STATEMENTS & EVIDENCE
Follow the ordinance’s origin, Council’s promises about consistent treatment and the notices used to account for time and costs.
ORDINANCE 2025-24 · ORIGIN, PROMISES & APPLICATION
Ream explicitly linked the recommendation to Moring’s requests. Council then discussed transparent, repeatable procedures. The City’s later notices show the time-accounting system being applied to Moring; two other requesters’ delivery emails show no time statement. Read those differences alongside Moring’s written warnings to Council and the rules the City adopted.
November 25, 2025 · 8:37 p.m.
Quoted in Webster’s November 26 reply. The wording below is Ream’s account, including the privilege marking in the produced email.
Attorney Client Privileged Communication
Dear Mayor and Council,
Please do not reply to Mr. Moring. The Assistant City Manager/City Secretary and one of my associates, Austin Beck, have been dealing with Mr. Moring’s many requests under the Texas Public Information Act (“TPIA”).
Mr. Beck handles much of this work for most of our municipal and other governmental clients. He is very knowledgeable and made the City aware of the possibility of the City passing an ordinance to place limitations on repetitive and excessive requests under the TPIA. This is permitted by Section 552.275 of the Texas Government Code. Here is a link to a TML paper addressing ways that cities may respond to repetitive (vexatious) requestors: Vexatious requestors 2023 memo HB 3033.
The Council will be provided a draft ordinance pursuant to Section 552.275 at the Council meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. As soon as the draft is complete, it will be included in the Council packet and Mr. Moring will be provided a copy.
Mr. Moring’s numerous requests have led to this recommendation. Mr. Moring has submitted 45 requests since June of this year. Only three are currently open. Unfortunately, he tends to argue about every response the City provides to him, which causes the City to spend a significant amount of resources responding to his requests and emails.
As you can see by his email below, his complaint is really against Walmart, his former employer. The City was simply in the crossfire, but Mr. Moring has now become focused on the City.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
In the meantime, please do not reply to Mr. Moring.
Regards,
Lea A. Ream
DTRG
November 25, 2025 · 7:46 p.m.
Moring emails the Mayor and all five Council members asking them to postpone the ordinance and explain its objective criteria and safeguards for whistleblowers and other City critics. He expressly asks them not to deliberate by email. This is documented notice of his concern, not a finding that the ordinance was unlawful.
Selected page 2 of 12. Prepared August 28 USB reading copy. Existing privacy masks are preserved. Ream’s November 25 email is quoted within Webster’s November 26 reply; this is not a new independent incident.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 3 of 12. Prepared August 28 USB reading copy. Existing privacy masks are preserved. Ream’s November 25 email is quoted within Webster’s November 26 reply; this is not a new independent incident.
Open this source page at full size ↗
November 25–26, 2025
Ream tells the Mayor and Council, “Please do not reply to Mr. Moring,” credits Austin Beck with identifying the ordinance option, and ties the recommendation to Moring’s requests. She asserts 45 requests since June, three still open, and a substantial resource burden from disputes about responses. Those figures and that explanation are Ream’s account. Webster’s November 26 reply says the ordinance is attached and the online agenda packet has been updated.
Selected page 5 of 12. Prepared August 28 USB reading copy. Existing privacy masks are preserved. Ream’s November 25 email is quoted within Webster’s November 26 reply; this is not a new independent incident.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 6 of 12. Prepared August 28 USB reading copy. Existing privacy masks are preserved. Ream’s November 25 email is quoted within Webster’s November 26 reply; this is not a new independent incident.
Open this source page at full size ↗
December 2 and December 16, 2025
The December 2 discussion ends with the ordinance tabled. On December 16, Hageman asks about compliance and consistent procedures, Webster describes time accounting and offers to bring back a policy, and Council approves the ordinance. The selected exchanges below preserve the full-meeting clock and the official explanations. Official December 16 minutes, page 2, record unanimous approval of Ordinance 2025-24. The February 3, 2026 minutes, pages 1-2, record Council approval of the December 16 minutes. These documented votes are distinct from the blank execution fields in the previously supplied ordinance copies; no legal effective date is inferred.
March 3, 2026 · effective date stated in the policy copy
The Resolution 2026-3 copy in Moring’s Council binder states a March 3 effective date. Its §10 requires employees to maintain written time records and give the Public Information Officer a written statement of actual time. That later text matters: the question is whether the procedures were followed, not whether the record contains no written policy. The reproduced resolution has blank execution fields; this copy alone does not establish the vote or signature history.
Selected page 20 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 23 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
June 16, 2026
After the June notices, Moring emails the Mayor and all five Council members, copying Webster, Vine, Ream and Beck. He attaches his letter and exhibit binder, asks for corrected time figures, a stated cost-rule basis or a $15 refund, and the requested electronic records. He requests a written response and says any deliberation should occur through a posted meeting or another lawful process. The email proves the issues were addressed to Council; it does not prove each recipient read it or that no later response exists.
Selected page 1 of 1. Reading copy of Moring’s saved email PDF. His personal email and telephone number are masked; official recipients, the message and attachment title remain visible. The native mailbox index independently identifies the message.
Open this source page at full size ↗
December 16, 2025 · selected, previously confirmed quotations. Times refer to the original Council video; ellipses mark omissions.
Jonathan Hageman · 40:04–40:45
“Are we going to ensure that there’s a policy … that follows all state guidelines … if we execute on this ordinance?”
Hageman asks about implementation after Moring’s questions on accounting, records formats and exemptions.
Watch from 40:04 ↗Candias Webster · 40:46–41:28
“It’s not three hours just because we wanted to add on.”
Webster explains that two hours of work count as two hours and says requesters can also track time from cost information. “Also” matters: this is not an express denial of the City’s reporting duty.
Watch from 40:46 ↗Jonathan Hageman · 42:05–42:39
“Everyone’s doing the same thing, it’s repeatable, and there’s transparency.”
He asks for a policy people can consult if one does not already exist.
Watch from 42:05 ↗Candias Webster · 42:39–42:50
“Yes, sir. We can create one.”
She adds that Austin’s work with other cities could supply a policy they could bring back. In the following exchange Hageman says he does not agree with everything raised; Lyon says the ordinance can be amended.
Watch from 42:39 ↗Read the reviewed quotations and continue through the vote ↗
Documented City notices
Two notices, three minutes apart, each cite §552.275(d) and show 25.5 cumulative hours, a 36-hour allowance and 10.5 remaining. Neither displayed page separately states that request’s time; the “Dates” column is blank.
Identical totals can reflect the same accounting snapshot. These pages alone do not prove duplicate charging.
Selected page 11 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 13 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Documented City notice
Webster states one hour for this request and 28.5 cumulative hours, and asks for payment before sending the records. The cumulative figure is three hours above June 2, while this notice identifies one hour.
Intervening work could explain the other two hours. Being below 36 hours does not by itself invalidate a charge authorized by another cost provision.
Selected page 15 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Documented comparison email
Webster delivers the permitting-software agreement and closes the request, copying Beck. No per-request or cumulative personnel-time statement appears in the visible email.
This selected email shows no time statement. It does not exclude a separate statement or an applicable exemption. The requester’s contact details are masked in the public copy.
Selected page 1 of 1. Requester contact details and account URL are masked in this public copy.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Documented comparison email
In response to JS’s February 18 request for Republic Services/Allied Waste contracts, amendments and renewals from 1985 onward, Webster writes, “Here is the information you requested.” The four-page printout lists two PDF attachments. No per-request or cumulative personnel-time statement appears on any of its four pages.
This response follows the December ordinance adoption but precedes the March 3 effective date stated in the later policy copy. It does not rule out a separate time statement or a statutory exemption. The attachment contents are not included in the printout. JS’s identity and contact details are masked.
Selected page 1 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 2 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 3 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 4 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Ream expressly tied the proposal to Moring’s requests, and the City later sent him personnel-time notices. In two other requesters’ delivery emails, no time statement is visible. That difference raises a specific question about consistent accounting. The February example predates the March 3 effective date stated in the later policy copy; neither email alone proves the City omitted a separate statement or treated a covered requester differently.
The records needed to answer that question are each requester’s complete request history, any separate time statements or exemption decisions, the employees’ actual-time records, and the City’s response to Moring’s June 16 request to reconcile the figures.
Read the detailed accounting comparison ↓THE RULES BESIDE THE RECORD
The Attorney General’s handbook says a body that adopts these limits:
“must treat all requestors equally, except as provided by the exemptions of subsections (j), (k), and (l).”
2026 Texas OAG Public Information Handbook · printed p. 57 / PDF p. 69 ↗
The handbook also explains that other provisions may independently authorize labor charges. This comparison therefore separates the written-notice duty, equal treatment and the legal basis for a particular charge. Handbook, p. 57 ↗
The City’s own §38.02(A) repeats the written-statement duty.
Selected page 17 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Primary sources checked September 23, 2026. Statute and OAG explanatory guidance are identified separately.
Compare Ream’s September 18 billing statements with the taxpayer-resource claims ↗
Candias Webster · WC04April 27, 2026
The form selects all existing information made available by email on December 11; its no-responsive-information option is not selected.
Selected page 22 of 23. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Candias Webster to KyleDecember 11, 2025
“The City of Mount Pleasant has no records pursuant to your request” is the contemporaneous response to the aggregate-request-data request.
Selected page 12 of 23. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
The signed form describes the response differently from the contemporaneous no-records letter. Readers can see both the checkbox and the actual response.
If no records existed, “all existing” could mean zero. This mismatch does not establish hidden tracking records, a false count, or intentional misconduct.
The request’s qualifications and the distinction between a workload assertion and an existing historical log remain relevant.
Candias Webster · signed completeness certificationApril 27, 2026
The signed form selects all existing responsive information provided on November 26, 2025; the pending-ruling option is unchecked.
Selected page 90 of 91. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Webster’s original repliesNovember 25–26, 2025
The first response says there are no responsive records and also says attorney emails will be submitted for an AG opinion. The next day’s delivery lists the ordinance and closes the request.
Selected page 2 of 91. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 7 of 91. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Selected page 1 of 91. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
The original responses do not explain how the acknowledged attorney-email category was resolved before the later unqualified completion certification.
The separately reviewed November 25 evening / November 26 counsel thread was produced February 2. Those messages postdate the morning request; without resolving the cutoff, they are not automatically a direct contradiction of WC03. An unchecked ruling box does not prove no ruling was ever requested.
The website’s ordinance review preserves the actual later production and notice record.
Candias Webster · Council discussionDecember 16, 2025 · 40:46–41:28
Webster explains that a two-hour request counts as two hours, discusses time already paid for, and says requesters can also track time from the cost information they receive. The word “also” matters: she does not expressly say the City has no reporting duty.
Texas Government Code § 552.275(d) · City Code § 38.02(A)Written-statement requirement
Once a governmental body adopts these limits, each time it complies with a covered request it must give the requester a written statement of time spent on that request and the cumulative time for the applicable monthly or yearly period. Requester tracking does not replace that duty. Statutory exemptions in subsections (j)–(l) apply. The City provision reproduced in the binder assigns the same duty to the City.
Selected page 17 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗Candias Webster · two notices to KyleJune 2, 2026 · 2:37 and 2:40 p.m.
The displayed notices for the OAG complaint-file request and the CDR request both show 25.5 cumulative hours, 36 allowed and 10.5 remaining. Neither displayed page separately states the time for that particular request; the Dates column is blank. They quote the statute’s written-statement requirement.
Selected page 11 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗Selected page 13 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗Candias Webster · later CDR noticeJune 15, 2026
This notice identifies one hour for the request and 28.5 cumulative hours. The cumulative increase from June 2 is three hours. These selected notices do not explain the remaining two-hour difference; intervening work on other requests must be checked before drawing a conclusion.
Selected page 15 of 36. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗Candias Webster · delivery to JSFebruary 26, 2026
In response to JS’s February 18 request for Republic Services/Allied Waste contracts, amendments and renewals from 1985 onward, Webster writes, “Here is the information you requested.” The four-page printout lists two PDF attachments. No per-request or cumulative personnel-time statement appears on any of its four pages. This response follows the December ordinance adoption but precedes the March 3 effective date stated in the later policy copy. It does not rule out a separate time statement or a statutory exemption. The attachment contents are not included in the printout. JS’s identity and contact details are masked.
Selected page 1 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗Selected page 2 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗Selected page 3 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗Selected page 4 of 4. All four pages of the supplied Gmail printout were reviewed. Requester identity, contact details, signature and Gmail account/thread links are masked; official correspondence is retained. The two listed attachments are not embedded in this PDF and their contents were not reviewed here. The source original remains private.
Open this source page at full size ↗Candias Webster · delivery to another requesterAugust 26, 2026
The visible email delivers the permitting-software agreement and closes the request, copying Austin Beck. It shows no per-request or cumulative-time statement. Names, email addresses and the requester’s Gmail URL have been removed from this review copy. This selected delivery email does not exclude a statement in another message or an applicable exemption.
Selected page 1 of 1. Requester contact details and account URL are masked in this public copy.
Open this source page at full size ↗Kyle Moring · basis for the unequal-treatment concernAccount clarified September 20; JS printout supplied September 23, 2026
Moring says that, from what he can tell, these notices have been applied only to him, based on information from two other requesters, identified here as Another requester and JS. The February 26 and August 26 delivery emails now document two distinct examples with no visible time statement. His broader account remains separate from what those selected emails alone establish.
Webster’s Council explanation omits the City’s affirmative written-statement duty. The later notices and the two comparison requesters’ visible delivery emails warrant checking both completeness of the accounting and consistency across covered requesters. Requester tracking is not a substitute for the City providing the required statement.
The selected records do not establish that no other requester ever received a statement, whether either comparison requester qualified for an exemption, or that the three-hour increase was necessarily improper. The identical June 2 totals could reflect the same running-total snapshot. Being below the threshold does not by itself invalidate an otherwise authorized records charge.
Kyle raised the accounting discrepancies with Council in his June 16 letter and exhibit binder. Compare the complete request-by-request ledger, notices, intervening work and any exemption decisions before making a City-wide selective-enforcement finding.
Candias Webster · Council discussionDecember 16, 2025 · 41:28–42:05
“We also run everything past … Austin, the attorney, just to make sure that we’re not giving out anything that we should not as a city.” The ellipsis omits intervening speech. This is Webster’s description of the review process.
Kyle Moring · notice to Council, administration and counselMay 21, 2026
Kyle’s notice reports Schneider Electric water-meter materials in the regulatory-agency correspondence production, including customer-level utility spreadsheets and contractor wire/ACH/routing/SWIFT payment information. It asks how responsiveness, redaction and legal review permitted their release and requests preservation and corrective action. The notice describes the concerns without attaching the raw customer or payment data.
Selected page 1 of 3. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
Austin Beck · response to the unredacted MPPD report noticeMay 28, 2026 · 1:06 p.m.
Beck writes that it appears confidential information was inadvertently released through the open-records process. He requests deletion of unredacted criminal-case information and offers a redacted replacement after deletion is confirmed. This is counsel’s written acknowledgment and response, separate from Kyle’s allegations.
Selected page 1 of 5. Page references refer to this version of the source.
Open this source page at full size ↗
The later disclosure notices raise a concrete question about the effectiveness of the review process Webster described. For the MPPD disclosure, Beck’s reply supplies a City-counsel acknowledgment; the Schneider notice documents Kyle’s reported concerns and notice to officials. These are distinct levels of evidence.
The December statement predates the May productions. These records do not prove Beck personally reviewed every attachment, that no review occurred, or deliberate disclosure. Counsel’s legal assertions about possession and distribution remain attributed statements, not a legal conclusion adopted by this website. The underlying unredacted report and financial-access data are not reproduced here.
Read the City’s corrective response alongside the original assurance. The unresolved questions are what was reviewed, how embedded attachments were checked, what corrective action followed, and what changed after the notices.