Llano News

County Court House		*Llano News*

Welcome to Llano News & Commentary

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

Why Elected Officials Choose Not to Become Cosmetologists (November 17, 2008)

In Texas, justices of the peace are disciplined more often than any other judicial office in the state. Being that the only requirements to run for the office are citizenship, residency, mental competency, and being at least 18 years of age, it’s no wonder.

While it’s true that newly elected justices of the peace need complete an 80 hour course given by the Texas Justice Court Training Center, and 20 hours of instruction annually thereafter, they are permitted to play judge for almost a full year after their election before any training is required.

But is 80 hours enough? Sheriffs and constables elected to office are required to complete at least 40 hours of continuing education programs once every 24 months and pass the TCLEOSE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education) but they too are allowed to work in their elected positions long before meeting the training and testing requirements.

Not so with almost any other vocation. Take cosmetologists for example. First off, they are prohibited by law from performing any service unless first licensed by the state – not so with justices of the peace, sheriffs and constables. While cosmetologists can be 17 years of age to get a license, they are still required to have a high school diploma or its equivalent or have passed a valid examination administered by a certified testing agency that measures the person’s ability to benefit from training. This is not required of justices of the peace, sheriffs and constables.

The requirement for licensure and a certain minimal education or learning ability before being put to work is enough to surpass the qualifications required of justices of the peace, sheriffs and constables. But it doesn’t end there.

As a requirement of licensure, all cosmetologists must have successfully completed 1,500 hours of instruction in a licensed beauty culture school; or 1,000 hours of instruction in beauty culture courses and 500 hours of related high school courses prescribed by a state commission in a vocational cosmetology program in a public school. That’s 1,420 hours of instruction more than required for a justice of the peace and 1460 hours of instruction more than required for a sheriff or constable!

Apparently the state believes it requires a lot less to be a justice of the peace, sheriff or constable than a cosmetologist. Further investigation, however, indicates the state feels the same way about sub-cosmetology vocations such as manicurist and facialists.

The age, education and licensing requirements for manicurists are the same as for cosmetologists; however, their mandated instruction hours are less i.e. 600 hours. Still that’s 520 more hours than what’s required of a justice of the peace and 540 more hours than what’s required of a sheriff or constable. On the other hand, facialists require 750 hours of instruction in addition to the age, education and licensing requirements mandated for cosmetologists. This is more than that required of a manicurist and considerably more than that required of a justice of the peace, sheriff or constable.

No candidate for justice of the peace, sheriff or constable is required to submit to a background check that might reveal whether they have ever been arrested, convicted or been the subject of an investigation concerning moral turpitude. Nor are they required to be vetted to determine the extent of their indebtedness, solvency, or having been the subject of any civil litigation wherein their trustworthiness might be in question. In other words, without mandated screening as to their qualifications, background and representations, choosing a candidate for these elected offices, and others, is like buying a pig in a poke.

To protect the public, the state should mandate that all candidates for justice of the peace, or any other judicial office, be a graduate of an accredited law school, have passed the state bar exam and be in good standing with the State Bar of Texas to qualify as a candidate.

In a similar vein, all candidates for sheriff and constable should have graduated from the Texas Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Academy or other state approved academy and have received TCLEOSC certification to qualify as a candidate. All such candidates should undergo a background check to assure they haven’t been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude. This will assure a far greater degree of competence and professionalism in these occupations than what exists today while affording citizens more confidence in their elected officials.

If the state can mandate higher standards for cosmetologists, manicurists and facialists they can certainly raise the standards for those who are primarily responsible for the enforcement, interpretation and application of the laws that affect all our lives in the administration of justice.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The reasons so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that many people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer – and they don’t want explanations that do not give them that.” (Thomas Sowell)

Neurological Surgeon Added to LMHS Staff (November 10, 2008)

“Llano Memorial Healthcare System is pleased to announce Douglas J. Fox, MD, of NeuroTexas, PLLC is offering neurological surgery services at the Lake Area Specialty Clinic, 201 Bay West Blvd. in Horseshoe Bay,” according to Kevin Leeper, CEO of Llano Memorial Healthcare System..

Dr. Fox grew up in St. Louis, Missouri. After finishing his undergraduate degree at Wake Forest University in 1995, he went on to complete his medical degree at Washington University in 1999. He remained at Washington University for his residency training in neurosurgery and graduated in 2005. Following his residency, Dr. Fox completed two additional years of training with fellowships in cerebrovascular surgery and complex spinal surgery at the Barrow Neurological Institute. His clinical interests include cerebrovascular neurosurgery, skull base surgery, and complex spinal surgery including the cranio-cervical junction. Dr. Fox has published widely and maintains an active research interest in cerebrovascular physiology and the development of new surgical technologies to improve neurosurgical care.

Dr. Fox is an associate of NeuroTexas, PLLC, which is a single-specialty neurosurgery group serving Austin and the central Texas region. The physicians are all fellowship-trained and treat all surgical disorders of the brain and spine. They work closely with hospital and outpatient facilities to ensure that patients receive the highest quality integrated medical care possible.

In addition to providing cutting-edge clinical care, he is dedicated to the advancement of neuroscience and is working with local Austin institutions to create a center for neurological research and education. Leeper added, “We are fortunate to have a physician with Dr. Fox’s clinical expertise join our medical community and welcome the opening of his practice in Neurological Surgery at our specialty clinic”.

Dr. Fox sees patients at the Lake Area Specialty Clinic in Horseshoe Bay every Friday afternoon. He is a Medicare provider and has contracted with many of the major insurance plans. For more information or to schedule an appointment contact 830 598-5968.

Llano County Park Slight of Hand (September 29, 2008)

The Lake Buchanan Conservation Corp. recently hosted a meeting whereat 2^nd Precinct Commissioner Henry Parker presented a “progress report” concerning renovation and development of the Llano County Park located on Hwy 261. As announced, he addressed issues pertaining to park design and function, funding and maintenance responsibilities. The presentation went as planned with charts, drawings and architectural renderings depicting the park layout plan.

The problem is that the grant of $500,000 from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which requires twenty-five percent in matching funds from the County, is limited to the construction and/or renovation of a boat ramp – not changes to the park. The total set aside for the boat ramp is at least $625,000 - none of which may be used for park renovation and development according to the grant restrictions.

So the question is: How much more will the County spend to make the improvements Commissioner Parker intends for Llano County Park in Parker’s 2^nd Precinct? As stated by Commissioner Parker, “It is something I think Llano County needs.” Those “needs,” as enumerated by Commissioner Parker, consists of a new retaining wall, parking lot, picnic area, playground, and possibly a rest room near the park entrance, and perhaps provision for overnight camping.

Reportedly, Commissioner Parker said, “The County will provide $160,000 of its own funds to spruce up the park, including labor.” Again, where is that money coming from since none of the $125,000 in matching funds may be used for park “sprucing up.”

So I figured there has to be more here than what meets the eye, so I looked into the group that hosted the event.

The Lake Buchanan Conservation Corp. is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation chartered in January of 2006. According to their web site, they are “dedicated to improving the Lake Buchanan area in the beautiful and scenic hill country of central Texas by restocking Lake Buchanan, improving lake access and educating the public. Water sports, fishing, hiking, boating, camping, wildlife conservation and public access around Lake Buchanan are just a few of the areas where Lake Buchanan Conservation Corp. is trying to make a positive difference.”

Sounds like a noble cause but like so much of what’s going on nowadays, there’s more to it than what meets the eye.

Among the business members of the Lake Buchanan Conservation Corp. are: Clancy’s Guide Service; Crawford Guide Service; David’s Striper Guide Service; Fernandez Guide Service; Ken Milam Guide Service; Jerry Moore Guide Service (Is this the same Jerry Moore who was moonlighting as a minister while serving the 2^nd Precinct as its Constable?); and Ray’s Guide Service. Henry Parker also ran a fishing guide service before becoming county commissioner. Do you see the connection?

In other words, the organization is comprised primarily of those in the lake fishing business, notably striper fishermen, who would financially benefit from having a bigger boat ramp built in Llano County Park at county expense i.e. paid by the taxpayers. This apparently is Llano County’s version of “entitlement funding” perfected at the federal level.

Now I’m not opposed to bigger and better boat ramps as long as it’s not on my dime nor am I opposed to promoting a scheme to beautify Llano County Park. But we already have a Llano County park boat ramp that serves the needs of the citizens of Llano County – notably those living in the 2^nd Precinct. There is no “need” for a boat ramp “that will extend 450 feet from the parking lot” and “slope 13 degrees to the water when the lake is elevated at 1,000 feet” as Commissioner Parker claims. A football field and a half long boat ramp may serve the pecuniary “needs” of fishing guides and related lakeside businesses, but not the collective residents of Llano County.

For more on this story, I refer you to the Guest Article by Richard Grayum that follows, “More Than Just a Non-Existent Mold Problem”

And remember Klee’s Law: “Honesty in politics is a result of strength; hypocrisy is the result of weakness.” (V. I. Lenin)

More Than Just a Non-Existent Mold Problem (September 29, 2008)

(A Special Guest Article by Richard Grayum)

Commissioner Henry Parker has been holding public meetings that he has represented as “The Llano County Park Project,” yet he has applied to the Texas Parks & Wildlife for a monetary grant that cannot be used for park improvements, and is actually a boating grant that is for boat ramps only.

The project applied for by Commissioner Parker was the “Black Rock Park Boat Ramp Renovation.” The grant pays 75% and Llano County pays 25%. Llano County has to match with funds or in-kind labor. The labor is at actual cost and equipment is at FEMA rates. In any event, Llano County will pay a minimum of $125,000.00 for a boat ramp that will be used by Commissioner Henry Parker (who also a fishing guide) and about ten other fishing guides. The stated reason for applying for the grant by Commissioner Parker on the written grant form is as follows: “Existing boat ramp facility is aged and is not useable at low water levels. Few public boat ramps on lake.” Commissioner Parker applied for in January 2008 for this Wallop-Breaux Program Grant from the Texas Parks & Wildlife, a program that receives funding from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.

The big lie is that public hearings on this project were entitled and conducted as “The Llano County Park Project”. Furthermore, the Commissioners Court Meeting postings were for “The Llano County Park Project”. Yet still, it is clear that there are no plans for using this grant, nor would it be legal to use it, for any park improvements. Again, it is a boat ramp grant only.

In recent meetings Commissioner Parker has distributed drawings of the Llano County Park showing play grounds, picnic tables, walking tracks and other amenities that have no chance of being funded with the existing grant. Although the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department has grants available for park improvement, these park grants require a 50 / 50 expenditure sharing relationship with Llano County, and the commissioners have not applied for such a park grant. The informal legal term for such a deception is “Bait & Switch” (no pun intended).

In the September 18, 2008 edition of The River Cities Daily Tribune Commissioner Parker was quoted as saying, “It is something that Llano County needs,” and, “Everybody has supported this about 100%.” Parker stated, “The county will provide $160,000.00 of its own funds to spruce up the PARK, including in-kind labor”,” and “The PARK will attract more local families and new people to Lake Buchanan and help local businesses.” Commissioner Parker’s fellow fishing guide, Ken Miliam, was also quoted by the River Cities Daily Tribune, saying “It will bring a lot of money to Llano County”.

The proposed boat ramp is not going to bring additional revenue to Llano County; the unimproved park will not draw new people or local families unless they use it to launch their large boats and store there trailers while out on the lake. Locals who currently bring their families to play and swim at the park will not enjoy take part in receiving the benefits from the proposed boat ramp, because they are not fishing guides, as is Commissioner Parker.

The proposed ramp will actually cost Llano County by necessitating additional debris cleanup. The 450 ft rip/rap boat ramp will be susceptible to trapping large amounts of debris during the north winds. Being a public park requires currently that the debris and garbage be cleared on a weekly basis, but clearing floating debris from a riprap jetty will be expensive and sometimes dangerous.

As late as September 21, 2008, the existing boat ramp was being used to launch boats. Boat parking in the park has never been a problem. The fishing guides will launch their boats at low water like they have for the last 50 years with or without a ramp.

If Llano County builds the 450 ft boat ramp, they will facilitate boaters to enter Lake Buchanan during low lake levels. For the sake of argument, why would the Llano County officials want to place people on the lake during dangerous conditions? Furthermore, Llano County should have posted all meetings concerning the boat ramp as worded in the grant application “BLACK ROCK PARK BOAT RAMP RENOVATION, as did the Llano County Auditor when she listed the project “the Black Rock Park Boat Ramp Project Grant,” in a list of bids that she was presenting for consideration. Llano County Commissioners Court has clearly violated the TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT by misrepresenting the boat ramp as a park project.

As the grant that Commissioner Parker applied for is for BOAT RAMPS ONLY and cannot be used for any park improvements, Commissioner Parker has knowingly and intentionally deceived the Llano County Commissioners Court and the public by distributing park drawings that include parking lots, picnic tables, playgrounds, walking tracks and retaining walls.

The Black Rock Park Boat Ramp Renovation project should be cancelled and resubmitted to the public for public input! Commissioner Parker should reimburse Llano County for the mold fiasco and any expense incurred on the boat ramp misrepresentation.

Richard Grayum

Buchanan Dam, Texas

Smoking Cessation Classes Available (September 29, 2008)

As part of its commitment of building healthy communities and in conjunction with the decision of going tobacco-free at all Llano Memorial Healthcare System facilities on November 20, 2008, Llano Memorial Healthcare System will offer a smoking cessation class in each of the communities it serves.

The first of these classes will be held in Llano on September 29 at 5:30PM and again on October 6^th, also at 5:30PM, in the Diane Gage Learning Center, 1506 Berry Street in Llano. According to Mary Rhodes, Community Relations Director, “the smoking cessation class is designed to provide information to those who have made the decision to quit smoking and to those considering breaking the habit on the different ways to quit and products available to assist them in achieving their goal”.

According to the American Cancer Society, the positive effects of quitting begin very soon after an individual stops using tobacco and continue long after. Heart rate drops after 20 minutes. The carbon monoxide level in blood drops to a more normal level within 12 hours. Within 2 to 12 weeks of quitting, circulation improves and lung function increases up to 30 percent. Within 1 to 9 months, coughing and shortness of breath decrease. After 1 year, a former smoker’s risk of having coronary artery disease is half that of a smoker’s. Long-term benefits include decreased risk of stroke, decreased risk of dying from lung cancer, and decreased risk of getting cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, cervix and pancreas.

For more information on the smoking cessation class, schedule and locations, contact LMHS Community Relations at 325 247-7824. The class is free and all ages are welcome.

Maverick Mold Mania Muzzled (Posted September 15, 2008)

Thanks to the concern of a private citizen who chose to get involved and the responsiveness of a receptive county judge, Llano County was saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in what otherwise would have been an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money.

It was conjectured that Henry Parker, Precinct 2 Commissioner, had intentionally overblown the seriousness of a “mold problem” existing in the Precinct 2 facilities. That “sky is falling“ mentality brought about the evacuation of the premises to a location elsewhere in Buchanan Dam. Allegedly, the plan was to have a new precinct facility built in Llano County Park which would have necessitated the removal of several trees from the park, some were to be oak trees estimated to be over one hundred years old. See, “Llano County Park Turning Into a Parking Lot.” (August 25, 2008).

Local citizens were in an uproar but one citizen had the courage to write in to “Sound Off” and satirically complain about the proposed Park development and planned construction. See, “Llano County Park will replace Lake Travis as the ultimate tourist destination for the power boat crowd” (August 25, 2008). But he did more than that; he took his concerns about the construction of a new precinct facility directly to Wayne Brascom, Llano’s County Judge. Judge Brascom said he’d look into the matter and was true to his word. Within a day or two after their meeting, health investigators were on the scene to determine the extent of the “mold problem.”

A little background history: It was reported locally that Management and Consulting Services inspected the current precinct facilities in June and found elevated levels of penicillium and aspergillus molds in the back offices of Commissioner Parker and Constable Stephen Hallmark, and in the basement. The front offices were not affected.

The presence of either of these molds does not in themselves pose a health risk. In general, indoor levels of molds are usually 30-80% of outdoor levels and the distribution of spore types should be similar. The presence of higher levels of certain types of molds indoors when compared to outdoor levels may indicate that mold contamination is present indoors. The firm recommended the temporary relocation of personnel pending arrangements to address the mold situation.

That in turn led the county to commit to a 6 month lease to set up shop near the Buchanan Dam Post Office. Speculation followed that this was part of Commissioner Parker’s overall plan to have a new building constructed at taxpayer expense in Llano County Park instead of returning to the old precinct offices i.e. the “mold problem” was used as an excuse.

Thanks to Judge Brascom, however, Dr. Jack Franklin, the County’s Public Health Administrator, was asked to investigate the matter further and in doing so, put the damper on the need for a new precinct facility. He advised Judge Brascom that the mold does not pose a public health threat and that the inside mold counts were actually lower than the mold count outside! If anything, it appeared that it was healthier for the general public inside the building than outside!

Dr. Frank reported that the presence of “the molds in the back rooms were only problematic for people with asthma and other allergic conditions” and that “employees in the office complained of breathing problems and discomfort this spring.” It is well known, however, that Commissioner Parker is a habitual smoker whose discomfort may be caused as a result of his own smoking habits and not any serious mold condition.

We live with molds every day and not all molds pose a health risk. Cultured molds are used in the production of foods including cheese and black tea (Penicillium). The koji molds are a group of Aspergillus species that have been cultured in eastern Asia for many centuries. They are used to ferment a soybean and wheat mixture to make soybean paste and soy sauce. They are also used to break down the starch in rice in the production of sake and other distilled spirits. But depending on the levels present in the environment, they can pose a health risk.

Aspergillus and Penicillium are the most commonly reported molds found if water damaged carpeting is present. Sometimes the presence of higher levels of spores indoors than outdoors is not due to the presence of mold growth indoors, however. Recent vacuuming without a HEPA filter can also temporarily cause elevated levels indoors. Worldwide, Penicillium is one of the most commonly found fungal genera and is accompanied by a heavy musty odor. As long as the level is still within the normal range for the mold, elevated indoor levels may not necessarily be a health problem.

While it was prudent to vacate the building temporarily, failing to timely bring in a clean-up crew to mitigate the mold situation in the hope of getting a new facility built is indefensible, if such was the case. But for now it looks like Parker’s legacy of a Parker Center in Llano County Park will have to wait for another day.

And remember Klee’s Law: “A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” (H.L. Mencken)

Another Taser Death in Texas (Posted September 8, 2008)

Recently reported in the Orange Leader newspaper, officials with the Orange Police Department have released the name of the man who died after a Taser was used on him Monday morning in the 1500 block of 10th Street.

Jerry Jones, 45, was inside a woman’s residence without her permission. As officers attempted to arrest him, he was non-compliant and they were forced to deploy their Taser gun.

After he was handcuffed he continued to be combative. As officers were escorting him outside they noticed he was becoming non-responsive. He was treated by medical personnel at the scene. He was transported to Memorial Hermann Baptist Hospital-Orange where he later died.

An autopsy has been ordered. Results are pending. The incident is still under investigation.

Shortly after this incident, another man died following a Taser attack by local police in Southwest Miami. The decedent, Kenneth Oliver, appeared to be under the influence and making a racket by banging on doors and screaming. Someone called for help.

When the police arrived, Oliver was told to get down and put his hands behind his back. Reportedly, Oliver has pins in his shoulders that make it difficult for him to place his hands behind his back. When it appeared that Oliver refused to comply, he was Tased 3 different times while an onlooker shouted, “You’re going to kill that man.” He was right. Oliver was pronounced dead shortly thereafter at a nearby hospital.

On July 22, a 17-yaer old youth in Winnepeg became the 21^st person to die in Canada after being fired with a Taser. In the United States, over 300 deaths following Taser use have been recorded.

Granted, just because someone dies after receiving a jolt doesn’t mean the Taser was to blame. Pre-existing heart conditions, drug and alcohol abuse, and the agitation of having been pursued are likely contributors to a person’s death.

However, employers are held liable for injury or death of their employees when those employees have preexisting conditions that may be the primary cause of death or injury on the job. Nonetheless, employers are prohibited from hiring or firing employees who pose a greater degree of safety risk than the norm. Preexisting conditions do not exempt them from liability nor should it when a law enforcement officer indiscriminately uses a Tazer weapon against an unarmed individual.

Sheriff-elect Bill Blackburn argues in favor of the use of Tazers, “It has nothing to do with hurting them (an aggressive subject). It makes them drop, but it does not have a long lasting effect like pepper spray.” On the contrary, it has everything to do with hurting them. It does more than make them drop, it kills them and denial isn’t going to change that fact. If death isn’t a long lasting effect, I don’t know what is.

I don’t know how many instances it will take for the Llano Commissioners Court to rescind its policy of permitting constables to use Tazers on its citizens. They can’t hide behind government immunity forever.

The Commissioners approved the policy even though the constables requesting the Tazers cited no incident or incidents occurring in Llano County that would have required the use of the weapon. See, “Tazers in Llano County – Shocking!” (Klee’s Kaleidoscope 10-15-2007) A refresher course back at the academy on taking suspects into custody would be a lot cheaper and a lot less deadly.

And Remember Klee’s Law: “Instead of being born again, why not just grow up?”

Llano County Park Turning Into a Parking Lot? (Posted August 25, 2008)

The local scuttlebutt was that a maverick group of striper bass fishermen (stripers) couldn’t get their boats launched fast enough into Lake Buchanan during low water levels using the current boat ramp. Commissioner Parker, a former fishing guide in the area, was approached to see if he could help the local cronies.

That supposedly led to the Commissioners Court applying for a grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife about two-years ago in the amount of $500,000 to renovate the Llano County Park. The plan purportedly was to extend the boat ramp to about 600 feet, the length of two football fields; although I’ve been told that current plans intend to scale it back to 450 feet, or about the length of one and one-half football fields. See, “Sound Off” for a reader’s article, “Llano County Park will replace Lake Travis as the ultimate tourist destination for the power boat crowd.”

At the same time, the Commissioners are considering building a county facility in the park to house the precinct Commissioner, justice of the peace, court clerk, constable and whoever else might hang around the new quarters at any given moment. Someone suggested adding a donut shop nearby as an adjunct for law enforcement personnel in the area.

Of course, having a county building in the park would reduce the available space left for vacationers, campers and the like. Instead of enjoying the pristine nature of the great outdoors alongside beautiful Lake Buchanan, campers can sit back and admire the county’s administrative building in glass, concrete and steel and the ingress and egress of county traffic. So much for the great outdoors!

Having a county facility to house administrative offices would require the destruction of several oak and spruce trees to make room for additional parking spaces. I counted over 12 such trees already marked in red for destruction. (See photo inserts) Some were over one hundred years old. Apparently Commissioner Parker can’t distinguish between a park and a parking lot after all; they both contain the word “park.”

The local gentry had raised uproar about the destruction of trees in the county park leading to a temporary abatement of the planes to demolish that many trees at this time. Purportedly, one tree will be cut down, a spruce tree that has seen better days, until plans forge ahead for the building of the county facility.

The land itself, being lakeside, pastoral and abutting Black Rock State Park, is prime real estate. It should be left that way. As noted in my previous article, “Random Thoughts on the Llano Scene (August 18, 2008)” There’s nothing wrong with what has served as the 2^nd Precinct’s facilities for the past 30 years that a little bleach couldn’t cure.

On that subject, there are cleaning companies available that specialize in mold removal that could have easily taken care of the problem in short order. It now appears that the “mold problem” is minor and affects only one office in the building, Commissioner Parker’s. Get the picture?

There might be a bright side to this lunacy: I’ve been told that the original deed of conveyance of the land to the county requires the land to be used solely as a park. Purportedly, the deed restriction has about 40 more years to run and would preclude having a county administrative building built in the park. Whether the county will ignore the deed restriction remains to be seen, however, if indeed such a deed restriction exists.

Currently, the Park has no trash receptacles, no water, no rest rooms, no benches, no tables, etc. It’s just a wooded area (for the time being) with a boat ramp. In preparing for this article I visited the Park and found one good-size boat being launched and another waiting to be placed in the water. Apparently, boaters have no trouble launching their boats using the current boat ramp even though the lake is at very low levels. (See photo insert)

I also counted over a dozen trees marked in “red” designating they were to be cut down. When asked by a nearby landowner why all those trees had red paint marks on them, Commissioner Parker feigned ignorance. When asked why there was no trash bins in the park, Commissioner Parker purportedly explained it was because they were filling up too quickly. In other words, the trash bins were removed because they were being used. Where park users are expected to relieve themselves is another matter. There are no rest rooms in the park and cutting trees down takes away any privacy one might have and could lead to other problems.

It seems the county is not considering the unintended consequences of their County Park proposals. Development of the Park as a park is a great idea and needed. What the county and Commissioner Parker have in mind isn’t.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Half the people you know are below average” (Steven Wright)

Random Thoughts on the Llano Scene (Posted August 18, 2008)

A Pot Pourri of Local Observations

Several years ago Mayor Roger Pinckney announced that should the Llano Golf Course continue to operate in the red, the City would discontinue it. The golf course continues to bleed money, so why hasn’t it been put on the market for a private business to take it over? It would generate tax revenues for the city if it was in private hands.

During Lanny Stevenson’s reign as Justice of the Peace, 2^nd District, an offer to sell the property that is now the site of the Christian Worship Center located near the Lakeshore Library to the county for a new JP/Constable/Commissioner facility was made but turned down. J.P. Dodgen was County Judge at the time. Keith Faulker was 2^nd Precinct Commissioner. Stevenson, however, killed the deal.

A later opportunity to extend the present location of the 2^nd Precinct facility to run along highway 29 was also turned down. If either proposal had been accepted, it would have meant a tremendous cost savings to county taxpayers. This isn’t the first opportunity the county has missed out on to save taxpayers literally hundreds of thousands of dollars but then, it’s not their money.

The Commissioners Court is now in the market for a new location for the 2^nd Precinct facilities in the Llano County Park adjacent to the state’s Black Rock Park but at substantial cost to taxpayers. Ironically, it’s just down the road from the Christian Worship Center.

A substantial majority of counties in Texas have adopted an every three years rabies vaccination program for pets. The Texas Veterinary Association has approved the three-year requirement that is permitted by state law for several years now. Yet Llano County holds to its Jurassic requirement that pets be vaccinated every year. It’s costing pet owners three times as much to vaccinate their pets unnecessarily and by so doing, putting them at three times the risk of death or serious illness due to the vaccinations. The only beneficiaries are the practicing veterinarians in the county. As Lord Salisbury observed: “The commonest error in politics…sticking to the carcass of dead politics.

The Llano City Manager, Finely de Graffenreid, is recommending a 7 percent salary increase for certain city employees not because of increased job responsibilities, working more hours, changes in the conditions of employment, meritorious work performance, or other employment related consideration or even the city’s ability to pay but rather solely on the basis of employees working elsewhere are allegedly getting paid more. This is hardly responsible wage and salary administration. Why not simply skip the middle man and let outside government agencies determine the pay rates for all Llano City employees without regard to the other factors mentioned above?

Once again the Commissioners Court failed to realize that the cost of damn near everything goes up. Take the cost of renovating the County Park in Precinct 2 aka Henry Parker’s Folly. Commissioner Parker wants to extend the Park’s boat ramp substantially i.e. last heard about 600 feet or the length of two football fields. What size boat are they trying to launch? It sounds like Commissioner Parker is getting ready to go back into the fishing guide business.

I was told Commissioner Parker considered closing the Park during the month of August for renovations – at the height of the vacation season. The state’s Black Rock Park immediately adjacent to it is crammed full with vacationers. Cooler heads prevailed; it now appears the park will be closed in November.

The county was approved for $500,000 in state grant money to renovate the park. However, it’s been reported that it will cost almost twice that to effectuate the renovations. Other reports indicate the county will have to add a little over $167,000 to the $500,000 grant for renovation purposes. Commissioner Parker wasn’t fazed by the increase: “I am actually surprised that it had not increased more.” If he believes that, why renovate the park in the first place?

The Commissioners Court doesn’t want to back out of the project because to do so would require them to forfeit the grant money. Going ahead with Parker’s Folly means the county will have to come up with $167,000 taxpayer money that could have gone for more pressing needs.

The rationale given is, “If you give up a Texas Parks and Wildlife grant now, you probably won’t get another.” The operative word is “probably.” We don’t know that in fact to be the case. More likely, Texas P & W would be more amenable to giving future grants knowing the county would return the money it didn’t need.

Another “justification” for going into the red is, “When we went into the grant process two years ago we weren’t faced with the possibility of $5 a gallon gas.” Well, we still aren’t. Gas was recently selling for $3.64 a gallon at Wal-Mart in Marble Falls. Not anticipating that costs will increase substantially from the original grant estimates to the actual date that work commences on the project seems ludicrous.

And now the county wants to provide all constables, whose only indispensable function is to meet the needs of the justice of the peace courts to which they are assigned, with new Ford Crown Victoria vehicles. It never ends, does it?

And remember Klee’s Law: “Since a politician never believes what he says, he is surprised when others believe him.” (Charles DeGaulle)

Possible Improprieties in the 2^nd Precinct? (Posted August 11, 2008)

It’s a strange story coming out of the 2^nd Precinct. It seems mold was discovered in the 2^nd Precinct’s facilities allegedly posing a danger to elected officials, employees and visitors alike. The Precinct offices house County Commissioner Henry Parker, Justice of the Peace Linda Ballard, a Constable and a Court Clerk.

Apparently, nobody thought of using chlorine bleach to wash away the mold. Instead of simply hiring an outside service to clean up the place they decided to temporarily relocate the 2^nd Precinct facilities near the Buchanan Dam Post Office and start looking for bigger and better quarters for a future location – all this at a time when the county is purportedly hard-pressed for funds. The temporary location they chose was formerly occupied by a dress shop managed by TJM Realty, a property management firm with business locations in Burnet and Marble Falls.

What struck my curiosity was the rumor I had heard some time ago to the effect that shortly after Linda Ballard was elected Justice of the Peace, she had moved into a new home leased to her by the same property management firm i.e. TJM Realty, at a substantial discount - about $400-$500 below what a regular renter would normally pay.

The problem is that TJM Realty manages the leases on several properties in the area falling within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd Precinct JP’s court. Justices of the peace hear eviction suits: failure to pay rent; repossession of property; Bond for Immediate Possession proceedings, removal of property from premises, exclusion of residential tenants, etc. Accordingly, cases may be brought by TJM Realty before Judge Ballard for hearing and adjudication when they may have a personal and financial relationship with the judge.

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary (Canon 1). It further requires that a judge avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities (Canon 2). Canon 3 requires a judge to perform the duties of office impartially and diligently. And of course, a judge is required to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 6).

Whether or not Judge Ballard is performing the duties of her office impartially with respect to TJM Realty and those cases they may bring before her is unknown to me. But if the rumor is true that she is paying less in rent than one normally would to a property management firm having business before the court, it would be improprietas for her to do so. Certainly the appearance of impropriety would attach if this is the case because it would appear that she is taking kick-backs on her rent in exchange for TJM Realty being treated favorably in court.

To run down the rumor, an investigator contacted TJM Realty to confirm the information I had heard. TJM’s representative confirmed that they were in fact leasing a residence to Judge Ballard. They did not deny, however, that she was getting a substantial discount on her rent. In fact, the representative refused to verify the actual amount Judge Ballard was paying on her lease stating it was none of the investigator’s business.

So there the matter sat – until I read in the papers that the 2^nd Precinct was moving their offices. It turns out that the move is to a facility leased by the same property management firm that leases Judge Ballard her residence! Whatever is going on simply doesn’t pass the smell test which brings us back to that “appearance of impropriety” issue again. Let’s take another look at Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

The Canon states, in pertinent part:

A. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (Italics added)

B. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. (Italics added)

Until it can be determined whether Judge Ballard is in fact paying at least the same for her leased residence as the previous tenant, one shouldn’t rush to judgment as to her engaging in any impropriety. But it would be prudent and advisable if she would assure the community that she is not getting any special treatment regarding the rent she is paying to TJM Realty. Making the previous tenant’s rent records along with her own available to Klee’s Kaleidoscope for inspection should clear the matter up once and for all. I’ll be glad to report my findings if the records are made available to me and let you draw your own conclusions.

And remember Klee’s Law: The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.” (Edvard Teller)

LMHS Goes Tobacco Free (Posted August 11, 2008)

Llano Memorial Healthcare System is going tobacco-free on November 20, 2008, the date designated by the American Cancer Society for their nationwide campaign known as “The Great American Smokeout”. As of that date, no tobacco use of any kind will be permitted – inside or outside – on hospital and all related health system property. According to Kevin Leeper, LMHS CEO “we want to give the community advance notice of our intent to move to a tobacco-free policy”. This initiative also will include the elimination of designated smoking areas outside Llano Memorial Hospital where employees, patients and visitors currently use tobacco products.

Llano Memorial Healthcare System joins countless other health systems across Texas in a decision to become tobacco-free. In announcing the tobacco-free initiative, Linda Meredith, LMHS COO, said, “As a health care organization, we are committed to the health and safety of our employees and patients. We believe that we have a responsibility to take a leadership role on this major health issue, and allowing people to use tobacco products defeats this purpose.”

In a report issued by the Texas Department of State Health Services and the Texas Cancer Registry, 16,196 Texans died and another 25,494 were diagnosed with a tobacco-related cancer in 2002. The US Surgeon General has confirmed that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is a serious health hazard and that there is no risk-free level of exposure. Meredith added, “tobacco use in and around hospitals poses health and safety risks for patients, employees and visitors”.

According to Leeper, “Llano Memorial’s decision to go tobacco-free is not an attempt to “force” anyone to quit using tobacco products. Rather, the tobacco-free initiative is a concrete way we can demonstrate our ongoing commitment to healthy living. We are asking for community support in Llano Memorial’s tobacco-free initiative and will use the next four months to make sure the community is well informed of the tobacco-free initiative and develop programs aimed at assisting those who may be interested in breaking the habit.”

Ron Moore – Here we go again! (Post5ed July 28, 2008)

A special Guest Article submitted by Rand Southard of Charis Hills concerning Llano politics

I have seen several postings regarding Llano County Flood Plain Administrator Ron Moore. I wonder if any of the tax payers in Llano County have concerned themselves with how much his antics have cost them. I am aware of one lawsuit that has occurred, probably insurance paid for that, but what about the legal and engineering advice being required for Ron Moore to stop the development of a camp in Castell. According to the recent public documents I have in hand I think the outlay to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $25-30,000.00 so far, and it’s not over.

LCRA has approved the construction of the camp and approved the 100 year flood plain at 1186 feet. The county surveyor, Mr. Thompson approved the 100 year flood plain level at 1186 ft. The engineer for Charis Hills, Brad Shaw set the flood plain on his engineered documents at… 1186 ft. The Texas Department of Highways who were to build a new bridge in Castell that would have saved the county tax $ in clean up fees, prior to being run out, set the 100 year flood plain at 1186.2. But Mr. Moore can’t seem to accept any of these sources and is trying to require Charis Hills to do a Llano River Basin Study that has been estimated to cost $20-40,000. Of course he wants Charis Hills to pay for that study. Has anyone else been required to do so? No. Everyone else has used the FEMA maps which set the 100 year flood plain at … 1186 ft. But Mr. Moore can’t seem to accept this and has requested legal advice who in turn requested engineering advice. All paid for by Llano County residents.

Construction was stopped on Charis Hills when Ron Moore personally pulled the permit for construction. The Charis Hills permit was pulled because there are three un-permitted wells on the site. The interesting fact is, according to Virdell Drilling that have been putting in wells in Llano County since 1900, there are no permits needed for wells in Llano Co. And, Charis Hills did not drill the wells, they were there when they bought the property!

I wonder about this “immunity” issue for county officials who are blatantly disregarding public policy and I wonder how it will hold up a second time around. I wonder too about how much longer the sane people of Llano County will allow a small contingent of Castell land owners, most of whom do not live in Castell, and some of who do not live in Llano County, to cost them thousands and thousands of dollars to prevent the inevitable change that will come when others sell property in the area. Charis Hills bought acreage that was unrestricted. Yet that property has become restricted by the vile comments and news articles of a few neighbors, who have influenced the county commissioner, the judge, and the flood plain administrator to take action on their part and to place a financial burden on the tax payer to protect what? And the sad fact is, Llano County residents are paying for it… in cash. As a tax payer someone should ask the question! How much and why?

On the website for Castell it reads: “As one of the last frontiers of real freedom, Castell remains simple, clean, and without any official guvment. It is a place where a person can make their own destiny, without the fetters of a society gone to the bureaucrats. It is home to many generations of original pioneer stock-hardy, kind, independent and fiercely protective of their rights and community ties....”

They may be protective of their rights, but they don’t give a whit about yours or mine… at least that’s the way it looks to me!

Rand Southard

Charis Hills

NOTE: This is a guest article submitted on behalf of Charis Hills. If anyone has any information as to: 1) Ron Moore requiring a Llano River Basin Study as a condition precedent to granting a construction permit to any other group or individual or 2) Ron Moore requiring a county permit to any other group or individual for wells on one’s property whether or not the wells preexisted the purchase of the property, please let me know. The information will be posted on this web site. Please be specific as to time, place and circumstance. Klee’s Kaleidoscope

Local Information about Military Protocol (Posted July 21, 2008)

No matter how long I’ve been actively involved in various veterans’ organizations I never cease learning from other veterans. Often I’ve erroneously referred to empty rifle casings as “shells” only to be corrected and told they are casings. “Shells” more aptly refer to shot gun shells or the large caliber shells used on guns aboard naval vessels. Cartridges refer to the combined casing loaded with gunpowder and fitted with a primer and bullet. They are not casings.

It’s comical when someone on TV refers to a pistol loaded with bullets when in fact they mean cartridges. Believe me, that bullet isn’t going anywhere without it being wedged in a casing filled with gun powder and a primer to set it off.

So now as spent casings following a three volley salute are inserted in a folded flag and presented to a veteran’s next of kin, I refer to them as casings, not shells or cartridges.

While I’m on that subject, rifle honors for a deceased veteran is properly referred to as a three volley rifle salute not a 21-gun salute. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that a rifle squad usually consists of 7 riflemen who fire three volleys in honor of the deceased veteran. That adds up to 21 cartridges being expended. But it’s not always possible to have a full 7-member rifle squad. It’s the three rifle volleys that count, not the 21 cartridges expended. Incidentally, the significance of “21” comes from the year of our independence from English rule i.e. 1776 adds up to 21.

Recently, as Texas Department Chaplain 2007-2008 for The American Legion, I put on a Joint Memorial Service in Corpus Christi honoring those members of the Texas Department who had died and were transferred to the post-everlasting since the Department’s last annual convention. That was where I learned another lesson re military protocol.

In setting up the display I prepared, I arranged the five service flags, representing each of the United States Armed Forces, in the order to which I had been accustomed: U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard. That’s when I was taken to task by a fellow veteran.

From what he told me, the service flags should be arranged in order of preference according to time of continuous service, not the date they were originally created i.e. their service birth date. Of course if that was the case, then the U.S. Coast Guard would precede the U.S. Air Force flag on either rationale. I wasn’t about to concede the point but admittedly, I was skeptical as to the right order and, just as important, the authority for determining it. I decided to research the subject when I got back home.

My understanding was that the branches were to be displayed according to their service birth date: U.S. Army (created June 14, 1775), U.S. Navy (created October 13, 1775), U.S. Marines (created November 10, 1775), U.S. Air Force (September 18, 1947) and the U.S. Coast Guard (August 4, 1790). The reason why the U.S. Coast Guard comes last is because it falls under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime. During wartime, the U.S. Coast Guard comes under the control of the department of Defense and would precede the U.S. Air Force in order of precedence.

As to the first part, I was wrong. According to the Department of Defense Directive 1005.8, the prescribed precedence of military flags is determined by continuous service. In February, 1781 the U.S. Navy was abolished thereby interrupting its continuous service. September 7, 1781 it was reinstated and established the more recent date of continuous service.

The correct order of precedence of military flags of the United States Armed Forces according to the DOD is: Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard except in wartime when the Coast Guard precedes the Air Force in order of precedence.

I guess that begs the question, “Aren’t we at war now?” Not in the Constitutional sense since there has been no declaration of war by Congress – the only government branch with the authority to declare war - nor has there been a declaration of war since WW II.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The nation that forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten” (Calvin Coolidge)

Llano City Council Attempts to Reign Itself In (Posted June 30, 2008)

With all the infighting that has gone on within the Llano City Council lately, the council members have decided to adopt a Code of Conduct to which they are encouraged to abide. Unfortunately, it’s not binding on the council members since it’s only a “guideline” and not a mandatory rule, regulation or ordinance requiring compliance. The “guideline” supplements the training that is required by state statute re the Open Meetings Act and the Public Information Act. They can’t pussyfoot around with the latter two since compliance is dictated by law, not so with the Code of Conduct.

It sounds good on paper but it’s as worthless as the paper it’s written on. It has no teeth. Now some professions, most notably the legal profession, has a Code of Conduct that is rigorously enforced by financial penalties, making restitution, community service, additional training, public and private reprimand, suspension from the practice of law, disbarment, etc. but the penalty a council members faces should they violate their own Code of Conduct is zilch.

The guidelines are helpful, however, in suggesting what the council members have been engaged in prompting their adopting of a Code of Conduct in the first place. As stated in the Code: making “belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive or disparaging comments” along with “shouting or physical actions that could be construed as threatening.” All these behavioral disorders are now verboten under the guidelines and are destined to take all the fun out of council meetings in the future.

Undefined terms do not describe in sufficient detail what the council members are trying to curb, however, and may create additional problems of interpretation e.g. the term “belligerent.” Belligerent means to be hostile, ready to start a fight or ready to go to war. One can argue they were simply engaged in an impassioned debate mistakenly thought to be hostile or were not ready to start a fight, much less war.

“Impertinent” is another term that can be misinterpreted. “Impertinent means brash, showing a bold or rude lack of respect, especially to a superior. It has a secondary meaning of not being appropriate or relevant. The offending party, though, may not have considered the subject of their attack as their superior. As for relevancy, I suspect half the dialogue conducted at council meetings is not relevant to matters on the agenda.

And as for “shouting or physical actions that could be construed as threatening,” well, anyone can construe something however they please.

But you get the idea, with a little bit of fancy semantic footwork a council member can duck the real issue of their having made an ass of themselves – with all due apologies to my four-footed donkey friends.

The conduct council’s Code of Conduct is simply a matter of common courtesy. As my mother used to say, the trouble with common courtesy is that it’s not too common. The council members seemed to have proved her point.

The guidelines go on to suggest that if there is a disagreement about the agenda or the chair’s actions, those objections should be voiced politely and with reason, following parliamentary procedure” and encourages council members to “honor the role of the chair in maintaining order; and to demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches.”

Wow, it sounds like the boys were really whooping it up at the local council meetings with the chair being a prime target – not that anyone is accusing them of too many trips to the Granite-O-Bar before meetings but it sure sounds like they’ve been having an old fashion free-for-all at city hall.

It gets better – or worse, depending upon your prospective. It seems the council members were misbehaving not only among themselves but with those that work there and have to put up with their antics. The guidelines address the attitude of council members toward the staff. Spelling it out so that even council members can grasp the concept, the guidelines state: “Please understand that staff also works with citizens on projects and complaints; prepares administrative reports and documentation and spend time working with staff groups on meeting the need of the city and its residents.”

Now that they are finally told that, the question is, “What to do about it?” The guidelines supply the answer: “Be respective (sic) of time and understand that some times an employee may be out of the office or working on another project when you call or come by. The staff will make every effort to meet the needs of elected officials.”

Whether the guidelines aka Code of Conduct will improve interpersonal relations between members or staff members remains to be seen. It’s sad that such guidelines are necessary. It’s a shame that elected officials can’t act more like what we expect from adults and address issues in a calm, methodical and well-researched way. If they are prone to behave like a bunch of spoiled brats, though, I doubt if a Code of Conduct will change their ways.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The true villain in having to cough up $60, $70 or $80 to fill our gas tanks is the U.S. Congress caught in the grip of environmental extremists.” (Walter Williams)

The Man Who Couldn’t Keep His Mouth Shut (Posted June 2, 2008)

If you read the local papers recently, you know about the homeless man who invaded a home in Kingsland and raped a female resident. He was found guilty. The foreman of the jury, Thomas Kelly, however, discussed the trial with his family the evening before the jury returned its verdict. The trial judge, Dan Mills, had previously given instructions to all jurors that they were not to discuss the trial prior to the rendering of the verdict except among themselves in deliberation.

Kelly’s conduct appears to be a willful violation of the trial court’s instructions. Arguably, he could have been influenced by external contacts with third parties i.e. family members, engaged in pre-deliberation discussions of the evidence, and exposed to extraneous, non-judicial non-evidentiary information; all by the simple act of failing to keep his mouth shut.

It is fundamental that "the 'evidence developed' against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant's right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel. Conversation with third parties in a non-judicial setting is deemed presumptively prejudicial. The Supreme Court has suggested, however, that the presumption should not be invoke automatically but should be reserved for instances involving very serious intrusi0ns.

If a court does invoke a presumption of prejudice when evidence of an outside contact with a juror has been shown, then the prosecution bears the ultimate burden of disproving prejudice.

A court should consider several factors in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, including the nature and seriousness of the communication, whether the extrinsic communication was shared with other members of the jury, the manner in which it was discussed, the length of time it was available to the jury, whether the communication related to factual evidence not developed at the trial, whether it was disseminated before the verdict or during deliberations, and whether the communication was reasonably likely to influence the verdict, especially in light of the strength of the government's case.

The ultimate legal question for the court is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the extra-judicial contact could have affected the verdict. If a court chooses not to apply a presumption of prejudice, then the court would evaluate the severity of the suspected intrusion, and only if the court determines that prejudice is likely would the government be required to prove its absence.

In earlier cases, when jury misconduct was raised in a motion for new trial, whether misconduct has occurred was a decision for the trial court, and reviewing courts would not disturb that ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. A movant for a new trial based on jury misconduct had to show that (1) misconduct occurred, and (2) the misconduct resulted in harm to the movant.

Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b), however, now limits jury misconduct to only an outside influence that was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Accordingly, jurors may testify only to whether any outside influence was brought to bear upon them.

In a 2001 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Case, it was determined that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial after examining affidavits of several jurors which detailed discussions during jury deliberations on the effect of parole law. The court acknowledged that Rule 606(b) may now prevent considering affidavits of jurors on anything other than an outside influence.

It is well-settled that jurors are forbidden to discuss the case before they have heard all of the evidence, closing arguments, and the court's lega1 instructions, and have begun formally deliberating as a collective body. Judges routinely admonish juries at the outset and throughout the trial to not discuss the case among themselves prior to deliberations. There are several reasons for this admonition. Premature discussions are likely to be unfavorable to a defendant, incline jurors who expressed opinions prematurely to adhere to those opinions, impair the value of collective decision-making, lack the context of the court's legal instructions, prejudice a defendant who may not have had the opportunity to present evidence, and benefit the prosecution by reducing the burden of proof.

Kelly was not guilty of intra-jury misconduct, however; only the possibility of extra-judicial influences. In light of the above, it may not have been necessary to declare a mistrial based on Kelley’s jury misconduct.

But it’s not for me to Monday morning quarterback or second guess the trial judge. The court is by far more in possession of the facts than I and has determined prejudice had attached before verdict was rendered.

I only hope this article helps to explain the jury misconduct issue concerning Thomas Kelly and to encourage all future jurors to follow the directions of the trial judge and save your discussion of the case in jury deliberation.

[NOTE: Whether this is the same Thomas Kelly who smuggled a load of marijuana in from Mexico as the pilot of a plane owned by Donald Lewis Holman in 1976 is unknown. The plane landed at a ranch near Llano, Texas also owned by Holman. If you have information that could confirm or deny this, please let me know.]

And remember Klee’s Law: “It takes little time for a child who is afraid of the dark to become a teenager who wants to stay out all night.”

Skateboarding Isn’t Child’s Play (Posted May 26, 2008)

Remindful of those trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic, members of the Llano Skateboard Park Committee are scrambling around trying to find a suitable place to build a skateboard park. What is it that they have against children when even playing dodge ball is considered a dangerous activity?

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, skateboarding can lead to injuries that range from minor cuts and bruises to catastrophic brain injury. Each year in the United States, skateboarding injuries cause about 50,000 visits to emergency departments and 1500 children and adolescents to be hospitalized.

Most hospitalizations involve head injury. Even injuries that heal quickly can cause pain and anxiety, cost time, and money and may lead to disabilities. This can include loss of vision, hearing and speech; inability to walk, bathe, toilet, dress or feed yourself; and changes in thinking and behavior.

Skateboarding is not recommended for young children. That's because they are still growing and do not yet have the physical skills and thinking ability a person needs to control a skateboard and ride it safely.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP):

	Children under age 5 years old should never ride a skateboard.
	Children aged 6 to 10 years old need close supervision from an adult or trustworthy adolescent whenever they ride a skateboard.

The likelihood of the Llano Skateboard Park Committee providing such supervision is next to nil.

When young children are involved in skateboarding accidents, they are often injured severely. Skateboarding is a special risk for young children because they have:

	A higher center of gravity, less development and poor balance. These factors make children more likely to fall and hurt their heads.
	Slower reactions and less coordination than adults. Children are less able to break their falls.
	Less skill and ability than they think. Children overestimate their skills and abilities and are inexperienced in judging speed, traffic and other risks.

Serious skateboarding injuries happen when you lose control and fall or run into a motor vehicle, road hazard, pedestrian, another skateboarder or bicyclist. You are at risk for injuries:

	If you don't use protective equipment.
	If you don't keep your skateboard in good condition.
	If you skateboard on irregular surfaces.
	If you attempt "tricks" beyond your skill level.

Sixty percent of skateboard injuries involve children under age 15; most of those injured are boys. At highest risk is:

	Inexperienced skateboarders. Those who have been skating for less than one week suffer one-third of injuries, usually caused by falls.
	Skateboarders who do not wear protective equipment. Every skateboarder should wear standard safety gear. This includes a helmet, wrist guards, elbow and knee pads and appropriate shoes. Skateboarders who perform tricks should use heavy duty gear.
	Skateboarders who go near traffic or use homemade skateboard ramps. Both activities are particularly dangerous.
	Experienced skateboarders who encounter unexpected surfaces or try risky stunts. Irregular riding surfaces, rocks or other debris can cause you to fall. You can stumble over twigs or fall down slopes. Wet pavements and rough or uneven surfaces can cause a wipeout. Avoid risky behavior. Don't skateboard too fast or in dangerous or crowded locations.

Types of Injury:

Skateboarding injuries often involve the wrist, ankle or face. Many injuries happen when you lose your balance, fall off the skateboard and land on an outstretched arm.

	Injuries to the arms, legs, neck and trunk range from bruises and abrasions to sprains and strains, fractures and dislocations. Wrist fractures are quite common. Wearing wrist guards can reduce their frequency and severity.
	Facial injuries include breaking your nose and jawbone
	Severe injuries include concussion, closed head injury and blunt head trauma.
	You can suffer permanent impairment or even death if you fall off the skateboard and strike your head without a helmet. Most brain injuries happen when your head hits pavement. You are most at risk if you skateboard near traffic and collide with motor vehicles, bikes, pedestrians or other obstacles.

We should be protecting our children from harm, not encouraging them to engage in an activity that can cause serious and sometimes permanent injury by providing them with a place where they can hurt themselves. The decision should not be left up to the children – they don’t know any better, but adults do. Those promoting the skateboard park should be held liable for the injuries that result. Better yet, it should be dropped as a bad idea.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Why is it we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?” (Anon)

Ron Moore: The Never Ending Story (Posted May 19, 2008)

Some good has come to all county residents from Marian Bloss’ lawsuit against Ron Moore. The Llano County Commissioners Court voted to remove the requirement for building permits for new structures built in unincorporated areas of the county that lie outside the 100-year flood plain.

The most recent events leading up to the Court’s decision reflects the same kind of nonsense citizens have had to put up with ever since Moore was hired as the county’s Natural Resources Director (now Natural Resources and Emergency Services or “DEES” Director).

Marian and her husband wanted to build a Greenhouse and two carports on their property, neither of which would be constructed in the flood plain. Accordingly, they filed the required “Llano County Non-Flood Plain Development Permit Application and Exemption Certificate.” At first, Moore’s office referred them to the state Agricultural Extension Office because, as explained, the greenhouse is an agricultural matter and falls within their purview. The Agricultural Extension Office told her that they didn’t require a permit.

That left the carports. Back to the Moore they went to inquire as to the cost of the permit for the carports i.e. those prefabricated jobs you see packaged as a kit that half the county’s residents seem to own. This time, Moore’s office decided the greenhouse required a permit after all as well as the carports. How much the permit(s) would cost they didn’t know. No applicable fee schedule was in effect at the time, although a new fee schedule was pending before the Commissioners Court.

Nonetheless, Marian’s husband gave Moore’s office a check for $200 to avoid having his wife again threatened with fines and imprisonment for not having timely paid a permit fee. This was done with the understanding that they would be reimbursed for any overcharges.

Got the picture? To be on the safe side, Marian’s husband deposited $200 with Moore’s office to cover a non-existent permit fee.

When the new fee schedule later came out, they were charged $200! That amount is the permit cost for construction in a flood plain! The new pricing sheet, however, indicated only a $50 non-flood plain permit fee was required. The new fee schedule was not made retroactive to the date of Marian’s original permit application; they shouldn’t have been charged anything, much less $200.

As further harassment, Moore’s office wanted them to, “Show us on a sketch or describe to us, how the carports or the greenhouse would be anchored down to avoid being swept away in a flood.” This, even though the construction would not take place in a floodplain! Marian responded by saying, “(The carports and greenhouse) would be anchored the same as several dozen structures belonging to our neighbors in Buchanan Dam.”

Marian had had enough. She wrote back and asked for written responses to the following:

· What was the fee schedule for the month in which they filed their permit application? (the new schedule didn’t take effect until the following month);

· Explain why they were being charged $200 for a flood plain permit when they are not in a flood plain and the new schedule only required a $50 permit fee for non-flood plain construction;

· State what the county’s requirements are re anchoring carport and greenhouse structures;

· Provide copies of all written regulations and requirements the county has regarding carports and greenhouses.

The only response they received from Moore’s office confirmed that the carports and greenhouse in question would not be built in a flood plain. No response was received acknowledging that they didn’t have to comply with flood plain rules. As for anchoring the carports and greenhouse, a copy of the requirements applicable to mobile homes was provided – which was non-responsive as no mobile homes were to be placed on the property.

In addition, Moore’s office wrote: “The application form used is the same for flood plain and non flood plain” and went on to state that Marian’s husband should have been given the flood plain version.” But why, when the contemplated construction wasn’t in a flood plain? And why are two separate application forms used if they are both the same. What difference would it make which form was used?

An equally bizarre statement made by Moore’s office was, “I don’t know about similar structures not being anchored correctly in your neighborhood.” Marian never stated or implied that carports in the neighborhood were anchored incorrectly. But why didn’t Moore investigate to determine if such structures are in fact in non-compliance or was it just Marian and her husband who he wanted to singled-out again?

Whatever the motivation, the matter was dropped when the Commissioners Court took the responsibility away from Moore for seeing that permits were issued for new structures built in unincorporated non-flood plain areas of Llano County. For that we can all be thankful. Incidentally, the action was taken during a closed executive session in which the county’s attorneys were present suggesting that perhaps such fees were being collected illegally all along. Hmm, I wonder if the county will reimburse all those who paid those fees in the past.

And remember Klee’s Law: “If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.” (Anon)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in the Ron Moore Case (Posted May 12, 2008)

It took about 9 months for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to render its decision in Bloss v. Moore. Since then, Ron Moore’s authority has been expanded to include emergency services. His full title now is Director of the Department of Environmental and Emergency Services (DEES) for Llano County. Some of the responsibilities he held while Director of Natural Resources has been taken away from him, however, probably as a result of this lawsuit; more about that in a future article.

The three-panel Court of Appeals, consisting of Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, and Justices Patrick E. Higginbotham and Edith Brown Clement, rendered their decision on April 2, 2008. The rationale for their Opinion is disturbing and the fact that it was ordered not to be published nor cited as precedent makes it even more so.

The following is the Court’s rationale for denying Bloss’ appeal of the lower court’s decision. Citations are omitted for brevity. Sections taken from the Court’s Opinion are in quotes.

“Official immunity protects public officials from suits arising from the performance of their (1) discretionary duties (2) in good faith (3) within the scope of their authority.”

“Moore is entitled to official immunity because he was carrying out his duty to administer complaints involving provisions of the TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE when he made a discretionary decision based on a citizen’s complaint to investigate Bloss for possible illegal dumping and nuisance violations.”

The Court went on to explain, “Public officials act within the scope of their authority if they are discharging the duties generally assigned to them…To show good faith in this context, we do not require the [defendant’s] application of [the ordinance] to be legally correct, only colorable...Investigating and acting on gathered facts has been characterized as a discretionary function.”

In layman language, while a public official is performing his assigned duties he need not be legally correct in doing so. It’s permissible if what he is doing appears legal, even if it’s not. It’s like being half pregnant.

To emphasize the point, the Court cited a case that held: “If a government employee acts within the scope of his employment in the performance of a discretionary duty and acts in good faith, he is entitled to official immunity even though his acts are negligent or even illegal.” (Emphasis by the Court) The Court adding emphasis to this abstraction suggests that they recognized Moore’s conduct to be both negligent and illegal – but nevertheless entitled to prosecutorial immunity!

At this point it should be noted that it was previously adjudicated at a full hearing before a local Justice of the Peace that there was no evidence to support the judicial Complaint Ron Moore subsequently filed against Marian Bloss following his purported investigation of the matter i.e. there was no evidence against Bloss that would have justified the filing of a Complaint with the Justice of the Peace. Following the decision against him, Moore never appealed the JP’s decision, apparently because he had no evidence whatsoever against Bloss that would get a court to rule otherwise.

The Fifth Circuit’s Opinion decides in effect that public officials can act negligently or even illegally in the performance of their duties so long as they characterize their conduct as arising out of the scope of their authority, is discretionary and is done in good faith. How acting without the underlying facts to support their actions constitutes “good faith” remains a mystery.

Unfortunately, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s Judgment, the multitude of factual issues raised in the lawsuit against Moore will never be adjudicated. Some of those issues are:

· On what authority did Moore threatened to take criminal action, including arrest, against Bloss for an alleged violation of a law that does not carry a criminal penalty?

· Since Moore is neither a licensed peace officer or county or district attorney but rather a county department administrator, on what authority was he acting to file and prosecute a criminal action against Bloss?

· Since Moore testified in his deposition that he was only authorized to report his findings to the justice of the peace, which does not have the authority to prosecute cases, on what authority was he acting when he filed and prosecuted criminal charges against a citizen on behalf of the State of Texas? Moore personally filed the criminal complaint against Bloss although, as he indicated, he had no authority to do so, His authority, by his sworn testimony, only permitted him to report his findings to qualified criminal law enforcement personnel. They, in turn, would decide what action they might take.

· On what authority did Moore file a criminal complaint that provides for incarceration in the JP’s court when the court is without jurisdiction to award jail-time sentences?

· Why did Moore file a criminal complaint against Bloss without investigating or otherwise determining whether the allegations made in a citizen’s complaint purportedly filled out by a local Realtor were in fact true?

· Why did Moore fail to investigate or otherwise determine if Bloss had in fact dumped material, either legally or illegally on her or anyone else’s property? Moore’s own court testimony was that he had no such evidence.

· Why did Moore fail to investigate or otherwise determine if there was any debris on the property in question or adjacent thereto to constitute a “nuisance” before filing a criminal complaint against Bloss in the JPs Court?

· Why did Moore fail to consult an attorney or request legal assistance as to the ramifications of filing a criminal complaint against Bloss on behalf of the State of Texas? My understanding is that the County Attorney, Cheryl Mabray refused to prosecute the matter when it was brought to her attention purportedly because there was no evidence to support it.

· When shown the original administrative complaint allegedly given Moore, the purported author of the complaint is recorded on video tape as saying, “I didn’t write this stuff,” making it appear that Moore had fabricated the administrative complaint as a ruse to harass Bloss. Did Moore in fact file a false complaint with his own county department and if so, why?

· What ulterior motive(s) did Moore have in filing criminal charges against Bloss when he admittedly had no evidence to support them?

Without a full and impartial hearing in a proper court of law these, and many other questions, will go unanswered. The Court’s opinion simply enables all local public officials to hide their sins behind a cloak of government immunity. No wonder most citizens are distrustful of their government.

And remember Klee’s Law: “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” (Edward Abbey)

Llano County’s Party Conventions 2008 (Posted April 21, 2008)

The Llano County Republican and Democratic conventions have come and gone and what a gut-retching experience they must have been. The Democrats were faced with two contenders vying to be our next president while the Republicans had only one front-runner in the race. None are qualified for the office but then, this isn’t the first time voters have been faced with choosing the lesser of two evils in a General Election.

The Democrats leading standard bearer, B. Hussein Obama, appears to be a handsome, eloquent and charismatic candidate who, by all accounts, is racist, anti-American, elitist, admitted drug user, has funded terrorist organizations, received unlawful campaign contributions, proposes to increase taxes and push forward a spending program that will bankrupt the country if elected, opposes Second Amendment rights, little or no leadership experience – but long on rhetoric , and is further left-wing than his opponent, Hillary Clinton, if such a thing is possible. Nonetheless, he’s leading in national delegates although he may be the biggest con artist to come around since P.T. Barnum – the difference being that Barnum wasn’t a serious threat to the country.

The distaff side of the Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, brings to the table more baggage than any candidate, especially in light of her marriage to former President Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton. Like B. Hussein Obama she’s an avowed socialist, an abject liar, corrupt, has also received illegal campaign contributions, delusional, power-hungry, ruthless, prone to temper tantrums, proposes economic programs almost as severe as Obama’s if elected, no leadership experience, and is out of touch with reality. The only saving grace she has if elected president is the possible return of the furnishings she, her husband and their staff took from the White House when her husband vacated the premises.

On the Republican side, John McCain may become the first Democratic president to run on the Republican ticket. McCain is a mixed bag of liberalism and conservatism with more of the former than the latter. He’s disloyal to the party to whom he is now appealing for loyalty. By his own admission, he’s without knowledge or talent in economic matters – the economy being one of the most pressing issues we are now facing, not particularly bright, too old for the job, unimpressionable when it comes to foreign relations – he even confuses Sunnis with Shiites. Frankly, extending the commitment of our military in Iraq for the next 100 years “if necessary” doesn’t help me sleep any better at night. We’ve already over-extended our troops throughout the world. On the plus side, I have no question as to his love of country above self i.e. his patriotism.

Yet, in spite of all this, the Democrats are sending five local delegates dedicated to support Hillary Clinton and two local delegates dedicated to support B. Hussein Obama to the Democratic state convention.

As reported in The Llano News, the Clinton delegates and their alternates are John Gray, Marie Osowki, J. Ann Davenport, Jacklynn Hampton, Jenny Lou Leeder, Michael McDavid, Nancy Stanford, Wendy Briggs, Janice Zimmerman, Bob Gammage and Sam Gammage.

The Obama delegates and their alternate are Jose Carlos Perez, Janie Chambless and William Prather.

The Republicans will send 12 local delegates to the Republican state convention, presumably in support of John McCain but one hopes there will be some rational heads among them to support Ron Paul.

Again, with thanks to The Llano News, the delegates and their alternates are Jay Harris, Ron Hewitt, Donald Grayham, Jerry McIntyre, Jimmie Bennett, Jim Simmons, Billye Fietz, Tommie McDonald, Lynn Snider-Lane, Lartha Williams, Dorothy Crockett, Johnnie B. Heck, Illene Harris, Charlotte Hewitt, Donna Stevens, William Stevens, Therese Simmons, LaFon Frydenberg, Kathy Jones, Shelby Spangler, Maxcey Williams, Mary Kay Heck, Frank Crockett and Louis Bien.

For those not enamored with any of the Republican or Democratic candidates, there are few alternatives in the State of Texas. The Libertarians don’t hold their convention until May whereat they’ll choose a presidential candidate who may be Bob Barr, ex-congressman from Georgia. There’s always the chance an Independent like Alan Keyes will get on the ballot or the Green Party’s Ralph Nader will, but most of the other political parties never make it that far and those that do, don’t get elected.

What it comes down to, for all practical purposes, is a choice of either B. Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or “none of the above.” By deciding not to vote for either of them or some third party candidate who hasn’t a chance in hell of getting elected, one is leaving it up to those who vote for one of the two major candidates to decide who will be our next President. Saying “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him (or her)” is a total cop out as the end result will be the same – one of the two will win the election whether you vote or not. That’s a struggle I’ve been fighting with for the past few months.

Realistically, the only practicable choice one has is to hold their nose and vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. When it comes to the General Election it always seems to be a choice between the lesser of two evils. God help us all.

And remember Klee’s Law: “A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness.” (Walter Bagehot)

2008 Llano Primary Election Results

[Contested races are noted]

Republican Primary – Local

Out of 14,161 registered voters in the County, 4,688 voted in the Republican Primary i.e. 33.11 percent.

District Judge, 33^rd District – Guilford “Gil” Jones

District Attorney, 33^rd District – Sam Oatman

County Attorney – Cheryll Mabray [Mabray won over Lyn Jenkins 3109 to 1333 votes]

Sheriff – Bill Blackburn [Blackburn won over incumbent Nathan Garrett 2871 to 1649 votes]

Tax Assessor/Collector – Dexter Sagebiel

Commissioner Pct. 1 – Johnnie Heck

Commissioner Pct. 3 – Tommy Duncan [Duncan won over A. Earl Theiss 514 to 246 votes]

Constable Pct. 1 – Jerry Drummond

Constable Pct. 2 – Stephen Hallmark [Hallmark won over Sandra Kott 516 to 431 votes]

Constable Pct. 3 – William “Bill” Edwards

County Chairman – Ron Hewitt

Statewide and National Winners in Llano County Voting

President – John McCain NOTE: The three top vote getting Presidential candidates were John McCain [2785], Mike Huckabee [1186] and Ron Paul [206].

United States Senator – John Cornyn

U S Representative, District 11 – Mike Conoway

Railroad Commissioner – Michael L. Williams

Chief Justice, Supreme Court – Wallace B. Jefferson

Justice Supreme Court, Place 7 – Dale Wainright

Justice Supreme Court, Place 8 – Phil Johnson

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3 – Tom Price

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4 – Paul Womack [Womack won over Robert Francis 2420 to 854 votes]

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9 – Cathy Cochran

State Senator, District 24 – Troy Fraser

State representative, District 53 – Harvey Hildebran

Chief Justice, 3^rd Court of Appeals – Ken Law

Democratic Primary - Local

The Democratic Party had no candidates running in local elections. Out of a total of 14,161 registered voters in the County, 2,107 voted in the Democratic Primary i.e. 14.88 percent.

Statewide and National Winners in Llano County Voting

President – Hillary Clinton NOTE: The two top vote getting Presidential candidates were Hillary Clinton [1206] and Barack Hussein Obama [856]

U S Senator – Richard Noriega [Noriega (791) won over Gene Kelly 336), Ray McMurrey (271) and Rhett R. Smith (233)]

Railroad Commissioner – Mark Thompson [Thompson (829) won over Dale Henry (411) and Art Hall (253)

Chief Justice, Supreme Court – Jim Jordan

Justice Supreme Court, Place 7 – Sam Houston [Houston won over Baltasar D. Cruz 1192 to 321 votes]

Justice Supreme Court, Place 8 – Susan Criss [Criss won over Linda Reyna Yanez 989 to 533 votes]

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3 – Susan Strawn

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4 – J.R. Molina

Chief Justice, 3^rd Court of Appeals – Woodie Jones

ALL BALLOT PROPOSITIONS PASSED

Commentary on the Llano 2008 Election Result

Even though Republicans in Llano County vote in greater numbers than Democrats (are there really more of them?) voter turn-out overall is miserable. Registered but non-voting Llanoites deserve the government they get and have no cause to complain.

Since unseating an incumbent is near impossible, the surprise upset was Bill Blackburn’s win over incumbent Sheriff Nathan Garrett. One explanation for the upset, based on several comments I’ve received, is that many went to vote for Garrett but he wasn’t even on the ballot! Apparently a large portion of voters thought he was still a Democrat. Like they say, it must be in the water.

Blackburn is a relative “outsider” but is probably the best educated and experienced person ever to take over the reigns of County Sheriff. None that I can recall has came into the position with a Bachelor of Science degree, a Master Peace Officer’s Certificate, 35 years of law enforcement experience, 27 years of which have been served locally as a Game Warden.

Incidentally, Sheriff Joe Pollack of Burnet County lost his reelection bid to W.T. Smith. It seems like a bad year for incumbent sheriffs.

Cheryll Mabray’s win over challenger Lyn Jenkins was predictable in that Jenkins’ campaign was under-funded, she had no name recognition and little actual experience as a practicing attorney. She’s to be commended, however, for getting into the race and raising issues that need be addressed.

Newly elected Commissioner, Pct. 3, Tommy Duncan, and newly elected Constable, Pct. 2, Stephen Hallmark, are unknown personalities and will bear watching once sworn into office.

With 4,688 voting in the Republican Primary and each of the 9 voting precincts having near equal numerical representation, it would be reasonable to expect about 1562 voting for Constable, Pct. 2 which is made up of 3 voting precincts. The fact that only 947 voted in that race suggests that the voters of Precinct 2 weren’t too thrilled with either candidate. Time will tell.

As for the Presidential races…ARGHHHHHHHHHH!

And remember Klee’s Law: “Blessed is the person who sees the need, recognizes the responsibility, and actively becomes the answer.” (William Arthur Ward)

What the Presidential and Local Llano Elections Have in Common (Posted March 2, 2008)

The way the presidential primaries are shaping up, voters will choose a Democrat as our next President – or at least one who thinks and acts like one. It’s incredible that in the greatest country in the world these are the best candidates the people can come up with. All are FDR liberals, politically arrogant and just plain stupid.

Stupid in that all are woefully ignorant of basic economics, foreign affairs, the United States Constitution, and the fact that man-made “global warming