I did an open records request aka Texas Public Information Request on May 9, 2025 and asked for, in part
I am asking for the following for the date of 5/9/2025 from 8:30 am to 10:00 am.
- All video recorded for the annex hallways (all) and offices of Trey Brown and Danny Chambers for that period of time, above.
I got back an answer from Haley De Los Santos on May 23, 2025, in which she said
In response to your open records request dated Friday, May 9, 2025, it has been determined that no records exist in response to the following requests for documents:
All video recorded for the… offices of Trey Brown and Danny Chambers for that period of time (previously specified as 05/09/2025 between 8:30 am to10:00 am).
Any email or other conversations at any time regarding the incident of******** receiving a CT warning
Because we believe some of the information you have requested is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 Confidential Information of the Government Code, a decision is being requested from the Open Records Division of the Attorney General pursuant to section 552.301 of the Government Code. A copy of the written communication requesting a decision will be provided to you under separate cover. If you have any questions, you may contact me at
The ellipses seemed weird to me and there was no mention of my request for hallway video so I wrote her back to clarify.
Reading that again please clarify for me that what you’re going to contest is the entirety of my #1 request. The … is not explicit enough in the reply
She wrote back
I’m happy to clarify. The usage of an ellipses, the “…” you’re referencing, was to omit the portion of the request that was submitted for an Attorney General opinion. You are correct in stating that the omitted portion pertained to Annex hallways, as your original request is as follows:
So, how this works is that now Open Records at Somervell County had to have asked per Sec 552:301 for a decision from the AG no later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the requestors written request. ALSO
(d) A governmental body that requests an attorney general decision under Subsection (a) must provide to the requestor within a reasonable time but not later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the requestor’s written request:
(1) a written statement that the governmental body wishes to withhold the requested information and has asked for a decision from the attorney general about whether the information is within an exception to public disclosure; and
(2) a copy of the governmental body’s written communication to the attorney general asking for the decision or, if the governmental body’s written communication to the attorney general discloses the requested information, a redacted copy of that written communication.
Instead of Ms Santos doing that second part (2), she had said “A copy of the written communication requesting a decision will be provided to you under separate cover”. (I got NOTHING that day by separate cover) But there was NOTHING to show that, by the 10th business day, the SAME 10th day that she replied to my request, that she sent something to the Attorney General, ie the WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO THE AG ASKING FOR THE DECISION, etc. That was not only sloppy but violated the law on open records. I had assumed that maybe Trey Brown was writing that up and I would get the letter to the AG THAT SAME DAY within the 10 business days ticker. Nope.
On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, I got, from Ms Santos, a copy of attorney general correspondence. Take a look at what she sent (markups and redactions are mine) I have redacted my name from this document but note that the re: request for information where my original request is quoted, somebody got my name wrong; my name has never been spelled “**bra”. How does someone do that???? The document I also got was dated without the actual DAY date, just MAY 2025. The letter references sending additional information but somehow misses that Haley or Trey were supposed to send me the actual letter they themselves talk about (and could have redactions by the 15th business day to me. They did not. I emailed Haley after that asking about where is the actual letter you sent to the AG as per below, and got no reply.. at all.
There’s a lot that is unprofessional and weird here. Notice that the letter I *did* get isn’t even signed but rather CC to Trey Brown. Did Haley send it? Did Trey? Who knows? How would I even know from this letter WHEN the letter was sent, as it is certainly not a *copy* of the letter sent to the AG and is missing an exact date. I want to be able to reference this letter but cannot be sure it even was actually sent. Am I really to believe that THIS is the letter they sent to the AG, missing a full date with no signatures and other errors, letting the AG know how unprofessional they are?Further, confusingly, IF this goofed up letter is actually the one sent to the AG, then why is there is a section that says “We will submit the additional information required by Section 552.502(e) .. in a timely manner.” That seems to be saying that there is a second letter sent to the AG and again, IF somehow they sent TWO letters to the AG (who knows?) I believe per Texas statute, I would have had to get a copy of that letter too, with redactions if they made them.
Also, I guess Trey Brown just wants to make more work for the AG and does not explain properly that he is ONLY contesting the annex hallway video. I had already been told by Haley that no records or video exist for Trey Brown or Danny Chambers offices and no emails regarding the May 9th 2025 CT incident. The ONLY thing that is being asked for to the AG is about, basically, whether Somervell County has to give me the annex hallway video.
I believe every citizen in Somervell County should expect, especially from those who are ostensibly upholding the law, some attention to careful detail and following the law. It’s too bad that doesn’t seem to be the case with the Open Records dept.
Sec. 552.222. PERMISSIBLE INQUIRY BY GOVERNMENTAL BODY TO REQUESTOR. (a) The officer for public information and the officer's agent may not make an inquiry of a requestor except to establish proper identification or except as provided by Subsection (b), (c), or (c-1).(b) If what information is requested is unclear to the governmental body, the governmental body may ask the requestor to clarify the request. If a large amount of information has been requested, the governmental body may discuss with the requestor how the scope of a request might be narrowed, but the governmental body may not inquire into the purpose for which information will be used.
