Latest news with #TexasOpenMeetingsAct
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paxton, Travis County agree on terms for transparency laws
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said an agreement was reached Wednesday that would require the Travis County Commissioners Court to comply with government transparency laws. The final agreement from the AG's office stemmed from the Commissioners Court authorizing the transfer of county funds for the security of Travis County District Attorney José Garza in November 2024. In September 2024, Paxton sued the Commissioners Court with violating the Texas Open Meetings Act for 'secretly' discussing a measure to allocate money for security services for the personal residence of Garza. RELATED | Travis County sues Paxton to avoid releasing records about DA security 'Government cannot be transparent if its elected leaders secretly vote on important matters that are required by Texas law to be discussed in open meeting,' Paxton said in a press release Wednesday. Paxton continued, saying the judgment would ensure the Commissioners Court would 'abide by all government transparency laws.' Travis County released the following statement regarding the agreement with Paxton: 'The Travis County Commissioners Court is pleased to reach agreement with the Texas Attorney General regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. This agreement acknowledges the Court's belief that they acted in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act for conducting executive closed sessions, and they agree to continue compliance as it has always done. This agreement balances public transparency with security concerns like those permitted for discussion in executive closed session, thereby protecting our employees and elected and appointed officials.' Travis County Spokesperson Hector Nieto RELATED | Travis County DA reveals threats against him, reasons for security requests KXAN previously reported that the Commissioners Court, in total, authorized $115,000; however, only $64,000 of the approved amount was used to improve security at Garza's home. KXAN also reported according to auditor records, 'this was the first time county funds were used for 'security services' for District Attorney José Garza's office since he took office in 2021.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Commissioners, AG Ken Paxton settle open government lawsuit over Jose Garza security
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Travis County commissioners have settled an open government lawsuit over a decision last year to use taxpayer money to make security enhancements to the home of Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza. Paxton sued commissioners in September after the American-Statesman reported that they used a vague, non-descript agenda item to route $115,000 to Garza's budget for his safety, including to his residence. The use of public money for security improvements to an official's home was a highly unusual public expense with no policy about how and when the county funds such projects. Paxton said in the suit that commissioners violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by not adequately notifying the public about the expense. "The public was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the proposal," Paxton said. Paxton brought the suit on behalf of Travis County residents Craig Staley, Courtney Pore, Kimberly Brienzi, and Douglas P. Keenan. Commissioners took corrective action a month after the suit, voting again on the item on Oct. 22 with clearer language. Commissioners did not acknowledge a violation of state open government laws in the settlement, but agreed that they would comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act. "Government cannot be transparent if its elected leaders secretly vote on important matters that are required by Texas law to be discussed in an open meeting," Paxton said. "This judgement requires the Travis County Commissioners Court to abide by all government transparency laws." Travis County commissioners released a statement through spokesman Hector Nieto that said they are pleased to reach an agreement with Paxton, which "acknowledges the court's belief that they acted in accordance with requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act for conducting executive closed sessions. "This agreement balances public transparency with security concerns like those permitted for discussion in executive closed session, thereby protecting our employees and elected and appointed officials," the statement said. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Travis County commissioners, Texas attorney general settle lawsuit
Int'l Business Times
08-05-2025
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
Musk Argued Being a 'Public Official' Should Make Public Meeting Addressing Neighbor Dispute Private: Report
Elon Musk tried to prevent a public meeting about an unpermitted fence and gate at his Texas mansion by claiming his status as a "federal public official" warranted special privacy protections, according to a report. In 2022, Musk purchased a $6 million mansion in the affluent suburb of West Lake Hills, Texas, which serves as one of his residences and a security hub when he's in Austin, the New York Times reported. Allegedly without permits, his team installed a 16-foot chain-link fence and a gate with surveillance equipment—reportedly violating six city ordinances and drawing complaints from neighbors about both the construction and increased traffic on the residential cul-de-sac. By early March, Musk's legal and permitting representatives began lobbying city officials to move an upcoming April public hearing about the violations behind out of public view. They cited his affiliation with the Trump administration, the presence of U.S. Marshals on-site and his claimed status as a "federal public official" as reasons to exempt him from public disclosure rules under Texas law, newly released city emails reviewed by NYT revealed. However, the city attorney ultimately denied the request, citing the Texas Open Meetings Act. In April, the city's Zoning and Planning Commission held the public meeting as scheduled. Despite recommendations from city staff to allow Musk to keep the structures with modifications, the commission voted to deny the requested exceptions. The final decision now moves to the West Lake Hills City Council, which will take up the matter on June 11 after Musk's team requested a postponement of the originally scheduled May 14 hearing. Originally published on Latin Times
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Heritage subpoenas Keller school board's attorney for records over split scheme
Attorneys for Heritage homeowners who are suing the Keller school board are subpoenaing board attorney Tim Davis to testify at a deposition and provide documents related to the board's efforts to split the school district. The split plan, which was roundly criticized by residents, was ultimately called off on March 14. However, lawsuits against the board stemming from the proposal are still pending, including the one to which the Heritage residents are a party. The Heritage neighborhood is along Heritage Trace Parkway in far north Fort Worth, close to the Alliance shopping center. Heritage and other neighborhoods west of U.S. 377, mostly in far north Fort Worth and part of Watauga, would have been split off from Keller ISD. The controversy shook the community, creating bitter divides between neighbors. According to court records, Davis, an attorney at Fort Worth-based Jackson Walker LLP, will receive a subpoena duces tecum, which requires the recipient to attend a scheduled hearing and produce requested documents. Those documents include: All communications Davis has had regarding the Keller school district since May 2022; Records of all services Davis has performed on behalf of the district since May 2022; Any documents Davis or other Jackson Walker attorneys have prepared regarding the district or sections of the Texas Education Code since May 2022; All communications between Davis and Patriot Mobile Action, the conservative Christian political action committee that has supported multiple Keller school board members, including those accused of trying to split the district; Presentations that Davis or other Jackson Walker attorneys have prepared regarding school board governance, the Texas Open Meetings Act or the Texas Education Code; Engagement correspondence between Davis and other Texas school districts. The deposition that Davis is required to attend is scheduled for May 5 at the offices of Kelly Hart and Hallman LLP, the firm representing the Heritage homeowners. Davis must produce the documents no later than May 28. Should Davis refuse to testify at the hearing or provide the documents, he could be found in contempt of court and 'punished by fine or confinement, or both,' according to the subpoena notice. Keller parent Matthew Mucker originally filed the lawsuit against the Keller board in Tarrant County District Court in January, alleging that board trustees violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by discussing the spit behind closed doors. The Heritage homeowners group joined that suit as intervenors in March, bringing in Kelly Hart and Hallman as counsel. The lawsuit requests that the judge in the case remove the five board members largely believed to be behind the split plan — President Charles Randklev and members Heather Washington, John Birt, Chris Coker and Micah Young — for 'incompetency and official misconduct.' The board members have denied wrongdoing and have requested the lawsuit be dismissed while questioning the motivations behind it. The two Keller school board members who represent constituents in Fort Worth — Chelsea Kelly and Joni Shaw Smith — have been vocal opponents of the split and are not defendants in the Heritage suit.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
San Benito wins appeal in election case; court finds judge interfered
Apr. 2—SAN BENITO — The 13th Court of Appeals has ruled a trial judge's decision "interfered" with San Benito's Nov. 5 special election, while city commissioners properly placed proposed City Charter amendments on the ballot. In its decision, the appeals court overturned visiting state District Judge Michael Garcia's ruling, allowing the city to adopt four City Charter amendments which voters approved in the election. "The trial court's orders represented an impermissible exercise of judicial power that interfered in the political process," the court found, referring to Garcia's ruling nullifying the election's votes. As a result of the appeals court decision, City Manager Fred Sandoval said he will live in town based on voters' rejection of a proposition that would have have allowed the city manager to live outside the city limits. While the City Charter requires the city manager to live within the city limits, Sandoval's continued living in Pharr since he was hired in October 2023. "I will reside in San Benito as per City Charter requirements and I am processing my application to become a registered voter as well," he said Wednesday. Sandoval called the appeals court ruling a "great victory for us." "I'm glad the appeals court saw it the way we saw it and ruled in our favor," Mayor Rick Guerra said in an interview. "I feel that what we did was right. The voters read what was on the ballot. They were informed." Now, Julian Rios, the former president of the city's Economic Development Corporation, said he plans to meet with his attorneys to determine if he'll take further legal action. "I don't know what victory they're celebrating because citizens voted the city manager had to live in town, which is the biggest item on the ballot that they snuck past the citizens," he said in an interview, referring to commissioners. In an Oct. 17 lawsuit, Rios argued commissioners violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, failing to give residents proper notice of the special election and its five proposed City Charter amendments while claiming they secretly placed the propositions on the ballot. As the case played out in court, the city was holding the election's early voting period. Then on Nov. 4, Garcia ruled in favor of Rios, finding commissioners failed to give residents proper notice of the election before voiding citizens' votes. During a hearing, Wayne Dolcefino, the owner of Houston-based Dolcefino Consulting who's being paid to investigate the city, testified he paid $5,000 to file the lawsuit in court, City Attorney Javier Villalobos said. On Friday, the appeals court overturned Garcia's decision, finding commissioners gave voters proper notice of the election while adding Garcia's ruling interfered with the electoral process. "We conclude that the notice adequately informed the public of the subject matter at issue," Justice Clarissa Silva wrote in the court's ruling. "The notice advised the public that the city commission would consider and potentially approve a specifically identified order." "Any readers interested in amendments to the City Charter had more than sufficient notice that the city commission would be considering action relating to it by way of a special election," she wrote. "Further, appellants were not required to provide specific details regarding each of the amendments." As part of the decision, the court found Garcia's ruling interfered with the election. "The trial court's orders improperly interfered with the elective process, once it had begun, in violation of the doctrine regarding separation of powers and the judiciary's deference to the legislative branch," the court found. "Issuing orders during the pendency of voting purporting to nullify the votes already made on the propositions and the prospective votes on those propositions inherently resulted in disruption of the election process and caused confusion to voters," the court found. "The trial court's rulings may have depressed voting on the propositions and certainly deprived those individuals who did cast votes on the propositions of their choice." In the election, residents overwhelmingly passed four of five proposed charter amendments, including one which asked voters if they wanted "all members of the city commission to reside within the city limits during their term of office." While a proposed amendment asked voters if they wanted to allow commissioners "to make appointments to the city commission in the case of a vacancy where there is less than 365 days remaining in the vacant term," another measure asked them if they wanted the charter "to provide for process and reasons for removal of municipal judges." The only proposition voters defeated asked them "to allow the city manager to reside outside the city limits." To run the special election, city officials contracted the Cameron County Elections Department at a cost of about $26,885, Elections Administrator Remi Garza said. Featured Local Savings
