Fact Checking – Illegal Meeting Comments by Rick Wilson – City Attorney Response 7/25/2017

I received an email from Forney’s City Attorney John Thatcher concerning my request for information he may have that would support or refute Rick Wilson’s claim of an “Illegal Meeting” on June 6th, 2017.

Mr Thatcher’s response is at this time he is not going to release any information he may have concerning this issue. His reasoning is that the information is, in his opinion, deemed attorney / client privilege and it does not have to be released to the general public. Mr Thatcher has sent a letter to the Texas Attorney General’s office for a ruling on this issue.

What I find curious is that Rick Wilson made this “statement of fact” in a public meeting to the “general public”. Therefore I do not see how the answer to my simple question, “was Mayor Wilson being truthful with the public”, would be considered attorney – client privilege and no answer given to the public.

At this point the facts we now have is that …

  1. the City Attorney has information that will support or refute Rick Wilson’s claim
  2. the City Attorney does not want to release this information to the general public
  3. the Texas Attorney General’s office has been contacted for their opinion

I will now wait on the Texas Attorney General’s office for their ruling on this issue.

Attached are the documents I received from Forney’s City Attorney John Thatcher.

Letter to Requestor

Letter to AG with Exhibit 1

 

 

 

2 thoughts on “Fact Checking – Illegal Meeting Comments by Rick Wilson – City Attorney Response 7/25/2017

  • July 27, 2017 at 7:46 am
    Permalink

    Question, is his client the Mayor, or the council as a whole? If its the council could they not request the information from Mr. Thatcher making them aware of any wrong doing? Then they could, as the Mayor did, share the information from the city attorney publically.

  • August 2, 2017 at 11:18 am
    Permalink

    I’m still trying to understand……that if you called a “quorum” which in this case means a majority of council members for a meeting, why it is “illegal”. The City Ordinances say that either the Mayor can call for a meeting, or a quorum of council members can call a meeting (A quorum in this case would require at least 4 of the 7 of you.) The meeting in question was posted 72 hours prior (which is required under the Open Meetings Act). The Ordinances do not call for that it would have to go through the Mayor first when it comes to having any special or emergency meeting. If the Mayor has a conflict with a called special or emergency meeting by a majority of council members, well….that’s just too bad.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: