Investigative Report

 Austin’s Failing Public Information System

Well-intentioned reforms were made during county attorney’s
investigation but the City’s TPIA compliance is still shaky

© The Austin Bulldog 2015
Investigative Report by Ken Martin
Part 1 in a Series
Posted Monday November 23, 2015 1:40pm

“Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees....” —Texas Public Information Act

Major flaws in the City of Austin’s response to public information requests were exposed in The Austin Bulldog’s stories about the experiences of requestor Brian Rodgers in his lawsuit, Brian Rodgers v. City of Austin.

The City not only failed to provide the information but ignored complaints from Rodgers’ attorney, Bill Aleshire—even his final warning that litigation would ensue if the information were not provided. Then when the lawsuit did hit, the City heedlessly claimed in its original answer that the information had already been provided. During discovery that claim was proven to be patently false.

The lawsuit was settled with the City agreeing to pay Rodgers $5,000 for its poor handling of his several information requests and to avoid a motion for sanctions for its inept response to the lawsuit. That’s only about half the amount he spent to force the City to pay attention.

This article will detail how and why the City’s system for processing public information requests became what it is today. Later articles will show that what happened to Rodgers was not an isolated incident but rather an indication of systemic problems.

Big changes made but flaws remain

These problems have persisted despite numerous major initiatives.

The City created a team of senior advisors to review its practices and make recommendations to enhance compliance and oversight, and streamline the process for public information requests.

The City moved responsibility for processing public information requests to the Law Department and established within it a Public Information Request (PIR) Team whose salaries now total more than $300,000 a year.

The City committed more than $360,000 to contract for a PIR software system and provided training on the new software to more than a hundred PIR Team and departmental employees who process requests.

Despite these efforts the city has not maintained complete and consistent compliance with the TPIA and the statutory requirements and deadlines it imposes.

To appreciate the City’s current system for responding to PIRs it is necessary to first understand in more detail the major changes that have been made and the forces that necessitated these efforts.

One thing is certain: these changes were not made as a result of some entrepreneurial spirit rising up spontaneously within the City bureaucracy. They were not prompted by an elected leadership that suddenly chose to seek the Holy Grail of transparency and open government.

These changes were made to amend for criminal conduct that could have landed the entire governing body in jail. In fact the City spent more than $600,000 on outside attorneys to fend off prosecution for criminal violations that led to these reforms and provide advice about how to achieve better compliance. These reforms were initiated while being investigated to convince prosecutors that the City was serious about doing better.

Turning over a new leaf

Candidate Lost Custody Over Abuse

District 6 Council candidate Don Zimmerman
injured, alienated daughter, court records state

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Thursday October 9, 2014 3:10pm
Updated Wednesday October 15, 2014 7:42pm

Editor’s note: Don Zimmerman, through his attorney Stephen Casey, on October 10, 2014, sent a letter to The Austin Bulldog stating this article published October 9 subjected Zimmerman to defamation and demanded retraction. There is no reason for The Austin Bulldog to retract its report about the judicial proceeding that Zimmerman was involved in earlier this year.

The Austin Bulldog does listen to criticism of its reports, in this case, like all others. Therefore, in the interest of making this report the best possible fair, true, and impartial account of information contained in court records, we have updated it with additions (shown in underlined text) and deletions (shown in text with strikethroughs).

The update also includes a link to the Docket Sheet, which is the Travis County District Clerk’s official record of every action taken in this District Court case. Examination of the Docket Sheet, along with the records already linked to this report, reflects the fact that The Austin Bulldog had already published and made accessible to readers every substantive court filing made this year, starting with Casey’s filing for client Zimmerman of the Respondent’s Motion to Enter Final Order on March 10, 2014. All of the remaining court records and orders that were the basis of the story are included in the links below.

District 6 candidate Donald Shelly “Don” Zimmerman, founder of the Travis County Taxpayers Union, is an aggressive leader who as president of a municipal utility district brought two lawsuits, one of which resulted in winning a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But aggression in disciplining his then 12-year-old daughter, Marina Zimmerman, resulted in documented physical and emotional damage and permanent loss of parental rights through civil court action. Although by court order he remains a “parent possessory conservator,” with rights to certain information about his daughter, the order explicitly states that Don Zimmerman “shall have no possession of or access to” the minor child, who is now 15 years of age. Absent Zimmerman obtaining a new court order, such denial of access is permanent while the order is in effect.

The petition that led to the court order states, “Respondent (Zimmerman) has a history and pattern of physical and emotional abuse directed against M.Z. (daughter Marina Zimmerman).”

In response to the petition, an Agreed Order issued by the court June 16, 2014, states, “The Court finds that the material allegations in the petition to modify are true and the requested modification is in the best interest of the child. IT IS ORDERED that the requested modification is GRANTED.”

The court records of the proceedings in 2014 contain no evidence that Zimmerman contested the allegations of having a history and pattern of physical and emotional abuse of his daughter. In fact, Zimmerman signed the Agreed Order beneath this statement: “APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO AS TO BOTH FORM AND SUBSTANCE.”

Yet in an interview for this story as originally published Zimmerman repeatedly characterized the allegations as lies. His protestations are left intact in this update so that readers can judge the facts for themselves.

Three documented incidents

Chris Riley Nailed for Back Taxes

Council member had a homestead exemption
on his entire house, including two rental units

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:03pm
Updated Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:25am to add additional document links

In January 2002, Council Member Chris Riley bought a house at 1310 San Antonio Street in downtown Austin. For 11 years he enjoyed a homestead for the entire property—despite the fact that two upstairs units have been rented for most if not all those years.

An anonymous complaint filed with the Travis Central Appraisal District June 20 resulted in removal of the homestead exemption for the 46 percent of the property that is rented. Riley retains the right to claim 54 percent of the property for his homestead.

Yesterday Riley responded to an inquiry from The Austin Bulldog and provided a copy of an e-mail he sent to the Travis Central Appraisal District (TCAD) June 19, 2014, the day he found out about the complaint.

“I was made aware of this issue via a constituent letter received by my office on June 19, 2014,” Riley stated in his response to our inquiry. “I immediately called TCAD about it, and based on their instructions I sent the following e-mail that night.” (A copy of Riley’s e-mail received by the appraisal district is linked at the bottom of this story.)

The Travis County Tax Office billed Riley for $7,294.87 for back taxes for the tax years 2009 through 2013. Riley paid that amount August 15, said Susan Zavala, tax supervisor for property tax collections in the Travis County Tax Office.

Although Riley paid back taxes for the years 2009 through 2013, he was not billed for $1,208.21 that he would otherwise have owed for the tax years 2003 through 2008, because the law permits removal or reduction of a homestead exemption for only five years.