[4.A Discussion of proposed communication by the City Council directed to the Trustees of the Galveston Park Board advising the Trustees of Council’s expectations related to adherence with the Texas Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act; Actions expected in response to requests for information from the Office of the City Auditor; a timeline for Park Boards delivery of information requests already pending; and other related matters.]

EXCUSE ME. ADVISING THE TRUSTEES OF COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS RELATED TO ADHERENCE.

I'M SORRY, TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

ACTIONS EXPECTED IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR.

A TIMELINE FOR PARK BOARDS, DELIVERY OF INFORMATION, REQUESTS ALREADY PENDING, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS.

THANK YOU. JANELLE. THIS ITEM. COUNCIL, WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS AT A PAST COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING.

JOINING US AT THE TABLE IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, DON GLYWASKY.

AND DON, YOU HAD SENT OUT A SAMPLE LETTER TO COUNCIL, I THINK, YESTERDAY, OUTLINING THE COMMUNICATION THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING TO SEND OVER TO THE PARK BOARD IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT.

DON, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL.

EXCUSE ME. I'LL BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE'RE GOING TO DO WORKSHOP FIRST. FIRST, I SPOKE WITH ROBERT BOOTH.

HE SUGGESTS WE REALLY DON'T NEED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO WHY DON'T WE JUST DO IT OUT IN THE OPEN? IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE ANYTHING WE'RE HIDING HERE.

AND NO, BOTH THESE ITEMS DONE ON FIVE A AND FIVE B.

YEAH. OKAY. FOR THE FOR THE COMMUNITY WE ARE DOWN TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ITEM FIVE A AND FIVE B.

OUR OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS SHOULD BE UNDONE IN OPEN SESSION, WHICH IS FINE BY ME IN AN EXECUTIVE 05B WILL BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FIVE A WILL NOT BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

YES. ALL RIGHT. GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR. OKAY. I HAD DRAFTED A LETTER AND CIRCULATED IT TO YOU BASED ON THE. CAN I GET A COPY OF THAT? I'VE GOT A COPY RIGHT HERE.

COPY THAT. WELL, THAT'S MY ONLY COPY. JANELLE.

COULD WE GET A COPY OF THAT, PLEASE, MA'AM? SO I CAN MAKE A COPY? FOR MY DAD. THANK YOU. THAT REFLECTS SOME OF THE FRUSTRATIONS EXPRESSED BY THE MEMBERS IN THE MEETING THE OTHER DAY.

THAT THERE WAS BASICALLY A PERCEIVED DELAY IN GETTING INFORMATION FOR GLENN FOR HOT. THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF HOW EMPLOYEES OF THE PARK BOARD COULD DO CERTAIN THINGS WITHOUT THE PARK BOARD KNOWING ABOUT IT. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND CONCERNS OVER OPEN MEETINGS LAW. SO I'VE PUT THOSE CONCERNS ALL IN A LETTER.

I HAVE NOT INCLUDED A DATE IN THIS LETTER THAT YOU WANT GLENN TO HAVE HIS MATERIALS BY.

[00:05:05]

I NEED YOU TO GIVE THAT TO ME. I THINK THREE WEEKS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.

BUT WHY WOULD WE GIVE THEM THREE WEEKS WHEN WE'VE BEEN WAITING NOW, HOW MANY MONTHS? TWO MONTHS? I SAY BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT READ ONLY ACCESS WHERE WE HAD IT BEFORE, SO I DON'T.

IT'S JUST THE MESSAGE IS NOT GETTING THROUGH THAT TO STOP ANNOTATING AND STOP REVIEWING.

IT'S JUST NOT GETTING THROUGH. AND YESTERDAY WAS ALL LAUGHS AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING.

SO I MEAN I'D BE GOOD WITH CLOSING BUSINESS ON FRIDAY.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE GOOD WITH. CLOSE OF BUSINESS BY FRIDAY. WELL, I'M TIRED.

HE NEEDS TO HAVE THE WEEKEND OFF. WELL, HE CAN HAVE THE WEEKEND OFF, BUT THE MATERIAL SHOULD BE HERE.

AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS A LAUGHING MATTER. OKAY.

THAT'S FINE. THIS. THIS WILL BE IN OUR MOTION THIS AFTERNOON.

I MEAN, WHEN WE GO INTO OUR ACTION ITEMS SO WE CAN FLOAT ANY TIMELINE WE WANT OUT THERE.

YES, SHARON. IS THIS FOR THE READ? FOR HIM TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE READ ONLY? WELL, BY FRIDAY. OR IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING BY FRIDAY? MR. ROBB SUGGESTS. SUGGESTS READ ONLY ACCESS BY FRIDAY.

OKAY. THAT'S A COMPUTER. I MEAN, THAT'S I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD GIVE THEM THREE WEEKS.

LIKE, HOW LONG DO THEY NEED TO MANIPULATE THEIR INVOICES? THEY'VE ALREADY HAD HOW LONG OF A TIME. GLENN YOU HAD GIVEN THEM A DEADLINE OF THE 20TH.

CORRECT. WHEN COULD YOU. TWO MONTHS THAT. WE'VE BEEN WAITING.

COULD YOU COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE, SIR? THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. GLENN BULGHERINI, CITY AUDITOR.

HAVE A SEAT OVER HERE. GLENN. YES, SIR. THIS IS HER PURSE.

HERE. DID YOU OH, SORRY. APOLOGIZE. DON'T WORRY.

IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS NOW. TWO MONTHS. TWO MONTHS.

WHY WOULD WE GIVE THEM THREE WEEKS? I'M SORRY.

AND DON'T GIVE THEM THREE WEEKS. OKAY. THAT. THAT WILL BE IN OUR ACTION THIS AFTERNOON.

HOWEVER WE WANT TO DO THAT. GLENN, COULD YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE AND KIND OF THE TIMELINES AND THE COMMUNICATIONS YOU'VE HAD TO DATE WITH THE PARK BOARD, SIR? WELL, THEY HAVE GIVEN US THEY'RE TELLING US THAT IT'S 2400 PLUS DOCUMENTS AND THEY'VE GIVEN US 1200 DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH.

AND THEY REALLY DON'T TELL US WHEN THEY JUST SAY WE WILL CONTINUE TO PULL THE REMAINING DOCUMENTS AND UPLOAD THEM INTO THE APPROPRIATE FOLDER UNTIL ALL REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

SO THERE'S NO EXACT DATE WHEN WE WILL GET THEM.

OKAY. AND YOU? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS YOU HAD READ ONLY SO YOU COULD PULL ALL THESE YOURSELF.

YES. AND THEN THE PARK BOARD DECIDED TO GO TO THIS FOLDER SEE WHY.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? OH, WELL, I DON'T GLENN YOU HAD THE READ ONLY ACCESS OR THE READ ACCESS UP TO WHAT TIME? THE PRIOR AUDIT THAT WE DID.

WE FINISHED WITH THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT AUDIT BEFORE THIS ONE.

AND WHEN YOU STARTED THIS PARTICULAR HOT TAX AUDIT FOR THESE TWO YEARS, THAT'S WHEN THAT READ, THAT READ ACCESS WAS AVOIDED. YES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS.

SO YOU HAD READ ONLY ACCESS UNTIL YOU WERE DOING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WHERE YOU FOUND CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEMS, AND THEN THEY LOCKED YOU OUT OF THAT ACCESS? WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY LOCKED OUT. THEY WOULD. THEY JUST WENT TO THIS FORMAT OF PUTTING IT ON A FOLDER.

WELL, COULD YOU ACCESS THE READ ONLY ANYMORE? NO. WE WOULD GO OVER THERE AND ACCESS IT AT THE PARK BOARD AND THEN THEY, THEY CHANGE THE METHOD THAT WE GOT THE INFORMATION.

AND SO WE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU IN THIS FOLDER.

SO THEY LOCKED YOU OUT OF THE READ ONLY ACCESS AND ONLY MADE ACCESS AVAILABLE AS TO WHAT THEY DECIDED TO

[00:10:01]

PROVIDE TO YOU. YES. THAT'S. WELL, EXCUSE ME.

AND THE TITLE OF THE AUDIT THAT WE'RE DOING IS OF ALL HOT TAX IN 22 AND 24. AND ONCE ITEMS WERE FOUND AND THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN YOU WERE LOCKED OUT OF ACCESS TO THE READ ONLY FILES WE FOUND. DENIED ACCESS TO READ ONLY.

WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY DENIED. THEY CHANGED THE METHOD WHERE YOU COULD NO LONGER ACCESS THE FILES YOURSELF.

WE COULDN'T GO OVER LOCKED OUT OF THEM. CAN YOU ACCESS THEM THAT WAY? WE CAN'T ACCESS THEM NOW. NO, WE HAVE TO WAIT ON THEM.

SO YOU WERE LOCKED OUT WHEN YOU STARTED THE. WHEN YOU STARTED THE HOT TAX AUDIT THAT YOU'RE DOING NOW? THAT'S WHEN THEY CHANGED THEIR METHOD OF PROVIDING INFORMATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY THEY NOW HAVE THIS YOU HAVE TO THEY ARE PUTTING IT IN A FOLDER.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. IS THAT A IS THAT A DIGITAL FOLDER.

YES, SIR. IT'S A DIGITAL FOLDER THAT THEY SEND OVER.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEY'RE MAKING PDFS OUT OF ALL OF THESE.

YES, SIR. BUT THIS IS ONLY THE DOCUMENTS THEY CHOOSE TO SHOW YOU.

WELL, WE'VE ASKED FOR EVERYTHING, SO WE'RE RECONCILING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE ASKED FOR.

WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN ALL OF THEM. AND THEY'VE SAID THAT THEY ONLY GAVE US HALF OF THEM.

SO WHEN YOU HAD READ ONLY ACCESS. YOU WERE ABLE TO ACCESS ALL THE FILES WITHOUT CONSUMING ANY TIME OF THE PARK BOARD. CORRECT. AND NOW THEY ARE ADDING WORKLOAD TO THEMSELVES.

BECAUSE NOW THEY WANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT FILES YOU RECEIVE.

YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT OVER WHAT? EXCUSE ME. MAY I GET AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, BOB? OKAY. YEAH. THEY'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT THEY GIVE US RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. WHICH THEN REQUIRES A LOT MORE TIME OF THEM.

WHEN? BEFORE, ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SIT IN A ROOM AND READ THEIR FILES.

CORRECT. OKAY. JUST. DO YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM ON SPECIFICALLY WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU NEED? YES. YES. THEY'VE AGREED TO PROVIDE ALL THOSE.

YES. BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY'VE LOCKED HIM OUT OF THE FILES.

WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF I'M ASSUMING THERE'S A LOT OF DATA THAT'S BEYOND WHAT YOU'VE ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE.

NO, I A LOT OF. OH, WELL, LET'S NOT ASSUME WE HAVE TO BE.

LET'S THINK. WELL, IF YOU ASK THEM FOR EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT EVER PRODUCED BY THE PARK BOARD, NO. IN 24, 2024 AND 2022 HOT TAX EXPENDITURES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE SPECIFIC DATA THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR AND THEY'VE AGREED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT SPECIFIC DATA. YES. WE JUST DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE.

AND IT'S BEEN TWO, BUT THEY HAVE AGREED TO HAND-PICK THE DATA THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE HIM.

HE USED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE DATA HIMSELF, SO THERE, FOR HE COULD LOOK AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE HOT TAX RELATED. NOW THEY ARE CHOOSING TO ONLY PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WANT HIM TO SEE.

THEY HAVE TO HANDPICK IT BECAUSE HE'S NOT ASKING FOR DOCUMENTS FROM 2019 OR 2018.

THERE'S A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD AND SPECIFIC TO COMPUTER.

BOB, YOU CAN SAY ALL THE INVOICES FROM 22 AND IT DOESN'T TAKE WEEKS UPON WEEKS TO DO.

I WOULDN'T ASSUME THAT. YOU WOULDN'T ASSUME THAT.

HAVE YOU EVER WORKED IN AN ACCOUNTING PROGRAM? OKAY, LISTEN, LISTEN, FIRST OF ALL, COUNSEL, LET'S DO THIS.

IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY OR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER OR OUR CITY AUDITOR, LET'S GET LET THE COUNCIL MEMBERS GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. AND THEN WE'LL GET INSTEAD OF BREAKING IN SO THAT WE CAN THEN GET YOUR FEEDBACK.

ONCE THOSE ARE ANSWERED. YES. BEAU HAVE THE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'VE YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO USE THE WORD MANIPULATED, BUT THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE SENT YOU, ARE THEY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OR ARE THEY VARIED? THEY'RE THEY'RE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, YES. OKAY.

YES, MA'AM. AND HAVE THEY BEEN MANIPULATED ANY FORM OR FASHION, WHETHER WHATEVER NOTED OR WHATNOT. YES, THERE IS SOME MANIPULATION. YES.

WHICH CAUSES FOR ANNOTATIONS? CORRECT ANNOTATIONS.

THANK YOU. YEAH, WE WOULDN'T USE THE WORD MANIPULATION, BUT ANNOTATION.

WELL, WHEN YOU'RE ADDING SOMETHING TO AN INVOICE, YOU ARE MANIPULATING IT.

[00:15:02]

IF YOU GAVE THE IRS YOU WERE UNDER AN AUDIT AND YOU CHANGED YOUR DOCUMENTS TO GIVE TO THEM, YOU'D PROBABLY END UP IN JAIL. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE INFORMATION YOU'RE GETTING THE INFORMATION.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS TRYING TO ANNOTATE THAT TO DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. IT'S A THERE'LL BE AN ARROW IN A SQUARE BOX AND THERE'LL BE WORDING IN THE SIDE, THE SQUARE BOX ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WE ONLY ASKED FOR INVOICES.

CORRECT. AND USUALLY WE WILL LOOK AT THOSE. AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME.

BUT THEY, THEY CHOSE TO DO THESE ANNOTATIONS, WHICH IS NOT USUAL.

OKAY. HIGHLY UNUSUAL. SHARON. JUST HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF ACCOUNTING.

SO WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD TO GO OVER THERE TO LOOK AT ALL DOCUMENTS.

I'VE HEARD ALL DOCUMENTS A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE.

SO WHEN YOU WENT OVER THERE AND YOU HAD ACCESS TO THE READ ONLY, IS IT JUST AN ARRAY OF DOCUMENTS OR IS IT TABBED? IT'S TABBED. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER AND MUCH FASTER FOR US TO GO OVER AND LOOK AT ALL OF THIS.

OKAY. AND THEN JUST WAITING ON THESE, ON THIS FOLDER, LIKE WE DID WITH THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON IT. YOU WOULD HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THE TAB THAT YOU NEEDED.

OKAY. DURING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT, DID YOU ACCESS THEIR FILES FROM YOUR OFFICE OR DID YOU GO OVER THE PARK BOARD TO DO THAT? WE WENT OVER TO THE PARK BOARD. OKAY. OKAY. YES.

JUST IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, I JUST SAW AN ERROR YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT ONE, TWO, THREE.

ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE. FIRST PAGE IS FROM BRYCE'S NOTES AT 2400 DOCUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRODUCED.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED YET. 1224 TOTAL. AGREED.

I THINK THAT WAS QUOTE. IT IS. THAT'S A QUOTE FROM BRYSON.

BRYSON EMAIL. OKAY. WELL NEVERTHELESS IT HADN'T BEEN.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PRODUCED. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TOTAL 2400 PLUS.

YEAH. YES. PLUS, ONE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT JUST A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO PARK BOARD'S THINKING.

I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY SPEAKING FOR THE PARK BOARD. I'M MAKING AN OBSERVATION BASED ON SITTING IN MEETINGS, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FIRST AUDIT, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT AND AND THE AND THE, I GUESS, UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THEIR FILE IN IN THE FIRST AUDIT OR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OUT OF THAT DATA WAS SOME OF THAT DATA WAS RELEASED PREMATURELY BEFORE THE AUDIT WAS COMPLETE. IT WAS INTERPRETED AND USED AGAINST THE PARK BOARD.

AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO THE PARK BOARD IS TRYING TO, IN DON'S WORDS, KEEP THE AUDIT OBJECTIVE CLEARLY AND FOCUS BY PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR DATA. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE INSIGHT ON WHAT THEIR THINKING IS, THEY KIND OF GOT BURNED THE LAST TIME THEY DID THAT, FREE ACCESS TO THE COMPUTER SERVER, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO AND IT WAS MISINTERPRETED SOME OF THAT DATA.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR DATA BY CHANGING IT, THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR DATA BY CHANGING THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT? NO, NOT BY NOT GIVING UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE COMPUTER.

SO WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, THEN? BUT THEY'RE PROTECTING.

THEY'RE PROTECTING THE DATA FROM WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST AUDIT, WHERE SOME OF THE DATA BEFORE THE AUDIT WAS COMPLETE WAS LEAKED OUT AND MISINTERPRETED AND USED AGAINST THE PARK BOARD. SO ALL OF THEM, ALL THEY'RE TRYING TO DO NOW IS ENSURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

AND THE AUDIT PROCESS TAKES ITS ITS INTENDED COURSE.

AND IN THE END OF THE AUDIT, AFTER GLENN HAS DONE HIS WORK, THEN WE CAN SEE WHAT'S WHAT'S.

SO IF YOU WERE BOB, IF YOU WERE BEING AUDITED BY THE IRS, DO YOU THINK THE IRS WOULD SAY IT'S OKAY IF YOU TAKE YOUR STUFF AND CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION? I'VE NEVER HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WITH IRS THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS HAD WITH THE AUDITOR HERE, SO I WOULD GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT. RIGHT.

WELL, THEN WHY AREN'T THE WHY ISN'T THE PARK BOARD GIVING US WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA.

BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE, THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC DATA.

RIGHT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. THE PARK BOARD'S GIVING YOU THE DATA.

THEY'RE JUST ADDING THEIR ANNOTATIONS TO TRY TO DESCRIBE WHAT THAT DATA ACTUALLY MEANS.

IS THAT RIGHT? GLENN. WELL, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO GO THROUGH IT ALL.

RIGHT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE TRYING TO LEAD US ASTRAY, SO TO SPEAK, OR IF THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE INVOICES.

[00:20:06]

SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT UNTIL I'VE GONE THROUGH AND ASSESSED ALL THE INVOICES.

CORRECT. BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THE ORIGINAL INVOICES ARE COPIES.

THEY'RE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL PDFS. RIGHT? YES.

BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT, THEY'RE SENDING THE INVOICES OVER.

THEY'RE JUST, IN SOME INSTANCES, TRYING TO DESCRIBE WHAT THAT INVOICE MEANS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. BUT AN AUDITOR'S PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.

WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF POSSIBLE MANIPULATION.

AND WHEN WE DO EXTEND OUR AUDIT TESTS, IF WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF WE'RE BEING LED ASTRAY, SO TO SPEAK.

I MEAN, IT COULD HAPPEN THAT WAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE OBJECTIVE.

JUST ONE SECOND. EXCUSE ME. WHENEVER YOU ASK FOR INFORMATION ON AN AUDIT, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT THAT THAT MATERIAL MIGHT BE MANIPULATED. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. YES. YES. YOU DO KNOW WHEN HE ASKED FOR THE INVOICES.

I MEAN, THOSE INVOICES COME OVER TO YOU. YOU'RE GETTING THE INVOICES.

BUT IN SOME OF THE INVOICES, THEY'RE ADDING SOME DESCRIPTION THAT TRIES TO OUTLINE WHAT THAT'S FOR.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO GET A A DESCRIPTION.

OH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, I UNDERSTAND. SO IT MEANS WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO ACCESS THE FILES. WE DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE GETTING ALL THE INVOICES OR NOT.

BECAUSE WHAT WAS AN OPEN AUDIT IN THE LAST TIME IS NOW NOT IT'S A IT'S A MANIPULATED AUDIT BECAUSE THEY'RE CHOOSING AND PICKING AND CHANGING THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNHEARD OF WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, THE NONPROFIT WORLD, THE MUNICIPAL WORLD, THAT'S TOTALLY UNHEARD OF. PEOPLE MANIPULATING AUDIT DOCUMENTS. AND I TRULY DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE DEFENDING THAT.

I'M NOT DEFENDING THAT. I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT SO WE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND THAT CLARIFICATION IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. GLENN, LET ME ASK YOU, THIS IS IN YOUR AUDITS IN THE PAST, DO YOU GET THAT THROUGH FODOR'S DIGITAL, FODOR'S, OR DO YOU GET IT BASICALLY BY BY ACCESSING AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO READ THOSE, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED.

WHAT'S THE MOST COMMON WAY THAT THAT'S DONE? READ ACCESS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BASICALLY THE DEPARTMENTS OR MAY OPEN EVERYTHING UP TO US.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS INFORMATION ANYWAY? SO YEAH, JUST TO REITERATE MY POINT THAT THEY'VE AGREED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE HIDING ANY DOCUMENTS. NUMBER TWO, WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

NUMBER TWO I THINK I'VE HEARD YOU. I THINK I'VE HEARD YOU SAY.

AND I THINK THAT ANY ANNOTATIONS ARE DOING ARE CLEAR.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. THEY'RE SEPARATING IT IN A BOX WITH AN ARROW CLEARLY INDICATING AN EXPLANATION.

AND I ASSUME THAT YOU COULD CHOOSE TO IGNORE THAT EXPLANATION IF YOU WANTED.

AND JUST LOOK AT THE SOURCE DOCUMENT AND NOT EVEN LOOK AT THAT EXPLANATION IF YOU WANT TO. IF WE DON'T.

YES. SO THE ORIGINAL. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DOCUMENTATION IS STILL THERE.

IT'S YOU CAN YOU CAN CHOOSE TO READ IT JUST LIKE IT IS WITH OR WITHOUT THE ANNOTATIONS.

WE DON'T KNOW YET. THE ANNOTATIONS MAY BE HELPFUL.

THEY MAY NOT I DON'T WE DON'T KNOW YET. WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DO THAT.

ALL RIGHT. MARIE AND ALEX. TO YOUR COMMENT, BOB, THE FACT THAT HE NO LONGER HAS THE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THE FILE AND GET ALL THE INVOICES AS HE DID BEFORE. THEY ARE. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE GIVING US THE INVOICES OR NOT BECAUSE HE CANNOT ACCESS THE FILE. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS, BUT ONCE SOMEONE DENIES ACCESS, WHICH IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL IN AN AUDIT, IT IMPLIES THAT SOMETHING IS NOT QUITE RIGHT. AND THAT'S JUST YOU CAN GO LOOK UP IN A DICTIONARY.

[00:25:05]

THE DEFINITION OF AN AUDIT. AN AUDIT IS AN AUDITOR GOES IN, GETS ALL THE FILES, AUDITS THEM, AND THERE'S AN OUTCOME PERIOD. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.

AND NEITHER DID IT HAPPEN THAT WAY EITHER IN THE AUDIT BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE LEAKED, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT WON'T HAPPEN THIS TIME EITHER. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE WHAT SOMEBODY ON THE PARK BOARD MAY DO TO LEAK IT.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, IS THAT THERE'S NO GUARANTEES ANYWHERE IN THIS AUDIT PROCESS.

WELL, ACTUALLY, AUDITS ARE GUARANTEED. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MANIPULATE IT, WHICH, AS A COUNCIL PERSON IS, I FIND RATHER DISAPPOINTING IN YOU.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I DISAGREE IN THAT OBSERVATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE ON ITEM FOUR. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? DON, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE COVERED THE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEING THROWN OUT HERE.

YOU'RE COVERING THOSE IN YOUR LETTER. YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT THEY HAVE THE READ ABILITY FOR FOR FOR FOR GLENN.

YES. AND I WILL ADD IN THAT YOU EXPECT IT TO BE DONE BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS FRIDAY.

YES. WELL, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT ON THE TIMELINE.

BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, WE SURELY CAN.

BUT THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE MOTION FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE.

GLENN. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS, SIR? NO, SIR.

ALEX. AND THEN. SHARON. OKAY. SO BACK IN THE DAY BEFORE READ ONLY ACCESS TO A COMPUTER TERMINAL.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WOULD GO PRETTY MUCH INTO A FILE ROOM AND REVIEW THE FILES THEMSELVES AND PULL THE FILES THAT THEY NEEDED.

CORRECT. SO IN ANY INSTANCE PROFESSIONALLY, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, YOU KNOW, OH, CHOOSE WHAT FILES YOU GOT WITH ANNOTATIONS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WITH, LET'S SAY, POST-IT NOTES OR, YOU KNOW, A PIECE OF PAPER COVER SHEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO, IT'S BEEN MOSTLY UNFETTERED ACCESS.

DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT? IT HAS BEEN WITHHELD UNREASONABLY.

I REALLY COULDN'T MAKE THAT CALL UNTIL I HAVE A CHANCE TO GO IN AND LOOK AT ALL OF THE ANNOTATIONS TO SEE IF THEY'RE HELPFUL OR NOT.

SO, I MEAN, IT'S VOLUMINOUS. I REALLY COULDN'T MAKE THAT CALL RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SO IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION GOING TO THE PUBLIC, I REMEMBER THE ARTICLE CLEARLY.

I THINK THE PAPER DID AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST ON SOME OF THE INVOICES.

SO, I MEAN THAT THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ANYBODY FROM GETTING THOSE INVOICES WITH A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A PROTECTION OF INTEGRITY OF THE DATA.

WHEN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN REQUEST THOSE SAME EXACT INVOICES, AND IT SHOULD BE WITHIN TEN DAYS, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S PUT IT INTO A DROP BOX OR PUT IT ONTO A USB DRIVE AND IT'D BE FAIRLY QUICK.

I MEAN, WITH NO ANNOTATIONS. SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE INTEGRITY OF, OF PUBLIC INFORMATION IS BEING, I BELIEVE, UNREASONABLY WITHHELD FROM COUNCIL'S REPEATED REQUESTS TO GET THAT INFORMATION OVER TO GLENN.

IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS AND WE'VE ONLY HAVE HALF OF THE DOCUMENTATION.

SO THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GUESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MASSAGES AND FACIALS AND THE OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT, I MEAN, WE SAW I MEAN, WE ASKED GLENN FOR AN UPDATE AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, I READ THE 200 PAGE DOCUMENT, WE WERE GIVEN A TIMELINE AND THAT AUDIT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY THAT TIMELINE, SO BEAU AND I ASKED FOR A UPDATE. ALL OF COUNCIL GOT THAT SAME EXACT UPDATE.

THERE WAS NOTHING THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD OVER OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE ALL GOT THAT SAME UPDATE. WHAT I SAW WAS CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF PARK BOARD POLICY, CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF.

YOU KNOW, PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS UNDER PARK BOARD POLICY.

I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING STATE LEVEL, BUT IT GAVE ME GREAT CONCERN.

THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO CALL THE SPECIAL MEETING.

BUT IN THAT ARTICLE. AND THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE CEO SAID NO STAFF WENT ON.

THEN A CORRECTION WAS MADE LATER THAT SAID STAFF DID PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THOSE ACTIVITIES.

[00:30:02]

ALL THIS IS NOT TRANSPARENT, AND I'M GLAD WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION EXCEPT THE FIVE B, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WITH IN TERMS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT VIOLATIONS, THAT IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC.

AND SO WHEN YOU'RE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT TO THE ELECTED BODY AND YOU'RE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. SO I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE COVERED I MEAN, WE MIGHT HAVE COVERED A LOT, BUT I SEE THE PROBLEMS HERE BEING THAT THE INFORMATION IS BEING REVIEWED.

WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE REVIEWED? WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE ANNOTATED? AND IT'S NOT. BEING FORTHWITH AND REVIEWED WAS THEIR OWN WORD.

AND WE GET THE LIP SERVICE OF, YOU KNOW, WE WELCOME EVERY AUDIT.

WE WELCOME EVERY AUDIT. WELCOME EVERY AUDIT, THE SIX SEVEN AUDITS, WHATEVER.

I MEAN, WE KNOW JUST ON THAT UPDATE WE GOT THAT THEY BLEW THROUGH THEIR PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES.

WE KNOW THE CONTROLS. I MEAN WE KNOW THAT THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY.

BUT LET'S GET OVER IT. LET'S JUST GET THE INFORMATION.

AND EVERY TIME, EVERY MEETING IT'S LAUGHS AND JOKES ABOUT COUNCILS BEING UNREALISTIC IN OUR EXPECTATIONS.

WE'RE NOT GLENN ALREADY HAD ACCESS. WE'RE ASKING HOW MANY TIMES? JUST GIVE HIM THE ACCESS. GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION.

UNALTERED. UNREVIEWED. AND THEY'RE PUTTING MORE WORK ON THEMSELVES.

I THINK THIS LETTER STATES IT VERY CLEARLY THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE SPENDING DAYS UPON DAYS UPON DAYS TO MONTHS OF REVIEWING AND ANNOTATING DOCUMENTATION THAT ANYBODY COULD GET IN TEN DAYS FROM A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST AND REVIEW IT AND AUDIT IT THEMSELVES.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S TAKEN TWO MONTHS WHEN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL COULD TAKE TEN DAYS TO GET THAT INFORMATION.

THAT'S MY CONCERN. SHARON. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING DOCUMENTS AND READ ONLY.

IS IT JUST A PUSH OF A BUTTON? WHAT? WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO OVER THERE TO.

TO RELEASE ALL THE FILES AS A READ FOR YOU. I DON'T THINK IT'S TIMELY AT ALL.

I THINK IT'S FAIRLY FAST. THEY'RE IN PDF FILES AND THEY HAVE THEM HIT A BUTTON AND PRODUCE A REPORT.

WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD. YEAH, IT'S PRETTY MUCH IT'S PRETTY MUCH HIT A BUTTON IN THERE AND PRODUCE YOU KNOW THE READ ACCESS.

THEY HAVE EVERYTHING ALREADY ON PDF FILES. SO I WAS SET UP WHEN YOU WOULD GO OVER THERE.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. WE HAVE BEAU AND THEN ALEX AGAIN.

THIS ONE IS ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE COUNTLESS HOURS THAT WE SPENT.

RIGHT. ON SIMPLY REQUESTING THAT AN AUDIT BE DONE.

I, I INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A REQUEST, A CONCERN.

I FOLLOWED UP THAT REQUEST AND CONCERN BY SAYING, HEY, IF HABITS REFORM, BAD HABITS WERE FORMED AND AND THINGS WERE DONE DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE NEW DIRECTION OF THE PARKS BOARD DIRECTOR, THEN SO BE IT.

LET'S FIND OUT WHERE OUR WEAKNESSES ARE. LET'S MAKE THEM BETTER AND MOVE ON.

IN A WAY THAT I WOULD ONLY HAVE EXPECTED THAT IT'S SIMPLY A TRANSFER OF FILES.

NOTHING MORE. AND NOW WE'VE INVESTED SINCE THE BEGINNING, OVER 4 OR 5 MONTHS, COUNTLESS HOURS ON DISCUSSING THIS, COUNTLESS HOURS OF DISCUSSION, COUNTLESS HOURS OF IN THE PUBLIC TRYING TO LOBBY OUR SIDE AS TO WHY WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, AND, BOB, I SEE YOUR POINT.

YOU YOU ARE ON THE PARKS BOARD. YOU'RE A VOTING MEMBER THERE.

I SEE YOUR POINT OF CONVEYING AND COMMUNICATING WHAT YOU FEEL THEIR SIDE IS.

AND OF COURSE, I RESPECT OUR SIDE AND YOUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE YOUR NUMBER ONE DUTY.

ALL OF OUR NUMBER ONE'S DUTY. NUMBER ONE DUTY IS TO HAVE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR CITIZENS.

NUMBER ONE. AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS TO BE CALLED, THEN THAT'S OUR JOB IS TO CALL THOSE QUESTIONS.

THE COUNTLESS HOURS WE'VE INVESTED NOW, JUST SIMPLY THAT COULD HAVE JUST BEEN A TRANSFER OF FILES.

FIGURE IT OUT. WHERE ARE WE? WEAK. WHERE CAN WE DO A BETTER JOB AND MOVE ON IS COMICAL.

SO AND THEN TO THE SECOND POINT, THAT INFORMATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECEIVE, IT'S NOT MY INFORMATION, IT'S NOT OUR INFORMATION, IT'S THE PUBLIC INFORMATION.

OUR THE PUBLIC OWNS THAT INFORMATION, NOT THE PARKS BOARD, NOT US.

AND TO SAY AND TO RESPOND IN A WAY TO RATIONALIZE THE RELEASE OF THAT INFORMATION IS CRAZY.

[00:35:01]

WE DON'T OWN THAT INFORMATION. THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC THE MINUTE IT'S REQUESTED.

WITHOUT DESCRIPTION, WITHOUT ANNOTATIONS. SIMPLY PUSH OF A BUTTON, LET'S GET IT OVER WITH AND BE DONE AND MOVE ON TO THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER. MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO SOME OF THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. WE'RE CONSTANTLY JACKING WITH THIS WEEK ON WEEK OUT EVERY WEEK, AND THE COUNTLESS HOURS WE'VE DONE THIS HAVE TO BE CONCERNING TO YOU TOO, BOB. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S SIMPLY NOT A TRANSFER OF INFORMATION TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION PRESENTS THE INFORMATION. FIGURE OUT WHERE WE CAN DO BETTER AND MOVE ON.

THIS IS JUST RIDICULOUS. WE HAVE ALEX, AND THEN I'M GOING TO CALL ON DAVID IF HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

AND THEN BOB. ALEX. I'M KIND OF HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, BUT I SEE THIS AS A PATTERN.

THERE'S BEEN THE REQUEST FROM THE PARK INFORMATION THAT I SENT TO JANELLE FOR THE JOINT MEETING TO DISTRIBUTE TO THE PARK BOARD.

I NEVER GOT A COPY OF IT. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST MY OBSERVATION IS THIS IS A BIT OF A PATTERN, SO I'M. I'M YIELDING MY MY. DAVID. YEAH. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY MCCLOSKEY.

HAVE YOU RECEIVED IN THE LETTER THAT YOU TRANSMITTED TO THE PARK BOARD? HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE TO THAT AS REQUESTED IN YOUR LETTER? NO. WHICH LETTER? WHICH LETTER? THIS IS AN EMAIL HE SENT YESTERDAY ON OUR CONCERNS OVER THEIR OPEN MEETINGS ACT PRACTICE.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE TO THAT. AND YOU HAD REQUESTED THAT THEY RESPOND, I BELIEVE, TO ONE ACKNOWLEDGE. AND THEN WAS THERE ALSO A REQUEST TO PRODUCE INFORMATION AS WELL RELATED TO IT? YES. OKAY. AND YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE A RESPONSE YET? NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THE ONLY OTHER PIECE I WOULD ADD IS THAT FOR THE DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON, AND WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION, IS THAT MAYOR PRO TEM ROBB, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE IMMEDIATE RESTORE, IMMEDIATE READ ONLY ACCESS TO THE FINANCIAL FOLDERS AT THE PARK BOARD AND ALLOW GLENN THE ABILITY TO GO BACK OVER THERE AND SIT DOWN, JUST LIKE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY AND RESUME HIS HIS DOCUMENT FINDINGS AND REVIEW.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IN THE LETTER.

DID YOU SEE THE LETTER THAT DON WROTE, DAVID? YES I DID. YEAH, THAT'S IN THE LETTER REQUESTING THAT.

BUT BY YOUR GOOD WITH BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS FRIDAY.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. BOB. OH WELL, I'LL JUST FIRST OF ALL, ADDRESS DAVID'S COMMENT ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THE LETTER SAID BY WEDNESDAY, MAY 28TH, 2025 AT 9 A.M., CITY DEMANDS MR. HARDCASTLE AND THE PARK BOARD CONFIRM IN WRITING THAT THEY'VE NOT ACTUALLY ENTERED ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THIS MOTION, AND WILL NOT ENTER SUCH AGREEMENT UNTIL THE PARK BOARD PROPERLY NOTICES ANOTHER MEETING, DISCLOSES THE TERMS OF THOSE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, AND CONDUCTS A DELIBERATION AND VOTE IN OPEN SESSION.

WELL, WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT YET.

THERE WAS THERE HASN'T THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY APPROVED PARK BOARD APPROVED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT YET.

SO BUT WHEN THERE IS I, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC MEETING AND ALL THAT WILL COME OUT.

IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HEARD FROM ANYBODY AT THE PARK BOARD OR NOT, BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD IS JUST THAT.

OKAY, ALEX, BUT I WASN'T QUITE DONE YET. I'M SORRY.

OH. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST ON THAT TOPIC FOR DAVID.

THE OTHER ONE. I JUST WANTED TO ASK GLENN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS.

WHEN YOU DO AN AUDIT YOU, I GUESS, OCCASIONALLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE AUDIT, CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. AND SO YOU ASK, I GUESS, WHOEVER SENT YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WHAT THE.

I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IN YOUR TYPICAL AUDIT PROCESS YOU UTILIZE THOSE QUESTIONS, THOSE CLARIFICATIONS, TO HELP YOU DRAW YOUR CONCLUSIONS. CORRECT. AND AT THE END OF THE AUDIT, YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE ALL BASED ON THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.

SO I GUESS MY POINT IS, IF SOME OF THAT GETS OUT WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, IT CAN BE MISINTERPRETED.

THAT'S WHY YOU DO THAT. FIRST OF ALL, THE CLARIFICATIONS DOESN'T REALLY WHEN WE COME BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT'S GOING TO JUSTIFY OUR OPINION.

WE DO A LOT OF RESEARCH ALSO. YEAH, THERE'S OTHER THINGS.

[00:40:02]

THERE'S OTHER THINGS. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO INTO THE AUDIT BEYOND JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD BEFORE IS THAT YOU CAN GIVE AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU'RE DOING AN AUDIT, BUT YOUR FINDINGS ARE BASED ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION SOURCES OTHER THAN JUST THE PIECE OF PAPER.

IT'S A LOT OF OTHER RESEARCH, A LOT OF CLARIFICATIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT DRIVE YOUR YOUR CONCLUSIONS AT THE END OF THE AUDIT PERIOD FOR THAT REASON, THAT ALL THAT THAT DATA OR SOURCE DATA AND ALL OF YOUR METHODS AND MEANS AND EVERYTHING IS PROTECTED UNTIL YOU'RE DONE, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU DELIVER YOUR RESULTS AND THE REASONS BEHIND IT AND ALL THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. WE HAD ALEX AND THEN MARIE.

MARIE. MARIE CAN GO FIRST. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF AN AUDITOR.

AND THIS IS IN STANDARD PRACTICE. WHILE AUDITORS HAVE ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, THEY ALSO HAVE AN ETHICAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT IT. HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE INCIDENTS WHERE AN AUDITOR AUDITORS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO OR TO AUDIT DOCUMENTS TO REGULATORS OR OTHER AUTHORITIES.

IE WHEN A WHAT WAS THE FIRST AUDIT CALLED? CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CONFLICT OF INTEREST? WHEN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS CLEARLY FOUND, THEN GLENN HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE CITY COUNCIL AWARE OF THAT. CAN I POINT SOMETHING OUT TO WHAT YOU READ WAS IT TALKED ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS? WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC DOCUMENTS HERE, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS, ALEX? SO ONE THAT ONE THING THAT DOES GIVE ME CONCERN, SINCE THEY ARE AND DO HAVE A LOBBYIST THAT THEY'VE BEEN PAYING AND THEY ARE ATTUNED TO THE INNER WORKINGS AND THINGS THAT OTHERWISE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THERE IS A HOUSE BILL 762, WHICH WOULD LIMIT ESSENTIALLY GOLDEN PARACHUTES FOR EMPLOYEES, FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO FOUR MONTHS, 38% OF THEIR SALARY. WHAT I WOULD BE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS OF, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC NOT HAVING INFORMATION, IS GETTING A SETTLEMENT OR A CONTRACT AGREEMENT IN WITH A BIGGER SEVERANCE PACKAGE, WHICH DID HAPPEN PREVIOUSLY.

THAT WOULD BE TO CIRCUMVENT OR BEAT TO THE CLOCK THIS HOUSE BILL 762.

THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT GAVE ME CONCERN, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

AND, BOB, THIS IS SO YOU UNDERSTAND, TOO. THEY PAID A STATE LOBBYIST WITH STATE FUNDS UNDER FIVE, FIVE, SIX OF THE OF STATE LAW. THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING EXPENDITURES.

A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR PRIVATE ENTITY THAT RECEIVES STATE FUNDS MAY NOT USE THE FUNDS TO PAY LOBBYING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE FUNDS.

A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION ANY PARTNER, EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER, RELATIVE, CONTRACT, AND THEN ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR PRIVATE ENTITY THAT VIOLATES SUBSECTION A IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RISKING NOT ONLY THE PARK BOARD'S ABILITY TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDS, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY'S STATE FUND FUNDING. WE GET PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE WELL BEYOND WELL BEYOND THE ROADS.

BEACH CLEANING FUNDS, THEY'RE PUT INTO JEOPARDY.

ALL OF OUR STATE FUNDING. THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A LOT OF CONCERN, BECAUSE ALL OF OUR STATE FUNDS ARE IN JEOPARDY. AND WE NOT ONLY HAVE A DUTY TO LOOK AT IT AND MAKE MAKE SURE WHAT DAMAGE WAS DONE, BUT REPORTING IT TO THE PROPER ENTITY WHO'S IN CHARGE.

UNDER 556. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE WILL BE CULPABLE AND WE WILL RISK LOSING OUR STATE FUNDS.

SOME OF THE STUFF, BOB, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BORDERLINE CRIMINALITY.

I. TRULY BELIEVE THAT USING STATE FUNDS TO PAY A LOBBYIST TO LOBBY THE LEGISLATURE, RISKING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN JEOPARDY THE TAXPAYERS OF GALVESTON.

[00:45:05]

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF US IS ELECTED AND SWORN IN.

WE TAKE AN OATH TO OFFICE, AND I TAKE MY OATH VERY SERIOUSLY.

AND PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND REVIEW YOUR OATH TO OFFICE.

THAT'S NOT FAIR. THAT'S THAT'S THIS COUNCIL EACH.

WE HAVE DIFFERENT THOUGHTS CURRENTLY ON THIS.

AND THAT'S THE RIGHT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO HAVE THOSE THOUGHTS.

AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT. WE'RE HERE TO LOOK AT THE CLARIFICATION AND GET MORE INPUT FROM THESE INDIVIDUALS.

ON THE COMMUNICATION THAT DON HAS PUT TOGETHER.

DON, THAT IS GOING TO BE FOR A ON OUR AGENDA.

AND THAT WILL BE THE SET B NOT THIS AFTERNOON, BUT ONCE WE FINISH OUR WORKSHOP WE'LL MOVE INTO AN ACTION ITEM.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS LETTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE ARE ALL ALLEGATIONS.

THEY'RE NOT FACT YET UNTIL THEY'RE PROVEN. AND I JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COUNTRY, YOU'RE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

AND WE ARE NOT JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER. WE DO NEED TO WE DO NEED TO HAVE DUE PROCESS.

WE DO NEED TO HEAR BOTH SIDES. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN I'M DEFENDING ANYTHING.

IT JUST MEANS I WANT THE TRUTH. I WANT I WANT ALL TO HEAR ALL SIDES.

NOW THERE'S FOR INSTANCE IN THE LETTER, IT SAYS A SECOND PAGE.

THIS IS MOST DISTURBING IS THE PARK BOARD. TRUSTEES ASSERT THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THESE BILLS.

WAS THE BOARD OR EVEN A SINGLE TRUSTEE AWARE OF THESE EFFORTS? SEEMS TO APPEAR THAT YOU'RE INSINUATING THE TRUSTEES ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE THAT, THEY ASSERT THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.

BUT THEN YOU ASK AGAIN, DID THEY DID THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE? I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS TALKED TO THE TRUSTEES OR TALKED TO ME ABOUT ANY OF THIS TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THEY THINK.

BUT AND ANOTHER THING IS IT SAYS THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION ON HOW THESE TWO EMPLOYEES WERE ABLE TO INITIATE THIS EXTREMELY HOSTILE LEGISLATION.

AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND I'M JUST AGAIN, GIVEN AN ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE HERE, I'M NOT DEFENDING ANYTHING.

IS THAT THIS THAT THEY DID NOT INITIATE THIS THIS LEGISLATION? THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WAS WAS SUBMITTED LAST SESSION, NOT THIS CURRENT SESSION, 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO, UNDER DIFFERENT PARK BOARD LEADERSHIP. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PICKED UP THE LEGISLATION AND AGAIN THIS SESSION.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO BEFORE WE GET ALL EXCITED, I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF THIS.

I THIS, I THINK I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON ALL OF US TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

ABSOLUTELY. AND THE WAY I CHOOSE TO DO THAT IS TO GET AS MANY FACTS AS I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A COMPLETE ANALYSIS, AND WE'RE NOT BEING JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER.

WE'RE TRYING TO HEAR EVERYTHING. WE'RE TRYING TO HEAR THE FACTS AND CONDUCT DUE PROCESS ON ALL OF THIS.

DID YOU LISTEN TO THE HEARING UP IN AUSTIN? BECAUSE THAT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION.

DID YOU LISTEN WHEN BRYSON AND KIMBERLY WENT UP TO TESTIFY AND YOU DIDN'T HEAR BRYSON AND KIMBERLY BOTH SAY, WE'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR BIRDWELL, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK HIS STAFFERS FOR WORKING SO CLOSELY WITH US.

DID YOU HEAR THAT? OTHERS SAID A SIMILAR THING.

EXCUSE ME? I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT? THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE PARK APART BOARD WHAT THEY STATED IN A HEARING. I'VE HEARD OTHER THINGS THAT I WON'T GO INTO HERE, BUT JUST TO SAY THAT I THINK WE JUST NEED MORE INFORMATION FROM ALL SIDES OF THIS STORY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ON ITEM FOUR A, THIS IS THE COMMUNICATION THAT DON HAS PUT TOGETHER.

IT'LL BE ON OUR ACTION ITEM. COUNCIL I THINK WE'VE KIND OF EXHAUSTED THIS THOUGHT.

DON I WANT TO CONFIRM NOW. FIVE A WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO OPEN SESSION.

YES, SIR. UNDER LETTER, ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO HEAR IS WHO IS GOING TO SIGN IT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE MOTION THEN.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MOVING IN FIVE B. WE'LL STAY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IS THAT CORRECT, DON? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM FIVE A AND OPEN SESSION, PLEASE.

[5.A Discussion of possible action authorizing the Office of the City Attorney to take action against the Galveston Park Board of Trustees related to violations of the Open Meetings and/or Texas Public Information Act including filing of administrative complaints with appropriate state agencies or initiation of litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking any and all relief available to the City.]

ITEM FIVE A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS AND OR TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, INCLUDING FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES, OR INITIATION OF LITIGATION IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SEEKING ANY AND ALL RELIEF AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

[00:50:08]

NOW THIS WILL BE ALSO A SEPARATE ACTION ITEM FOR US AFTER WE FINISH THIS MEETING.

DON, DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS? GOOD MORNING COUNCIL.

ROBERT, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? YES, I'M ROBERT BOOTH.

I'M THE MANAGING PARTNER OF BILL SHIRLEY. I HAVE RETAINED MICHELE SHIRLEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

IF COUNCIL AGREES, THAT IS THE PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION.

AND THE ROBERT IS HERE AT YOUR REQUEST. CORRECT.

OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD. ROBERT. DID EVERYONE SEE THE EMAIL THAT DON SENT YESTERDAY? YES. THAT PRETTY MUCH LAYS OUT KIND OF WHAT WHAT OUR THOUGHTS ARE WHAT OUR INITIAL REVIEW IS.

AND WE JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PARK BOARD, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERED. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND WE WE PUT A DEADLINE.

LET ME LET ME JUST LAY IT OUT. SO THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT YESTERDAY LAID OUT THAT THE PARK BOARD HELD A MEETING, A SPECIAL MEETING ON LAST WEEK. AND AS PART OF THAT MEETING, THE THE BOARD ESSENTIALLY WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS.

IT COMES OUT AND IT MADE A MOTION THAT IT WAS GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO SIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE MOTION HAS A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS, DOESN'T IT? DIDN'T IDENTIFY WHO WAS GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE SETTLEMENT.

THE MOTION DIDN'T IDENTIFY WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE MOTION, DIDN'T IDENTIFY WHAT CONSIDERATION WAS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT.

ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DECISION MADE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MOTION IS.

IT'S JUST PASSED BY ALL BUT ONE VOTE. SO THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT MOTION IS TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND SO ON MY RECOMMENDATION, WE HAVE LAID OUT THOSE ISSUES TO THE PARK BOARD.

I'D LIKE TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THE PARK BOARD ON THOSE ISSUES.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT PENDING THEIR ANSWERS TO THOSE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

IT CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE THERE MAY BE ONE, BASED UPON WHAT I'VE REVIEWED IN YOUR LETTER, BACK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING FOR YOU, KIND OF ALLUDED TO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION I DID.

DID YOU REQUEST ANY INFORMATION OR RESPONSE FROM THAT? I NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT LETTER. LETTER WHICH ROBERT DRAFTED.

I'M GOING TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE WE GOT IT. I CONSIDER THAT TO BE SELF CONTAINED AND STANDS ALONE.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. LET'S OPEN IT UP TO COUNSEL'S DISCUSSION ON THIS.

THIS IS TO FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES OR INITIATION OF LITIGATION.

WHAT ARE THOSE STATE AGENCIES AND HOW WOULD THAT BE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH? WELL, MR. PERITO ALREADY ALLUDED TO WHEN THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT FILING COMPLAINTS AT PROPER TIME WITH THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IN TERMS OF THIS OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATION.

DID YOU LOOK INTO THE LOCAL COURTHOUSE FOR RESPONSE AND WALK ME THROUGH, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND THE SCENARIO, IF INITIATION OF LITIGATION IN A COURT IS FOLLOWED THROUGH, WE WOULD FILE A SUIT AGAINST THE PARK BOARD.

RIGHT. AND FOLLOW ME THROUGH, IF THAT IS HOW THAT WOULD KIND OF EVOLVE.

FILE THE PETITION. YOU SERVE THE OTHER SIDE. AND BASICALLY WE'D BE SEEKING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ACTING ANY FURTHER ON THESE CONTRACTS UNTIL THEY'VE FINALIZED THEM, POSTED THEM ON THE AGENDA ALLOWED FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THEM, WHICH IS NOT IN THE LOOP NOW. AND VOTING ON THEM IN A PUBLIC SESSION, NONE OF WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACTION TAKEN LAST WEEK. AND THIS WOULD BE AN INJUNCTION THAT WE WOULD BE SEEKING.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY, COUNSEL, LET'S OPEN THIS UP, BOB.

SO IF IF THE BOARD DID AGREE TO AGAIN, THERE IS NO FINAL SETTLEMENT YET.

[00:55:06]

SO WHEN THEY DO REACH A FINAL SETTLEMENT, WHEN STAFF REACHES A FINAL SETTLEMENT ON ALL OF THIS, AND THE BOARD AGREES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSS ALL THESE FINAL SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS AND THEN VOTE ON THAT FINAL SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT CONDITION, PUBLIC HEARING, THEN THAT WOULD THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THIS WHOLE INVESTIGATION.

OKAY. THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

YES. THIS WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. I UNDERSTAND THAT YESTERDAY DURING THE MEETING, BOTH THEIR COUNSEL AND MR. HARDCASTLE THINK THEY'RE FINE AND HAVE PRE-APPROVED THE LETTER THAT THEY RECEIVED.

CAN I JUST. SO THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY MR. HARDCASTLE, HIS OWN MOTION, SAID I MOVED TO AUTHORIZE LEGAL COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN EMPLOYMENT, IMPENDING EMPLOYMENT MATTERS AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITHIN PARAMETERS AND ON THE TERMS RECOMMENDED BY LEGAL COUNSEL.

AND SO ON THAT MOTION. THERE'S NO RECOGNITION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE PARK BOARD.

IT'S JUST GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE STAFF LEVEL WITH MR. HARDCASTLE SIGNING IT. THAT IS THE ISSUE. AND SO THE ISSUES I POINTED OUT AGAIN ARE IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY WHO THE EMPLOYEES ARE.

IT IDENTIFY WHAT IS BEING SETTLED. THE AGENDA ITEM CERTAINLY DOESN'T REFERENCE ANY DISPUTE.

IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY WHAT ARE THE KEY FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AS PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT.

AND THEN OF COURSE, IT INDICATES THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION, THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT MOTION WAS TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH INDICATES THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A LEGAL DECISION MAKING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH, OF COURSE WOULD BE A LATE, WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

NOW, WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS NEGOTIATIONS, CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS.

WOULD IT HAVE COMPROMISED THOSE NEGOTIATIONS BY HAVING ALL OF THIS DETAIL IN A PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW? FOR INSTANCE WOULD BE PRESERVING ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY PROVIDING ALL THE DETAILS IN THAT SETTING OR WAITING UNTIL ALL THOSE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FINALIZED, AND THEN BRINGING IT OUT TO OPEN SETTINGS SO AS NOT TO COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS.

SO I JUST READ THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION DOESN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN AN OPEN SETTING. IT SAYS THAT MR. HARDCASTLE IS GOING TO SIGN IT. OKAY.

OKAY. WELL, THAT THAT THAT COULD IF THAT'S AN ERROR, THEN AND WE GOT SOME KIND OF ASSURANCE THAT THAT OUR BOARD WOULD COME BACK IN AN OPEN MEETING AND, AND DISCUSS ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND OPEN MAKING VOTE, HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SO ON. WOULD THAT CORRECT THE PROBLEM? YES. THAT WOULD. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE ASKED FOR IN THE EMAIL YESTERDAY.

I MEAN, THERE'S STILL A VIOLATION, BUT THEY CAN IF AS LONG AS THEY DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT, THEY CAN COME BACK AND HOLD IT IN AN OPEN MEETING.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR THEM TO CONFIRM. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR. THE MR. HARDCASTLE AND THE BOARD TO CONFIRM THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO.

WE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE.

IT SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY SIMPLE THING FOR THEM TO DO.

I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT THEY HAVEN'T RESPONDED. YEAH, IT DOES SEEM SIMPLE.

AND LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN CITY COUNCIL, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANT, WHICH WOULD BE THE RESULT OF SOME INVESTIGATION INTO THIS, I GUESS. IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S NO THE WAY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WORKS IS WE WOULD PRESENT OUR CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE TO A COURT HERE IN GALVESTON OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. THE COURT WOULD HEAR THAT EVIDENCE.

IF IT THINKS THAT WE'RE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS, IT CAN ENTER A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

IT THEN WOULD HOLD A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITHIN 14 DAYS ON THE MERITS WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE TESTIMONY.

BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOU COULD GET THIS RESOLVED BECAUSE THEY SHOULD JUST AGREE TO DO THIS AND THIS INJUNCTION IF, IF, IF, IF IT WAS AFFIRMED THAT THERE WAS SOME VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND WHAT WOULD THE RESULT BE? THE RESULT WOULD BE TO UNDO THE DECISION, UNDO THE MOTION.

THE MOTION THAT THEY'VE ALREADY THEY'VE ALREADY DID UNDO IT AND DO WHAT THEY WOULD AVOID THE AVOID IT.

AVOID IT. YEAH. THERE WAS THERE WAS A RECENT A RECENT CASE INVOLVING TEXAS CITY THAT WAS PRETTY NEWSY, THAT HAD THE SAME SORT OF ISSUE, DIFFERENT VIOLATION.

THEY DIDN'T ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THE COURT IN THAT CASE JUST MADE THEM UNDID THE VOTE AND THEY HAVE TO REDO IT, I THINK. AND HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS?

[01:00:05]

THERE'S SEVERAL STEPS THAT SOUNDS. YEAH. THE STEPS. I MEAN, YOU FILE A LAWSUIT.

IT TAKES A COUPLE OF DAYS. YOU GOT TO GET A HEARING. TYPICALLY, YOU GET AN INJUNCTION HEARING. I MEAN, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING HEARING WITHIN A DAY OR TWO AND THEN JUST 14 DAYS UNTIL THE INJUNCTION HEARING.

OKAY, SO THERE ARE SPECIFIED TIME SCHEDULES THAT YOU OPERATE WITHIN FOR EACH STEP.

YEAH, IT'S A MULTI-STEP PROCESS. SO THERE'S A RESTRAINING ORDER PROCESS WHICH IS JUST A QUICK BRUSH.

LIKE DO WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE? THE COURT SAYS YAY OR NAY. AND THEN THE COURT HAS TO SET A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, FOR WHICH YOU'D HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO PREVAIL ON THE PARENTS. AND THAT HAS TO OCCUR WITHIN 14 DAYS.

SOMETIMES IT GET EXTENDED TO 28, BUT 14 DAYS.

AND THE COURT CAN ALSO DECLINE TO ISSUE A TRO AND MOVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UP TO AN EARLIER TIME.

THAT COULD HAPPEN TOO, IF IT HAS ITS CALENDAR.

YEAH, THAT HAPPENS TOO. AND THEN THE RESULT WOULD BE IF IT AFFIRMS THERE WAS A VIOLATION, THAT THAT MOTION IS NO LONGER VALID AND THEY'D HAVE TO MEET AND DO ANOTHER ONE.

THAT COULD BE ONE RESOLUTION, ANOTHER RESOLUTION.

I'M TRYING TO THINK HE'S NOT THE JUDGE. YEAH, NO, BUT WE'D BE REQUESTING THE RELIEF.

I MEAN, YOU COULD. I MEAN, THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU COULD.

I MEAN, AGGRESSIVE THINGS LIKE SANCTIONS AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

BUT REALLY WHAT YOU'D BE ASKING FOR HERE IS JUST TO UNDO THE MOTION.

OH, I GUESS YOU COULD ALSO GET A YOU COULD ALSO REQUEST A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REQUIRING THEM.

AS WEIRD AS IT SOUNDS, TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE DOING THAT ALREADY, RIGHT? THEY SAY, DON'T DO THAT. YEAH. HAS ANYBODY SPOKEN WITH THE PARK BOARD'S ATTORNEY? WE EMAILED THEM. EMAILED MR. BYRUM YESTERDAY.

YESTERDAY? I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK YET. OKAY. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE OUGHT TO GIVE THAT A SHOT A CHANCE, SEEING AS HOW WHAT WE JUST DESCRIBED IS A REASONABLE THING TO DO WOULD BE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPEN HEARING WHEN THE SETTLEMENT IS DONE.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT JUST TO JUST TO AVOID A LENGTHY AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS.

THAT'S WHAT I REQUESTED YESTERDAY. YEAH. I MEAN, REALLY, THIS GETS DOWN TO IS THIS IS THIS WHERE WE REALLY WANT TO SPEND OUR TIME WITH THE RESULT BEING THAT WE WE NEGATE THE, THE THE THE VIOLATION AT THE MEETING AND DO IT AGAIN.

WELL, BOB, THE TIME WE'VE SPENT IN DEALING WITH THIS RIDICULOUSNESS HAS NOT WORKED.

WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS VIOLATION THING.

NOT NOT THE AUDIT THING. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ABOUT TO GO INTO THE HIGH SEASON FOR TOURISM.

WE'RE GOING INTO BUDGET HEARINGS. WE'RE GOING INTO HURRICANE SEASON.

WE GOT A CITY STAFF THAT'S OPERATING UNDER A LIMITED, RESTRICTED BUDGET.

WE GOT A LOT OF PRIORITIES, A LOT OF THINGS AHEAD OF US.

I'M JUST WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE WEIGH WE WEIGH THAT AGAINST OUR WEIGH THIS AGAINST ALL OF OUR OTHER PRIORITIES AND THINGS WE OUGHT TO BE DOING.

COMING UP. BOB, I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, BOB.

I REALLY COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE. AND AND SO I'M JUST IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE MADE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE IF THE PARKS BOARD WOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT SAME POSITION.

I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT AND I CAN I CAN HELP DO THIS TO THAT WE WE GET A RESPONSE FROM THE PARK BOARD ABOUT ABOUT CLARIFYING THAT THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEN THEY'RE NEGOTIATED IS DONE.

THEN WE HAVE AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING ALL THAT OUT.

YEAH. SO I WILL SAY THAT IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THE PARK BOARD HAS DONE THIS.

ON MAY 12TH, THEY HAD A SIMILAR MEETING FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MR. HARDCASTLE MADE THE MOTION. I WOULD MOVE TO AUTHORIZE LEGAL COUNSEL TO PROCEED, AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION, WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT MATTERS DISCUSSED.

AND THAT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. SO YOU KNOW THAT THAT HAS THE SAME ISSUES.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S DISCUSSED. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE SUBJECT OF THE MOTION IS. AND SO THERE'S A REPEATED THING THAT THEY'RE DOING HERE.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PARK BOARD JUST FOLLOW THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

BUT IF THEY CONTINUE TO NOT, THEN WHAT CHOICE DOES THE CITY HAVE? YOU KNOW, I'M ON CITY COUNCIL. I DEPEND ON DON'S ADVICE FOR ANYTHING LEGAL AND ON THE PARK BOARD.

I DEPEND ON THE PARK BOARD'S ATTORNEY'S ADVICE FOR ANYTHING LEGAL.

AND THERE ARE. THERE'S TYPICALLY WHEN THERE'S AN EXECUTIVE SESSION LIKE THERE IS HERE, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WILL THE MOTION BE WHEN WE COME OUT AND IS IT GOING TO BE LEGAL, AND SO ON. AND SO THE PARK BOARD'S ATTORNEY ASSURED US THAT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS TOTALLY LEGAL.

SO HE'S GOT A DIFFERENT OPINION. I GUESS THAT'S WHY.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF ANYBODY HAD SPOKEN WITH HIM ABOUT IT.

I'M WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. LET'S KIND OF MOVE ALONG, ALEX.

SO WHEN WE TOOK OUR OATH, WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION, STATE CONSTITUTION,

[01:05:03]

STATE LAWS, THE CITY CHARTER, AND OUR ORDINANCES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.

AND THIS IS TAKING IT OFF OUR PLATE. I MEAN, THIS IS PUTTING IT IN THE HANDS OF.

AN ATTORNEY TO GET THEM TO COMPLY. I DON'T SEE THE TIME CONSTRAINT.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS FOR DOCUMENTATION THAT GETS ANNOTATED AND THEN 14 DAYS FOR A LEGAL INJUNCTION TO STOP.

AGAIN. AGAIN. IT'S NOT CLEAR. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT WHAT IS BEING DONE.

IT'S SETTLEMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, BOB, YOU'RE KIND OF WALKING A THIN LINE WITH WITH THE WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OVER THERE AND COMING HERE, AND I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THAT. BUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE.

I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO JUST SIT DOWN AND LIKE, LET THEM VIOLATE IT AND SAY, OH, WELL, THEY'LL FIX IT AFTER IT'LL BECOME CLEAR TO US LATER.

I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. LIKE, NO, WE, WE WE'VE ASKED WE HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK ABOUT THE SAME OPEN MEETING VIOLATIONS, AND THEY HAD A MEETING AT 3:00 THE SAME DAY WE DID.

WE DISCUSSED IT PRIOR TO THAT. YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY THERE WERE JOKES ABOUT DID THEY WATCH IT? THEY DIDN'T WATCH IT. THEY DID. WE SAID, DON'T DON'T VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT? WHEN YOU HAVE TWO ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, SOMETIMES THE PLACE TO TEST YOUR OPINIONS IS THE COURTHOUSE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS WE NEED TO GET THIS THING FILED AND GET SOME INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND AND VOIDED DECISIONS IF WE CAN, IF THERE IS, IN FACT, A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

BUT WE REPEATEDLY ASKED THEM TO STOP. THEY DID IT ON MAY 12TH, APRIL 30TH.

WE CAN'T CONTINUE IT. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO LET IT HAPPEN.

DAVID, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? I DO, THIS IS FOR THE MILL SHIRLEY COUNCIL.

ALSO THE LETTER. COULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE WHAT THE INTENT OF THE LETTER IS AND WHAT THE EXPECTED ACTION FROM THE PARK BOARD IS? WELL, LET ME INTERJECT. I HAVE A EMAIL FROM JASON HARDCASTLE THAT SAYS WE HAVE NOT EXECUTED ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THEIR RESPONSE. WHEN DID THAT EMAIL COME IN, DON? 1005 THIS MORNING. OKAY. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, DAVID, WE HAVE TWO COMMUNICATIONS.

ONE IS AN EMAIL THAT DON SENT THEM YESTERDAY CONCERNING THE OPEN MEETINGS ISSUE.

THE OTHER IS THE COMMUNICATION LETTER THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN FORAY.

SO WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'M REFERRING TO THE THE LETTER DOCUMENT THAT IS BEING DRAFTED BY COUNSEL FROM MILL SHIRLEY DIRECTED TO THE PARK BOARD BY THE ONE WE DISCUSSED IN FOR A THEN FOR A CORRECT OKAY, UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT OF THE LETTER IS AND WHAT THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OR HOPED OUTCOME FROM THE PARK BOARD IS FROM THAT LETTER IF WE ELECT TO SEND IT TO THEM.

SO WE'VE ALREADY SAID IT'S ALREADY IT'S JUST AN EMAIL FROM, FROM MR. GLYWASKY AS CITY ATTORNEY SENT IT TO THE PARK BOARD.

AND THE ULTIMATE REQUEST. WHAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR, HE'S REFERRING TO THE LETTER THAT WE HAVE NOT APPROVED TO GO OUT YET.

CORRECT? CORRECT. SO I WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO MIX THESE.

I HAD NO I HAD NOTHING IN THAT BILL SHIRLEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT LETTER.

IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, I ONLY DEAL WITH OPEN RECORDS. SO THE QUESTION, DON, IS TO YOU ON THE LETTER THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.

THE PURPOSE OF THE LETTER WAS TO ASSEMBLE YOU KNOW, WRITING THE COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY COUNSEL AND WHAT REMEDIES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR WHAT INFORMATION WE WANT. WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THREE WAYS. FIRST IS THE DISCUSSION OF THE AUDIT AND GETTING READ ONLY ACCESS. THE SECOND IS A QUESTION WHAT ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES UP TO AND WHO'S WATCHING THEM, WHICH WAS A CONCERN DISCUSSED IN IN ONE EXECUTIVE ONE MEETING HERE.

AND THE REST IS OPEN MEETING STUFF, WHICH I REFER TO THE LETTER PREPARED BY MRS. SHIRLEY. I THINK THE EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU RECEIVE READ ONLY ACCESS FOR SO HE CAN

[01:10:10]

GET ON WITH HIS WORK AND ELIMINATE USELESS, NEEDLESS WORK FOR THE PARK BOARD.

THE SECOND IS I THINK YOU WANTED AN EXPLANATION OF.

WHAT INVOLVEMENT THE BOARD HAD WITH OVERSEEING ITS EMPLOYEES ON THIS LEGISLATION.

YES, DON, I AM CLEAR ABOUT THAT. I'M REFERRING TO THE LETTER RELATED TO THE OPEN MEETING ACT, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THERE WERE THREE COURSES OF THREE LEGISLATIVE OR THREE BODIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HEAR THIS ONE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION TO ANOTHER GROUP THAT YOU MENTIONED, AND THEN THREE, THE DA.

I WAS REFERRING TO THAT LETTER THAT I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S THE LETTER THAT WE ARE VOTING ON THIS AFTERNOON.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, SINCE I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIFICALLY WAS BEING ASKED IN THAT LETTER, AND THAT WHAT WE HOPEFULLY EXPECT THE INTENDED OUTCOME FROM THAT LETTER.

THOSE THREE APPROACHES ARE NOT IN THE LETTER I'M PROPOSING FOR CITY COUNCIL.

DO YOU HAVE A COPY WHICH THAT WAS SENT YESTERDAY? DON SENT THE LETTER. DAVID, YESTERDAY. DON'S LETTER OR THE LETTER DRAFTED BY DON'S LETTER.

DON'S LETTER? DON'S LETTER. OKAY. IS THERE ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN PRODUCED BY MITCHELL SHIRLEY FOR DRAFT REVIEW? NOT FOR DRAFT REVIEW. NO. NO, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE EMAIL SENT MAY 27TH THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DEADLINE OF MAY. WEDNESDAY, MAY 28TH AT 9 A.M..

THE DEMANDS THAT MR. HARDCASTLE AND THE PARK BOARD CONFIRMED THAT WERE NOT ACTUALLY ENTERED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THAT WAS THAT THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET ANSWERED. RIGHT? THAT IS THE LETTER FROM SHIRLEY THAT WE SENT TO THEM YESTERDAY.

IT IS DIFFERENT FROM MY LETTER. OKAY. RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT COMMUNICATIONS.

ONE HAS BEEN SENT. ONE HAS NOT BEEN SENT AND APPROVED AS YET.

AND THAT ONE IS IS FROM SHIRLEY'S WORK AND ONE IS FROM THE EMAIL THAT WENT OUT YESTERDAY.

MISS SHIRLEY PARTICIPATED IN HELPING PUT THAT TOGETHER.

OKAY, GOOD GOOD GOOD CLARIFICATION. ALL RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU MAYOR. YOU'RE WELCOME. DAVID. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT?

[5. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

ALL RIGHT. WE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER, OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER.

INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 2-146. INVESTIGATIONS BY COUNCIL OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

IT IS 11:14 A.M.. WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IT IS 12:05 P.M.. IT IS CALLING OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 28TH. WE HAD A WORKSHOP THIS MORNING ON A NUMBER OF ITEMS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM.

ADAM. WE ARE NOW INTO OUR OPEN SESSION AT OUR CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.

I'M GOING TO CALL FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

[6. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ]

PLEASE COME FORWARD. HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR.

AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. GLAD TO HAVE YOU.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRIAN GATTIS. I'M A TEXAS CITY RESIDENT.

I'M HERE AS A AS A CIVILIAN. BUT I REALLY WANT TO IMPLORE EACH ONE OF YOU OR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GET THE DA'S OFFICE INVOLVED. THEY'VE BEEN ABSENT FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

AND IN MY RESEARCH, THERE'S CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE OPEN RECORDS ACT.

EACH ONE OF YOU COULD FILE TO SEE THESE, THE PARK BOARD INFORMATION.

THEY WOULD HAVE TEN DAYS TO RESPOND TO YOU. AND IF THEY WANT TO WITHHOLD IT, LET THEM MAKE AN ARGUMENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

[01:15:01]

THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT TO YOU. THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT TO THEM. SO THIS I THINK THEY'RE INTENTIONALLY WITHHOLDING IT.

WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE OR NOT GIVING YOU THE INFORMATION.

THE SECOND POINT IS, I THINK EACH ONE OF YOU, AS ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE TO GO LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO MR. GLUCHOWSKI, IF I'M SAYING THAT.

RIGHT, DON, TO ADVISE YOU ON THAT. THAT CAN BE DONE.

YOU CAN SAY, I WANT AN APPOINTMENT. I WANT TO GO SEE IT NOW. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT TO THE PUBLIC, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. ALL THESE THINGS SEEM TO ME THAT THAT THEY'RE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.

I HAVE MADE A COUPLE COMPLAINTS TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WHO ACCEPTED THEM OR ACCEPTED MY COMPLAINT. I ASKED THEM TO INVESTIGATE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL DO, BUT IT'S TIME TO GET THEM INVOLVED.

IT'S TIME FOR Y'ALL TO STAND UP. LET THESE PEOPLE EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU THOSE FILES.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST CRAZY TO ME. THEY'RE OURS. THEY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.

I DON'T THINK THEY'VE GIVEN YOU A VALID REASON NOT TO SEE HIM. THAT'S MINE.

AND I HEARD. IS IT IS IT REALLY WHERE WE WANT TO SPEND OUR TIME AND MONEY? AND LIKE I SAID IN THE TAXI. THIS IS CRAZY. YOU'RE TWO PROFESSIONAL ENTITIES GOING THIS.

AND TO ME, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE RECORDS, PERIOD.

IT'S CUT AND DRY. WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME? ARE THEY GOING TO DO THIS? ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT? FILE AN INJUNCTION.

AND I THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH. AND IF ANY ONE OF Y'ALL WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU.

AND WE CAN DOCUMENT SOME THINGS, AND YOU YOURSELF COULD FILE AN INJUNCTION HERE.

YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY TO DO IT. I DID IT AGAINST THE CITY OF TEXAS CITY MYSELF.

I SPENT MY MONEY, MY TIME, MY RESEARCH. BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND A LAWYER THAT WILL REPRESENT YOU AS A CIVILIAN.

BUT YOU DO HAVE CITY. YOU'VE GOT THE CITY BEHIND YOU.

AND WE TOGETHER COULD DRAFT SOMETHING OR GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION AND DO THE INJUNCTION.

LET THE LAWYERS FIGHT IT OUT IN COURT. I MEAN, THIS THIS SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY, AND Y'ALL ARE WASTING A LOT OF TIME FOR EACH THE TEXAS OPEN RECORDS ACT AND THE OPEN MEETING ACT, THERE ARE CRIMINAL REPRISALS THAT CAN BE THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU NOW.

THEY CAN BE NEGLIGENT IN GIVING IT, OR THEY CAN INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY NOT GIVE IT.

BUT FOR EACH ONE THERE ARE VIOLATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE IT. PLEASE DO IT. MAKE THEM GIVE IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NO RESPONSE. LET'S MOVE TO OUR ACTION ITEMS.

[7.A Consider for approval an Ordinance of the City of Galveston, Texas, amending Chapter 10, “Building Code”, Section 10-16. “Drainage Regulations”, of the Code of the City of Galveston; amending the design criteria to mitigate peak runoff and maintain meaningful detention requirements, as well as, decrease the burden/costs of related development; making various findings and provisions related to the subject; providing for an effective date. (R. Winiecke)]

ITEM SEVEN A PLEASE SEVEN A CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS AMENDING CHAPTER TEN BUILDING CODE, SECTION 1016 DRAINAGE REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

AMENDING THE DESIGN CRITERIA TO MITIGATE PEAT RUNOFF AND MAINTAIN MEANINGFUL DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS DECREASE THE BURDENS AND COST OF RELATED DEVELOPMENT.

MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WE HAVE WITH US OUR DIRECTOR, WHAT IS YOUR TITLE AGAIN? ROBB DIRECTOR. DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING.

DIRECTOR OF WHAT? I'M SORRY. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING.

OKAY. DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING.

ROBB. SO GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

LAST WEEK AT OUR COUNCIL MEETING, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE BURDEN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS SEEN WITH REGARDS TO THE DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA. WE TALKED ABOUT REDUCING THE OVERALL IMPACT TO 0.75 ACRE FEET PER ACRE, AND THEN DOING THAT OVER IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ONLY.

SO COUNCIL ASKED US TO COME BACK WITH A ORDINANCE THAT MADE THAT CHANGE.

WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE AND HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD WITH A LESS BURDENSOME CRITERIA ON THE COMMUNITY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WINNICK? I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM SEVEN.

A IS THERE A WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS MANUAL BECAUSE WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. SECOND. THREE SECONDS. WE HAVE THREE SECONDS FOR JANELLE.

PICK WHOEVER YOU WANT ON THAT SECOND THERE. RAWLINS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS COUNCIL? YES. YES, MA'AM. I JUST WANT TO ASK FOR A CONTRACTOR HERE.

IS EVERYTHING IN THIS ADEQUATE TO COVER THE CONCERNS? SPEAK INTO YOUR MIC. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO ASK OUR CONTRACTOR TRACTOR COUNCIL PERSON.

IF EVERYTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE IS SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY

[01:20:08]

AS A CONTRACTOR, YES, I WON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ENGINEERING AT ALL, BUT THE BIGGEST THING THAT THAT I WANT TO COMMEND IS THAT THE CITIZENS MADE US AWARE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO ROBB.

AND I APPRECIATE HOW EXPEDIENT YOU GOT ON THIS.

I THINK IN COORDINATION WITH MICHELLE, I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THESE NEW REGULATIONS OUT THERE AND INVITE MAYBE SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT SHIED AWAY FROM COMING INTO TOWN BACK ON BOARD.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES COMING BACK, BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD OUR CITIZENS AND WE'VE REACTED TO WHAT THEY NEED.

SO VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. ROBB. THANK YOU FOR THAT. FOR ALL YOU DID TO BRING THIS FORWARD.

VERY GOOD. APPRECIATE IT. ITEM SEVEN B, PLEASE.

[7.B Approval of approved communication by the City Council directed to the Trustees of the Galveston Park Board advising the Trustees of Council’s expectations related to adherence with the Texas Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act; Actions expected in response to requests for information from the Office of the City Auditor; a timeline for Park Boards delivery of information requests already pending; and other related matters and directing the designated member to sign on behalf of Council and directing the City Secretary to effect delivery.]

SEVEN B APPROVAL OF APPROVED COMMUNICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD, ADVISING THE TRUSTEES OF COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS RELATED TO ADHERENCE WITH THE TEXAS, TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ACTIONS.

I DON'T YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT.

MAYBE IT'S YOUR MIC ON MY MIC. IS YOUR OTHER MIC ON TOO? LET. ME TRY THIS.

OKAY. SEVEN B. APPROVAL OF APPROVED COMMUNICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD, ADVISING THE TRUSTEES OF COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS RELATED TO ADHERENCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

ACTIONS EXPECTED IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR.

A TIMELINE FOR PARK BOARDS, DELIVERY OF INFORMATION, REQUEST ALREADY PENDING AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS, AND DIRECTING THE DESIGNATED MEMBER TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL AND DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO EFFECT DELIVERY.

VERY GOOD. WE DISCUSSED THIS IN OUR OPEN SESSION.

DON HAS PROVIDED A LETTER ON THIS. I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION COUNCIL I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

GO AHEAD. SORRY. A REQUEST THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOU TO RESTORE THIS ACCESS TO OUR CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MAY 30TH, 2025, WHICH IS FRIDAY.

OKAY. YES, ALEX. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SEVEN B.

SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PERRETTA A DISCUSSION ON THIS.

YEAH. I BELIEVE THE MAYOR SHOULD BE THE ONE TO SIGN THIS LETTER TO THE PARK BOARD.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO. AND THAT'S IN THE MOTION. THEN WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR SIGN THE LETTER? WE CAN SHOW HOW STRONGLY WE FEEL ABOUT IT. AND, DAVID, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO JANELLE SIGNING YOUR NAME IN LIEU OF THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT HERE OR DOCUSIGN. DOCUSIGN. YEAH. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT AS THAT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL? I WILL I'LL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. OKAY. AND, SHARON, DOES THAT MEET YOUR APPROVAL? OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SEVEN B WITH THE TIMELINE OUTLINED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE SIGNED BY ALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

VERY GOOD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? DAVID. THAT IS.

ALL IN FAVOR? BUT FOR BOB BROWN. BOB. YEAH. HE'S.

THERE YOU GO. OH, THERE HE IS. ALL THOSE AGAINST BOB.

ALL RIGHT. THAT IS PASSED 6 TO 1. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN C, PLEASE.

[7.C Consider for action a motion authorizing the Office of the City Attorney to take action against the Galveston Park Board of Trustees related to violations of the Open Meetings and/or Texas Public Information Act including filing of administrative complaints with appropriate state agencies or initiation of litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking any and all relief available to the City.]

SEVEN C, CONSIDER FOR ACTION. A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS AND OR TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, INCLUDING FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES, OR INITIATION OF LITIGATION IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SEEKING ANY AND ALL RELIEF AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

VERY GOOD. THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN OPEN SESSION IN OUR WORKSHOP ALSO.

[01:25:01]

DON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? WELL WE HAVE A SUIT PREPARED TO FILE OVER OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATIONS.

AND AS TO COMPLAINTS WITH STATE AGENCIES AS OTHER THINGS, WE WILL FILE THEM AS THE INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND DO THAT ON AN ONGOING BASIS. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR. GLYWASKY? YES. YES, BOB. EARLIER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, MISS SHIRLEY IS ENGAGED TO FILE A SUIT.

YOU SAID HE COULD FILE IT TODAY. REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING HERE? YES. OKAY.

AND AND YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON.

VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

SO THIS WILL HAPPEN TODAY. THERE. SINCE THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED OR YOU DID GET ONE SHORT SENTENCE RESPONSE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO RESPOND.

I WILL TELL ROBERT TO FILE IT WITH ALL GREATEST DISPATCH.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. DON HAD SENT AN EMAIL YESTERDAY REQUESTING A RESPONSE.

WAS ANY RESPONSE RECEIVED, DON? I READ A RESPONSE FROM JASON HARDCASTLE THAT SAYS WE HAVEN'T EXECUTED ANY CONTRACTS.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WE HAVE. WE GOT A I CAN MAKE A I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FILING TODAY.

OH, I THOUGHT WE HAD A MOTION. I'M SORRY. SORRY.

THANK YOU. BEAU. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THAT'S 6 TO 1 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN. WITH THE OPPOSITION.

[7.D Initiate a Council investigation of the Galveston Park Board of Trustees pursuant to Article II, Section 5 "Investigative Powers of the Council" of the Charter of the City of Galveston, and Article III, Section 2-146 "Investigations by Council" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Galveston (Rawlins/Finklea)]

ITEM SEVEN D, PLEASE. SEVEN D INITIATE A COUNCIL INVESTIGATION OF THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE TWO, SECTION FIVE, INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 2-1 46. INVESTIGATIONS BY COUNCIL OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

VERY GOOD. IS THERE A DON? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? ONLY THAT IT'S A TOOL AVAILABLE TO COUNSEL. BUT MY PERSONAL OPINION IT IS NOT RIPE TO USE AT THIS TIME.

ALRIGHTY. COUNCILMAN RAWLINS. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT.

CITY LEADERS, STAFF AND ATTACHED BOARDS SHOULD ALL KEEP IN MIND THAT BEING HONORED TO SERVE IN OUR POSITIONS ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED US TO THESE SEATS.

THE PROMISE I MADE TO MYSELF AND THE ISLAND COMMUNITY WAS TO HOLD TRUE TO MY WORD AND FOCUS ON THOSE ITEMS THAT MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MEETINGS THAT CONCENTRATED ON SOLUTIONS TO DRAINAGE, ROAD REPAIRS, SAFER COMMUNITIES, PARK IMPROVEMENTS, AND OVERALL IMAGE. BUT INSTEAD, THE COUNCIL'S LAST 5 TO 6 MONTHS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE PARKS BOARD AND HOT TAX.

SO THIS AGENDA ITEM INTENDS TO ENABLE BY CITY CHARTER AND ORDINANCES TO PUT A STOP TO THE TO THE BACK AND FORTH AND GIVE THE COMMUNITY WHAT WE OWE THEM.

TRANSPARENCY ITEMS I HOPE TO RECEIVE ARE A FULL PRODUCTION OF FINANCIAL REPORTS FROM THE PARKS BOARD FOR HOW THE TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO ENABLE AND UNDIRECTED, CLEAR AUDIT THAT IS OWED TO OUR TAXPAYERS.

I HOPE THIS INVESTIGATIVE ITEM ACCOMPLISHES THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARKS BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVE BEHIND TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT ON STATE LOBBYISTS, TO CIRCUMVENT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

SECURE FOR THE CITIZENS A SNAPSHOT OF THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE PARKS BOARD AND SOLUTIONS TO HOW THEY INTEND ON FULFILLING THEIR MISSION STATEMENT TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT TOURISM ON GALVESTON ISLAND. IN ORDER TO FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ESTABLISHES A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, WORK AND VISIT. AND FINALLY, IN PERFORMANCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION ON RECENT PARKS BOARD EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WERE DECISIONS AND DIRECTIVES WERE GIVEN TO STAFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. CAUSE. I WANTED TO PUT THIS ON PUBLIC RECORD AS TO WHY I FEEL THIS SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA IN. UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED TODAY IN OPEN SESSION.

I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT AGENDA.

[01:30:05]