Answers to the Navigation District Chairman's Accusations

 

This blog post is a mixture of my actual address to the District at the Nav District's scheduled meeting November 21st and events since then.

 

Thank you, Commissioners.  I will be nice and I will fit within your 3 minute time limit.  Malcomb, you recently sent a detailed letter to the Pilot taking me to task.  Unfortunately, none of your comments are accurate.  I will address only 3 of your accusations given the time limit.  The first item is the posting requirements of the Open Meetings Act.  You state that your posting is above reproach, even above the requirements.  Please note the 2^nd page of your Agenda of today’s meeting.  The Agenda was presented to the County Clerk’s office at 3:30 on Thursday, November 17^th.  Once the Agenda is date and time stamped, it is posted on a cork bulletin board outside the County Clerk’s office.  The public does not have access to that bulletin board after 5 p.m. and not at all on weekends as the doors are locked to the Court’s offices.  You have only 1 days’ notice under the eyes of the law for a meeting held on Monday following. 

 

At this statement, Malcomb’s eyes rolled indicating his frustration.  For the record, I brought this to the District’s attention in the first meeting of the year in January and they did nothing.  And in today’s e-edition of the Pilot I see why.  Mr. Benadum, the District’s attorney makes the statement that once the Agenda is delivered and date stamped, the District is relieved of any further responsibility.   Benadum said when and where the County Clerk posts the Agenda, is of no concern to the District.  Given that distorted and frankly boneheaded logic, individuals are relieved of their responsibility of payments to their electric provider or to the IRS once the check is deposited in the mailbox.  The Open Meetings Act makes no provision for ignorant and incorrect attorney opinions.  Keith Barrett was quoted in the same Pilot article saying that their postings were inside at the old courthouse, apparently as an excuse for the current situation.  Keith, how many previous bad acts make it acceptable to be perpetuated?  If the Agenda is posted on the inside of an outside facing window, that meets the definition as “available to the public”.   The County Clerk’s office is not responsible for ensuring timely receipt of postings or any other Open Meetings Act function.  As I mentioned in an earlier Blog, I thought if they were this flippant about Open Meetings requirements, what else might they be doing half-*#%ed.

 

Malcomb’s second claim is that I said there is nothing wrong with Little Bay.  I said no such thing.  In Blog Post #4, I agree that if some things don’t change, Little Bay will be in serious decline.  For now, there is ample evidence that the seriousness of Malcomb’s assertions are overstated.  Take for example his hand-picked Austin public relations firm who made the statement that upwards of 2,500,000 gallons of partially treated sewage are flowing daily into Little Bay.  The EPA has monitored water quality in Little Bay and Aransas Bay in and around Little Bay with twice-weekly water samples on both sides of the beach park since 2018.  While the reports find bacteria at various levels and occasionally fecal matter, nothing arises to the level of concern, no violations, no citations and no warnings.  The reports are posted online.  The last study the District commissioned was with Anchor and Malcomb expressed his displeasure that it didn’t provide the results he expected and frankly seemed be miffed.  He wanted more markers identified, specifically pet fecal matter.  They spent $43,000 on the study.  When that discussion ended, I asked if I could tell Mr. Bellaire something but wanted everyone to hear.  I asked him to consider deer fecal matter in his markers because the number of deer outnumber the number of pet owners who do not clean up after their pets by 100’s even potentially 1000’s of percentage points.  Mr. Bellaire agreed.

 

The third item of Malcomb’s letter I refuted was his statement that I run the Aransas Community Values Fund.  I told Malcomb I was flattered, but I do not run the ACVF.  I do contribute to it.

 

The fourth concern was from Sterling Frank, a friend of mine.  At the first meeting in September, Sterling asked when financial statements and budget comparisons were discussed.  Malcomb and Tommy both said that was done at the 2^nd meeting each month.  Sterling and I both were at the 2^nd meeting and when what he asked for not addressed, he was told to follow Keith out of the meeting and he would provide copies of what he requested.  Keith met Sterling in the hallway and said that he was too short staffed to provide that on short notice.  He promised to email it to him.  Flash forward: Sterling was mailed copies of what he requested postmarked November 4^th – 2 full months after he first made the request.  It should have taken 5 minutes and one keystroke.  It appears that District believes that reviewing Payables, Receivables and Treasurer's Report is sufficient to meet their financial obligations.  They could use some basic financial training.

 

When I finished, I asked Malcomb when the District’s Policy was changed from 5 minutes for Citizens to Be Heard to 3 minutes.  His response, “the policy has always been 3 minutes”.  Their policy as obtained from their records shows a 5-minute limit.  I handed him a copy of it at the second meeting in October.  But hey, they are the Navigation District; they make policy changes on the fly as it suits them.  I wonder how they spell transparency?  My bet is “justignoretherequest”.  They have 3 Public Information Act requests from me that their attorney word-played with the first 2 and ignored the third.  All of them are about the election fraud.  

 

Readers, you can tell this did not fit in a 3-minute time limit.  I had to read the condensed version.  Stay tuned, more to come.