Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Richardson ISD Texas Open Meetings Act Lawsuit
Richardson ISD Texas Open Meetings Act Lawsuit
_________________
Plaintiff David Tyson, Jr. files this Original Petition, Request For Disclosure, And Jury
Demand (“Petition”) Against Defendants Richardson Independent School District (“RISD”), and
Jean Bono, Kim Caston, Karen Clardy, Katie Patterson, Eron Linn, Justin Bono, and Kristin
Kuhne in their official capacities as members of the RISD Board of Trustees (each individually,
a “Trustee” and collectively, the “Board”), upon personal knowledge of his own actions, and
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”), Tex. Gov. Code §§ 551.001, et seq., over
a period of more than a decade. The purpose of TOMA is to protect the public’s right to know
the workings of governmental agencies and entities. In general, TOMA demands openness at
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 1
every stage of the government’s deliberative process, to ensure that citizens know what their
elected officials decide and how each decision is reached. The importance of openness and
transparency in government was early expressed by Patrick Henry as follows: “The liberties of a
people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be
2. Henry’s words ring true today, and are embodied by TOMA’s open-government
mandate. Unfortunately, the RISD Board flouts its transparency obligations. The Board has
engaged in a longstanding pattern and practice of violating TOMA. Over the past seven years
alone, the Board has acted by unanimous consensus on almost every issue presented (more than
500 votes, total)—but not a consensus forged through proper, public deliberations. Instead,
cursory meeting records depict votes that appear swift and uncontested, but in truth have been
choreographed behind the scenes. By concealing their substantive deliberations from the
community and treating public meetings as a mere, rubber-stamp formality, the Board members
defy the letter and spirit of TOMA, as well as their basic duties to their constituents.
quorums with the specific intent to evade the requirements of TOMA. In many instances, two or
more members of the Board (but always fewer members than would constitute a quorum)
of the participating members would then send emails, texts, or voicemails to the Board members
not present at the initial session, in an effort to reach unanimity. Importantly, and in brazen
defiance of multiple statutes, the Board members intentionally delete and purge the electronic
communications which document their real deliberations. Thus, records accessible to the public
tracks, the Board in each instance convenes a perfunctory public meeting and casts unanimous
votes.
5. Plaintiff brings this action in order to rectify these abuses and prevent future
violations. To that end, Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) declare that Defendants have
violated TOMA; (2) declare that all actions taken in violation of TOMA are void; and (3) enjoin
II.
6. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas
III.
7. Plaintiff requests that Defendants make all disclosures required by Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 194 within 50 days of the service of this Original Petition and Request for
Disclosures.
IV.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
8. Mr. Tyson has resided within the boundaries of RISD since 1981. In 2004, Mr.
Tyson became a member of the RISD Board. Mr. Tyson held that position for two terms,
retiring in 2010.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 3
B. Defendants
9. RISD is an Independent School District created under Texas law and located in
Dallas County. RISD may be served with process through its Superintendent, Dr. Jeannie Stone,
10. Jean Krone Bono is a Trustee elected to Place 1 of the Board and resides within
RISD. She may be served with process at 9222 Arbor Branch Drive, Dallas, Texas 75243.
11. Kim Caston is a Trustee elected to Place 2 of the Board and resides within RISD.
She may be served with process at 7618 Carta Valley Court, Dallas, Texas 75243.
12. Karen Clardy is a Trustee elected to Place 3 of the Board and resides within
RISD. She may be served with process at 9314 Bill Browne Lane, Dallas, Texas 75243.
13. Katie Patterson is a Trustee elected to Place 4 of the Board, is the Secretary of the
Board, and resides within RISD. She may be served with process at 6428 Barkwood Lane,
14. Eron Linn is a Trustee elected to Place 5 of the Board and resides within RISD. He may
15. Justin Bono is a Trustee elected to Place 6 of the Board, is the President of the
Board, and resides within RISD. He may be served with process at 9219 Arbor Trail Drive,
16. Kristin Kuhne is a Trustee elected to Place 7 of the Board, is the Vice President of
the Board, and resides within RISD. She may be served with process at 1114 Grassmere Drive,
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 4
V.
this Court.
18. Based on sections 15.002(a) and 65.023 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, venue is proper because Defendants are domiciled in Dallas County, Texas.
19. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the RISD because it is a governmental
entity in Texas and the other defendants because they are residents of Texas.
VI.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Overview Of TOMA
20. The fundamental tenet of TOMA is that except for certain narrowly construed
exceptions, all meetings of a governmental body must be open to the public. TOMA is
predicated on the belief that: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the
most efficient policemen.” Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money And The Banks That Use
It, 92 (1914 ed.). As such, the Texas Supreme Court has held that TOMA ensures the right of
citizens “not only to know what government decides but to observe how and why every decision
is reached.” Acker v. Texas Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990) (internal citations
omitted).
21. Under TOMA, the public must be given written notice of the time, place, and
subject matter of all meetings of the governmental agency or entity. Section 551.043 of the
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 5
Texas Government Code requires that notice of a meeting be posted at least 72 hours in advance
circumvent [TOMA] by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret
deliberations,”1 a TOMA violation occurs—and government actions that derive from the secret
meeting are voidable. This has been a matter of practice at Richardson ISD for years.
number of officials, but not enough to constitute a quorum, TOMA requires that the
communication be made public. This requirement guards against the rubber-stamp public
24. Under TOMA, closed meetings are allowed only in limited circumstances that are
construed narrowly to effectuate the overarching principle that governmental meetings are to be
open to the people. Even if an exception applies, pursuant to section 551.101 of the Texas
Government Code, a governmental body may not conduct a closed meeting unless it first
convenes a properly noticed open meeting during which the presiding officer announces that a
closed meeting will be held and identifies the section of TOMA authorizing the closed meeting.
25. Further, section 551.102 of the Texas Government Code requires that any final
action, decision, or vote on a matter deliberated in a closed meeting may only be made in a
properly noticed open meeting. In addition, a record must be made of the date, hour, place, and
1
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.143.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 6
subject of each meeting held by the governmental body. Moreover, sections 551.021, 551.022,
551.103, and 551.104 of the Texas Government Code require that minutes or tape recordings be
kept of meetings.
551.141 of the Texas Government Code, actions taken in violation of TOMA are voidable.
Further, section 551.142 of the Texas Government Code authorizes mandamus and injunctive
relief. In addition, pursuant to sections 551.143, 551.144, and 551.145 of the Texas Government
unauthorized closed meeting, or participate in a closed meeting knowing that a certified agenda
27. The Board has the executive power to and duty to govern and oversee the
management of RISD. The Board sets the direction for the school district. The Board’s
responsibilities include: (1) setting district policies and supporting administrators and teachers in
the execution of those policies; (2) employing and evaluating the superintendent; (3) adopting
the annual budget; (4) levying/collecting taxes and issuing bonds; and (5) performing specific
duties imposed by the state. Although the Board decides matters of public concern—and, often,
29. Years ago, the Board devised an unlawful plan to circumvent the requirements of
TOMA. In particular, two or more but less than a quorum of the Board would meet and discuss
a particular issue. The members of the Board adopted a practice of deleting emails, text
until consensus was reached. The Board would then vote on the issue in question at the open
30. In particular, the Board President schedules and arranges private “mini sessions.”
The mini sessions involve three Board members, the superintendent, and often legal counsel. To
evade TOMA, the participants in these meetings are careful not to create a quorum. At the mini
sessions, three Board members discuss and deliberate regarding pressing issues facing the Board.
Later, those discussions, deliberations, and decisions are relayed to the absent Board members,
including via digital communications that are deliberately destroyed. The Board members are
fully aware that these mini sessions are improper and undergo great lengths to conceal their
existence. In fact, when a request is issued for certain Board members to disclose their emails,
31. The Board President instructs Board members to “clean up” their communications
processes, meaning that the Board members should not communicate about the mini sessions via
email. Instead, the Board members receive phone calls inviting them to secretive sessions or
receive voicemail messages advising of the time and place for the mini sessions to occur. Board
members are instructed to immediately delete the voicemails after they are played.
32. Astoundingly, over the last seven years, the Board has voted unanimously on
more than 500 occasions. Almost none of these unanimous actions are substantiated by any
closed doors, with the intent to subvert TOMA and deceive the public.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 8
C. The Damage Done.
33. The Board’s flagrant and persistent violations of TOMA have denied the public
34. Throughout the years, the Board has exhibited nothing but contempt for the
requirements of TOMA. Instead of being a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people, the Board has violated its duties under TOMA and its duties to the citizens and parents
35. Through its unlawful practices of serial meetings and walking quorums, the Board
deprived the citizens of the protections of TOMA and their right to know how the Board reaches
its decisions.
36. The public can no longer trust that these elected officials are open and honest, let
alone trust that they will operate in the best interests of the citizens of Richardson.
37. At this point, Plaintiff can only speculate why the members of the Board have
such disrespect for the citizens of Richardson Independent School District, the requirements of
TOMA, and the needs for accountability and transparency. Through discovery in this action,
Plaintiff intends to uncover the reasons for Defendants’ cavalier approach to their duties and
obligations to the citizens and their contempt for their duties and obligations under TOMA.
38. Accordingly, Mr. Tyson now brings this suit seeking declaratory relief and
VII.
CLAIM
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 9
40. Defendants, as described above, have repeatedly violated TOMA.
violated TOMA, for more than 15 years. At every turn, the public has been shut out of the
process.
42. Plaintiff requests that the Court declare that Defendants have violated TOMA.
43. Plaintiff also requests that Defendants be required to produce to Plaintiff all
44. Moreover, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be enjoined from taking any further
45. In addition, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be ordered to comply with TOMA.
46. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was forced to retain the
undersigned counsel to pursue this action. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.001 et seq.
VIII.
IX.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment for Plaintiffs
(a) a declaration that Defendants have violated the Texas Open Meetings Act;
(b) a declaration that the Board’s actions in violation of Texas Open Meetings Act are
void ab initio;
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 10
(c) an injunction requiring Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs all minutes and/or
recordings of meetings of the Board;
(d) an injunction preventing Defendant from taking any further actions in violation of
Texas Open Meetings Act;
(e) reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred in connection
with this suit; and
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 11
DATED: July 6, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, AND JURY DEMAND Page 12