Showing posts with label How to FOIA a Library. Show all posts
Showing posts with label How to FOIA a Library. Show all posts

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Drag Queen Story Hour Funding FOIA—ALA Uses National Library Week to Call It Censorship

Dear Houston Public Library Foundation [HPLF] TPIA Officer:

This is a noncommercial FOIA request from a member of the news media for electronic production of documentation per the Texas Public Information Act, §6252-17a et seq. [TPIA], to this email address, to my attention, using the above-referenced research project code.  TPIA requires that you "promptly produce" the requested records unless, within 10 days, you have sought an Attorney General's Opinion.  If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.  All documentation should be produced as PDFs, with the exception of photographs (which should be JPEG), audio files (which should be MP3), and video (which should be MP4 or MOV).  If documentation files are too large to transmit in an email, transmit them to me either using a free file sharing service (such as Dropbox) or by sending multiple emails (as many as needed).  I seek the following numbered categories of documentation for my research pursuant to news articles and a book I am writing that has interest and value to the public:

Copy of the following:

WHERE DOES HPLF GETS ITS MONEY:  ( 1 ) Please provide documentation, written or recorded, of financial gifts, grants, loans, donations, or any other monies offered to and actually received by HPLF from the American Library Association [ALA], the Freedom to Read Foundation [FTRF], the Public Library Association, the Texas Library Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship, Open Society Foundations, or Drag Queen Story Hour, from 1 July 2018 to present.  I expect FTRF to be the main source since it has an established pattern of quietly funding its acolytes, as discussed below.  Further, ALA has in the past given HPLF anywhere from $250-$999.  See: page 15 of “2017 Impact Report” https://www.houstonlibraryfoundation.org/s/Houston-Library-Foundation-Impact-Report-FY-17  I anticipate responding to this request will take 5 minutes.

WHAT’S BEING FUNDED AT HPL BY HLPF:  ( 2 ) Please provide documentation, written or recorded, of financial gifts, grants, loans, donations, or any other monies offered and/or actually funded/disbursed by HPLF to Houston Public Library [HPL], from 1 July 2018 to present, including an itemization of each instance, for whom or what it was provided—including the drag queens or drag queen business(es), when, and the exact dollar amount.  I anticipate responding to this request will take 5 minutes.

IS HOUSTON CITY CODE 24-5 TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION:  ( 3 ) Please provide documentation, written or recorded, of discussion of Houston City Code 24-5, specifically, “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,” from 1 July 2018 to present.  See: https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH24LI_ARTIINGE_S24-5RURE&fbclid=IwAR3MjIhvnaD8Q-uHVixLgJM9H_nWWB2R8DAucJONfW-k98ny9fkIFnfNK1c  I anticipate responding to this request will take 10 minutes.

IS DRAG QUEEN STORYTIME ACCEPTABLE UNDER HOUSTON CITY CODE 24-5:  ( 4 ) Please provide documentation, written or recorded, of discussion of how Drag Queen StoryTime relates to “understanding and celebrating all Houstonians’ similarities and differences, building positive relationships, and promoting a dialogue of acceptance, respect, and trust,” and any counterarguments thereto, from 1 July 2018 to present.  See: https://www.houstonlibraryfoundation.org/s/HPLF-DQST-Statement-SM.pdf  I anticipate responding to this request will take 10 minutes.

SEE DRAG QUEEN STORYTIME IN ACTION:  ( 5 ) Please provide all photographs and videos taken during Drag Queen StoryTime events.  Upon information and belief, HPL and HPLF employees/staff/appointed office holders/commissioners took photos and video at these events, using both library, foundation, or library consortia owned equipment and their personal cellphones.  Time period is limited to 1 July 2018 to present.  Be clear personal cellphones are covered by TPIA as long as the recordings do not “constitute an invasion of privacy” of the individual.  Recording public Drag Queen StoryTime shows does not constitute an invasion of privacy of the individual making the recording.  It is not believable people did not use their personal devices to make recordings, so they must be produced pursuant to TPIA as well.  See Texas Government Code § 552.109: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government-code/gov-t-sect-552-109.html or https://web.archive.org/web/20180905094242/http://txla.org/IF-Open-Records  I anticipate responding to this request will take 10 minutes.

HEAR DRAG QUEEN STORYTIME BEING DISCUSSED:  ( 6 ) Please provide all voice mail recordings about Drag Queen StoryTime or the funding thereof.  Such recordings are likely MP3 audio files organized by your voice mail system.  Such recordings are likely to be in the voice mailboxes belonging to any chief executive/director/commissioner, any assistant executive/director/commissioner, any youth services director, and any public relations director.  I anticipate responding to this request will take 15 minutes.

That completes this documentation request.  The expected time for completion of the above requests by an experienced TPIA/FOIA officer is 55 minutes.

This is an attempt to determine if and to what extent outside influence is influencing local policy in Houston, TX, and whether local policy as reflected in Houston City Code 24-5 has been considered and applied or simply tossed aside intentionally or out of sheer ignorance of the law.

ALA makes a habit of influencing local communities with quiet money.  In Highland Park, TX, for example, FTRF, an ALA entity, gave $5,000 dollars to local advocates of ALA’s political positions.  See page 10: http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/governance/officers/eb_documents/2014_2015ebdocuments/ebd12_12_exec_dir_rpt_11dec14.pdf

ALA later saw to it that its local favorite in Highland Park was awarded with a “Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award” for doing what ALA wanted.  See: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/highland-park/2015/12/10/highland-park-group-that-went-to-bat-for-books-is-recognized  It is worthy to note that ALA arranged to have the same “Intellectual Freedom” award given to a library that facilitated then covered up the crime of child pornography viewing. See https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2014/12/university-of-illinois-gslis-gives-award-for-defending-child-pornography/

In West Bend, WI, ALA quietly slipped $1000 grant to a local acolyte, the existence of which was never made public until it was uncovered by a FOIA request, necessitating the need for the filing of this present TPIA request.  See what was uncovered and the cozy financial relationship one local acolyte had with ALA and the library it supported to defeat a local whistleblower: http://westbend.pbworks.com/f/Hanrahan2Tyree051209.pdf

In the Houston matter, there may be more quiet money being used to promote interests of outside groups instead of local interests.  There are definitely indications that this is so.  For example, your HPLF stated, “Drag Queen Storytime has been volunteer-led and offered at no cost to the Houston Public Library, and no private or public funds were used to directly fund the program.” See: https://www.houstonlibraryfoundation.org/s/HPLF-DQST-Statement-SM.pdf

Notice the word “directly.”  “[N]o private or public funds were used to directly fund the program.”  That means funds were used indirectly.  The public has a right to know.

ALA’s quiet money is always done indirectly.  ALA is an organization that defends child pornography viewing ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/01/brave-librarian-speaks-out.html ) and the sexual harassment of librarians, calling it “dubious,” ( https://www.librarians.cc/2018/02/ala-ignores-sexual-harassment.html ) among other serious problems including homophobia ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/07/gay-hate-at-your-library.html ) and antisemitism ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2018/11/antisemitism-at-ALA.html ).  Such an organization giving quiet money to local acolytes to defeat local whistleblowers and local law is a serious concern.  People should be fully informed so as not to be misled into doing what ALA would have them do if ALA only had the direct power to do so.

This TPIA hopes to expose the extent of ALA’s financial involvement in Houston as it may explain why those in power may be ignoring Houston City Code 24-5 about “promot[ing] an environment that is protective of the health and well-being of patrons and children while at the library facility,” and exposing the community to seriously risk of liability.  ALA’s former de facto leader and creator of FTRF, also a former board member of the Illinois ACLU, actually said, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune, “I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children. …. I am adult. I want available what I need to see.”  See: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-06-23-0506230234-story.html

I have to wonder if the people of Houston agree with that statement enough to toss aside Houston City Code 24-5, that is explicitly “protective” of children, and is directly opposed to the anything-goes views of ALA.  As Governor Greg Abbott stated in an analogous case, “Don’t Mess With Texas. We don’t want out-of-staters rigging our elections.”  See: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1109933040724312064  Do citizens want out-of-staters at ALA rigging the libraries instead of complying with local law designed to “protect” children?  Governor Abbott raises an excellent point, and the response to this TPIA may help educate him and the Houston community.

Even Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is in on the action.  He stated, “The Fact is: Storytime is funded by the Houston Library Foundation. No tax dollars are involved. The program was requested by patrons of the Library.”  See: https://twitter.com/SylvesterTurner/status/1107424485811146755  So the present TPIA request is to determine the extent of that funding, who are the sources of that funding, and where specifically is that funding going.

The responses to this TPIA request are a matter of great public concern.  So great that even Texas Governor Greg Abbott raises the issue, “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”  See: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1107418383568506880  Well, Governor, it is likely there will be more news about the harm the library has done by ignoring its duties.  The present TPIA request is to determine how much money is funding Drag Queen StoryTime where a registered sex offender participated.  I hope to present the Governor with my findings.

Therefore, in respect of the above, and given the eyes of Houston and the Governor of Texas are upon you, please respond to my TPIA request without any of the usual open government gamesmanship, such as what HPL has done to prevent the public from learning the facts.  I still have not received any documents even after the Texas Attorney General had to force compliance.  See Ken Paxton’s decision here: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/03/houston-library-forced-foia.html  Only yesterday was I informed by HPL the documents would be made available to me, but only for a $145 fee.  So I still don’t have the documents.  I’m a reporter and HPL is charging fees despite the law and dragging out the process.  This will result in my requesting relief from the Texas Attorney General, running up further legal costs—to defend despite open government laws unforced errors that allowed a convicted pedophile to read to children.  No doubt I will be blamed as legal fees rise due to HLP’s defense of Drag Queen StoryTime despite city law and state law.  I say this in the hope HLPF will not go down the path of HPL and will simply turn over the documentation as requested and as required by law.

Additional notes:

TPIA gives the public the right to request access to government information. The same applies to HPLF, an organization whose members are appointed by the Mayor and approved by City Council. Therefore, please respond to the above noncommercial TPIA request in accordance with the law.  See: City of Houston Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Article II, Sections 24-25 through 24-35. https://www.municode.com/library/TX/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH24LI_ARTIILIBO_S24-25LIBOCR

Also, constructive criticism, consider adding HPLF to “Public Information Act Requests” that has already been updated once as a direct result of my first FOIA request to HPL.  Not being listed on that page gives the false impression that HLPF is not subject to TPIA. See: http://www.houstontx.gov/pia.html

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.  Thus, I ask that all fees for the production of TPIA responses be waived: "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, and in Governor Abbott’s message quoted above.

Further exposure of more drag queens is likely, given the complete dereliction of duty of the library.  See https://twitter.com/ShannonTracy123/status/1110749040290029569   So this issue is of current interest.

There are even indications that this is a matter beyond mere dereliction of duty bordering on intentional refusal to protect children when comments like this one from eleven weeks ago appear in a public Facebook group called ALA Think Tank, as seen in the URL, but later renamed to hide the connection to ALA, “Someone referred to it as ‘pedophile storytime’ to my coworker and she was really confused until I said ‘They mean drag queen story hour’ and she's like ‘But drag queens and pedophiles are completely unrelated?’ YEP.”  So librarians, likely including some at HPL, were aware of the concerns and still ignored them.  That is bad.  See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ALAthinkTANK/permalink/2440967925976013/

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 HLPF 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 HPLF business has been conducted via the use of personal emails, then please provide those emails as well. Conducting HLPF 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, video recordings, transcripts or minutes of any public meetings. HLPF 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 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 with the help of HLPF.

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.” See: “Librarians Ordered to Destroy Public Documents Revealing Homophobia at American Library Association and Crime in Libraries,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries®, 26 April 2018, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2018/04/librarians-ordered-to-destroy.html

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

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

Sincerely,

Dan Kleinman

=====

27 March 2019 (Wednesday early AM)

Houston Public Library Foundation
550 McKinney St
Houston, TX 77002
hello@houstonlibraryfoundation.org

     Re:  FOIA Research Project #2019-03-27 = Houston Public Library Foundation - Drag Queen Funding - 1





Above is my 27 March 2019 FOIA request.  I would love to think of it as a model FOIA request for others to follow.  It's specific, anticipates some of the gamesmanship recalcitrant libraries play because they are hiding something, and it looks at the law of the state or municipality that libraries must follow and sees if those rules are being followed or have even been considered.  Get a head start in your own state here:
The library has already responded to the above FOIA request.  Below is a discussion of and a link to the library's response dated 10 April 2019.





The response to the above FOIA request is that the City of Houston has written to the Texas Attorney General asking to be relieved from having to respond to requests made under open government laws:
It has used some or all of these excuses to block FOIA responses to anyone, for well over half a year now, I believe.  No one has gotten anything yet, while the bills keep piling up to defend pedophiles reading to children at library programs.  The problem with keeping what the library is doing opaque is that the library can continue to act in a manner that may be harming the community either directly or financially.

In this case we have a library that has allowed two registered sex offenders to read to children.  The FOIA requests are to shed light on how and why this happened, with an eye toward preventing it from happening in the future.  But not only is the library blocking public disclosure of this, it is also actively seeking to ramp up more and more of the inherently dangerous activity.  Such activity can go on and further harm the community precisely because the library is blocking access to public documents that might disclose what's going on so as to allow the public to decide how best to proceed or to persuade their government to do so.

In other words, the library is defying the law or playing FOIA games to further expose the community to harm.


What's a FOIA game?  I asked for who are the donors to the library foundation.  The City says it will not supply that under Boeing Co v. Paxton, a case that allowed a private company that contracts with a public entity to block disclosure by that public entity because it might hurt business.  There is no private company involved in this matter, only the foundation itself that argues giving away its donor list would harm its own ability to raise funds—it doesn't do any business.  And none of the private donors contract with the library foundation, they simply donate money.  The Boeing case doesn't even apply, but the City raises it anyway.  That's a FOIA game.

Besides, we all know not a single donor would stop donating because people knew who else was donating.  Rather, that would be a feather in the donor's cap, one freely broadcast because of the goodwill that brings.  Ever seen a stadium plastered with the name of its major donor?  It's likely already broadcast by the various donors.  The excuse is a false one.  Again, the reasoning of Boeing doesn't apply.

How do we know Boeing is a problem?  Is it used by public entities to block disclosure of public information?  Yes.  Texas legislators are working to get around the effect of the case that has taken a formerly transparent state and turned it into the exact opposite.  So much so that even a library that allows registered sex offenders to read to kids gets to claim Boeing applies so it can block the public from learning about how that debacle happened.  Is Boeing supposed to protect a library as it allows pedophiles to read to children?  Read what legislators are doing to reverse this:
In the Boeing decision, the court granted private companies that contract with governmental entities enormous latitude to claim that documents and information should be kept secret, including in some cases the contract itself and the amount of taxpayer money involved.
In its decision to allow the University of Houston to keep the contracts hidden, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office cited a 2015 Texas Supreme Court case known as Boeing Co. v. Paxton, which expanded what is considered a trade secret, or proprietary information of private companies that government agencies can withhold from the public.
“As a citizen, you just feel bullied,” Terrell said. “They hold all the cards. Boeing gives them the right to withhold the entire contract. It’s [a way] to just shut down everything.”

And the Houston Public Library Foundation has played this game before, using Boeing Co. v Paxton to block past FOIA requests.  See:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Public Information Act (the "Act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID # 733956 (GC 25439). 
The City of Houston (the "city") received a request for information pertaining to funding and donor information of the Houston Public Library Foundation.  You claim the submitted information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.104 of the Government Code.  We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.
Section 552.104 excepts from disclosure "information that, if released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder."  Gov't Code § 552.104.  The "test under section 552.104 is whether knowing another bidder's [or competitor's information] would be an advantage, not whether it would be a decisive advantage."  Boeing Co. v. Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831, 841 (Tex. 2015).  You state the city competes with other entities to obtain donations for funding. The city states it has specific marketplace interests in the submitted information and relies on donations to fund several library programs.  Further, you assert disclosure of the information at issue would provide other entities access to a list of all the donors with whom the city has cultivated relationships.  You claim release of the information at issue would be detrimental to the city's competitive advantage in seeking donations.  After review of the information at issue and consideration of the arguments, we find the city has established the release of the information we indicated would give advantage to a competitor or bidder.  Accordingly, the city may withhold the information we indicated under section 552.104(a) of the Government Code.  However, we find the city failed to establish the release of the remaining information at issue would give advantage to a competitor or bidder.  Thus, we conclude the remaining information at issue may not be withheld under section 552.104(a) of the Government Code.  The city must release the remaining information.
The Texas Attorney General sure got fooled.





Now, as we discuss Drag Queen Story Hour funding and how to FOIA libraries for information, and how libraries are letting pedophiles read to children, keep in mind that not only does the American Library Association actively support libraries in spreading Drag Queen Story Time throughout America (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.), but at the same time it actively attacks any and all watchdogs, an ALA trait, calling them "censors"—and it makes no difference if your library allows registered sex offender pedophiles to read to children like at the Houston Public Library that's blocking FOIA requests—and ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" even used "National Library Week" to launch this attack as well:

And don't think people aren't noticing:


See also:


NOTE ADDED 19 APRIL 2019:

Today I sent a letter to the Texas Attorney General to attempt to counteract the library's latest effort to continue to hide its malfeasance from the public.  Here it is:


NOTE ADDED 26 JUNE 2019:

Yesterday, 25 June 2019, I learned that I would receive absolutely no documents in response to this request.  In a nutshell, someone else has filed a lawsuit that is ongoing at this moment, so the law allows the library foundation to avoid responding during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Therefore I will wait until the lawsuit is over.

I note that I will be filing a substantially similar request on the library itself, in addition to the library foundation.  I wanted this foundation matter to complete first as a matter of efficiency and good practice.  Sure enough, I can now tell that a similar FOIA on the library will result in a similar answer/non-answer.  So by waiting as I have, I have saved Houston some time and some money.

I still will note that Houston refuses to release information about how pedophile drag queens got to read to Houston's children.

Here are the relevant documents:
So this matter is closed, with no documents having been released, and I'll refile it and file on the library when the lawsuit with which I am not involved has completed.

—
URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/04/drag-queen-story-hour-funding-foia.html

On Twitter: 
@ALALibrary @HouLibraryFdn @HoustonLibrary @NFOIC @OIF @TXAG @_YvonneBurton

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.

—

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

====
—

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