A few days before April 10, 2007, we were informed by EHD that our permit was going to be brought up before the Commissioners Court. When we looked at the agenda, however, there was no reference to our permit. There was an item slated for executive session that referred to “pending and/or contemplated litigation.” We attended the Commissioners Court anyway and notified a commissioner that if our permit were in question, we wanted to be heard. No action was taken that day in open court following the closed executive session. It has come to our knowledge that our permit was discussed in that closed session.
On April 17, 2007, there was another Commissioners Court hearing, again, with the cryptic reference to “pending and/or contemplated litigation” to be heard in closed executive session. We did not attend since we had absolutely no knowledge that this pertained to our permit. Following a closed session, the Court reconvened in open session and revoked our permit in a 3-2 vote (Conley and Barton dissenting) without explanation. This is not open government, and it is a clear cut violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which exists to allow the public to be involved and to participate in government where their rights are involved.
After filing an open records request to see the documentation surrounding our permit, we learned that there had been considerable behind-the-scenes activity concerning our permit. To give you an overview of what we’ve learned was going on, here are just a few examples: email communications between Neighbor, O’Dell, and members of the Commissioners Court, especially Commissioner Ingalsbe; the hiring of an “independent” engineer who was hand-picked by O’Dell and recommended to Judge Sumter; the firing of the same engineer; unfounded accusations concerning stolen property, as well as numerous other unsubstantiated accusations against Nick by O’Dell and Neighbor; unsuccessful attempts by O’Dell and Commissioner Ingalsbe to get the District Attorney’s Office to bring charges against Nick and various EHD employees; a request by Commissioner Ingalsbe to the EHD for the removal of our private property, which was refused by EHD; and much more. At no time did anyone from the Commissioners Court notify us that our permit was in jeopardy so that we would have the right to defend ourselves. Rather, a wall of silence was placed around this affair so that we would be denied due process.
This is the very reason open government exists, so that circumstances like this do not happen.
Once our septic permit was revoked, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit against Hays County seeking temporary injunctive relief from their revocation. Our case was being heard July 10, 2007, in District Court. In court that day, we learned from the attorney representing Hays County that the Commissioners Court had held another executive session the previous day, July 9, 2007, to discuss our case. At that time, in a preemptive butt covering move, the attending members of the Court voted unanimously (Conley wasn’t present) to rescind its revocation of our permit.
While this may appear as a tentative step toward an open meeting, it was really just a legal strategy. By vacating the prior revocation, the Court set the stage for their attorney to suggest that our case against the county was moot, preventing the facts of this case from being heard and made public. So, they get to escape criticism and possible legal action for the violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. We are ordered to appear again before the Commissioners Court on August 14, 2007, to prove, again, the safety of our septic system. They could vote again to revoke our permit, once again putting us out of business, but this time in an open meeting. We urge you to attend this meeting and speak on our behalf. Don’t let them grab power and steal our property rights.
Since there have been numerous closed sessions on this matter with no representation by THK, not to mention a whole behind-the-scenes effort involving Neighbor, O’Dell, Judge Sumter, and Commissioner Ingalsbe, we question whether this Court is any longer capable of being open and fair in this matter. Certainly, the minutes of the closed session should be made public so we can all see what we can of the Court’s real agenda. One thing is certain, this is not open government.
