Personal Comments

Roof Replacement for the Police Dept.

My Personal Position on Forced Annexation

Delay in the “Findings and Recommendations”, 6/14

Delay in the “Findings and Recommendations”

Subcommittee “Fact Finding” Investigation

Council approved the roof replacement allowing PALCO Engineering to oversee the process. I voted to approve the contract, but with the following reservations. My concerns presented to Chief Smith and my fellow council members involved two areas:

Chief Smith, I believe, is seeking qualified contractors for the project, but “perception” may be an issue to some people. PALCO Engineering is a well known, qualified firm located in DeSoto, TX. Chief Smith worked in DeSoto, TX, prior to joining the Midlothian Police Department and introduced the company to the City of Midlothian. PALCO Engineering was approved to oversee the roof replacement and will approve the contractor to do the work.

In spite of my reservations, I voted for this because of my confidence in Chief Smith and his unquestionable ethics. However, I think he may want to review his options before proceeding, as I'm not sure the City needs to spend additional taxpayer funds to hire an engineering firm to oversee a roofing project. There are qualified and creditable roofing companies that I feel do not need supervision.

This is to remind Mayor Whatley and my fellow council members that the city endured a similar situation where services were endorsed by a city supervisor, which resulted in an embarrassment to the city and questionable expenditures.

The annexation for Tracts A & B will be presented to the city council in December of this year. The council is to decide if the City of Midlothian will forcibly annex these two tracts consisting of approximately 900 homes, with approximately 800 registered voters. The majority of residents in these two tracts oppose forced annexation.

My political platform has been based upon Constitutional Issues, i.e., Property Rights, which I believe all legal U. S. citizens have the right to speak and to choose their personal destiny without forced Government intervention, knowing there may be consequences for their decision.

The State of Texas permits cities to annex areas known as Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), either by force or voluntarily. Tracts A & B will be forcibly annexed against the resident’s opposition.

It is known throughout the Midlothian community that I am opposed to forced annexation, due to constitutional beliefs. I feel these individuals have the right to vote their destiny to be or not to be part of the City of Midlothian. As we near the December’s vote, you will hear much more regarding this issue. Please review both sides of the issue before passing judgment.

There is a website, “Citizens for a Responsible Government”, that I believe every Midlothian citizen should read. The information posted on this site references the future of Midlothian if forced annexation occurs. The information posted indicates that City Government could be restructured, and the city could be taken apart literally by the new Government.

This is my city and I have family and grandchildren living here. I do not want Midlothian to be taken apart through de-annexation under a new city Government. Mayor Whatley and this council must consider the well being of our city and people, and decide if forced annexation is the right thing to do for our future.

The Subcommittee presented their final report to the entire City Council at the City Council meeting, July 8, 2008. See “Council News” for agenda item.

The city hand-delivered the final report to my home the morning of the council meeting, July 8, 2008.

Mayor Whatley initiated this investigation on May 13, 2008, over what I believe pertained to multiple disagreements regarding forced annexation, spending, future city growth, etc.

During this three month investigation, Mayor Whatley distributed many e-mails, contacted individuals throughout the city and held several media interviews. Mayor Whatley’s campaign to discredit me personally and my council seat was noted throughout the Midlothian community, including the City of Dallas. The campaign consisted of accusations of sharing city confidential information, spreading misinformation through this website, embarrassing city staff and other ethics violations.

I was instructed by my attorney, Mr. David LaBrec, to remain silent until the investigation was complete. It was very difficult to remain silent hearing my name being slandered and defamed throughout the community. I knew Council Members Massey and Frizzell (Subcommittee Members) would discover the truth and not be a part of what I described as a “Witch Hunt” initiated by Mayor Whatley.

To compound this conflict, the city obtained the services of an outside attorney, Mr. Pete Smith, to assist Mr. Don Stout, City Attorney, in preparing the case against me. Someone should ask who paid Mr. Smith’s legal fees to represent the City. My personal legal expenses have exceeded $25K.

The final report was presented to the entire council at the July 8, 2008, council meeting. Mayor Pro-tem Fryer read portions of the final report in open council. The report indicated the following:

“Rather than the City Council proceed with this process to determine whether Council Member Chambers violated any of the adopted policies of the city, we recommend that the City council take no further action in this matter and that this report be adopted.“

In summary, the accusations from Mayor Whatley and the alleged violations I supposedly had committed could not be substantiated; thus, all were dismissed. The most disturbing part of this entire event is that Mayor Whatley would not accept responsibility for his actions regarding what I have endured over the last three months with my name being slandered and defamed by him.

Mayor Whatley’s interview with the Dallas Morning News after the council meeting spoke about “character.” Mayor Whatley stated the following:

“Character can’t be legislated – you either have it or you don’t.” Mr. Whatley further stated, “My hope is that Council Member Chambers steps up to the plate and proves he’s a man of character.”

How ironic is this statement about “character” after what he has done to my reputation with his accusations and slander. Mayor Whatley needs to review his character before judging me.

The final report further included additional council member recommendations/goals for “Good Governance,” requesting the entire council to commit to the following:

After reading the above recommendations/goals I felt that Mayor Whatley was attempting to take away our rights to free speech, free association and the freedom to represent the people who elected us to office. The thought of requesting permission from the City Manager or other City Officials to represent the people made me feel as though Mayor Whatley did not believe, we as council members (elected by the people), were capable of doing so without directives.

This council consists of grown men with a business background. We all know the City Charter rules and the knowledge of right and wrong. I believe these additional recommendations/goals are just another way for Mayor Whatley to control this council. I believe in order to seek guidance and leadership from anyone, you must first be able to trust them. I will not be manipulated by Mayor Whatley, thus I refused to acknowledge/sign the document for the above.

In conclusion, the last three months have been very difficult for me and my family knowing I have not violated any ethics rules. I believe I am doing what is expected of me by the citizens of Midlothian who elected me to the council. I will continue to probe and ask questions to fully understand all agenda items presented to the council for approval.

I will do my very best to work with Mayor Whatley and my fellow council members to better serve our city and citizens of the community. I pray Mayor Whatley will work with me and accept my decisions, regardless if I do not agree with his beliefs. My goal is to represent the people, protect their property rights and serve my city to the best of my ability.

The “Findings & Recommendations” report was hand-delivered to my home on Monday night, June 9, 2008, approximately 7:00 pm. I forwarded a copy to my attorney, Mr. David LaBrec for review. There was not sufficient time to review the report with Mr. LaBrec regarding my response to the allegations, with the council meeting approximately 23 hours away. Therefore, I felt a delay was appropriate to allow ample time to review the report and prepare a response to the alleged violations.

I made the motion to table the item for the next council meeting, July 8, 2008. The motion failed for lack of council support. Mr. LaBrec addressed the council requesting time to review the report. Mayor Whatley and council refused to grant the delay. Council granted Mayor Whatley a delay last council meeting, May 27, 2008, because the Subcommittee had not completed their investigation.

There was a very intense debate over Texas Government Code and Constitutional issues between Mr. LaBrec, Mayor Whatley and Mayor Pro-tem Fryer. It was apparent that Mayor Whatley was going to proceed with the findings and recommendations. As Mr. LaBrec was leaving the council chamber, Mayor Whatley shouted and asked Mr. LaBrec if he wanted to discuss this in executive session. It was agreed to discuss the delay in executive session.

The entire council and Mr. LaBrec retired to executive session. We reconvened in open council approximately one hour later, where council granted a delay until June 19, 2008. Council will convene in a special session on June 19, 2008, 6:00 pm. The Mayor and the Subcommittee will announce the “Findings and Recommendations.” I will present my defense against the allegations.

This special city council meeting is open to the general public and I encourage you to attend. God Bless.

There will be individuals that will say 1% will not make or break someone’s personal financial budget, but add this 1% with all the other percentage increases, i.e., gasoline, food, etc, and now review your financial budget. Most people today are living paycheck to paycheck and are losing daily, due to cost of living increases.

I personally believe that we are in a recession, regardless of what the politicians are saying. Automobile gasoline is approaching $4.00 a gallon, cost of food and everyday expenses are increasing, and good people are losing their home due to foreclosure. If this is not a recession, then please tell me what is happening.

I believe the city needs to curb spending, review current expenditures and not place any more financial burdens on our community citizens.

Mayor Whatley requested an additional 30 days stating the Subcommittee had not completed their investigation. I opposed the motion and asked Mayor Whatley, "What is the problem?" Mayor Whatley advised the Subcommittee needed additional time to complete their investigation, with no clear definition for the delay.

Mayor Whatley was in the process of excusing himself from the council meeting to attend a school function. I advised Mayor Whatley that I was prepared to proceed with the agenda item and wanted to hear the “Findings and Recommendations” from the Subcommittee tonight. Mayor Whatley excused himself without further discussion turning the council meeting over to Mayor Pro-tem Fryer.

Mr. Stout, City Attorney, was late arriving and not present at that time. I requested once more, to Mayor Pro-tem Fryer, to proceed with the agenda item. Mr. Hastings, City Manager, called Mr. Stout via telephone to determine his arrival time. The agenda item was moved to the end of the agenda, pending the arrival of Mr. Stout. Mr. Stout arrived approximately 30 minutes later and the agenda item was re-addressed.

In summary, Mr. Stout advised there are no charges/violations until the thirty-eight (38) questions are answered. I advised Mr. Stout, the Subcommittee needs to announce the charges/violations or dismiss this agenda item tonight. Mr. Stout stated he did not have the authority to dismiss the agenda item. I addressed the same question to Mr. Frizzell and Mr. Massey (Subcommittee Council Members) requesting to proceed or dismiss this matter. Mr. Frizzell advised that the agenda item will be resolved at the next council meeting on 6/10/08.

Mayor Whatley convened his Subcommittee during the council meeting, 5/13/08, to search for facts to determine if I have violated the “Policy of Governance Process.”

Questions from the Subcommittee, directed to me, were asked by Mr. Don Stout, City Attorney, regarding potential evidence and witnesses obtained through the subcommittee investigation. I was not permitted to ask any questions during the “fact finding” inquiry. If I had a question for the Subcommittee it must be submitted in writing and answered at a later date. I felt the inquiry was a one-sided process, with Mayor Whatley in full control.

I advised the Subcommittee that I would answer the thirty-eight questions posed by Mr. Stout, but before answering, I wanted to know what charges/violations are proposed against me, based upon the evidence and witnesses. This information was not available until I answered the questions. I refused to take part in this “Witch Hunt,” refusing to answer the questions, based upon the advice of my attorney. Mayor Whatley advised that the Subcommittee will complete their investigation and present the charges, evidence and witnesses at the May 27, 2008 council meeting.

It is my belief, Mayor Whatley’s goal is to create a separation between myself and my fellow council members. I am not sure how my fellow council members feel about what is happening, but I do believe they know this is a personal matter between Mayor Whatley and me. Mayor Whatley’s conduct has been witnessed by everyone on this council, with the exception of Mr. Bill Houston, newly elected.

This conflict began approximately August 2007, when Mayor Whatley learned that I was opposed to forced annexation and a strong advocate for property rights. From that day forward, Mayor Whatley and I no longer communicate. It appears that if you oppose Mayor Whatley, regardless of the issue, you will face criticism, insults and alleged misconduct charges.

I have no intent of stepping down from my council seat. I will continue to represent the people to the best of my ability.

My personal disagreements/conflicts with Mayor Whatley regarding many issues with the City has progressed to a point where Mayor Whatley has demanded that I step-down from my council seat, stating that I am “ineffective.” I am sorry that Mayor Whatley feels this way. It appears that Mayor Whatley is very concerned about my probing and questioning issues brought before the council and my position on forced annexation.

This demonstrates just how out-of-control the mayor has become. For him to think he has more authority than the voters of the City of Midlothian who elected me clearly demonstrates the mayor has no regard for the citizens of our fine community. The mayor's games to silence the voice of the people are unacceptable.

After one year as an active council member, I have made the determination that anyone opposing Mayor Whatley is ‘not’ an acceptable council member. The people of Midlothian (not Mayor Whatley) elect council members to represent them. I will not step-down as demanded by Mayor Whatley. If the citizens of Midlothian feel that I am not representing them and their best interest, then, and only then, will I step-down.

As of this writing, Mayor Whatley and the subcommittee members have not responded to my attorney’s open document request regarding the alleged misconduct violations. The open document request was dated April 10, 2008, with a response due within 10 days. I am seeking a list of alleged violations, the identity of persons asserting the allegations, and the rules and procedure governing the subcommittee.

I would like to explain the process and the order of business for City Council Meetings. The Texas Government Code, Chapter 551, “Texas Open Meetings Act,” mandates that council meetings are open to the public. This council body has adopted the “Rights of the Public” of the Open Meetings Act and will permit limited public comments on certain agenda items. This council body has further implemented “Citizens to be Heard,” permitting citizens to address the council body regarding any issue of concern. The process is as follows:

Once the open meeting process is completed, the council body will convene into “Executive Session.” Executive Session items are discussed in closed session but any and all action is taken in regular open session. Executive Session is not open to the public, because there is a compelling need of confidentially (e.g., certain real estate, litigation, or personal matters).

I do agree there is a need for confidentially regarding certain matters as stated above. I have been accused of breech of confidentiality in an e-mail from Mayor Whatley dated March 20, 2008. I have not breeched confidentiality on any of the above matters. Mayor Whatley will need to support this statement with evidence at the subcommittee addressing the alleged misconduct violations.

In my opinion, Mayor Whatley believes Executive Session permits open insults, profanity, verbal abuse and defamation of character of individuals within our community, including myself. This behavior by Mayor Whatley has become persistent, during discussions over forced annexation. I personally find this offensive, unprofessional and unacceptable, and it is not protected under the confidentially clause of “Executive Session.”

The insert below is from the Attorney General of Texas regarding “Executive Session” Confidentially –

Can city council members publicly discuss what was considered in an executive session? The Open Meetings Act does not specifically prohibit a council member from discussing or making statements about what occurred in an executive session.⁽¹¹⁴⁾ However, as noted above, the Act does prohibit a person from disclosing to the public a copy of the actual certified agenda or tape of an executive session.⁽¹¹⁵⁾ Of course, the fact that a person may legally discuss what occurred in an executive session does not mean that it is advisable to do so. For instance, it is possible that such a discussion could waive the city's claim of attorney-client privilege if a council member revealed attorney-client communications that occurred during an executive session.

It is not clear whether a city council could affirmatively prohibit council members from publically discussing what takes place in executive session. Attorney General Opinion No. JM-1071 (1989) implies that such a restriction may violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.⁽¹¹⁶⁾ A city will want to carefully review this issue with its local legal counsel before attempting to enact any such policy.