindly be advised the Superintendent mailed a 7-page "form letter"
back in 1999 after finally being forced by the School Board to respond
to an earlier unrelated Open Records Request. The "form letter" was
indeed irrelevant and unrelated to the Open Records Request.
Your admonition to Patton that it's best to communicate formally
with requestors via snail-mail, fax, e-mail, etc. presumes an informal
effort was made by the Superintendent. Not so. In fact, quite the
opposite. During a meeting in March of 2000, Mr. Patton refused an
informal request for information later formally sought in two Open
Records Requests including the May 25, 2000 one, currently in dispute.
Your concern for the time "constraints" of the supposedly beleaguered
Superintendent is quite touching. Kindly understand, however, the May
25, 2000 Open Records Request was indeed only the latest effort to
obtain access to the same information sought from the Superintendent
for over a year.
With all due respect, Ms. Schloss, wake up. Patton has willingly
and deliberately engaged in a ruse, an outrageous charade. Equally
pointedly, he has NEVER justified any "labor costs", or as he put it,
"research". In no correspondence to this publication to date has he
ever claimed the need to redact confidential information. NEVER.
If he now does, he does so to protect School District officials
from outrageous financial irregularities quite possibly criminal in
nature. If he is allowed to claim the need to redact without proof, he
will have successfully circumvented the Public Information Act and
avoided the release of damaging public information.
With no one willing to criminally investigate the School District
or even enforce the Public Information Act, the citizens of Llano
County, however, will never know the true extent of waste and fraud
within the District.
My readers are quite aware in fact the District Attorney, the "Open"
Records Division, and the General Services Commission have successfully
aided and abetted the Superintendent in his desperate effort to avoid
release of damaging public information required by the Texas Public
Information Act.
This publication has not and will not ever pay for "access" to public
documents. -- To do so would be to submit to extortion. Anything less
than full access, without charge, to information requested in the May
25, 2000 Open Records Request is unacceptable. Furthermore, the
egregious stonewalling indicates the School District apparently has
something to hide.
Worse yet, the lack of action by the General Services Commission
and "Open" Records Division has given School officials more than ample
time to "sanitize" requested records. Sadly, anything released at this
point would be highly suspect.
From the substance of your letter to Patton as well as earlier
correspondence to this writer, it is not clear whether or not you have
forwarded all correspondence between the General Services Commission
and the School District, including counsel. If not, it only provides
additional aid and comfort to Patton, making it more difficult to hold
his feet to the fire and force disclosure of public information.
Finally, the first four "findings" of your February 12 letter to
Patton differ markedly from earlier correspondence and appear to be a
reaction to pressure placed on the General Services Commission and
"Open" Records Division. Obviously, it is a transparent effort to cover
the collective gluteus maximus of State officials who have aided and
abetted the Superintendent in his effort to circumvent the Public
Information Act and avoid disclosure of damaging public information.
Most remarkably, the "findings" do not address the demonstrable false
assertions made by Patton in his letter of October 27, 2000 to you. --
Nor do they address the fact the Superintendent NEVER offered access to
inspect the requested documents. Interesting, isn't it?
Sadly, short of court action precluded by a lack of funds, there
will apparently be no resolution of this matter. Hat's off to State
officials. All of you have quite successfully and effectively ensured
Llano County citizens will never know the true extent of waste and
fraud within the School District.
Sincerely,
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
http://maxpages.com/llanoledger
http://maxpages.com/llanoledger2
Rt 2 Box 464A
Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609
cc: Llano Ledger website
cc by e-mail: John Cornyn, Attorney General, State of Texas; State Sen.
Troy Fraser; Ann Dillon, Acting Executive Director, General Services
Commission; Katherine Minter Cary, Chief, Open Records Division; June
B. Harden, Assistant Attorney General, Open Records Division; David
Mendoza, Legal Assistant, Open Records Division; David Short,
Investigator, Open Records Division; Jack Patton, Superintendent, LISD.
********************************
Thirty years of a failed "drug war" have not only eviscerated the
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, but have led to the militarization
of police agencies throughout the United States. -- Quite often with
dire results, including the death of innocent citizens.
One Nazi tactic frequently employed is "dynamic entry". -- Knocking
down a door with a battering ram, without first knocking and
identifying themselves as police officers. Sadly, law enforcement
doesn't always have the correct address and innocent people have been
killed defending themselves against these outrageous marauders.
Arrogantly, police have dismissed such killings as the price of
enforcing drug laws. After all, a few deaths of innocent citizens here
and there is a small price to be paid for preventing drug users and
dealers from flushing contraband down the commode, right?
Sometimes, however, this Nazi tactic backfires on officers
themselves. Sadly, a Travis County Deputy was recently killed during a
"dynamic entry." A slug tragically found its way under a
bullet-resistant vest worn by the officer. The shooter claimed
self-defense and has been charged with capital murder.
At the time of this writing, few details have been released, --
other than the police apparently had the right address and drugs were
allegedly found. Regardless of the circumstances, it is time for police
agencies to re-consider "no-knock" execution of search warrants. Public
as well as officer safety demands it. Most pointedly, the days of Rambo
should be gone.
Think the following scenario is impossible? It's 3AM and you're
woken from a deep sleep by the noise of wood splintering as
unidentified, possibly heavily-armed thugs are breaking down the door
to your house. Your wife is screaming as she runs to the children's
room. Releasing the safety of a high-powered pistol, you raise the
weapon as the door busts open and the first unidentified goon enters.
... Think it can't happen? -- Or that it only happens to the guilty? --
Or that it may be an officer and not a criminal?
Sadly, the "President" has once again shown his true lack of
substance, courage, and character this week. Ole' George "The Tush" has
cowardly placed distance between himself and Congressional Republican
efforts to investigate the Clinton pardon of fugitive financier Marc
Rich. Interesting, isn't it?
Equally pointedly and remarkably similar to his predecessor, the
"President" bombed the hell out of the Iraqis shortly after taking
office. -- Apparently to establish and implement policy through
exercise of military muscle.
Readers are reminded Mr. Clinton took precisely the same action eight
years ago. Interesting, isn't it, how quickly presidents resort to the
use of force to solve problems? Why? To establish power and proper
pecking order. When a private citizen, however, behaves in a similar
fashion, rightfully, he or she is convicted of homicide. When in hell
are we going to finally expect better of our government?
The "President" has disingenuously claimed new recent provocations
by Saddam. -- While conveniently failing to remind the people a
low-grade bombing war has been going on for quite some time in Iraq as
Saddam has continued to reject and challenge "No-Fly Zones".
Interesting, isn't it?
Most pointedly, had the "President's" father, former President
George H. Bush, settled for nothing less than unconditional surrender,
the current problem would not have been an issue. -- Quite clearly, the
Gulf War was fought for nothing more than "Big Oil". "Principle"? What
the hell's that?
This writer is no pacifist. The use of military force is warranted
when this nation is truly threatened as it certainly was in the Second
World War. For the last 50 years, however, presidents have conveniently
and wantonly placed military personnel at risk for purely political and
economic reasons. The current occupant of the White House is apparently
no better.
As strongly asserted in Special Edition V65, the clock is indeed
ticking... The combined visitor count of both The Llano Ledger and
Llano Ledger 2 websites stands in excess of 73,200, -- another
excellent week and true testament to the shameless willingness of the
readership to "steal" this writer's labor. Certainly, you ought to be
proud of yourselves. Nothing quite like "character", is there? Readers
are reminded this writer receives no renumeration from the banner and
pop-up advertising. They only pay for the website itself. There is no
personal compensation, nor are there desperately needed funds for
investigative expenses. Non-profit and outrageously unfunded by the
readership it serves due to greed, gut-wrenching fear, and the
continuing relentless intimidation of corrupt and abusive Llano County
officials, this publication as always remains beholden to NO ONE.
Tim Chorney, Publisher
The Llano Ledger
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:14pm EDT