Austin Beck

CHRONOLOGY

Key dates & context

1. Jun 27, 2025Source record

   Webster’s $30 estimate retains template placeholders and a Cibolo reply address

   The June 27 estimate for roofing and construction records leaves “REQUESTOR NAME” and “REQUESTOR LAST NAME” in the letter and gives a Cibolo-domain email address for the response. The same notice warns that the request may be treated as withdrawn without a timely written response.

   Context, limits & source references

   The visible mismatch supports a concrete notice-quality concern. The letter alone does not establish who drafted the template or that a response was actually misdirected.

   • June 27 estimate email, PDF page 1 (audit C129)
2. Sep 18, 2025Source record

   Corrected $59.80 estimate still says charges exceed $100

   The initial inspector-record estimate totaled $123 and incorrectly treated 58 copies at $0.10 as $58. The City apologized and issued a correction on September 18. The revised total is $59.80, but page 2 still says the estimated charges exceed $100 and uses that statement to require a bond. The retained payment receipt shows $59.80 paid on September 26.

   Context, limits & source references

   The correction and apology belong with the original error. The September 26 filename does not change the revised letter’s September 18 date. This entry identifies conflicting text, not a legal determination about the charge.

   • Original estimate: audit C141, page 1
   • Revised estimate dated September 18: audit C146, pages 1–2
   • City apology: audit C150, page 3; payment: audit C147, page 64
3. Nov 25–26, 2025Source record

   Ream told Council not to reply and linked the ordinance recommendation to Moring’s requests

   At 8:37 p.m. on November 25, Ream sent the Mayor and Council an email headed “Attorney Client Privileged Communication.” She attributed the recommendation to Kyle’s requests and identified Beck’s role in suggesting the ordinance. Webster replied to the same internal chain on November 26, saying she had attached the ordinance and updated the online agenda packet. The thread later appeared in the City’s February 2 production.

   Context, limits & source references

   The 45-request and three-open figures are Ream’s assertions, not the mbox Council-message count. The email documents the stated recommendation and communication instruction; it does not by itself establish an unlawful motive or a legal violation. Quoted excerpts preserve the original wording; source files remain unchanged.

   • February 2, 2026 Moring-related production ZIP, Rob folder: RE: Ordinance 2025-24: Significant Whistleblower, TPIA, and Public-Safety Implications
   • Saved Webster–Ream November 25–26 internal thread: exact file match to the ZIP member
4. Nov 26, 2025Source record

   A four-part request, a promised AG referral and an ordinance-only closure

   Kyle’s November 25 request sought the ordinance and drafts, staff materials, September 1–November 25 communications, and implementation/time-tracking records. Webster replied that the City had no responsive records and would seek an AG opinion on attorney emails. The next day she sent the ordinance and said the request was closed. Kyle disputed the closure and asked again on December 12 for the filing date, OAG number and asserted exceptions.

   Context, limits & source references

   No corresponding AG ruling or referral notice was located in the reviewed request chain. Kyle reports none was obtained. The November 25 evening and November 26 internal emails were created after the original request; their existence alone does not prove they existed when the City received that request.

   • November 25 request and Webster reply; November 26 closure; December 12 AG-status inquiry
   • February 2, 2026 Moring-related production ZIP: native ordinance request/response messages
5. Nov 29, 2025Author’s account

   Kyle’s ethics complaint raises the template and response-routing concerns

   Section B of Kyle’s November 29 complaint identifies the unfinished greeting and Cibolo response address, and questions whether forms supplied by counsel were being tailored and checked for Mount Pleasant. It explains his concern that a requester could follow the printed instruction yet fail to get a response to the correct City office.

   Context, limits & source references

   The complaint documents the concerns Kyle raised. Its assertions about authorship, systemic practice and ethical violations remain attributed allegations.

   • November 29 Formal Ethics Complaint (City Attorneys Ream & Beck), PDF pages 5–6, section B
6. Jan 14, 2026Source record

   Two Beck estimates name Kyle in the address block but greet “Mr. Bolster”

   Both signed January 14 letters identify Kyle Moring as the addressee but say “Dear Mr. Bolster.” One concerns the December 30 Moring/whistleblower/OSHA search and totals $99; the other concerns the December 30 Walmart search and totals $54. Beck’s transmittal emails address Kyle correctly.

   Context, limits & source references

   This verifies two separate estimates with the same unrelated surname in the greeting. It does not establish multiple different third-party names, template authorship or a resulting disclosure to that person.

   • Moring-related estimate, 20260114_18515769192.PDF, pages 1–2
   • Walmart-related estimate, 20260114_18511726489.PDF, pages 1–2
   • Beck’s two January 14 estimate-transmittal emails
7. Feb 18, 2026Recorded conversation

   Meeting transcript records the template concerns raised with City leadership

   Kyle raises the Cibolo reply address and Beck’s estimates greeting another requester. In the participant-corrected exchange, Kyle says “That’s not good,” Vine says “Attention to detail,” Vine adds “I would agree with you on that,” and Hinton says “Yeah, 100%.”

   Context, limits & source references

   Selected quotations use approximate recording times. Template errors are documented separately and do not establish actual misdelivery or a promise to eliminate every future error.

   • February 18 Updated PDF pp. 98–99 and original recording around 1:05:38–1:06:40
   • February 18 original recording and selected transcript passages
8. Mar 21, 2026Source record

   The City produced the marked thread; later Council submissions identified it

   Webster’s February 2 transmittal supplied the Moring-related records link and receipts and closed that request. The ZIP includes the marked November 25–26 thread. Kyle’s March 2 email to the Mayor, all five Council members, City administration, Ream and Beck attached a binder that reproduces it as Exhibit E, including the privilege label and both instructions not to reply. The March 20 and two March 21 submissions also attached a meeting transcript referring to Ream’s internal ordinance email.

   Context, limits & source references

   The March 2 attachment is a direct copy of the marked thread; the later transcript references are corroborating notice, not three new copies of the native email or proof of recipient reading. No ordinance-specific recall was found in the 88 distinct City/DTRG incoming message bodies screened from February 2 through the August 15 mbox cutoff. A May 28 objection addressed a different police-report disclosure. Kyle reports repeated notice and no objection to this ordinance thread. Production and subsequent notice support his waiver position; no court determination of waiver is claimed.

   • February 2, 2026, 2:14 p.m. City production transmittal
   • March 2, 2026 Formal Request for Review: page 4 and Exhibit E, PDF pages 39–43
   • March 20 submission: transcript page 170; March 21 Ankrum and governance submissions: transcript page 73
9. May 28, 2026Source record

   Disclosure concerns repeatedly sent to the DA and OAG

   The reviewed sequence includes April 28–29 OpenGov and forensic-payment notices, May 21–22 Schneider customer/payment notices to both offices, and May 28 notice to Bailey copying Richardson about an unredacted MPPD report. A later May 28 binder transmittal includes the LES-related concerns. Beck’s reply acknowledges apparent inadvertent disclosure, requests deletion and offers a redacted replacement.

   Context, limits & source references

   A sent notice is not proof each recipient read every attachment. The disclosed report was 25-15902, distinct from the grooming and CT cases. These entries address City disclosure handling; raw identifiers, authentication values and the unredacted report are not reproduced.

   • J011/J043 and J014, April notices; J015–J016, Schneider notices; J020/J044, May 28 notices and binder; J039 page 3, Beck response
10. Jun 1, 2026Source record

    Ream and Beck’s contact with Bailey appears in produced correspondence

    On May 29 Ream, copying Beck, asks Bailey to discuss issues raised regarding Kyle in the unredacted-report thread. Bailey responds about availability; subsequent messages propose days and times. These records provide direct evidence of the counsel–DA exchange.

    Context, limits & source references

    The exchange does not establish that the proposed call occurred, its content, improper coordination or influence on a determination. It is a 2026 chain and does not explain the separate 2025 call-log entries.

    • J026 page 1 and J027 pages 1–2, May 29–June 1 scheduling chain; forwarded June 6
11. Aug 25, 2026Records request / response

    Follow-up after the August 10 hearing

    City counsel addresses selected requests discussed after the hearing, including production status and search information.

    Context, limits & source references

    A statement of completeness needs comparison with the underlying productions. This letter is not a judicial ruling.

    • R009 · Revised Exhibit Y; source Y01 · Austin R. Beck, for the City
12. Aug 27, 2026Records request / response

    Additional follow-up and clarification

    The letter answers Moring’s follow-up questions and discusses earlier productions and searches for the selected requests.

    Context, limits & source references

    The letter must be read alongside its attachments and the actual productions. Disputed dates or scope are not resolved by the letter alone.

    • R010 · Revised Exhibit AA; source AA01 · Austin R. Beck, for the City