Open Meetings Act Violations

When Dick Judge and Jack Curtsinger were sworn in as directors on the RPMUD board in May, they were required by Texas law, effective January 1, 2006, to receive training in Texas open government laws. There were no "grandfather" provisions. All public officials must comply, including those elected before that date.



A memo from Smith, Murdaugh, Little & Bonham, attorneys, giving instructions for the training, contained the following paragraph:



"The law imposes no specific penalty on officials who fail to attend open government training. The purpose of the new law is not to punish public officials, but to foster open government by making open government education a recognized obligation of public service. Despite this lack of a penalty provision, the Attorney General has cautioned that a deliberate failure to comply with the training requirements could result in an increased risk of criminal prosecution should one ever be accused of violating the Open Meetings Act or the Public Information Act."



After Dick and Jack went through the training, it was discovered that there is a requirement of a 72-hour continuous notice to the public before the meeting. RPMUD posts notices on the bulletin board in their office and inside the courthouse. This has been a bone of contention between the residents and the board, because the residents were not kept apprised of the workings of RPMUD. RPMUD kept insisting their postings were "legal."



At the June board meeting, Jack presented a letter to the board and the RPMUD attorney, Charles Dippel with Andrews Kurth, notifying them of the possible violation and asking what effect this would have on prior actions. Board director, Bob Harvill noted, after hearing this, that they have been illegal for 38 years.



At the July board meeting, the attorney's response was on the agenda. No information has given to the directors prior to the meeting on this item. Ramirez read the response from the attorney, which in effect said RPMUD has been legal and all MUDs post as RPMUD posts. If they wanted to post on the window of the MUD office, it was OK with him (the attorney).

Dippel cites 49.063 of the Water Code, but ignores Section 551.043(a) of the Open Meetings Act, which reads "notice...must be posted in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times for at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the meeting..." At the July board meeting, a notice was posted on the window in front of the RPMUD office and in the open garage of the courthouse. We don't know where Dippel is getting his information. It does not appear he read the Open Meetings Act. East Plantation posts their notices outside for all to see. The Woodlands, Walden, April Sound, Del Lago, Bentwater, any and all the ones we contacted are very diligent about posting where the public has 72 hours of continuous access. It seems that every MUD takes the Open Meetings Act seriously except our MUD.



Dick demanded a copy of the attorney's letter. Ramirez did not have copies for the directors, but gave Dick his copy after the meeting.



At the July meeting, Ramirez said the legal fees were around $11,000 and the election costs were $10,000, when the budget was being discussed. Harvill said that now people will know why they needed to remove the tax cap. I requested copies of the attorneys' invoices for 2008 and found that they total $18,162, through July 9. We have two legal firms working for us. Dippel's average hour charge is over $500 and Smith's is about $155. The Woodlands MUD I contacted only uses one law firm, and could not understand why we had two. One other rather interesting item is that the attorneys only talk to Ramirez and Ginger. Did not see any board member's names on the invoices. Some of the items on the invoices, it would appear, could have been answered by Election Central, the Attorney General's Handbooks on Open Meetings and Public Information, Robert's Rules of Order, the governmental entities' 800 number to the Attorney General's office, etc.

Stay tuned.