Deleted e-mails

December 26, 2015

This came in from ManintheMoon in response to Better than a shredder :

Brutus
You may not know it but you have exposed a crime in the  e-mail that you showed were deleted  which are public records and in the state of Texas deleting public records is a crime. City’s chief financial officer should be charged. It does not matter there are copies he has a legal oblation to keep all e-mails sent to him because it is a public recorder. Brutus believe Felony has been committed.
Check this out, look at number 3.Also check out the charges.
Regards
ManintheMoon
Found under TEXAS GOVERMETNAL LAW
PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION
Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record;
(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record;
(3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record;
(4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully;
(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or
(6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully.
(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code.
(c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was:
(A) a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, data reported for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law or rule requiring that reporting, or a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree;
(B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action;
(C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or
(D) a search warrant issued by a magistrate.
(3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student.
(4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing.
(d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record;
(2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under:
(A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or
(B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and
(3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor’s intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government’s purpose for requiring the governmental record.
(g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government.
(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections.
(i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program.
(j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement “NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT” or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, Sec. 66, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 113, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 6, eff. May 21, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 823, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 659, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 718, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 771, Sec. 3, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 198, Sec. 2.139, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 257, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1364 (H.B. 126), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1085 (H.B. 3024), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 73 (H.B. 1813), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130 (H.B. 2086), Sec. 31, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 510 (S.B. 124), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 690 (H.B. 644), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2015.

 


Can this be true?

December 18, 2015

A citizen told me the other day that the reason we see sections of roads blocked off with orange cones for long periods of time without any work being done is that the contract for the cones is separate from the contract for the construction.

Evidently one contract calls for a company to place cones at a given location beginning on a certain date and ending on another date.

If the construction crew is not able to start at the same time we have to endure needless inconvenience.

It seems like this would be easy to fix.

We deserve better

Brutus


Road destruction

December 13, 2015

My ride last Sunday at one point had me traveling on the northern portion of Paisano.

Contractors have reduced it to one lane in each direction.

The site was idle.  No work was being done.

With I-10 in the middle of a multi-year construction project and portions of Mesa being closed for periods of time it would be nice if they would finish the construction on a schedule that is less inconvenient to the citizens and less so for the contractors and governments.

Instead we are enduring daily delays of over one hour.

We deserve better

Brutus


Whom do you believe?

December 7, 2015

With the revelation that our former city manager seems to have lied to us and to KVIA about the $22 million cost overrun we are having to pay for because city council delayed selling the bonds until after their election, we thought that we should look at some of her other statements.

In an October 24, 2015 article the Times quoted her as saying:

“When someone talks about that we’ve created more jobs in the last two years than in the last eight years, we have to factor in that we went through a very difficult economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 where we lost a lot of jobs just like everyone else did around the country. So we actually recovered those jobs. … We have recovered a lot of the jobs that we lost during that period, plus we are adding new jobs,” Wilson said.

Then again

We also have this graphic from the Texas Workforce Commission:

2015employment

Will they really reappoint her to the central appraisal district board tomorrow?

We deserve better

Brutus


College Readiness

November 29, 2015

The document below was part of a presentation made at the EPISD board of trustees meeting the other day:

EPISD-SAT-2014

It certainly does not look good.

Before any of our loyal commenters point this out, let me say that I know nothing about how to interpret these results.  Having more students taking the test could certainly explain the decrease in scores.

What got my attention is the last paragraph.  “16% of those who took the SAT in the class of 2015 met the College Readiness benchmark”.

EPISD is teaching the kids what the state requires.  Our kids score about as well on the state tests as those in other large cities so it would appear that EPISD is doing what the state expects.  Could it be that the state is getting in the way?

Maybe as citizens we should find ways to help educate these kids.

Maybe some of our readers can enlighten us.

We deserve better

Brutus