Pages

▼

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Cost Complaint Over Library's Own Malfeasance on Drag Queen Story Hour

§ 552.269 COST COMPLAINT
This is a § 552.269 Cost Complaint regarding the Houston Public Library, for twelve reasons the charges are excessive, given three attached exhibits: 
  1. my original request for documents (Dec 21, 2018), 
  2. Administrative Determination Document, Texas Attorney General Letter Rulings, 2019 Tex. AG Ltr. Rul. LEXIS 5687 No. OR2019-06437 (Mar 07, 2019), and
  3. Houston Public Library’s first ($181 on Jan 10, 2019) and second ($145 on Mar 26, 2019) request for fees.
1) This is a matter where the Houston Public Library ignored its own policies and allowed a convicted sex offender to read to children.  I would not even be making TPIA requests but for the Library’s poor judgment that has led to this debacle that has become international news.  Now, as people investigate the matter, the Library is charging fees for that investigation.  It’s galling.  The Library should itself be exposing the full extent of what happened, not leave it to reporters to make TPIA requests, then charge them for that access.  It is akin to the equitable doctrine of dirty hands or perhaps laches.

2) This is a matter of such considerable importance that even Governor Greg Abbott has raised the issue.  On Twitter, he stated, “How much are you paying for a library where a registered sex offender participated in Drag Queen Storytime? The Fact is, Houston spends plenty of taxpayer dollars for services that are not essential. Houston, just like other cities, can handle property tax reform. #txlege” The entire State of Texas and its government, indeed the Governor himself, is interested in this matter at the Library, and it is simply unbelievable that anyone would be charged a fee for this investigation, especially given the circumstances.  See: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1107418383568506880


3) I am one of a number of people who have filed TPIA requests.  Much of the information we are requesting is duplicative.  Yet we are all being charged fees for the same responses.  There are three of us mentioned in Administrative Determination Document, Texas Attorney General Letter Rulings, Mar 07, 2019, 2019 Tex. AG Ltr. Rul. LEXIS 5687 No. OR2019-06437.  So essentially we are being triple billed.  Can you imagine if a law firm triple billed? It would become a movie based on a book by John Grisham.  If there is triple billing occurring and interstate mail or email was being used, then there’s a possibility mail fraud and/or wire fraud criminal provisions could be triggered.  So the Library is charging me for essentially a triple-billed fee that, since it was sent to out-of-state requestors, may violate criminal laws, depending on the circumstances.

Graphic credit: Steve Dickey, ATF Special Agent
Jeff Cohen ATF Associate
https://slideplayer.com/slide/3914692/

4) I have learned from an Open Records Request Summary, State of Texas, Library and Archives Commission, February 2019, that fees involve “[c]alculations based on salary + estimated cost of benefits. The most recent SAO total compensation percentages were used.”  Charging me fees is sort of double billing.  Employees are paid to work full-time.  They receive benefits for working full-time.  Completing TPIA requests are performed during working hours.  I have no control over pay nor benefits nor who is selected to perform the work.  I am not hiring that person to work for me making me subject to paying wages and benefits.  I see absolutely no reason for me to be charged “based on salary + estimated cost of benefits.”  That employee is not docked the wages and benefits by the Library that I am now being forced to pay him if I want a response to Texas open government laws.  Isn't their government job to respond to FOIA requests?  Why are they charging for labor like it's an auto repair shop?  To me, that’s either double billing or unjust enrichment.  And in a case where the Library is trying to stem the flow of public information about how it completely failed to protect children as required by Houston City Code 24-5 that requires the Library’s director to “promote an environment that is protective of the health and well-being of patrons and children,” yet the Library allowed a registered pedophile to read to children during a public program, that is especially unfair.  I am being charged a fee for the Library failing to do its job, and I’m being double billed for it.  This is completely shocking  See: https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open/pia/reports/view.php?recid=30086

5) As I investigate this matter, I may have to and have already filed severals TPIA requests.  I am reporting on egregious and shocking malfeasance and nonfeasance at the Houston Public Library.  I need the information to provide as accurate a picture as possible.  Even the Texas Governor wants to know, “How much are you paying for a library where a registered sex offender participated in Drag Queen Storytime?”  The library is not forthcoming with any information.  Its only response is to apologize and to promise it will provide “appropriate” “oversight,” something at which it has already failed.  So I will need to file a number of TPIA requests to expose the facts.  At the rate the Library is going, I could be paying a thousand dollars for this information given the above situation.  That’s just shocking.  The Library is completely overcharging.  And it’s likely overcharging all other reporters investigating this matter.  It’s literally becoming a money-making business for the Library.  Is this what the Texas open government laws allow?  I highly doubt it.

6) I am asking for all documentation to be delivered via electronic means.  There is no charge for paper, no charge for compiling paper copies of various things, no charge for photocopying, no charge for postage, no charge for materials, nothing.  Just electronic files.  I should not be charged for that.  That’s another reason I’m being overcharged.

7) The Houston Public Library has chosen to take the position I am not a reporter (I am), just an annoying person (not true) harassing the Library (a false ad hominem argument to avoid the issues) because I hate gays (not true, indeed I have exposed homophobia at American Library Association).  I have been reporting on crimes at public libraries for almost two decades.  Pulitzer Prize winning author David K. Shipler wrote about me in his book, “Freedom of Speech, Mightier Than the Sword.”  The author of the Children’s Internet Protection Act called me a “trusted source” on American Library Association misdirection.  My work appears in American Library Association’s “Intellectual Freedom Manual” and is written about in library schools worldwide.  I am a reporter.  The Library should not charge me, a reporter, anything at all for these records, especially under the egregious circumstances.

8) I am aware of some reporters who were charged fees for documentation covered under TPIA and who did not pay the fees so they did not get the documents, thereby stifling public dissemination of public documents as required by Texas law.  The Library likely knows charging fees is an effective tactic to weed out requests.  Worse, such dubious actions are discriminatory against people not financially able to provide three or four hundred dollars for public records.  Fortunately I was only charged $181, then $145, but still.  If you’re poor, you don’t get the records.  I cannot believe this is even a tactic being used to suppress public information but there it is.

9) The Library is in a position to prevent much of this.  Were it to provide TPIA requests and responses on a web site, being truly transparent, there might be no need for people to file TPIA requests.  For example, the Orland Park Public Library, IL, has just such a web site, and click on “Public Records Archive” to see all requests and all responses: http://orlandparklibrary.mycusthelp.com/webapp/_rs/SupportHome.aspx So we are here because the Library is not transparent.  Indeed, when I filed my first TPIA request, the online information at http://www.houstontx.gov/pia.html was incorrect in that it provided the wrong contact information.  The library reacted by correcting the information then adding a form to allow for an online submission that contained a single line to enter text.  Clearly the Library does not want TPIA requests being filed.  And that same online information does not even list the Houston Public Library Foundation.  It’s like they are hiding.  So the Library is hiding and is opaque and the few people who get past those obstacles are then, among other delays, charged fees that some cannot pay.  So let alone the Library caused the problem by allowing a pedophile to read to children, it also caused the problem by being opaque.  I should not be changed fees for getting around the process obstacles the Library caused.  Further, they can keep charging indefinitely for the same documents for which different people ask because people never know if someone already asked for this or that and if it’s already been produced.  It’s like selling the same car to seven different people.  It’s a scam on the public.  That Orland Park library avoids this very problem by being transparent.  I should not be charged a fee where the library could have stopped the opacity problem and become transparent.


10) This is a matter of public safety.  The Library allowed a pedophile to read to children once.  It is quite possible it could happen again.  People need to know to protect their children and should learn about this case to help make that happen.  For the public safety aspect of this matter, no fees should be charged.  I have been overcharged.

11) I am overcharged and should not be charged a fee because I am doing the Library’s work and providing a valuable public service by gathering and organizing documentation related to this matter, somewhat like what Orland Park library did as shown above.

12) Lastly, the Administrative Determination Document states, “The city must release the completed report,” not that the city may release it, conditioned on payment of an unjust and unfair fee.  “The city must release the entirety of the court-filed document,” says “must” not may, dependent on whether the requester pays up.

I have provided twelve different reasons why I have been overcharged and why I should not be charged at all.  All of the reasons are serious and make valid points.

I respectfully request that the Houston Public Library be required to provide the records at no cost to me.  The Administrative Determination Document states, “The city must release the completed report,” not that the city may release it, conditioned on payment of an unjust and unfair fee.  “The city must release the entirety of the court-filed document,” says must not may, dependent on whether the requester pays up.

Houston Public Library - "Here's What's Happening"
What's happening? Censorship is happening.

Further, as I will have to file more TPIA requests for more information as time and my research goes on, I ask that you consider advising the library that the above overcharge concerns apply to my future TPIA requests on this malfeasance matter as well.  And consider if the Library should be directed to supply all reporters working this issue with the same respect.

Sincerely,
     /s/
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

To: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
March 29, 2019
....

—
URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/03/cost-complaint.html

On Twitter: 
@HoustonLibrary, @TXAG

Follow @SafeLibraries
at 4 comments:

Saturday, March 23, 2019

FOIA Request of Houston Public Library by SafeLibraries - 03

FOIA Request of Houston Public Library by SafeLibraries - 03

Dear Assistant Public Information Officer Gonzalez:

"Library Rule & Policies" was updated to include "16. Staring, stalking, harassment, or other behavior that reasonably can be expected to disturb others.  This includes photography without Library approval." Source: https://houstonlibrary.org/library-rules-policies

For the remainder of this TPIA request I shall refer to this policy addition as "Rule 16."

Here are my TPIA/FOIA requests, given changes to public policy must be discussed in open public meetings, followed by introductory information:

1) Provide documentation of the exact date when "Library Rule & Policies" was updated to include Rule 16.  I'm not asking for new information or a new document to be drafted in response to this request.  Rather, I am asked for existing documentation, such as an email, a memo, a comment in a web page, a date listing from a web site source repository.

2) Provide documentation of the exact date(s) and location(s) of the public meeting(s) where Rule 16 was discussed in public by the library/city boards or library/city administrations while acting officially as the library/city boards or library/city administrations.

3) Provide a recording(s) of the public discussion(s) of Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

4) Provide a transcript(s) of the public discussion(s) of Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

5) Provide minutes of the public discussion(s) of Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

6) Provide a recording(s) of the public comments(s) involving Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

7) Provide a transcript(s) of the public comments(s) involving Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

8) Provide minutes of the public comments(s) involving Rule 16 at library/city boards or library/city administrations public meetings.

9) Provide copies of training materials or example policies that recommend a policy against taking pictures in public of public buildings or the contents of the buildings or people observed in this buildings and that were used in researching, drafting, or promulgating Rule 16.

10) Provide documentation of all "library approvals" that are required by Rule 16.

11) Provide documentation of all library disapprovals given under Rule 16.

12) Provide documentation of the rules by which librarians or library directors are to determine whether or not to grant approval for photography under Rule 16.

13) Provide documentation about how and when library signage is to updated to match the library's online content, such as Rule 16.

14) Provide documentation about which policy is in effect when policy on signage differs from policy online, such as in the case of Rule 16.

To assist in responding, above right shows graphics of Rule 16 absent from policy posted within the library, as it appeared last week, yet present in policy available online.

Now here is the introductory information promised above.

The Texas Public Information Act [TPIA a.k.a. FOIA] gives the public the right to request access to government information. The same applies to the Houston Public Library pursuant to www.houstontx.gov/pia.html that specifically names you as the TPIA contact for the library. Therefore, please respond to the above noncommercial TPIA request in accordance with the law.

I am a reporter on library matters where I publish on both SafeLibraries and on Sexual Harassment of Librarians. As such I may publish anything you send me, and I ask that all fees for the production of TPIA responses be waived, as they have been implicitly in my first request per order of the Texas Attorney General.

Indeed I have written about your library before:
Further, others have written about me with respect to Houston Public Library allowing a convicted pedophile to read to children during Drag Queen StoryTime.  The point is I am a reporter on library matters so I should not be charged a fee.

As to the reduction in fees, "If a governmental body determines that producing the information requested is in the 'public interest' because it will primarily benefit the general public, the governmental body shall waive or reduce the charges." "Shall," not "may."  Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/PIA_handbook_2018_0.pdf 194; Gov’t Code § 552.267(a). That this is a matter of public interest is evident by the international media attention the library has received as a result of the library's admitted "oversight" in allowing a registered child sex offender to read to children at Drag Queen StoryTime.

I ask that you send the requested documents in PDF format so they may be easily attached to an email, with the exception of photographs (that should be JPEG), audio files (that should be MP3), and video (that should be MP4 or MOV video files). If the document files are too large to transmit in one single email, I authorize you to transmit them to me either via a free file sharing service such as DropBox or via multiple emails (as many as required to send all of the documents requested).

Where emails are involved, also provide the BCC as well as the CC and the TO. As you know, BCC is for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing public information laws. If senders/recipients include distribution lists the library created, then please provide the document that lists the individual recipient email addresses in any distribution list; again, distribution lists are for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing the law. Further, if library business has been conducted via the use of personal emails, then please provide those emails as well. Conducting library business on personal emails is not a valid means for circumventing TPIA.

Any document written or recorded is included as well. That includes voice mails, audio recordings, transcripts or minutes of any public meeting. Library board executive session recordings or minutes are not included in my request if they have not already been made public.

Written or recorded documents also include those made in any telephonic, electronic, or physical meeting with anyone acting on behalf of any library association such as the American Library Association [ALA]. ALA trains librarians that written or recorded documents from ALA-provided trainings, meetings, conferences, etc., are ALA proprietary and may not be released publicly. That ALA claim is false. TPIA controls, not ALA. If a public employee attended anything at public expense, then anything learned/recorded at such an event or as a result thereof has been made public and is discoverable under TPIA no matter what ALA claims. The public has a right to know what business has been conducted at public expense, especially where the library goofed, allowed a pedophile to read stories to children, and is now seeking to expand the drag queen story hour program further.

Be clear ALA top leadership uses personal email to direct librarians to destroy public documents precisely to prevent production under state sunshine laws like TPIA. Example from the private email of the current Interim Director and Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom: “Subject: URGENT -­ must delete all documents related to 17 Dec crisis communications workshop .… Remove these from your servers today and destroy hard copies. This is an attempt by two individuals to obtain privileged information …. we cannot allow anything from 17 Dec to be produced in response to FOIA.” Source published here:
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

[NOTE: If any librarian wishes to contact me privately/confidentially, perhaps to provide some of this documentation, use SafeLibraries@pm.me.]

--
----------
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services
....


NOTE ADDED 13 APRIL 2019:

Yesterday the library offered to provide me a diskette (I asked for documents to be delivered electronically since computers no longer have disk drives) for $19 (I asked for fees to be waived for media) for responses only to #1, #9, and #13 (I asked for 14).

The library's Marketing & PR Manager wrote:
Your documents for your request submitted on March 26, 2019 are ready.  The City was able to locate responsive documents for Items 1, 9 and 13.  No other responsive information was found.  Please see the cost estimate attached.
Here is the email I received plus the attachments:
"No other responsive information was found."  That means either there's no documentation that was found for requests #2-#8, #10-#12, and #14, or they determined the documentation was not responsive.  My requests were clear and specific so I'm going to go with the former, especially since the fast timeline would not have allowed for any public meeting with proper notice to have taken place.

That means I'll be getting documentation of 1) the date policy was updated to include Rule 16 that deems photography to be "reasonably ... expected to disturb others," something I doubt since others the library approves take photographs and movies at a public event in a public library where there's zero expectation of privacy, and at a public exposition, no less, that features public performers making public performances, but I digress.

I'll also get 9) copies of training materials or example policies that recommend a policy against taking pictures in public of public buildings, and 13) documentation about how and when library signage is to updated to match the library's online content.

That's it.

Here's what I will not be getting because "[n]o other responsive information was found": 2) the date/location, 3) recording, 4) transcript, nor 5) minutes of the public meeting where Rule 16 being added to the policy was discussed in public—because it did not occur—and that is a violation of the open public meetings act.  A library simply may not make up policy as it goes.  It is required to discuss policy changes in public.

Similarly, because the public meeting to discuss Rule 16 never occurred as required by law, there's no documentation of 6) recordings, 7) transcripts, nor 8) minutes of public comments made at the meetings that did not exist in violation of the law.

Furthermore, apparently there have been no 10) library approvals nor 11) disapprovals given under Rule 16.  I suppose that is to be expected since the rule is so new.

But documentation already exists that the library has already applied Rule 16 and blocked photography by certain people.  So the library has already applied Rule 16 and apparently never documented that it did so!  The documentation comes from one of the whistleblowers, who the American Library Association labeled as a "censor" during National Library Week—the "censor" is actually being actually censored by an actual government employee, but that's okay with ALA.  Watch the censorship in action:


That recording was published on 14 March 2019 by "MassResistanceHouston Texas," one of the whistleblowers ALA labels as a "censor."  The library is literally censoring the whistleblowers who exposed registered sex offenders, including a pedophile who read to children at Drag Queen StoryTime.

The library could also provide no 12) documentation of the rules by which librarians or library directors are to determine whether or not to grant approval for photography under Rule 16.  So what the library did to block the photography from taking pictures was arbitrary and capricious!

There's also no 14) documentation about which policy is in effect when policy on signage differs from policy online.  Now how was the blocked photographer supposed to know which policy to follow if the library doesn't even know?

I'll have to look into the issue of any open public meetings violations and any First Amendment rights violations, or perhaps other violations, in a future publication, or otherwise refer this matter to someone else interested.

The picture of a library hiding something serious and harmful is slowly coming together despite the library's and the City of Houston's obfuscations.

—
at No comments:

Saturday, March 16, 2019

FOIA Request of Houston Public Library by SafeLibraries - 02

Re: FOIA Request of Houston Public Library by SafeLibraries - 02

Dear Assistant Public Information Officer Gonzalez:

The Texas Public Information Act [TPIA a.k.a. FOIA] gives the public the right to request access to government information. The same applies to the Houston Public Library pursuant to www.houstontx.gov/pia.html that specifically names you as the TPIA contact for the library. Therefore, please respond to the below noncommercial TPIA request in accordance with the law. In return for your prompt attention, I will try my best to make the request within the boundaries of the law so as to minimize everyone’s efforts and even try to avoid your need for expensive legal counsel, unlike last time when the Texas Attorney General had to intervene to force compliance. To help you avoid further legal counsel fees, feel free to err on the side of nondisclosure just so long as you tell me what you did and give me a chance to discuss it with you. I will be asking for public information under the law and fully expect redactions to be made in accordance with the law but no further.

I am a reporter on library matters where I publish on both SafeLibraries and on Sexual Harassment of Librarians. As such I may publish anything you send me, and I ask that all fees for the production of TPIA responses be waived, as they have been implicitly in my first request per order of the Texas Attorney General. Indeed I have written about your library before:
As to the reduction in fees, “If a governmental body determines that producing the information requested is in the ‘public interest’ because it will primarily benefit the general public, the governmental body shall waive or reduce the charges.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/PIA_handbook_2018_0.pdf 194; 194 Gov’t Code § 552.267(a). That this is a matter of public interest is evident by the international media attention the library has received as a result of the matter my TPIA/FOIA request addresses, namely, the admission of an "oversight" in allowing a registered child sex offender to read to children at Drag Queen StoryTime. So please waive all fees as I may not only report on this matter but also provide insight from my almost two decades of experience in library-related matters, thereby making my reporting unique. Last time you tried to change me fees as another means to quash production of documents required by law. Please don't do that again. Literally the world will want to see the documents you produce in response to this request.

I ask that you send the requested documents in PDF format so they may be easily attached to an email, with the exception of photographs (that should be JPEG), audio files (that should be MP3), and video (that should be MP4 or MOV video files). If the document files are too large to transmit in one single email, I authorize you to transmit them to me either via a free file sharing service such as DropBox or via multiple emails (as many as required to send all of the documents requested). To the extent any document is available to the public on the Internet, simply providing the URL to the published document will be sufficient to stand in the stead of attaching a PDF version (else attach the PDF if you will not provide the URL, I’m just trying to make things easier for you). I am attempting to make this as easy for you and me as possible and I am willing to work with you should you have any concerns, just use my contact information above.

Where emails are involved, also provide the BCC as well as the CC and the TO. As you know, BCC is for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing public information laws. If senders/recipients include distribution lists the library created, then please provide the document that lists the individual recipient email addresses in any distribution list; again, distribution lists are for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing the law. Further, if library business has been conducted via the use of personal emails, then please provide those emails as well. Conducting library business on personal emails is not a valid means for circumventing TPIA.

Any document written or recorded is included as well. That includes voice mails, audio recordings, transcripts or minutes of any public meeting. Library board executive session recordings or minutes are not included in my request if they have not already been made public.

Written or recorded documents also include those made in any telephonic, electronic, or physical meeting with anyone acting on behalf of any library association such as the American Library Association [ALA]. ALA trains librarians that written or recorded documents from ALA-provided trainings, meetings, conferences, etc., are ALA proprietary and may not be released publicly. That ALA claim is false. TPIA controls, not ALA. If a public employee attended anything at public expense, then anything learned/recorded at such an event or as a result thereof has been made public and is discoverable under TPIA no matter what ALA claims. The public has a right to know what business has been conducted at public expense, especially where the library goofed and allowed a pedophile to read stories to children.

Be clear ALA top leadership uses personal email to direct librarians to destroy public documents precisely to prevent production under state sunshine laws like TPIA. Example from the private email of the current Acting Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom: “Subject: URGENT -­ must delete all documents related to 17 Dec crisis communications workshop .… Remove these from your servers today and destroy hard copies. This is an attempt by two individuals to obtain privileged information …. we cannot allow anything from 17 Dec to be produced in response to FOIA.” Source published here:
I am limiting this TPIA request to two subjects. 1) The attorneys fees for matters relating to my previous FOIA request, the response to which has been compelled by the Texas Attorney General, and 2-19) the viral news of the criminal reading to children at several library events, for which the library has apologized, with this KHOU story being representative:
Given the above, I hereby request under TPIA the following, and responses need only be provided once if they have already been answered/provided in a previous request response:

1) Regarding my previous FOIA request and the FOIA requests of others who were considered together as a group in the recent opinion of the Texas Attorney General who forced compliance with the law, during Sunshine Week and Open Government Week, no less, please provide all legal bills where any work recorded in those bills pertained in any way to any of the FOIA requests. I am trying to determine how much money was spent to hide records from the public. I know a library that spent at least a half a million dollars and cried poverty to raise taxes to pay for more legal legerdemain (the lawyers recommended librarians not call police when patrons viewed child pornography because that might violate the child porn viewers intellectual freedom rights), so I'm now curious in this case, especially since proper handling of initial concerns may have precluded all this.

2) Given the KHOU report reveals, "A media spokesperson for the library confirmed one of the program’s drag queens, Tatiana Mala Nina, is Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender. In 2008, he was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy," please provide what documentation you have on that individual.

3) Given the KHOU report reveals, "In a statement, the Houston Public Library admits they didn’t do a background check on Garza and said Garza will not be involved in any future library programs," please provide that statement and all drafts of what became that statement.

4) Given the KHOU report reveals, "'In our review of our process and of this participant, we discovered that we failed to complete a background check as required by our own guidelines,' the library said in a statement," please provide those guidelines as they exist now, and as they existed at the time of the sex offender's presence in the library to read to children, and all drafts of what became those guidelines. Further, provide documentation of the "review of our process and of this participant." Provide documentation showing what background is checked in a background check. Provide documentation showing how such checks are performed. Provide documentation showing bills for private detectives to perform checks or other goods or services consumed to perform such checks. Provide browser histories of all background checks.

5) Given the KHOU report reveals, "We deeply regret this oversight and the concern this may cause our customers. We realize this is a serious matter," please provide all crisis management and media management documentation including documentation on how to speak with media so as to shape a message to the library's benefit. It is entirely possible, for example, existing documentation accounts for instances such as this and that the "oversight" language is literally a cut and paste from crisis management or media management documentation. Most libraries have this kind of documentation, whether drafted by themselves or in a book such as the Intellectual Freedom Manual (in which I appear, depending on the edition) drafted by the American Library Association or in notes or handouts brought back from crisis and media management workshops.

6) Given the KHOU report reveals, "we have not received any complaints about any inappropriate behavior by participants at storytimes," please provide all complaints of any kind related in any way to the "storytimes."

7) Given the KHOU report reveals, "'We are taking the appropriate action to ensure that the status of every participant in every program throughout our system is verified. We will continue to review our process to ensure that this cannot happen again,'" please provide documentation on what action will be taken to ensure the status of every participant in every program throughout your system is verified. Also provide documentation on the review process. Also provide documentation the review process will occur at public meetings or otherwise in compliance with sunshine laws. This way the public can decide whether or not the action taken is "appropriate." "Appropriate" is just another fluffy word like "oversight" that is intended to mollify what happened in this case. The public wants to see documentation of what action will be taken and documentation of what was the review process that led to the documented plan for action.

8) If any documentation includes canceling Drag Queen StoryTimes until the review process is complete and the new procedures are finalized, then that's part of this TPIA / FOIA request. When books are challenged, libraries refuse to remove them until the review process is complete, and it could take months. Similarly, until the review process is complete, and it could take months, I'd expect cancellation of existing Drag Queen StoryTime events like an upcoming one this month. Please provide documentation of all such cancellations and responses thereto.

9) Given the KHOU report reveals, "Protesters say they want more than apologies; they want heads to roll," please provide all documentation of personnel changes resulting from the present debacle, or any planning for personnel changes.

10) Given the KHOU report reveals, "Drag Queen Storytime’s creators say it’s part of a national program that aims to promote love and acceptance," I note the following. Love and acceptance is nice but it's not the issue. The issue here is "Drag Queen Storytime" is part of a "national program," in other words, it's a business. I am certain the library has a policy on how businesses may or may not promote their business within the library. Provide that policy. I am certain the library has a policy on not promoting individual businesses by providing free time, free space, free advertising, free promotion, etc., to certain businesses. Provide that policy. Provide all documentation about allowing a business to repeatedly use a library in a manner that violates library policy. Provide all documentation about what services where provided to such businesses and the potential costs for those services were they to be purchased in an arms-length transaction instead of gifted by the library, and by library I mean the library, any library related friends group, any library related endowment group, or any other means for such businesses to benefit without direct involvement of the library by itself. Also, provide documentation of all publicity and other benefits and services given the Drag Queen Storytime business by the library.

11) Given Texas law Sec. 24-5 - Rules and regulations - states, "(a) The director shall have authority, subject to the approval of the mayor and city council, to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the department and for the orderly government and use of the library system, provided that such regulations shall not conflict with valid laws or ordinances. Without limitation, the director is authorized to include provisions that govern the use of library premises by the public, including the use of the property around the library, in order to promote an environment that is protective of the health and well-being of patrons and children while at the library facility. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be maintained for public inspection in each library within the system, in the office of the director and in the office of the city secretary," please provide a copy of "such rules and regulations" "maintained for public inspection."

12) Further, provide documentation where allowing businesses to repeatedly present as library programs instead of in the public meeting rooms per public meeting room polices is done "for the orderly ... use of the library system," as required by Sec. 24-5.

13) Further, with regard to Request #12, provide documentation where the director has obtained "the approval of the mayor and city council," as required by Sec. 24-5, to selectively promote a specific business as has been done in the present debacle where the business obtained so many benefits that tossing aside security concerns was part of the package deal, showing more concern for the business than for the safety of the community.

14) Further, provide documentation where a business featuring drag queens reading to children "promote[s] an environment that is protective of the health and well-being of patrons and children while at the library facility," as required by Sec. 24-5.

15) Further, with regard to Request #14, provide documentation where the director has obtained "the approval of the mayor and city council," as required by Sec. 24-5.

16) Provide all documentation of legal advice provided to the library to allow the library to act outside the law of Sec. 24-5 or otherwise in any manner involving Sec. 24-5.

17) Provide all documentation of legal advice provided to the City of Houston to allow the library to act outside the law of Sec. 24-5 or otherwise in any manner involving Sec. 24-5.

18) Provide copies of all liability policies ensuring the library against various losses, including litigation.

19) Given the KHOU report reveals, "A media spokesperson for the library," provide documentation on the library's limiting media exposure to a single media spokesperson. Provide all documentation on media attempting to speak with all library employees, trustees, or librarians, other than the media spokesperson. Provide documentation where that media spokesperson is involved with library trustee decisions or librarian meetings or in any way has any knowledge or experience with the library, other than having little direct knowledge except how to use words like "appropriate" or "oversight" to mollify the truth. It is quite likely that the PR person did not handle this matter properly from the start, that's why is grew bigger and bigger, so I'm unsure why such a person can be trusted with the media now or why the media should not attempt to speak with someone having real authority and experience.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

--
----------
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services
....

Dated: 16 March 2019 (Saturday)

[NOTE: If any librarian wishes to contact me privately/confidentially, perhaps to provide some of this documentation, use SafeLibraries@pm.me.]


NOTE ADDED SAME DAY 16 MARCH 2019:

The above publication has been cited/linked by another publication:

NOTE ADDED 17 MARCH 2019:

Another publication cites/links me:
Even Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, is now engaged in this debacle at HPL:


NOTE ADDED 30 MARCH 2019:

On 29 March 2019, I received the following email and attachment (download here), and note I sent the TPIA request on 16 March 2019, not 18 March 2019 as stated by the Assistant City Attorney.  I suspect the library is moving to block disclosures of what led to allowing the convicted pedophile to read to children, using a legal excuse—Boeing Co. v. Paxton—that's roiling Texas open government advocates, since the case neuters TPIA:
By the way, after over three months, I still haven't received anything from the library in response to my first FOIA request.  From experience, about 10% of libraries play games and purposefully block FOIA requests, out of those libraries that block FOIA requests, 100% end up having something to hide.  The 90% of libraries that respond quickly have nothing to hide.  Now whether libraries are self-filtering or self-censoring, that we do not know.  If any librarians are instructed to defy TPIA/FOIA, please contact me at SafeLibraries@pm.me.

Now here is what I received 29 March 2019:
Your open records request for information pertaining to Drag Queen Storytime. GC No. 25835 
From: LGL Public Info  Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:51 PM
To: Safe Libraries
Cc: "Gonzalez, Marjorie - HPL"  
Dear Mr. Kleinman,
Attached is your copy of the letter sent to the Attorney General’s Office. 
General Counsel Section 
City of Houston Legal Department 
25835 10 day.pdf
328K

====  Enclosure 25835 10 day.pdf  ====

CITY OF HOUSTON
Sylvester Turner
Mayor

Legal Department
Ronald C. Lewis
City Attorney
Legal Department 
P.O. Box 368 
Houston, Texas 77001-0368
City Hall Annex
900 Bagby, 4'" Floor

T. 832.393.6491
F. 832.393.6259
www.houstontx.gov  
March 29, 2019  
The Honorable Ken Paxton Texas
Attorney General
P. O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Attention: Open Records Division  
           Re: Public Information Act request received on March 18, 2019, from Dan Kleinman, for information pertaining to Drag Queen Storytime. GC No. 25835.  
Dear Attorney General Paxton:  
The City of Houston ("City") received the above referenced request on March 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1). By copy of this letter, the City is informing the requestor that the City is seeking a decision from your office because some of the responsive information may be excepted from public disclosure pursuant to sections 552.101 through 552.151 of the Government Code. We will forward the responsive information and our legal arguments under separate cover shortly. Please include GC No. 25835in any future correspondence concerning this request.  
Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph R. Crawford
Assistant City Attorney

JRC/naj
Enclosures

====
—
at 2 comments:

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Houston Library Forced by Texas Attorney General to Release Documents on Drag Queen Story Hour - During Sunshine Week

The Houston Public Library had to be forced by the Texas Attorney General to release public documents on drag queens reading to small children during library-endorsed programming.  This during Sunshine Week and Open Government Week.

The leading question is exactly why did the library go all the way to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to try to delay and quash three separate requests for public documents relating to drag queens reading to children?  I do not know yet, but it seems apparent they have something to hide.  We are talking about a public library that supposedly supports freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, yet this library suppressed just that, spending who knows how much money in legal fees, even though sunshine laws compel production of such documents, at least in my case.

[Note added 15 March 2019: It appears I was spot on.  The library admitted to allowing a registered sex offender to read to children at Drag Queen Story Time.  This may be related to why the library acted as it did.  The library is quoted on KHOU to have said, "“WE DEEPLY REGRET THIS OVERSIGHT AND THE CONCERN THIS MAY CAUSE OUR CUSTOMERS. WE REALIZE THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER.”  Just an "oversight."  I see.  More Drag Queen Story Times are scheduled.]

I have not seen the other two FOIA requests on that library (called TPIA in Texas), but mine was directed toward whether the library was following the law and its own policy.  I cannot yet say much else because I have yet to receive the documents the Attorney General ordered to be released to me and others.  And I may have to file additional FOIA requests.

By the way, here's the Bible of filing FOIA requests on libraries that have something to hide, and I recommend this book as a result:
So that's all I have now.  More as news develops.  And the documents I received today are republished before after conversion to text format.

Here's what I wrote in the past on this issue:
See also:
My secure email (that only I get and that no company like Google, Facebook, Twitter can read) is SafeLibraries@pm.me, should anyone wish to contact me via that means.  LIBRARIANS WORKING AT HOUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY are welcome to contact me there or to send documents to me there, especially ones your library may be ordering you to destroy.


CITY OF HOUSTON 
Legal Department
Sylvester Turner 
Mayor 

March 13, 2019 

Sent via electronic mail to: 
Dan Kleinman 
safelibraries@gmail.com 

     Re:    Your Texas Public Information Act request received on December 26, 2018, for various information regarding the City of Houston Public Library and Drag Queen Story Hour; Attorney General Informal Letter Ruling OR2019-06437. GC No. 25685 

Dear Mr. Kleinman: 

As you are aware from your copy of Attorney General Informal Letter Ruling 2019-06437, the City has received a response to our request for an opinion from the Attorney General. Because the Attorney General has determined that we must withhold portions of the information you requested, may withhold other portions, and must release the remainder of the responsive documents to you, we are closing our file on this matter. 

By copy of this letter, we are requesting that the Houston Public Library provide the responsive documents to you in accordance with the Attorney General's ruling.  If you have a question about your public information request, please contact Marjorie Gonzalez at (832) 393-1340. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Jill Bradford 
Senior Paralegal 

Enclosure 

cc:    Marjorie Gonzalez, HPL 

Z:\GENERAL\JMB\WH-19\Kleinman 25685.docx /ORF/


KEN PAXTON 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

March 7, 2019 

[[RECEIVED - MAR 11 2019 - GENERAL COUNSEL]]


Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, & Ms. Nneku Kan 
Assistant City Attorneys 
City of Houston 
P.O. Box 368 
Houston, Texas 77001-0368 

OR2019-06437 

Dear Ms. Folsom, Mr. Huq, and Ms. Kanu: 

You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Yourrequest was assigned ID# 753435 (GC Nos. 25665, 25685, 25693). 

The City of Houston and the Houston Public Library (collectively, the "city") received three requests from different requestors for information pertaining to specified policies of Houston Public Library (the "library") and the Drag Queen Story Hour during specified periods.[1] You state the city does not have information responsive to portions of the requests.[2] You claim the requested information is excepted from disclosure under section 552.103 of the GovernmentCode. We have considered the exception you claim and reviewed the submitted 
----------
     [1] We note you sent the first requestor an estimate of charges pursuant to section 552.2615 of the Government Code. See Gov't Code § 552.2615. The estimate of charges required the requestor to provide a deposit for payment of anticipated costs under section 552.263 of the Government Code. See id. § 552.263(a). You inform us the city received the required payment on December 6, 2019. See id. § 552.263(e) (if governmental body requires deposit or bond for anticipated costs pursuant to section 552.263, request for information is considered to have been received on date governmental body receives bond or deposit). 

     [2] We note the Act does not require a governmental body to disclose information that did not exist at the time the request was received. Econ. Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Attorney General Opinion H-90 (1973); Open Records Decision Nos. 452 at 2-3 (1986), 342 at 3 (1982), 87 (1975); see also Open Records Decision Nos. 572 at 1 (1990), 555 at 1-2 (1990), 416 at 5 (1984). 
--------------------

Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, Ms. Nneku Kanu- Page 2 

representative sample of information.[3] We have also received and considered comments from the third requestor. See Gov't Code § 552.304 (interested party may submit comments stating why information should or should not be released). 

Initially, we note the first requestor asks the city to answer questions. The Act does not require a governmental body to answer factual questions, conduct legal research, or create new information in responding to a request. See Open Records Decision Nos. 563 at 8 (1990), 555 at 1-2 (1 990). However, a governmental body must make a good-faith effort to relate a request to any responsive information that is within its possession or control. Open Records Decision Nos. 561 at 8-9 (1990), 555 at 1-2. We assume the city has made a good-faith effort to do so. 

Next, we note the third requestor asserts the city failed to comply with the procedural obligations under the Act with respect to his request. Pursuant to section 552.301(b), a governmental body must ask for a decision and state the exceptions that apply within ten business days of receiving the written request. See Gov't Code § 552.301(b). The request at issue was sent to the city after business hours on December 21, 2018, and you state the city was closed on December 24, 2018, and December 25, 2018. Therefore, for purposes of section 552.301, the city received the request for information on December 26, 2018. This office does not count the date the request was received or days a governmental body is closed for the purpose of calculating a governmental body's deadlines under the Act. The city also states it was closed on January 1, 2019. The envelope in which the city submitted to this office the information required by section 552.301(b) bears a meter-mark of January 10, 2019. See id. § 552.308(a) (prescribing rules for calculating submission dates of documents sent via first class United States mail, common or contract carrier, or interagency mail). Thus, we conclude the city's correspondence to this office was timely mailed. Consequently, we find the city complied with the procedural requirements mandated by section 552.301 of the Government Code with respect to the third request. 

We note the city seeks to withhold, among other things, fliers, library event calendars, and library policies that may have been released to the public. The Act does not permit selective disclosure of information to the public. See id. §§ 552.007(b), .021; Open Records Decision No. 463 at 1-2 (1987). Informationthat has been voluntarily released to a member of the public may not subsequently be withheldfrom another member of the public, unless public disclosure of the information is expressly prohibited by law or the information is confidential under law. See Gov't Code § 552.007(a); Open Records Decision Nos. 518 at 3 (1989), 490 at 2 (1988). Although you raise section 552.103 ofthe Government Code for the information at issue, this section does not prohibit the release of information or make information confidential. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 4 S.W.3d 469, 475-76 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.); Open Records Decision Nos. 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) 
----------
     [3] We assume the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. 
--------------------

Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, Ms. Nneku Kanu- Page 3 

(discretionary exceptions generally), 663 at 5 (1999) (waiver of discretionary exceptions). Thus, to the extent the city voluntarily released any of the submitted information to the public, the city may not now withhold such information under sections 552.103 but must instead release it. However, to the extent the city has not voluntarilyreleased any of the submitted information to the public, we will consider your argument under section 552.103 of the Government Code. 

We also note some of the submitted information is subject to section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022(a) provides, in relevant part: 

     (a) [T]he following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure unless made confidential under this chapter or other law: 

          (1) a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body, except as provided by Section 552.108; [and] 

          ...

          (17) information that is also contained in a public court record[.] 

Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(l), (17). The submitted information includes a completed report that is subject to section 552.022(a)(l), and a court-filed document subject to section 552.022(a)(17). The city must release the completed report pursuant to section 552.022(a)(1) unless it is excepted from disclosure under section 552.108 ofthe Government Code or made confidential under the Act or other law. See id. § 552.022(a)(l). The city must release the information subject to section 552.022(a)(17) unless it is made confidential under the Act or other law. See id. § 552.022(a)(17). You seek to withhold the information subject to section 552.022 under section 552.103 ofthe Government Code. However, section 552.103 is discretionary in nature and does not make information confidential under the Act. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Dallas Morning News, 475-76; see also ORD 665 at 2 n.5 (2000) (discretionary exceptions generally), 663 at 5 (1999) (waiver of discretionary exceptions). Therefore, the city may not withhold the information subject to section 552.022 under section 552.103 of the Government Code. As you raise no further exceptions for the completed report, which we have marked, the city must release this infornation pursuant to section 552.022(a)(l). However, because section 552.101 of the Government Code makes information confidential for purposes of section 552.022, we will consider the applicability of this exceptions to the information subject to section 552.022(a)(17).[4] Further, we will consider your argument under section 552.103 for the information not subject to section 552.022.
----------
     [4] The Office of the Attorney General will raise a mandatory exception on behalf of a governmental body, but ordinarily will not raise other exceptions. See Open Records Decision Nos. 48 1 (1987), 480 (1987), 470 (1987). 
--------------------

Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, Ms. Nneku Kanu- Page 4 

Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from disclosure "informationconsidered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. Section 552.101 encompasses section 560.003 of the Government Code. Section 560.003 provides that "[a] biometric identifier in the possession of a governmental body is exempt from disclosure under [the Act]." Id. § 560.003; see also id. §§ 560.001(1) (defining "biometric identifier" to include fingerprints), .002(1)(A) (governmentalbody may not sell, lease, or otherwise disclose individual's biometric identifier to another person unless individual consents to disclosure), .003 (biometric identifiers in possession of governmental body exempt from disclosure under the Act). Section 560.002 of the Government Code provides, in part, however, "[a] governmental body that possesses a biometric identifier of an individual . . .may not sell, lease, or otherwise disclose the biometric identifier to another person unless . . . the individual consents to the disclosure[.]" Id. § 560.002(1)(A). We have marked a fingerprint. In this instance, the first requestor is the individual whose fingerprint is at issue. Accordingly, the marked fingerprint information must be released to the first requestor pursuant to section 560.002(1)(A). Therefore, the city must release the entirety of the court-filed document to the first requestor pursuant to section 552.022(a)(17). However, there is no indication section 560.002 permits the disclosure of the marked fingerprint information to the second and third requestors. Therefore, the city must withhold the information we have marked from the second and third requestors under section 552.101 in conjunction with section 560.003 of the Government Code. The city must release the remaining information in the court-filed document to the second and third requestors pursuant to section 552.022(a)(17) of the Government Code. 

We will now address your argument under section 552.103 of the Government Code for the remaining information. Section 552.103 of the Government Code provides as follows: 

     (a) Information is excepted from [required public disclosure] if it is information relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person's office or employment, is or may be a party. 

     ...

     (c) Information relating to litigation involving a governmental body or an officer or employee of a governmental body is excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) only if the litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated on the date that the requestor applies to the officer for public information for access to or duplication of the information.
Gov't Code § 552.103(a), (c). A governmental body has the burden of providing relevant facts and documents to show the section 552.103(a) exception is applicable in a particular situation. The test for meeting this burden is a showing (1) litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated on the date the governmental body received the request for information, and (2) the information at issue is related to that litigation. Univ. of Tex. Law 
--------------------

Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, Ms. Nneku Kanu- Page 5 

Sch. v. Tex. Legal Found., 958 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, orig. proceeding); Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.-Houston[lst Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Open Records Decision No. 551 at 4 (1990). A governmental body must meet both prongs of this test for information to be excepted under section 552.103(a). 

You state, and provide documentation showing that at the time the city received the first and second requests, the city was a party to pending litigation styled Christopher, et. al v. Lawson, et. al, Case No. 18 CV3943, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. You also inform us the city's motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against it were dismissed before the third request was received. However, you also state the deadline for filing an appeal had not passed as of the date the city received the third request. Based on your representations and our review, we find the city was a party to pending litigation at the time it received the instant requests. You also state the information at issue pertains to the substance of the lawsuit claims. Based on your representations and our review, we find the information at issue is related to the pending litigation. Therefore, we conclude the city may withhold the remaining information under section 552.103 of the Government Code. 

Generally, however, once information has been obtained by all parties to the litigation though discovery or otherwise, no section 552.103(a) interest exists with respect to that information. See Open Records Decision Nos. 349 (1982), 320 (1982). Thus, information that has either been obtained from or provided to all parties to the pending litigation is not excepted from disclosure under section 552.103(a) and must be disclosed. Further, the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has concluded. See Attorney General Opinion MW-575 (1982); see also Open Records Decision No. 350 (1982). 

In summary, to the extent to the extent the city voluntarilyreleased any of the submitted information to the public, the city must release it. The city must release the completed report, which we have marked, pursuant to section 552.022(a)(l) of the Government Code. The city must release the entirety of the court-filed document to the first requestor pursuant to section 552.022(a)(17) ofthe Government Code. The city must withholdthe information we have marked inthe court-filed document under section 552.101 ofthe Government Code in conjunction with section 560.003 of the Government Code and release the remaining information in the court-filed document to the second and third requestors pursuant to section 552.022(a)(17) of the Government Code. The city may withhold the remaining information under section 552.103 of the Government Code. 

This letter ruling is limited to the particular information at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other information or any other circumstances. 

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For more information concerning those rights and responsibilities, please visit our website at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open/ 
--------------------

Ms. Danielle R. Folsom, Mr. Rahat Huq, Ms. Nneku Kanu- Page 6 

orl_ruling_info.shtml, or call the Office of the Attorney General's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. Questions concerning the allowable charges for providing public information under the Act may be directed to the Office of the Attorney General, toll free, at (888) 672-6787. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Matthew Taylor 
Assistant Attorney General 
Open Records Division 

MHT/gw 

Ref: ID#753435 

Enc. Submitted documents 

c:   3 Requestors 
     (w/o enclosures) 




NOTE ADDED 14 MARCH 2019:

My secure email (that only I get and that no company like Google, Facebook, Twitter can read) is SafeLibraries@pm.me, should anyone wish to contact me via that means.  LIBRARIANS WORKING AT HOUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY are welcome to contact me there or to send documents to me there.  I'm weaving this paragraph into my reporting above.


NOTE ADDED 15 MARCH 2019:

BREAKING @KHOU @HoustonTX: @houstonlibrary ADMITS REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER READ TO KIDS AT DRAG QUEEN STORY HOUR!!

“WE DEEPLY REGRET THIS OVERSIGHT AND THE CONCERN THIS MAY CAUSE OUR CUSTOMERS. WE REALIZE THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER.”

NOTE ADDED 28 MARCH 2019:

I found the opinion I published above has a citation having been officially reported:
  • Texas Attorney General Letter Rulings; Administrative Determination Document, 2019 Tex. AG Ltr. Rul. LEXIS 5687 No. OR2019-06437 (March 7, 2019)


—

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/03/houston-library-forced-foia.html

On Twitter: 
@HoustonLibrary @HoustonTX @KenPaxtonTX
@MassResistance @SunshineWeek @TXAG

at No comments: