Dolcefino Files Criminal Complaint Over Public Records

By Greg Ritchie
Messenger Reporter
CROCKETT – The Messenger learned late Tuesday, July 30 Wayne Dolcefino’s company, Dolcefino Consulting, was filing a criminal complaint in Houston County regarding the lack of response from City Councilman Darrell Jones over his alleged failure to respond properly to requests for public records.
The letter, dated July 29 and sent to Houston County District Attorney Donna Gordon Kaspar, alleging violations of Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, also known as the Texas Public Information Act. Dolcefino’s company states they had filed a public information request regarding communications between Jones and Council Members NaTrenia Hicks and Elbert Johnson on June 17. This was the day a city council meeting was canceled due to the three council members not being present for the meeting. Should records prove the three colluded and communicated about skipping the meeting, they would have broken the law regarding elected officials meeting in private, when such communications must be available to the public.
The request, originally made to the city June 19, covers phone calls, text messages and emails – but only those between other members of city council or city employees – and is explicit it does not seek private communications.
The letter alleges Hicks responded with her emails for that day, with nothing pointing to any communication between the three city council members. Johnson responded saying he had no records to provide.
Jones did not respond at all, leading Crockett City Administrator John Angerstein to remind Jones of the request and asking him to respond. Jones responded in a letter of his own, dated June 28.
“The Act is applicable to only “public information” as defined by section 552.002 of the Government Code. Please read this Act, an administrator of a government entity you should know this by heart to prevent these unscrupulous attacks against duly elected officers of the city by known felons. Furthermore if you were acting in the best interest of ALL citizens of the City of Crockett, you would not have entertained this…” Jones said in his letter.
Jones goes on to attach several news stories about Dolcefino being arrested in a courtroom for contempt, which was quickly overturned by an appellate court.
Jones’ letter continues, “Since the city does not provide a cell phone allowance then my personal phone and email is not subject to this act because I maintain them as a private individual. (552.002(a)). This letter is your official notice of exception to disclosure for any of my private records. And note none of my personal cell phone or other communication devises relate to the official business of the city, therefore they are not subject to the Act.”
While Jones is correct city council members are not issued city cell phones, any communications between public officials regarding public business are, in fact, subject to public open records requests.
“I don’t care if he has government communication through paper cups, it’s public,” Dolcefino told The Messenger. “The other two council members said they didn’t have any records. I don’t believe them. I believe the police should get all their phone records.”
The Messenger reached out to city officials who had not yet seen the complaint, and could not make any comment until they did. The county district attorney’s office reported the misdemeanor complaint was sent to the county attorney for consideration. Requests for comment from Jones went unanswered.
“If they’re not going to come to the meetings, why are they not resigning? Give someone else a chance to represent the community they claim they represent,” Dolcefino continued. “Even if you vote for something and I don’t like your vote, you’re still representing what you think the people want. Not showing up does not represent the people who voted for you, in any way.”
Dolcefino’s criminal complaint concludes by saying, “Jones’s response to a lawfully filed Public Information Request is abhorrent. Not only does Mr. Jones’ letter incorrectly assert Dolcefino Consulting has requested his personal phone records and emails; he goes so far as to label a public information request (PIR) as ‘unscrupulous attacks against duly elected officers of the city…’ Mr. Jones went on to seemingly berate the City Administrator for his purported lack of knowledge concerning the Act. Further, Mr. Jones has mis-cited, misconstrued, and misstated statute and previous determinations of the Office of the Attorney General as justification for not adhering to the Act. Mr. Jones has evidently applied previous determinations and statutes to what he believes Dolcefino Consulting has requested when, in fact, Dolcefino Consulting explicitly stated that anything personal or held confidential by State law may be redacted.”
The Messenger will continue to update this story as developments unfold.
Greg Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]