Friday, July 31, 2009
A rebuttal from HaysCAN's O'Dell: Barton is making false claims in PIA violation filing
Send your comments to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or to Mr. O'Dell, codell@austin.rr.com and Mr. Barton, jeff.barton@co.hays.tx.us
Editor's Note: HaysCAN president Charles O'Dell sent us an e-mail this morning with his responses to Mr. Barton's comments in the story below this one. Mr. Barton is welcome to chime in with one last round. We're thinking that now that Mr. O'Dell has asked the county's special counsel to reveal all the info he has in his records in this matter (including his own phone calls) we'll all get a little closer to the truth. Let's cross our fingers that special counsel Mr. Kennedy (mark.kennedy@co.hays.tx.us) will follow the letter of the law, as well as the spirit of the law – the Texas Public Information Act . Related links: Texas Watchdog, Sunshine Review. Find a down loadable 2008 handbook of the PIA here. In the handbook's first page, AG Greg Abbott says, the people "do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know or what is not good for them to know."
Mr. O'Dell: If Commissioner Jeff Barton, Precinct 2, were Pinocchio his nose would be a foot long –and getting longer. Barton’s own inconsistent and false statements clearly demonstrate just how disingenuous and untrustworthy he is.
–Barton admits, and official records show, that he received reimbursement from Hays County for official calls that he made on his personal cellular telephone during his first six months as a county commissioner, a cellular number that was bundled in a family plan, and Barton claims, "It's my choice what a personal or county business call is.”
–Barton falsely asserts, “…to the best of my recollection I was not involved at all.” “I mean they told me about it in a sort of passing conversation." And Barton claims HaysCAN received a copy of his official calls made on his cellular telephone, ”…my understanding is he received all those phone calls.”
–"I don't know exactly what Dr. O'Dell got because I didn't prepare it or give it to him."
If Barton is the one who chooses what a personal or county business call is; if Barton was not involved at all in responding to our open records request, and was told about it in a sort of passing conversation; if Barton doesn’t know exactly what we received because he didn’t prepare or give it to us, then how could any of Barton’s official calls that he made on his personal cellular telephone have been turned over to us?
In fact, not a single Barton cellular call was given to HaysCAN in response to our open records request, and Barton knows this because he didn’t give any of his reimbursed official telephone call records to the special counsel’s office.
Despite Barton falsely claiming his non-involvement, he did provide one page of the Barton family June 18, 2007, forty one page cellular telephone bill revealing 29 calls made on his wife’s cellular number. We didn’t ask for his family telephone records, only for those that Barton made on his cellular telephone and for which he was reimbursed by Hays County taxpayers.
Commissioner Barton violated the open records act, but we still want the phone records we requested and to which the public has a legal right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think I'm confused. Are these Barton's responses in quotes or Alberto Gonzalez?
Barton’s statement, "It's my choice what a personal or county business call is.” Is a valid one, who is to know which calls are business or personal, but the persons involved and that would be Barton and the persons he called.
I really don’t know what Mr. O’dell is driving at here. Is he just “shaking the bush” as in Cool Hand Luke”, so we’ll know he is still there? He will never prevail since identity theft has become so common that everyone including the courts is cautious about releasing any such information.
No. 2 I think you are missing the point of the Public Information Act, and what Mr. O'Dell is saying: Barton not only has not turned over for public scrutiny his county business calls, Barton is saying it is his to chose whether or not to reveal them if he decides to claim them as personal calls. What then would be the purpose of the PIA? These calls he made are presumably county business calls (not the personal calls), subject to open records requests; they have been paid for by the taxpayers; we have a right to know who he was talking to. That's what the law says. I appreciate what HaysCAN and Mr. O'Dell are doing. I don't see them as "shaking the bush." If that were the case then why doesn't Mr. Barton cough up the calls and dispel the questions? Simple as pie. By ignoring, denying, distracting, Mr. Barton is only raising more questions about his own honesty and integrity as an elected public servant, underline servant. If people are concerned about identity theft they've got no business calling Barton on the taxpayers' dime. Barton appears to be hiding behind the fine points, a typical practice of his.
I now exactly what Mr. O’Dell is doing; he’s trying to find that Barton called someone that was asking for favors or preferential treatment or a felon; in other words, guilt by association. That is what O’Dell does for a living and he is very selective in who he goes after. He would fit in very well with the likes of Rev. Jessie Jackson or Rev. "Al" Sharpton. I’m no fan of either Barton or O’Dell but this is just silly.
"I now exactly what Mr. O’Dell is doing; he’s trying to find that Barton called someone that was asking for favors or preferential treatment or a felon; in other words, guilt by association."
The public has a lawful right to see if a public official using a phone paid for by taxpayers is making/taking calls to/from those who have contributed to his election campaign and who wind up with government contracts.
It's just that simple.
Mr. Barton refused to turn over the telephone records for a cell phone paid for by taxpayers as he was required by law to do---and then lied by saying that he had turned over public records. Barton broke the law to keep those telephone records from the public.
Post a Comment