Vexatious Requster Policy: What the City Didn't Say

The day after the employee Christmas Party the City of San Angelo restricted a key democratic right, access to public information about government operations.  This Grinch-like move had been in the works for over four years.  

City Council-member Tommy Hiebert wrote staff on August 21, 2018

Just to be certain I understand the request is to strengthen HB3107 as written and to add to that existing statute ... if they use 36+ hours of staff time in a fiscal year they then can be labeled vexatious and no further requests made for that fiscal year, correct?

Should the city council simply pass an ordinance stipulating the 36 hours rather than codifying it into state law? Or is there a matter for the greater good that if the state would simply state any municipality receiving requests totaling more the 36 hours that person is finished for the remainder of that fiscal year?

Deputy City Clerk Julia Antilley replied that day:

As currently written in Texas, once a requestor is labelled vexatious they can be charged for additional requests. For our office, charging an additional fee does not help. We would propose that once a requestor is labeled vexatious (after using 36+ hours of staff time within a fiscal year) they are unable to make future requests until the next fiscal year.

One week later Hiebert contacted Rep. Drew Darby's office with a request:

...was wanting to see if Drew would be open to strengthening HB 3107 that deals with vexatious open records requests. Vexatious open record requests are consuming more and more staff time. What is currently allowed is to charge for requests. While it is helpful to be able to charge, the real issue is the staff time consumed by vexatious requests. 

In order to deal with the growing time component, it would be most helpful to have the law state after 30-35 hours of staff time which has been consumed by the vexatious requests of one individual, that specific individual could no longer make any open records requests for the remainder of the year. 

If you might need further info or have questions, please feel free to call me. 

Restricting access to public records was not discussed at City Council, not raised in any strategic planning session or any committee of City government.  Rep. Drew Darby is a former City Councilperson.  His office confirmed receipt of Hiebert's request in September 2018 and gave him a contact phone number.

The public first learned of this effort on Thursday, December 8, 2022 when the City Council background packet was released to the public.  Anyone interested in challenging the proposed policy had no chance to obtain internal documents, like those excerpted above.

City Manager Daniel Valenzuela said during the 12-13-22 Council meeting:

"I know for a fact one individual at times, maybe not this year but previous years will have 7 to 15% of the requests that come through from this one individual....if you are that individual, you know who you are, requesting numerous per year and it's taking up a lot of staff time and it's effecting you, yes you."

Interested in knowing if Valenzuela was referring to me I reached out.  Public Information Office Brian Groves wrote:

I do not have any information regarding this. 

City Manager Valenzuela responded with:

I will neither confirm or deny that it was you that I was referencing.

Daniel's words have a rich history in the U.S.

The tricky evasion has become the bane of watchdogs and journalists -- but its utility for those seeking to keep things on the QT has withstood the test of time.

Valenzuela couldn't be open about his desire to be less open, which has secretly been in the works for over four years.  Fitting.

Democracy is fragile.  You have to fight for every bit, every law, every safeguard, every institution, every story.  You must know how dangerous it is to suffer even the tiniest cut.--Maria Ressa

City Gives Update on Shelter: Still Overcrowded

In its first public communication since November 2nd the City of San Angelo stated:

As of Wednesday, Dec. 14, the San Angelo Animal Shelter is over capacity due to a hoarding case which resulted in 14 dogs impounded at the shelter.

The last message from City leadership said:

As of Wednesday, Nov. 2, the shelter has 181 dogs. Due to this, intake is closed today and any additional days the population remains in excess of 170 dogs until the end of November.

November ended and the city did not issue an update.  City Council met Tuesday and only one person raised the issue of the shelter's hard stop on dog intake.  A concerned citizen did so during public comment.  Neither Council nor staff said a word in response.

Pets Alive numerical targets came from communities with responsible citizens and professionally managed city shelters.  San Angelo has a transitional population and for years shelter leadership has rued the city's numerous irresponsible pet owners.  

Pets Alive intake-choking strategies remain firmly in place.  Council bandied about an unrealistic Pets Alive target in their November meeting.  It's a bad sign that fantasy number was even brought up.  

City leaders need to deal with the reality that San Angelo has too many loose, unaltered pets roaming our streets.  Long term strategies and investment are needed.  Otherwise, a descent into third world pet status may be our future.  San Angelo is well on the way.

Update 12-21-22:  The City provided an update on the Animal Shelter, saying the dog population is down to 172.  It thanked those who helped reduce the number of dogs but did not say anything about a citizen's ability to pass a stray dog to the city shelter.  That has been restricted since early November.

Council Supports Mendacious Management Policy

San Angelo City Council voted 5-2 to restrict citizen access to Public Information Requests.  It started with a problematic 10 requestors.  However, the target narrowed as the discussion advanced.

"It's three people..."-- Julia Antilley, City Clerk

"If someone say we have a PIR coming, it's one of two people..."--Councilman Tom Thompson

"I know for a fact one individual at times, maybe not this year but previous years will have 7 to 15% of the requests that come through from this one individual....if you are that individual, you know who you are, requesting numerous per year and it's taking up a lot of staff time and it's effecting you, yes you."--Daniel Valenzuela, City Manager

The City of San Angelo implemented a policy to stop this blogger from sharing research with the public. 

City Clerk Antilley shared that local news media do not submit PIRs.  They work through Public Information Officer Brian Groves to get their information needs met.  

San Angelo Live's Joe Hyde said no local media do investigative reporting as it is time consuming and expensive.  That includes local television and newspaper organizations.

The Standard Times once had  Kiah Collier and Matt Waller.  I collaborated with Collier on Mayor New's conflict of interest as member of the board of directors of and investor in MedHab, a recipient of Development Corporation funding.  I worked with Matt on the unauthorized purchase of $100,000 in Water Department furniture, known as the Furniture Fiasco. 

City leaders are richly paid and their job is to serve all citizens.  That is no longer the case for public information requests.  Council allowed yet another service reduction for the convenience of staff, but the rot is deeper than that.  Elected officials are shutting off a source of information.  It appears most Council members only wish to consider information supplied by staff.

Staff referred to "rogue media" and "vexatious requestors."  Despite what staff and five members of City Council may say or believe, truth can come from individual requestors and citizen researchers. 

Mendacious managers don't cotton to folk challenging their narratives, however distorted.  Today, they won.

Update 12-14-22:  The FY 2023 PIR areas I submitted that concerned Council were mostly Animal Services and included:

1. The City's response to PETA letter and letter from area rescues about shutting off dog intake. (I waited two weeks for the city to issue a public response as implied by a Concho Valley Homepage story)
   
2. How much a citizen cited for failure to spay/neuter their pet is expected to pay in total fees and municipal court costs. (not shared in ASAC meeting)
   
3. Changes in shelter staff pay as a result of the management review of shelter operations  (numbers not shared in City Council)
4. Blue Book and Revenue and Expenditure accounting documents for the just ended FY 21-22 (documents were once available on city's website, access removed in 2018)
5. The number of shelter animals surrendered by owner for FY 21-22.  (not included in the ASAC agenda packet for 10-20-22)
6. Why the city changed the time period for giving citations for failure to spay/neuter per city ordinance from August 16, 2022 as indicated in a city press release to a "two year period" as stated by Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden in the 10-20-22 ASAC meeting.  No responsive documents exist
7. The number of dog breeding permits issued by the city for each calendar year from 2016 to the present.
8. Documents showing the two year history of spay/neuter as referenced in another city document. 
9. Animal Shelter's compliance with the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for the just ended fiscal year.  
10. Documents in regard to the city's change in spay/neuter enforcement as announced on 10-6-22  

Update 12-21-22:   I asked Public Information Officer Brian Groves to clarify City Manager Valenzuela's statement.  Groves replied that he had no information.

Valenzuela wrote he would neither confirm or deny if it was me he was referencing in his "one individual" comment. 

Update 1-12-23:  City staff informed Council that it needed to restrict citizen access to public information so it would not have to hire part time staff to assist with public information requests.  The city posted a part time job in the City Clerk's office with that very duty.

Update 1-13-23:  The lack of local investigative news capability helped bring the U.S. Congressman George Santos.  Accountability remains important and that's the aim of this blogger.

City Council Seeks Vexatious Requestor Policy

The City of San Angelo has a history of mobilizing resources for areas important to citizens, streets, water and trash.  City staff cited increased demand for public information as a reason to restrict access to individual citizens and organizations it considers non-newsworthy.  City Council will decide if information flows are as important as water or sewage.

When conflict is not resolved at an early stage or lower level it escalates, sometimes reaching City Council.  That happened recently on two fronts, Economic Development and Animal Services.  It's about to occur with citizen access to Public Information. 

Former Economic Development Director Guy Andrews clearly stated his reasons for leaving city employment at the September Development Corporation meeting.  They included his assessment that Assistant City Manager Michael Dane was a bully and City Manager Daniel Valenzuela avoided important issues.  In the same meeting First Vice President John Bariou shared concerns about the relationship between the city and the Development Corporation.

Dane lived up to Andrews' assessment in the meeting with a thinly veiled presentation on developmemt corporation over staffing and threat of job elimination.  It did not appear to impress Chamber of Commerce executives in attendance.  

City Council planned to address First Vice President John Bariou in Executive Session, however he emphatically requested the item be moved to Open Session to ensure open government functioning.  Council backed down by removing the item from the agenda.

The December 13th background packet states "San Angelo City Council wishes to establish a policy..."  I have not heard Council discuss this topic during its strategic planning sessions or at City Council.  In what deliberative public forum did Council express this wish?  (I am waiting to hear back on this question via a public information request.)

I see the restriction of public information access as more indirect payback to citizens who've shined the light on these controversies.

I submitted public information requests to obtain information on Animal Shelter operations, information not available on the city's website. 

I submitted a public information request on Guy Andrews resignation and clarified to city staff I wanted documents that revealed the reasons for his resignation.  The city provided e-mails regarding his retirement date and accessing retirement benefits.

After looking at the City's organizational chart I noted the three areas have one thing in common.  Public Information, Economic Development and Animal Services all report to Assistant City Manager Michael Dane.

The public information change reads Michael Dane revenge in its backdating the beginning date to the start of the fiscal year.  Any normal change for citizens would have a forward application date, not retroactive.  

The city is doing this very thing in Animal Services.  This blog reported a minuscule number of citations written since the spay/neuter ordinance passed.  Shortly thereafter, staff informed the public it would go back two months for owners who had not spay/neutered their pet.  That quietly changed to two years.

So demand is up for public information in our local democratic government. Who will Council chose to serve?

Update 12-14-22:  Payback delivered.  City Council voted 5-2 to restrict citizen access to Public Information Requests by labeling people as vexatious should they frequently seek information..  

The FY 2023 PIR areas I submitted that concerned Council and City Manager Daniel Valenzuela were mostly Animal Services and included:

1. The City's response to PETA letter and letter from area rescues about shutting off dog intake. (I waited two weeks for the city to issue a public response as implied by a Concho Valley Homepage story)
   
2. How much a citizen cited for failure to spay/neuter their pet is expected to pay in total fees and municipal court costs. (not shared in ASAC meeting)
   
3. Changes in shelter staff pay as a result of the management review of shelter operations  (numbers not shared in City Council)
4. Blue Book and Revenue and Expenditure accounting documents for the just ended FY 21-22 (documents were once available on city's website, access removed in 2018)
5. The number of shelter animals surrendered by owner for FY 21-22.  (not included in the ASAC agenda packet for 10-20-22)
6. Why the city changed the time period for giving citations for failure to spay/neuter per city ordinance from August 16, 2022 as indicated in a city press release to a "two year period" as stated by Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden in the 10-20-22 ASAC meeting.  No responsive documents exist
7. The number of dog breeding permits issued by the city for each calendar year from 2016 to the present.
8. Documents showing the two year history of spay/neuter as referenced in another city document. 
9. Animal Shelter's compliance with the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for the just ended fiscal year.  
10. Documents in regard to the city's change in spay/neuter enforcement as announced on 10-6-22 

Update 12-31-22:   Dane plays the long game and achieved win after win in making information less available to the public.

Update 1-12-23:  City staff informed Council that it needed to restrict citizen access to public information so it would not have to hire part time staff to assist with public information requests.  The city posted a part time job in the City Clerk's office with that very duty.

Shelter Leadership Not Truthful

November 2nd -  The City of San Angelo informed citizens the Animal Shelter would not accept loose dogs from citizens for the month of November or until the dog population decreased to a certain level.  The press release encouraged citizens to contact local rescues. 

November 3rd -  Two local rescues, Cassie's Place and Critter Shack Rescue, wrote a letter to City Council sharing their concerns about cutting off service to citizens and stating they had neither the manpower or budget to do the Animal Shelter's job.  

November 4th -  Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden responded to City Council:

"Neither COSA or PAWS refer citizens who have found pets to Cassie's Place or Critter Shack."

Two days prior COSA referred anyone reading its press release to "reach out to local rescues."  Cassie's Place and Critter Shack are two prominent area rescues.

Concho Valley PAWS and the Animal Shelter present as a united front.  That cracked around Labor Day when the Animal Shelter had a roach infestation and conditions deteriorated to a horrific boarding level.

Local rescues took pets from the shelter at that time.  Critter Shack took over 30 pets.  Their Director dealt solely with Morgan and had no contact with adoption contractor PAWS. 

I signed on 8/31/22   It’s what I signed and basically is an agreement to furnish them with spay/neuter information, which I did two days later.   I don’t plan on pulling any more animals but did sign this so I could take those cats and that dog

Morgan's e-mail to Council echoed her response to Mayor Brenda Gunter's question during the November 1st City Council meeting.  The Mayor asked:

"Do you have a list, if we say that (the Shelter is full) to someone, do you have a list of all the organizations that exist today that they could go visit and hope that one of them would take the dog in for adoption, for future adoption?"

The city's audio experienced technical difficulty for fifteen seconds after the Mayor asked her question.  Morgan got out a "Not all..." before the recording system crashed.  Fortunately, staff was nearby and got the audio system restarted.

I watched the meeting live and recall Morgan stating that local rescues had signed adoption contracts in response to a question by the Mayor.  I thought her giving the impression that area rescues were on board was disingenuous.  On November 2nd I wrote:

The same leadership that misrepresented citation writing misrepresented the support of area rescues going forward.

Morgan included those signed contracts in her e-mail to Council on November 3rd (responding to the Cassie's Place/Critter Shack letter).  

Both Critter Shack and Cassie's Place have signed the rescue transfer agreement (see attached)

Did any Council members notice that Critter Shack's contract is unsigned and not dated?

Morgan knew that at least one rescue signed that agreement as a one time assistance and that both objected to the November move to completely cutoff dog intake.  Cassie's Place and Critter Shack wrote:

We cannot and will not take on the shelter's job, nor should we be expected to.

Twice Morgan referred to signed transfer agreements that happened in a crisis event and have no go forward application in communications with City Council (meeting on November 1 and e-mail on November 4).

I've been surprised over the years how pillars in San Angelo's business world put up with behavior by city staff they would never allow in their organization.

I've also been puzzled by City Council's ability to shut out feedback, even from their own members.  Councilperson Lucy Gonzales said "there are packs of dogs running around and cats everywhere" as Councilperson Karen Hesse-Smith nodded in agreement.  Councilman Larry Miller concluded he would have no option other than to release a stray dog back into the streets. 

Council agreed to a hard stop on dog intake.  Assistant City Manager Michael Dane offered to try that for thirty days and report back to Council.  It's been over thirty days and the item is not on the December agenda.

So far the city has ignored letters from Cassie's Place/Critter Shack and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Neither letter received the courtesy of a reply.

Blinders can get bigger if Council approves reducing citizen access to public information.  It's on the agenda for December 13th.

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Council reduced the time staff will spend filling public information requests.  The city has a website and access to media to get out information on the history of this dog and any past actions/inaction by Animal Control regarding the aggressive dog.

Update 1-17-23:  It appears the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee will not meet as scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2023 given city staff are yet to post an agenda.  The Texas Open Meetings Act requires the agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance.  That deadline has passed with no agenda posted for the scheduled meeting.

City to Restrict Yet Another Service: PIR

San Angelo City Council will consider restricting responses to public information requests.  Staff characterized citizens submitting multiple requests as vexatious or "annoying, frustrating or worrying."

Limits under consideration are:

Monthly – 15 hours per calendar month
Annually – 36 hours per fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) 

Texas law already allows the city to charge fees for public information searches requiring significant staff time. 

Not mentioned in the staff memo is the reduction in information available via the city's website.  In 2018 the city removed its monthly Bluebook and Revenue and Expense accounting documents.  Staff did not answer why it stopped making those documents available through its website as it had for years.

The annual budget document now contains a fraction of its previous narrative and statistical information.  Just getting what had previously been readily available requires public information request(s).  It does not seem fair for staff to restrict hours for PIRs after reducing publicly available information.  

The proposed policy draws a distinction between types of citizens.  Those not restricted include members of the media, elected officials and publicly funded legal services organizations.

Over the years this blog attempted to fill the gap in local investigative reporting and exposed Mayor Alvin New's board of director position with MedHab, a recipient of local economic development funds.  City staff portrayed New as a member of MedHab's advisory board, a lesser position.

The memo said "The San Angelo City Council wishes to establish a policy."  That's odd as I have not heard Council discuss this topic during the strategic planning sessions or at City Council.  In what forum did Council express this wish?  Was it after City Manager Daniel Valenzuela issued the "PIR" warning on November 18th?

I thought Economic Development Director Guy Andrews' surprise retirement warranted exploration and submitted a PIR.  Staff provided e-mails regarding the mechanics of retiring and accessing benefits but nothing on the reasons that Mr. Andrews stepped down.  A COSA Development Corporation meeting provided the real answer.

A former Animal Shelter Director offered bogus community cat information on sister Texas cities to a city board (Animal Shelter Advisory Committee).  More recently this blog collected Animal Service statistics via PIRs.  I shared these with the Mayor and Council members as they began their strategic planning sessions.  The city's practice in many cases is to supply raw data vs. spreadsheets/reports.  Some compilations took considerable time on my end to produce.

I hope two people show up to give public comment on this item, Jim Turner and former Mayor Dwain Morrison.  Turner frequently coached Council on their public information responsibilities and Mayor Morrison railed against the city reducing services.  However, having them in physical attendance may be too much to ask.  I trust they will be there in spirit.

It is not clear why the proposal is for fiscal year as two months have already passed.  It would seem less targeted if Council chose to apply this on a go forward basis and begin the limits in 2023 (calendar year).

When Mayor Brenda Gunter was elected in 2017 she said "It will always be about the citizens."  That will be tested next week.  It may be about the bureaucracy.

Update 12-12-22:  San Angelo Live noticed that their access to public information may be reduced as well.

City Reviewed PETA Letter, Took No Action

The City of San Angelo experienced a flurry of internal activity on Friday, November 4th.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals expressed concern about the city Animal Shelter's refusal to accept dogs from tax paying citizens due to overcrowding.  PETA e-mailed their letter to Mayor Brenda Gunter and members of City Council.

Two local rescues, Cassie's Place and Critter Shack, also sent a letter after the City announced the shelter would stop taking dogs from the public for the month of November.  Their letter was sent to the Mayor, City Council and distinguished City Officials.  It was dated November 3rd.  Critter Shack and Cassie's Place expressed concern about the city once again steering citizens to local rescues for pets the shelter is unwilling to accept.  As nonprofits with limited resources the two rescues drew a clear line that they would not do the shelter's job for them. 

The afternoon of November 4th Council-member Tommy Hiebert forwarded the PETA letter to Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden, Assistant City Manager Michael Dane  Director of Neighborhood and Family Services Bob Salas, City Manager Daniel Valenzuela and City Attorney Theresa James.

Morgan replied to Public Information Director Brian Groves that afternoon

My immediate response is to ask how to enforce such a law when our already ineffective requirement to hold a breeder’s permit doesn’t deter citizens from breeding.

As to the allegations that it’s unsafe to house strange pets, we would agree and that’s why one option is to leave the pet be and call animal services officers to the scene. We’re still responding to calls for service and getting pets back home. Animal Services Officers are still impounding injured and aggressive dogs during this time period.

After the Shelter Chief admitted it's unsafe to house strange pets, the City did not adjust its guidance to the community, "hold the pet for a few days while locating owner."

Groves responded at 5:30 pm Friday, November 4th:

The city has received the letter from PETA and is reviewing all of the information that is in it.

Animal Services is still responding to calls for service and helping pets get back home. Animal Services Officers are still impounding injured and aggressive dogs during this time period as well.

Concho Valley Homepage asked if the Mayor or City Council planned to put out a statement in response. On November 7th Concho Valley Homepage reported city officials are "still reviewing all the information that was in the letter sent by PETA."  

City Manager Daniel Valenzuela informed Council on November 18th that a Public Information Request had been submitted.  I gave City leaders nearly two weeks to respond to the PETA concerns before submitting the PIR.

Two City Council members, Lucy Gonzales and Larry Miller, forwarded the PETA letter to the Assistant City Clerk on November 20th and 21st. Their e-mails had no content other than the heading.  They appear to be a response to Valenzuela's "PIR" e-mail (from the timing and attachments included).

It's been four weeks since PETA sent its letter.  After the initial flurry of activity there is no documented evidence that city officials wrestled with a further response to issues raised by PETA.   

Council did not put the item on its November 15th agenda.  They have not delegated the matter to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee for advice.  The Mayor and Council did not generate a reply letter to PETA's Teresa Lynn Chagrin, Animal Care & Control Issues Manager, Cruelty Investigations Department.

City officials bought time and are counting on the issue fading away.  There are too many systemic problems for that to happen. 

Update 12-13-22:   A dog attacked a neighbor on Oxford Avenue and the dog was shot with a gun during the attack.  Someone in local rescue posted:. 

Please let’s do something to open the city shelter back up at least for aggressive dogs. Citizens of this city should not have to deal with this

....this is what happens when animal control doesn’t take action for stray dogs.

Update 1-12-23:   On November 4th KLST and Concho Valley Homepage reached out to the city on PETA's letter:

...if Mayor Brenda Gunter or members of the City Council would provide a statement on the matter.

No statement to date.  It's been more than two months.

PETA now has information for the public in communities that have shut off animal shelter access to the public, like San Angelo.