LCPPF Accepts County Judge R.G. Floyd's Invitation

In a December 24, 2006 e-mail to Klee's Kaleidoscope “Sound Off,” (www.kleekal.com) County Judge R.G. Floyd stated:

“If you would like to know the truth about a matter affecting our county, my suggestion would be not to rely any further on any present source you are using but call the County Judge. I have been a very truthful judge, having no reason to hide or color any matter, and I believe Judge-Elect Brascom will be the same.”

The Questions

1.     Was the new position “Llano County Administrator of Natural Resources” approved by the Llano County Commissioners Court?

2.     If so, when was it approved? Is such approval reflected in the Court’s minutes? If not, why not?

3.     If the position was not approved by the Court, why wasn’t it approved? If not approved, on what authority did you create the position and hire Moore to fill it?

4.     How was the rate of compensation determined for the position? Was this approved by the Court? If not, why not?

5.     If the rate of compensation was approved by the Court, is this reflected in the Court’s minutes? If not, why not?

6.     Was the position posted in accordance with practices followed by most grant recipients? If not, why not?

7.     If the position wasn’t posted, how did the three applicants learn of it?

8.     What recruitment efforts were taken to hire the most qualified individual for the job? Please give specifics.

9.     Who determined the qualifications for the position?

10. What criteria were used to determine the qualifications required for the position?

11. What qualifications were finally adopted for the position?

12. What are the names of the three applicants for the position to which you refer in your “Sound Off” letter i.e. Administrator of Natural Resources?

13. Had each of the applicants completed written applications for the position and/or submitted resumes of their qualifications?

14. Are the applications and/or resumes still in the county’s possession? If not, why not?

15. The barest minimal qualifications for a natural resource administrator require a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Science or related field and at least 3-5 years progressively responsible experience in natural resources. Since Ron Moore has no higher than a high school education and perhaps one or two college course in fields unrelated to natural resources, and his job experience has been primary that of a radio announcer, in what way was Moore qualified for the position?

16. Did Moore’s hiring as Llano County Administrator of Natural Resources have anything to do with his holding high office in the Llano County Republican Party or any of its related organizations?

17. Did anyone recommend or suggest to you that Moore be hired for the position? If so, please name all those who made such recommendation or suggestion. When and where did these communications take place? Under what circumstances did these communications take place?

18. If Moore left employment with the county as a 911 coordinator because the “grant expired,” why was he not rehired in that same position once it became independently funded by the county?

19. What, if any, investigation was made into the factual accuracy of the employment and educational history reflected in Moore’s employment application with the County? [This is based on the assumption Moore completed an employment application]

20. On Moore’s employment application, did Moore attest in writing to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained therein? If not, why not?

21. Where you aware that Moore prepared, filed and prosecuted a criminal complaint against a Llano County citizen in the 2^nd Precinct Justice Court on behalf of the State of Texas without the consent or approval of the Llano County Attorney or any other prosecutorial authority? If yes, when did you first become aware that he had done so?

22.  What action, if any, did you take to avoid further abuses of authority by Moore from being committed in the future? If none, why not?

ISSUE: Whether County officials should be immune from prosecution when they abuse their administrative authority?
 

[In light of the developing matter of possible selective enforcement of state laws, ordinances and regulations in Llano County, the Llano County Public Policy Forum has obtained the permission of Klee's Kaleidoscope to post their articles concerning this matter. The four-part is entitled, "Power Corrupts." The LCPPF takes no stand on any of the issues raised in Mr. Klee's articles but offers this information as a public service meriting further investigation and open discussion.]

Power Corrupts (November 7, 2005)
While the Llano ISD is busy playing musical chairs with its administrative staff trying to decide who gets the next promotion, I decided to sit in on a matter scheduled to be heard on November 1 before the Honorable Duane Nobles, Justice of the Peace in the mighty 2nd Precinct, the one and only case apparently scheduled to be heard that afternoon. As I was to learn, the events leading up to this hearing could have come straight out of a novel by Franz Kafka.

Here are the background facts: Marian Bloss, a county resident, hired T.F.R. Enterprises, Inc. to demolish a building on property she owned and to remove and dispose of the demolition material. T.F.R. did so, temporarily storing the material on property owned by a company with which T.F.R. is affiliated. T.F.R. could not move the material to a qualified landfill immediately because in the interim, the company was called upon to move its equipment to the disaster areas in Mississippi, Louisiana and east Texas. I saw the property that Bloss owned and cleared and found it to be in pristine condition, evenly leveled and without debris.

Ron Moore, Administrator of the Llano County Department of Natural Resources and former radio announcer solicited Jessie James, a local real estate broker, to file an unverified complaint against Bloss in which it was stated that a “building was demolished and materials may have been disposed of improperly.” The complaint further alleged: “Appear (sic) to have been dumped on property across the Hwy & South of the site on what did belong to Albert Peek.” In a letter to Constable Jerald Moore [no relation] Ron Moore confirmed the complaint solicitation stating: “I will try to get James to stop by and fill out a complaint form…” The unverified complaint, however, appears to have been signed “in blank” and later filled in by person or persons unknown.

Apparently, Constable Moore was complicit in Moore’s manufacture of the unverified complaint in that Moore asked him if he was able to “see any recent excavation across the street” and “if you would let me know what you can see I will appreciate it.” In fact, it appears the whole justice court may be in cahoots with Moore in processing complaints arising out of his office. As Moore stated to Constable Moore: “Let’s get together as soon as possible to try to improve the way complaints are processed…Of course we want Linda [Linda Ballard, Chief Clerk] and the Judge? (sic) there too.”

Without verifying the allegations contained in the unverified complaint, Moore sent Bloss a letter stating she may be in violation of Texas Health & Safety Code sections 365.012 [illegal dumping] and 343.011 [public nuisance]. The letter further stated that county regulations require a “Developmental Permit” for any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate and that Bloss was required to obtain such a permit [this may come as a surprise to most county residents].

Bloss was given 31 days from the date of the letter in which to respond. Failing a response, Moore stated a full investigation would be conducted [one would think he did that before the letter was sent], and if she was found to be in violation of state law a criminal complaint would be filed against her and a warrant issued for her arrest! Curiously, Constable Jerald Moore (former Pastor of Tow Baptist Church), Justice of the Peace Duane Nobles (ex-welder and former Deputy Sheriff) and County Commissioner Pct. 2, Henry Parker, were all copied on Moore’s letter to Bloss.

Ironically, the complaint upon which Moore’s letter was based clearly states that the material in question was not on Bloss’ property but rather on a site that “did belong to Albert Peek” i.e. Moore knew or should have known at the time he sent the letter to Bloss that she was not in violation of any state law!

Nonetheless, to avoid the filing of a criminal complaint and warrant for her arrest, Bloss timely paid the $100 “Developmental Permit” even though there was no legal authority for the county to require such payment. Llano County has not passed any published order, ordinance, or rules to enforce Chapters 343 and/or 365 of the Health & Safety Code. The only provisions that require permits are the county’s subdivision regulations of the county’s flood regulations. The property at issue has not been subdivided, leaving the flood regulations as the only basis for the county’s threats against Bloss.

Llano County’s Flood Damage Prevention Order, however, is expressly based on and limited to section 16.315 of the Texas Water Code, not on Chapters 343 and/or 365 of the Health & Safety Code. The purpose of 16.315 is to authorize political subdivisions to enact land use regulations that have the purpose and effect of compliance with requirements and criteria for the National Flood Insurance Program. In other words, Moore was all wet: Section 16.315 does not address the proper disposal of demolition materials.

As for the “Public Nuisance” claim, a county cannot enforce Chapter 343 unless it adopts nuisance abatement procedures consistent with that Chapter. This the county hasn’t done. Even if the county could proceed to seek injunctive relief, jurisdiction to hear the matter would lie with the county or district court, not with the justice court, where certain notice requirements prior to suit are mandated and which were not given in this instance.

It doesn’t get any better with Moore’s claim that Bloss had engaged in illegal dumping. Section 365.012 expressly states: “This section does not apply to the temporary storage for future disposal of litter or other solid waste by a person on land owned by that person, or by that person’s agent.” (Emphasis added) It had been explained to Moore that the materials were being stored temporarily due to the interruption in having it removed by the effects of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Apparently, natural disasters of such magnitude have no affect on the Administrator of the Llano County Department of Natural Resources’ mind-set i.e. “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!”

Technicalities aside, it appears that Moore was unlawfully attempting to enforce state laws on behalf of the county against the wrong defendant and in the wrong court, and attempting to enforce county regulations not in compliance with the law, with full knowledge beforehand that he was doing so and soliciting the help of a local real estate broker, justice of the peace, constable and court clerk in the process!


©2005 Harvey H. Klee

Power Corrupts, Part 2 (November 14, 2005)

After Marian Bloss had received notice from Ron Moore of possible code and regulatory violations, she made an Open Records Act request for Moore to produce: “All documents and records related to the permitting process for demolition of a building in Buchanan Dam under Llano County regulations, including applications, approved facility lists and fee schedules. This includes emails and telephone messages.” This request was resubmitted three times before a response was finally received by Bloss over a month later.

The only document produced relative to the request was the fee schedule. No documents were produced to indicate the existence of a county regulation relating to the demolition of buildings or permitting process. No documents were produced to indicate “Developmental Permits” were ever applied for or issued to anyone. No copies of e-mail or telephone messages relevant to the request were produced.

Three letters were produced concerning complaints filed with the Llano County Department of Natural Resources alleging violations of sub-division restrictions notifying the recipients of same. However, enforcement of sub-division restrictions does not come under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources – that right belongs to the sub-division property owners.

Through the correspondence and dialogue that followed, it appeared that Moore was attempting to enforce state laws on behalf of the county against the wrong defendant and in the wrong court, and attempting to enforce county regulations not promulgated in compliance with the law. This appears to have been done with full knowledge beforehand that he was doing so while soliciting the help of a justice of the peace, constable, and court clerk in the process. There is also the matter of a questionable administrative complaint ostensibly submitted by Jesse James against Bloss. Moore claims he did not “solicit” the complaint from James – and he may be right in an oblique but more damaging way.
According to Moore, a Natural Resources complaint form is obtainable from the Justice of the Peace’s office. Putting aside the propriety of obtaining complaint forms from the court that may eventually adjudicate the matter for the moment, the form I obtained consists of one page and has a place near the bottom for the complainant to sign and date, beneath which is a place for a witness to countersign and date, as well as the location where the complaint was filed. At the very bottom there is a place where information can be recorded “For County use only.”
The “complaint” James signed, however, consisted of two pages, the second of which contained no handwriting, save the purported signature of James, and the date, August 25, 2005. It contained the printed legend, “Witness Statement” which was not completed but remained blank. The document was not counter-signed, although there was a place for countersignatures by two witnesses, nor did it contain a “For County use only” section.
The first page of the complaint, to which this second page was attached, set forth the complaint in full but was dated 4 days later i.e. August 29, 2005! The place where the signature, witness signature and signature dates would go, as well as the “County use section,” was missing. It appears as if the bottom 2 ½ inches of the form had been “whited” out – it was absolutely blank and looked “doctored.
When presented with the document containing his signature, James said he was familiar with the matter and acknowledged that the signature on the second page was his. When he looked at the first page, however, he stated: “This doesn’t look like my handwriting. I didn’t write this down.”
Based on James’ denial that he had written the complaint, it appears Moore may not have solicited James to submit it. Rather, somehow James’ signature and date on a blank document was obtained and attached to a complaint dated 4 days later. It was this document that was filed with the JP court along with other documents. Moore swore under oath he had received the complaint from “County resident Jesses James.” James’ statements, however, do not support that statement. Obviously there is more here than what meets the eye – but what does meet the eye is damning enough.

When County Attorney Cheryl Mabray refused to file a formal complaint and prosecute the case, Moore took matters into his own hands and filed a formal sworn Complaint with the Justice of the Peace, 2nd Pct. on October 5, 2005. The Complaint, however, was not served on Bloss. Judge Duane Nobles subsequently mailed an “Order to Show Cause” dated October 14, 2005 to Bloss regarding the property where the demolition material was temporarily stored stating therein: “At this time you will have the opportunity to provide documentation that the debris has been received at a State approved disposal facility.”


©2005 Harvey H. Klee

[Correction: Subsequent to the posting of this article I was informed by credible sources that 56 documents had been produced in response to Bloss’ request under the Open Records Act. The vast majority of these documents consisted of letters Moore had written to local residents concerning possible code violations – less than half were accompanied by the underlying complaint thereby raising the issue as to whether complaints had actually been filed in all these instances. None of the letters Moore had sent to alleged violators threatened criminal action.]

Power Corrupts, Part 3

The Trial

No court-filed Complaint had been included in the “Show Cause” notice Judge Nobles mailed to Bloss nor had any citation been prepared and served. No docket number was included in the notice nor did the notice indicate if the case was civil or criminal. Further, the notice failed to name the attorney who would present the case for the state or Llano County.

Upon telephone inquiry, Linda Ballard, Chief Clerk, stated that the case was civil “at this stage” and that Judge Nobles would present the case i.e. Nobles would act as prosecutor and judge in the same matter, contrary to the Canons of Judicial Conduct. By proceeding this way, the hearing would be “off the books” as if it were a Star Chamber proceeding. It bypassed the County Attorney who has the exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of county regulations and/or state laws falling under the jurisdiction of the justice courts.

At Bloss’ request the hearing was rescheduled, at which time a docket number was finally assigned and given the caption, “State of Texas vs. Marian Bloss” – a criminal case! By this time, Judge Nobles was fully informed as to the operative facts but refused to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. With a hearing date now set for November 1, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. neither Bloss nor her attorneys had any notice of any formal Complaint being filed against her – talk about being blind-sided!

On the day of the hearing, both of Bloss’ attorneys who had driven in from Austin were there, as well as Bloss’ husband, Richard Grayum. Bloss, who is an attorney, was absent due to her required appearance in court elsewhere. She was represented by her attorneys in her absence. I was there also for the hearing. We were all curious as to who would be representing the prosecution.

Moore arrived late and announced he would be prosecuting the case and would be the state’s one and only witness. County Attorney Cheryl Mabray may be surprised to learn her professional staff had increased by one. Whether Mabray’s office intends to prosecute Moore for unlawfully filing the Complaint and representing the State of Texas and the county in this proceeding is uncertain – but I guess you know the answer to that as well as I.

Before the proceedings commenced, Moore handed a copy of a court-filed Complaint to Bloss’ attorneys that he had completed and signed dated October 5, 2005! It swore out a complaint against Bloss: “By the State of Texas and the County of Llano, in the Name and by the Authority of the State of Texas.” That was the first time the defendant received or had even seen the Complaint. It was a faxed copy of a Complaint received by Judge Nobles on October 5, 2005 – 9 days before Nobles mailed out the “Order to Show Cause.” Judge Nobles apparently had the Complaint on file since October 5, 2005 but for reasons best known to him, failed to include it with the Order to Show Cause.

The Complaint itself was faulty in that the Notary Public taking Moore’s sworn statement, Rosalie Young, failed to indicate when the oath taken i.e. it was undated! On those grounds alone, the Complaint should have been dismissed [the Complaint could also have been dismissed for failure to give adequate notice as required by law and for lack of jurisdiction – but it wasn’t]. 

Moore swore in the Complaint that he had “good reason to believe and do believe” that Bloss was guilty of illegal dumping. In other words, Moore’s Complaint on behalf of the State of Texas was without personal knowledge on his part of the material facts underlying the basis of the Complaint. I was curious as to what personal knowledge he now had to support his prior “belief” that a violation of law had occurred.

Nobles called the court to order and announced the case name and number. Moore stated he would be prosecuting the case and was sworn in as the state’s one and only witness – kind of a two-for-one made popular during the Clinton years. At least the judge wasn’t acting as prosecutor.

To summarize Moore’s testimony:  Moore stated under oath that he had not seen the debris on the property in question; he wasn’t aware if it was still there or had been removed to a qualified landfill waste site. In other words, Moore had absolutely no knowledge of any facts that would even remotely support a claim that any law had been violated! Significantly, Constable Moore, who was present and supposedly had investigated the matter, was not called as a prosecution witness, probably because his testimony would not have supported the specious claims brought against Bloss either.

Judge Nobles, upon hearing Moore’s testimony said: “There’s no case.” However, he initially refused to make a ruling because as he explained, there was no case for him to make a ruling on. I checked my notes and sure enough there was a captioned case: State of Texas vs. Marian Bloss No. 0205-30638 before the court; appearances by both sides were entered; a prosecution witness was sworn in; testimony was given; etc. I was under the distinct impression something in the nature of a legal proceeding was going on in the courtroom i.e. there was something to adjudicate. Bloss’ attorney was insistent that a ruling be made. The judge asked, “What do you want me to do?” to which Bloss’ attorney said, “Dismiss the case,” which Nobles did, albeit reluctantly.

It's taken three articles to lay out the factual background of the most egregious abuse of political power I've seen in a long time. Next week’s article will illustrate how residents may find themselves subject to similar abuses of legal process in environmental law enforcement within the county.

©2005 Harvey H. Klee

Power Corrupts, Part 4

County-wide Problems

The Bloss case arose from an incident occurring in Commissioner Precinct 2. However, all four precincts reportedly are involved in similar enforcement activities on behalf of the county’s Department of Natural Resources. This is so even though the respective justices of the peace are without jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the facts, code and regulatory sections as those cited in Moore’s letter.

All four elected Constables in effect serve as the Administrator’s personal investigators even though their primary purpose is to serve the justice courts to which they are assigned – not the county’s Natural Resources Department. Those wishing to file an environmental complaint with the Natural Resources Department are not referred to that Department by the Administrator but rather the local Justice of the Peace. If the matter is litigated, it will be litigated before the same Justice of the Peace from whom the complainant had obtained the compliant form. If nothing else, having the Justice of the Peace issue complaint forms destroys the appearance of objectivity and neutrality that judges are supposed to have.

Alleged infractions are relayed to the Department of Natural Resources, with or without actual sworn or witnessed complaints having been filed; the Administrator sends a letter to the offending individual to cease and desist, obtain a permit and/or pay a fee. Most, if not all, of the recipients who receive such letters can’t afford to contest them and wind up paying whatever fees are demanded.

The following was taken from the letter mailed to Bloss by way of example.

A complaint was made with this office concerning possible State environmental law and County Development Permit violations on the property described above.

A preliminary investigation was conducted and it appears that you are the owner and/or person responsible for illegal dumping of building materials and may be in violation of the following State environmental laws: Litter: Health & Safety Code, Section 365.012-Illegal Dumping: Public Nuisance: Health & Safety Code Section 342.011. You have 31 days from the date of this latter to do one of the following:

(1) Submit to this office, a sworn, notarized statement giving detailed reasons why criminal charges should not be filed against you; or

(2) Abate the violations and obtain a Development Permit.

Regulations adopted by Llano County specifically state: Section 2:05, Development means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operation requires a “Development Permit.”

You may only dispose of the litter in accordance with Texas law. Do not bury the litter or burn any toxic substances. Once you have legally disposed of the litter, this office will require a copy of the receipt from the State approved disposal facility.

If this office does not receive a response from you within the time limits stated above, a full investigation will be conducted. If at that time it is found that you are in violation of a State Law, a criminal complaint will be filed against you, resulting in a warrant issued for your arrest.

In Bloss’ case, copies of the letter were mailed to Constable Jerald Moore, Pct. 2; Justice of the Peace Pct. 2 Duane Nobles and; County Commissioner Pct. 2 Henry Parker i.e. they all seemed to have been involved in the abuse of legal process reflected in the Bloss case in one way or another.

As for the first enumerated item in the letter, Moore apparently hasn’t heard of one’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A sworn detailed statement as to why criminal charges shouldn’t be brought against Bloss? How about, “Not Guilty!”  Besides, if a crime has allegedly been committed and the focus of suspicion is on a specific individual as having committed it, isn’t that person entitled to remain silent, that anything they say will be used against them, that they are entitled to an attorney and if they can’t afford one, one will be appointed before questioning begins?

Nonetheless, Bloss cooperated by forwarding the following letter to Moore and Judge Nobles BEFORE the hearing. It’s a letter from T.F.R. Enterprises, Inc. the company that demolished and removed the material. The letter demonstrates that Bloss had done everything within her power to see that the materials in question were properly disposed of and so informed Moore:

“I want to update you on our effort to dispose of the demolition material from your property.

We have been storing the demolition material at a temporary site until we were able to dispose of the material at a qualified landfill. Due to our core business, we have had to move all of our core equipment to the disaster areas of Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

We understand your urgency in this matter, so we have contracted BFI in Marble Falls to supply us with containers so that the material can be loaded and finally disposed of. We requested four of the largest containers that BFI had but they were only able to supply two of their medium sized containers. We were told by Ron Poor that the containers should be delivered this Thursday the 20^th or Friday the 21^st.” [A copy of the BFI agreement was enclosed]

Undaunted by the facts, insensitive to the reality of one of the largest natural disasters this country has experienced and void of common sense, Moore swore out a formal complaint against Bloss. But it gets even worse.

According to the referenced county regulation Section 2.05, in “plain talk, easy understood” terms, “any man-made change” to one’s property could mean a resident digging a hole, filling a hole, or smoothing it over on their property for which they may be subject to arrest and prosecution. Keep the kids out of the sand box folks! Now I don’t know how this sets with those who are into gardening but beware, the Environmental Police could nab you if you don’t have a Development Permit before planting those petunias! Want to bury your pet on your upteen acres of property? Be sure to get that permit or away to the hoosegow you go. Adding a doorbell to your home?  Not without a permit! Heck, even changing the color of your house requires a permit under the unclear, vague and ambiguous wording of this regulation!

Further, the documents Bloss received in response to her Open Records request indicate no other individual, other than Bloss, was threatened with arrest. Anyone, however, could be next on the “hit list.” In Bloss’ case, she had a company demolish a building and remove it to a location owned by an affiliate of that company. The debris weighed over 1,000 pounds. A section 265.012 violation would subject one to a state jail felony. The district court has jurisdiction over felonies. Nuisance cases are heard in either county or district court where injunctive remedies are available and fines can exceed a justice court’s authority. The county regulation alluded to has never been adopted by the county in accordance with law and is unenforceable. Clearly, JPs have no jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the statutes and regulations set forth in Moore’s letter based on the facts in this matter – yet, that’s where it ended up.

Since there may be a lawsuit against the county pending, I’ll wait until it’s been filed before commenting on other aspects of this bizarre case that appear to involve selective enforcement of laws against a Llano citizen for political reasons.

©2005 Harvey H. Klee

Bambi and the Freedom of Expression

[The following is taken from an unpublished article I had written early last year. It offers a possible explanation as to why the county’s Department of Natural Resources Administrator may have unlawfully pursued his complaint against Marian C. Bloss.]

In a Letter to the Editor response to an irate reader, I casually mentioned our newly elected Republican County Chairman, Ron Moore, was opposed to deer hunting in Llano County. Perhaps a little background is in order.

The City of Sunrise Beach Village is located in an agricultural district. It enacted its first firearms ordinance in 1974. It has been amended four times since then. The last amendment involved an embattled fight to permit landowners owning property within the city limits to continue to use their property for hunting, with certain restrictions to provide for the safety of adjacent landowners. This was supported by over 220 property owners in a petition to the City.

The opposition, led by Moore, vied for an absolute ban on hunting within the city limits. That’s where my comment to his opposing deer hunting in Llano County came from, albeit limited to Sunrise Beach. Benefiting also from a municipal ban on deer hunting would be Wallace Klussman, the previous county Republican Party chair who owns deer lease property within the county.

Up until that time, no person in Sunrise Beach had been injured due to a landowner hunting on his own property nor had there been any reports of violations of the existing ordinances. Ostensibly, the opposition to deer hunting arose out of a fear as to what might occur in the distant future. However, both Moore and his wife, Marsha, are strong animal rights advocates (Mrs. Moore formed a business under the name of “All God’s Creatures,” to protect domesticated and undomesticated animals). There appeared to be a “protect the deer at all costs” mentality underlying the motives behind Moore’s attempt to shut down deer hunting in Sunrise Beach.

The support for those opposing hunting was far less than those who favored controlled hunting. Nonetheless, on September 18, 2003 Mayor Pat Fain and the city council went against the wishes of the majority of its citizens and passed an ordinance prohibiting hunting within the city limits of Sunrise Beach. 

Shortly thereafter, Charlotte “Charlie” Buikema opined on what had occurred in a column she wrote for the Kingsland Current: “The Sunrise Beach Scene”:

“Since this is my column I am going to weight in on this issue. People bought land in the ag district with certain expectations and rights. I see no reason why the hunting ordinance was changed in the first place.

“In my opinion it was handled way too quickly and was not a fair representation as to the situation. If citizens felt their lives were in jeopardy, then they had a responsibility to report this danger – perceived or actual – to the law enforcement officials – this was not done. Instead a few people started a panic campaign to get an ordinance changed to suit their personal agenda.

“I know a lot of the folk who reside in the ag district and I know which of them hunt. They bought where they bought with that right. All of them do so responsibly and to put meat in their own freezer or those of their families.

“Why should their rights be changed by people who bought in the ag district knowing about the hunting, but purchased anyway? If you do not like the rules of a specific area – don’t purchase with the intention of changing the rules – just don’t buy. Think about it.”

After Charlie’s article appeared, the issue quickly changed from “Hunting v. No Hunting” to censorship. Moore, who served two terms on the Sunrise Beach council, sent an e-mail to Charlie’s publisher with a copy to Charlie and Mayor Pat Fain. In it, Moore condemned Charlie for expressing her opinion on what to her, as a resident of Sunrise Beach, was an important issue i.e. property rights. Essentially, he complained Charlie should stick to reporting Sunrise Beach news giving equal and unbiased time to every side of a controversial issue – and keep her “editorial” comments to herself. You know, just like the rest of the newspapers in this country do.

Usually the reason for sending a complaint against a columnist to a newspaper’s editor, instead of a “Letter to the Editor” whereby Moore’s comments would be published, is to surreptitiously attempt to censure Charlie from expressing her personal views in future columns. 

Taking away someone’s property rights is bad enough but attempting to censor public expression strikes at the very heart of our personal liberty and freedom. One would think the Llano County Chairman of the Republican Party [now former] would be more closely aligned with the principles upon which his party stands.

As to how all this relates to the Bloss case: Bloss, an attorney, successfully defended the first criminal charge brought against a Sunrise Beach resident under the new “No Hunting” city ordinance. Marsha Moore testified on behalf of the prosecution against Bloss’ client!

©2006 Harvey H. Klee