Print this page

Did CISD Overcharge for Public Information?
by Harold Gentry

Taxpayers, is this the way our school board and administration plan to build your confidence and public trust in them? Re-do elections, name calling, proven waste and abuse of your tax dollars, and now knowingly overcharging for public information.

On May 7, 2005 the voters spoke by saying NO to a defiant education bureaucracy which I believe solely exists to perpetuate itself. On July 16, 2005 they insulted our nation's democratic process and slapped the face of every brave man and woman who fought and died to defend the rights of the Iraqi people to hold a free and fair election and be freed from the oppression of a tyrant and a dictator.

On May 13, 2006 I hope that the 1500 of you who voted against the bond will again mark you ballot with 1500 votes each for Teresa Blackwell, Wendell Dempsey (write-in candidate) and Brad Parsons for school board positions 5,4 and3. These common sense parents will put our teachers, students and taxpayers first, break up the good ole' boy nepotism system, stop waste and abuse of your tax dollars, ask the hard questions that need to be asked, and put taxpayers money back into the hands of those so vital to the education of your children…the Teachers. Your vote for Blackwell, Dempsey and Parsons will be a vote for common-sense education reform that will benefit all. Let's think outside the box, change the power and we will change the plan. Never forget that your one vote could be the only one that will restore confidence and public trust in our school system.

Now let me explain the CISD overcharges for public information obtained under the Open Records law.

“Government is not created independent of the people. Rather, it is founded on the people's authority and exists for their benefit. That ideal is reinforced in the Texas Public Information Act, which says that the people “do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” Instead, people have the right to know what their government is doing.”

This opening statement appears on the web site of the Attorney General of Texas – Greg Abbott. It is contained in an open letter to people just before the online handbook to the Public Information Act.

The mailman arrived with a rather large white envelope containing my latest open records request from CISD. The bulk of the information contained credit card statements and receipts for purchases of each line item. I'll have to admit they had been somewhat forthcoming in their responses and the open records charges were not excessive at this point. I had already received a package with an invoice for $90.53 (391 pages) but this one was $232.90 (254 pages) for fewer pages and had $40/hr charges. A red flag went up, not because of my surprise of the charges, but to the thought that how would this be accessible to all people at these prices.

In doing research and talking with others who have been through it, I found that when you request something a governmental body isn't interested in disclosing, the popular method of discouraging a persistent taxpayer is to inflate the research cost. This is what I call the open records game, and Cleburne doesn't hold the monopoly on that idea. Another Texas researcher investigating school districts just emailed me their latest bill for requested information and it totaled $57,600. No, that is not a type-o.

Chapter 552 of the Government Code has to do with public information and charges. But, without all the boring details here is the basic idea. Any time that public records charges exceed $40 the governmental body must provide the requestor with an itemized statement listing copies, labor, etc. The requestor then has 10 days to accept the charges or modify the request. If the requestor fails to notify the governmental body within 10 days then the request is considered to be withdrawn. The requestor must also be advised if a less expensive option exists to view the requested information.

After reading Chapter 552 I decided to call the Attorney Generals office and seek advice about what to do. I was told the charges were not in line and I should file a complaint. I was then instructed as to what information needed to be sent and to whom it should be addressed.

My complaint went out on February 9, 2006 and I received a letter from the AG's office dated February 28th. A copy of my complaint was sent to the school district and the district was asked to respond in ten days to six questions posed by Claire V. Morris Sloan, Asst. Attorney General, Cost Rules Administration, Open Records Division. Here are the six questions and the districts response to them.

1. Is the District aware that a written statement of itemized charges must be given to the requestor if the charges exceed $40? Failure to provide the statement limits a governmental body to recover a maximum of $40. See Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 111.67 for the elements that must be present in the required statement. Answer: Yes, the District is aware that a written statement of itemized charges must be given if the charges will exceed $40. In reviewing our records however, it was noted that this required notice was not provided to Mr. Gentry

2. Is the District aware that the requestor must be advised if there is a less expensive way of viewing the records? For example, if the requestor can inspect the records in your office at no cost, he must be advised of that option.
Answer: Yes, the District is aware that the requestor must be advised if there is a less expensive way of reviewing records. Mr. Gentry, in his request, had specifically requested copies of the information be provided.


3. Is the District aware that said statement is to be provided before the copies are made? Answer: Yes, the District is aware that a statement is to be provided before copies are made.

4. Did the District provide such a statement to Mr. Gentry prior to making the copies? Answer: As noted per Item1 above, the District did not provide Mr. Gentry with the required notice in advance.

5. How did the District determine that it could charge $40/hour for three hours of your time? The District may charge $15/hr for labor for the actual time spent locating, compiling and reproducing public information. See TAC 111.63(d)(1). Answer: The District charged the actual out-of-pocket instead of the stated $15 per hour.

6. How did the District calculate the postage required to send the copies to Mr. Gentry? Is the District aware that charges for postage are allowed only at the first class United States mail rate? Charges for sending information by Certified, Registered, or similar manner are not allowed unless the requestor has stated that the copies should be sent that way. Charges for first class mail should be the actual cost to send the copies, and may not include handling charges. See TAC 111.70(9). Answer: Postage is charged based upon the actual US Postal rate for first class mail as weighed and metered.

Chapter 552.269 (b) A person who overpays for a copy of public information because a governmental body refuses or fails to follow the rules for charges adopted by the attorney general is entitled to recover three times the amount of the overcharge if the governmental body did not act in good faith in computing the costs.

The District has refunded my costs of $323.43 for my two open records requests. Filing the complaint was not about the money. It's about the principle. I want to pay what is fair and I want to be charged what is fair.

So readers what do you say? Based on their answers, did the District knowingly overcharge me for my open records request or did they make an honest mistake? I'll let you be the judge of that.

Harold Gentry ,