City government / ORGANIZATION IN THE RECORD
City of Mount Pleasant
Municipal government
City of Mount Pleasant
Linked record period: May 1, 2023 – Sep 18, 2026
WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE
Role in the paper trail
The central records-producing body. The collection follows inspections, permits, City correspondence, Council escalations and records-request handling.
PUBLIC AGENCY DATA / SEPARATE SNAPSHOT
Compare the agency records
Historical name and address matches, with geography, record types and reporting limits kept visible. These totals are separate from this profile’s individually reviewed chronology.
Explore the public-data comparisons →CHRONOLOGY
Key dates & context
- Source record
TCEQ application links City ownership and Pilgrim’s operation of Southwest WWTP
The application identifies the City as owner of the facility and land and as co-applicant with Pilgrim’s Pride. Attachment A contains their 1988 Operating and Permitting Agreement, including Pilgrim’s operating obligations, City approval of capital improvements over $100,000, debt-service reimbursement, other customer connections, and a permit-transfer provision.
Context, limits & source references
The cited application and agreement establish their stated terms. They do not establish whether the agreement was later amended, what payments are current, or the outcome of a particular records request. The Southwest plant is distinct from the Southside plant.
- TCEQ technical package WQ0003017000 — PDF pp. 96, 101, 173–180; agreement signed May 4, 1988, effective June 1, 1988
- City wastewater budget excerpt — PDF p. 1, DRAFT watermark; FY26 archive label
- Titus CAD property 9270, 664 FM 127 — January 18, 2026 snapshot, PDF p. 1
- Selected source collection
Selected photographs and videos of Store 131 conditions
The collection documents roof activity, debris, refrigeration, storage and other reported conditions, alongside earlier roof-leak photographs submitted to OSHA.
Context, limits & source references
This entry describes a collection spanning several months, rather than an incident on May 1. It is a limited selection from a larger documented production; images from other stores are identified separately.
- Selected Store 131 photographs and recordings · May–October 2025; earlier roof-leak photographs
- Source record
Roof permit: values, fees and dates to compare
ROOF35226 records a $520,499 construction valuation and $3,250 fee/payment. The application shows $959,950; the manager history records the valuation changing to $520,499 on May 27. Payment on June 26 and permit issuance on June 27 are separate from the application and later print dates.
Context, limits & source references
The differing valuation fields do not themselves establish an unlawful fee or improper motive. The application date is May 23; June 26 payment and June 27 issue are separate.
- Roof/DSHS audit 17 · H046; C090; ROOF35226 history
- Source record
Asbestos complaint and July 1 inspection
DSHS received the complaint June 30 and inspected July 1. The report describes approximately 18,000 square feet of roofing removed before a survey, a work pause, and subsequent notification and testing. The later limited survey found asbestos in remaining silver mastic at HVAC flashing outside the then-current work area.
Context, limits & source references
The removed roofing was not tested, so these records establish neither that it contained asbestos nor that it was asbestos-free. The inspection report was printed October 15 and incorporates later testing and a planned abatement; those later events did not all occur July 1. Read that planned work alongside Held’s September 2026 explanation of what occurred.
- Texas DSHS inspection 56114 · July 1, 2025 · selected pages
- Source record
DSHS forwards roof and public-exposure concerns to Ankrum
Jaime Sepulveda forwards Kyle’s roof and public-exposure concerns to John Ankrum and asks the City to acknowledge receipt. A separate food-contamination referral follows July 21. Both referrals appear in the City’s August 4 and August 25, 2026 deliveries, after the February Walmart-related production.
Context, limits & source references
The referrals show complaint routing, while the inspection reports establish findings. The focused comparison did not locate these referrals in the February Walmart ZIP; it does not establish their absence from every earlier City production. Kyle also reports receiving them through Richardson’s review, but that transmittal date has not been matched.
- July 15, 2025 · Sepulveda to Ankrum · native MSG
- July 21, 2025 · Sepulveda to Ankrum · native MSG
- Exhibit E: matching copies in August 4 and August 25 City productions; February 2 ZIP comparisons
- February 8 regulatory-agency request, forwarded to Seth Bryan on February 9
- Source record
City complaint inspection records debris concerns
The inspection is marked Fail with a July 28 compliance date. Ramirez, accompanied by Ankrum, records debris concerns and cleanup/food-protection instructions.
Context, limits & source references
The Fail result and cleanup instructions describe this inspection. Later City and DSHS follow-ups provide the next steps; the record’s history fields alone do not establish backdating or destruction.
- H034; H035; H044 · City July 18 inspection
- Author’s account
Saved anonymous-complaint confirmation
A saved City portal thank-you page supports this complaint date. Kyle reports the underlying complaint was not produced or recognized in the City’s records responses.
Context, limits & source references
The automated acknowledgment is documented. No staff review, intake identifier or matched City-produced intake trail was verified. The September complaint postdates the August 4 response and cannot contradict that earlier answer.
- Anonymous-complaints audit 21 · AC001 pp. 1–2; U01403, same-evening DSHS email
- Date corroboration: original PDF capture July 25, 2025, 9:46:40 p.m. CDT; agency-r0011 p. 1 and agency-r0074 p. 1 report an anonymous City complaint submitted that evening. The displayed email times differ (10:54 and 10:52 p.m.); both dates agree. Capture metadata is not a City intake timestamp.
- Author’s account
Saved anonymous-complaint confirmation
A saved City portal thank-you page supports this complaint date. Kyle reports the underlying complaint was not produced or recognized in the City’s records responses.
Context, limits & source references
The automated acknowledgment is documented. No staff review, intake identifier or matched City-produced intake trail was verified. The September complaint postdates the August 4 response and cannot contradict that earlier answer.
- Anonymous-complaints audit 21 · AC002 p. 1; U01404, same-day DSHS email
- Date corroboration: original PDF capture July 26, 2025, 1:17:11 p.m. CDT; agency-r0013 p. 1 reports another anonymous City complaint that day. The portal has no event timestamp or intake identifier.
- Source record
Compare the July 28 DSHS and City records
DSHS’s July 28 report marks complaint 1524250148 substantiated. Its notice records six observation categories, including personal clothing near packaged meat, roof debris on selected packaged products/displays, flies, inadequate handwashing-water temperatures, missing thermometers and sanitizer/testing issues. The City’s August 1 letter for a same-day follow-up says food was protected from roof debris and no more follow-ups were required.
Context, limits & source references
DSHS also reports no debris on exposed food and several specified product categories, and no wet walls/floors at that visit. Different observations alone do not establish knowing falsehood.
- H003/H004/H019 · DSHS 308620; H008 City follow-up; H020–H022 photographs
- Source record
Passed roof record still describes unfinished edges
The summary says Courtesy Inspection and Passed; the report says Roofing Final and almost complete, with unfinished edges.
Context, limits & source references
The Passed result appears alongside “almost complete” and unfinished-edge comments. The supplied record therefore documents a qualified status rather than unconditional completion.
- City courtesy-inspection record · July 31, 2025
- Source record
City complaint-count response does not account for the July confirmations
Webster says no complaints were made against Walmart other than Kyle’s records requests and phone call. The July 30 request covered July 18–30, and Kyle expressly included anonymous portal complaints.
Context, limits & source references
The two July submissions fall within that requested period. The discrepancy does not establish who received the submissions, backend retention, intent or deliberate withholding.
- AC006 pp. 1–7; native reply U01024; anonymous-complaints audit 21
- Source record
The supplied permit list and history need to be read together
The City’s list shows permit 24-0156, construction value $1,023,210, fees $5,704.97 and a paid date of April 24, 2024. The list header says “APRIL 2023–2024,” while Ankrum’s email describes April 2023. The manager history also shows an earlier permit-number change and a payment-field change from $5,704 to zero. The manager history names Eric King on the November 29, 2024 initial import and Zach Ringlein on December 9 updates. It also records later HS GovTech REST API activity.
Context, limits & source references
The date labels and payment-field history differ. The supplied fields alone do not establish a refund, nonpayment or waived fee; the payment ledger would be needed to resolve those questions. The HS GovTech agreement includes data conversion and technical support, providing a documented support route to examine alongside the later old-system explanation. The logs identify named accounts and system actions; they do not prove that all older records could be recovered.
- Titus CAD production: permit list from John 9.2.25, page 1; manager record, pages 1–2; discrepancy chain, pages 1–3
- Source record
CAD asks the City to reconcile $19.63 million with a $1.02 million application
In the September 2, 2025 email chain supplied by Titus CAD in August 2026, Dickerson asks Ankrum to reconcile CAR25958’s $19,633,400 construction value with the application’s $1,023,210. Ankrum confirms the lower value, says the old-to-new-system import left some things “jumbled,” and later says HS GovTech changed the permit number for a reason he does not know. The manager history records the September 2 valuation, status and description changes.
Context, limits & source references
The field is permit construction value, not the CAD tax appraisal. This evidence does not establish a tax reduction or that the correction itself was improper.
- August 10, 2026 Titus CAD production: discrepancy email chain, pages 1–3; building permit manager record from John, pages 1–2; application, page 1
- Source record
DSHS closes the complaint citing local health-authority handling
Lewis Ressler states that the complaint was reviewed and closes complaint 1524250148. His stated reason is that the local health authority is addressing the issue and further DSHS action is not warranted at that time.
Context, limits & source references
The response records DSHS’s position. It does not independently establish that the City remedied each reported condition. The July 28 and October 28 inspection records remain relevant to evaluating the outcome.
- September 2 Lewis Ressler response email, PDF page 1
- Timing comparison
September: OSHA-number matches near the inspection sequence
Five September 9 records to Building & Code Enforcement display the OSHA Dallas number. A September 15 record to the Police line lasts 2:41.
Context, limits & source references
The City’s September 16 report states that no violations were present. Exact-number matches and adjacent dates do not establish what was discussed or authenticate the incoming caller.
- vendor:30326 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1414:E1414
- vendor:30327 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1415:E1415
- vendor:30328 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1416:E1416
- vendor:30329 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1417:E1417
- vendor:30330 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1418:E1418
- vendor:32000 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A8543:E8543
- Source record
City inspection reports no present violations
A consumer complaint went from USDA to DSHS and then to Ankrum on September 16. Ankrum directed Ramirez to document cold-hold photographs and temperatures. That afternoon Ramirez sent DSHS the inspection report, said no violations were found and reported that items were maintained at temperature or in proper food-illness prevention. DSHS acknowledged the response.
Context, limits & source references
USDA states that the consumer’s allegations had not been verified by USDA FSIS. The City’s findings concern this visit; the photographs and numeric readings do not establish continuous monitoring or conditions on other dates.
- City food-service complaint inspection · September 16, 2025; report dated September 18
- Author’s account
September 22 anonymous-complaint confirmation
A saved City portal thank-you page supports this complaint date. Kyle reports the underlying complaint was not produced or recognized in the City’s records responses.
Context, limits & source references
The automated acknowledgment is documented. No staff review, intake identifier or matched City-produced intake trail was verified. The September complaint postdates the August 4 response and cannot contradict that earlier answer.
- Saved City portal confirmation and same-date photographs · September 22, 2025
- Saved confirmation pp. 1–2: printed header September 22, 2025, 9:16 a.m.; original PDF capture metadata 14:16:36 UTC (9:16:36 a.m. CDT). This is a separate later submission. The capture time does not establish City staff review or identify the submitted complaint contents.
- Source record
Webster gives a no-response instruction on the TLE follow-up
Webster’s email says “Do not respond to the message” about the identified TLE follow-up.
Context, limits & source references
The direction concerns that message and its recipients. Later gathering, deliveries and responses remain in the record.
- Webster email and underlying request · October 8, 2025
- Source record
Later closure response cites federal-agency involvement
Sofia Stifflemire says DSHS will keep the complaint closed and await federal-agency communication to avoid interference or delay. Kyle’s surrounding correspondence challenges the closure and requests its rationale and supporting records.
Context, limits & source references
This records DSHS’s stated reason for keeping the complaint closed at that time. It does not establish that a federal agency requested a stop. DSHS later participated in the October 28 joint inspection.
- October 13 Stifflemire response, PDF page 1, including quoted October 9 request
- Timing comparison
October 16: DSHS invitation and call align
Under the Explorer’s working UTC-to-Central conversion, Patel’s 9:49 a.m. invitation email precedes a 9:51:44 a.m. call from his listed number to Building & Code Enforcement, lasting 2:25.
Context, limits & source references
The converted call time is 3 hours 30 minutes 43 seconds before Kyle’s later Council email, conditional on that timezone interpretation. The original vendor heading does not confirm the timezone. Call content, caller authentication and independent clock calibration are unverified.
- vendor:40734 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1870:E1870
- Timing comparison
October 17: internal calls around the City/DSHS meeting date
Four outgoing record groups run from the Police line to the Miller-labeled line or City Hall between 2:19:48 and 2:27:07 p.m.
Context, limits & source references
The older export covers only 21 observed City endpoints. Durations overlap; four records do not establish four separate conversations, who spoke, or a response to the directive. Exact ordering against the directive has not been established.
- vendor:41283 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10975:E10975
- vendor:41286 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10976:E10976
- vendor:41292 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10977:E10977
- vendor:41298 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10978:E10978
- Source record
City–DSHS meeting arranged for October 17
Milan Patel asks Ankrum to discuss a complaint in the City’s jurisdiction. Ankrum agrees to 10 a.m. the next day. The invitation schedules October 17, 10–11 a.m. Central, with Patel organizing and Martinez, Barrett and Ankrum invited; Webster is optional. Kyle identifies this as the Teams discussion of his complaints before the October 28 joint inspection. The linked scheduling exchange comes from DSHS; the linked City records are Ankrum’s and Webster’s acceptances.
Context, limits & source references
Kyle says he has not received City meeting notes, a recording or a substantive account beyond the accepted invitations. The scheduling records establish the planned discussion, rather than its complete attendance, actual discussion or decisions. DSHS separately names the October 28 on-site participants.
- DSHS–City correspondence October 15–17, PDF pages 1–3
- October 17 City Teams invitation details, page 1
- Source record
TLE notice revised after Barrett’s suggestion
The original October 20 notice expressly records a complaint about auto-lube work before the October 17 visit and identifies a fire-alarm issue and correction. Ankrum’s email says Barrett suggested removing the work-without-permit reference; the revised notice retains the fire-related finding.
Context, limits & source references
The original also says “No permits are required” and cites a lake-property provision. Both notices retain the fire-related citation and correction. This is not proof that a valid permit violation was knowingly erased.
- O019/O020 pp. 1–2; C061 p. 2; attachment hashes verified; October sequence audit 14
- Timing comparison
City Hall and District Attorney call-log rows document later contacts
The source review identifies 11 City Hall-number rows in September–October. The October 21 pair begins one second apart and calculates to the same end time, between the October 20 TLE revision and October 22 CT.
Context, limits & source references
The pair may be duplicate records or call legs, not two conversations. October 23 entries last 3, 0 and 0 seconds. November named-line calls are a separate set. No subject, speaker or DA involvement in the CT is established.
- Selected City Hall and District Attorney office-number call-log rows · September–November 2025
- Source record
Walmart code-compliance documentation
Webster’s signed form for OR-25-034390-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 8/13/25. Compare the certified production assertion with the scope and actual code-compliance delivery.
Context, limits & source references
The full August 13 payload has not been exhaustively reconciled here; July 28 follow-up existence alone does not prove it was omitted. September 22 complaint is later than July 18–30 scope. Duplicate p424 is the same certification.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 401 · OR-25-034390-IC
- Timing comparison
October 27: TCEQ matches need a fax distinction
Two City Fax records target TCEQ Occupational Licensing’s fax number on the EPA–TCEQ–City routing date. A later incoming record to the Civic Center displays a TCEQ watermaster contact number.
Context, limits & source references
These are not established environmental-enforcement conversations. The fax destination and the Civic Center endpoint support other possible purposes; historical number assignment and call contents remain unverified.
- vendor:43990 · Copy of CDR_903-577-1828_Jun25-Nov25_262315.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A86:E86
- vendor:44065 · Copy of CDR_903-577-1828_Jun25-Nov25_262315.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A87:E87
- vendor:44081 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4190_Jun25-Nov25_262313.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A906:E906
- Source record
EPA → TCEQ → City / MPPD routing
EPA routes the complaint to TCEQ. Hodo emails James on October 27; James forwards the quoted chain that evening to Bryan Denney and Code Enforcement, copying Buhman. On October 28 James separately asks Hodo to send the video to the Chief because she cannot forward it.
Context, limits & source references
The correspondence establishes the forwarding route and the request to send a video. It does not independently establish a later direct Hodo-to-Chief delivery, that the Chief viewed the video, or an investigation outcome.
- O008/O009 · EPA October 23; TCEQ/City October 27; follow-up October 28
- Timing comparison
September 16 and October 28: FBI-number matches are unverified leads
Incoming records display the published FBI headquarters number on two inspection dates.
Context, limits & source references
An incoming caller-ID number can be spoofed. These records do not authenticate an FBI caller, establish an investigation, or connect the calls to Kyle’s complaints.
- vendor:32522 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4010_Jun25-Nov25_262300.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A5757:E5757
- vendor:44424 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A11784:E11784
- vendor:44429 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4010_Jun25-Nov25_262300.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A7889:E7889
- Source record
Joint inspection: unsubstantiated complaint, eight other observations
DSHS names Webster, Barrett, Ankrum and Martinez at the joint inspection and lists eight observation categories. Its report treats the original July roof-debris complaint as a continuing file with newer submissions uploaded. DSHS calls the triggering complaint unsubstantiated. The City separately records Passed, a hot-water issue and a November 7 compliance date. Flies, inadequate handwashing-water temperatures, sanitizer/testing issues and personal clothing also appear in the July 28 state notice.
Context, limits & source references
The triggering complaint’s disposition is separate from the eight observations and does not establish that all later concerns were disproved. The City’s result and correction comments remain part of the comparison. Work orders show planned work, rather than completed repairs; the supplied City pages also carry different inspection identifiers. The repeated categories establish findings on those dates, rather than uninterrupted conditions between inspections.
- H005–H007; H028; H040/H041/H043; roof/DSHS audit 17
- Records request / response
Request for name and keyword records
The request seeks City records involving Moring’s name, email address and specified terms, beginning January 1, 2024.
Context, limits & source references
The subject ends the date range on December 29, 2025; the body includes December 30. The request therefore states different end dates in its subject and body.
- R006 · Revised Exhibit E; source E01 · Kyle Moring
- Records request / response
Delivery of the Moring-related production
The City transmits a production link and states that the request is closed. The retained download is the starting point for later comparisons.
Context, limits & source references
Delivery alone does not establish completeness. The actual files, later productions and any withholding explanation must be compared.
- R007 · Revised Exhibit E; source E02 · City of Mount Pleasant
- Timing comparison
February 18: higher daily activity and TCOLE-number records
135 internal outgoing groups on the meeting date, compared with a median of 111 and range of 97–120 on eight nearby Wednesdays.
Context, limits & source references
The TCOLE records overlap and may be legs of one transferred call. The main number serves multiple functions; it does not identify one official. No ordering against the meeting time or subject-matter connection is established.
- city:108053 · City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx · Inbound Calls to Group Numbers!A11661:H11661
- city:108054 · City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx · User Phones - Inbnd,Outbnd,Miss!A89581:H89581
- Recorded conversation
Inspection discrepancies return to the discussion
Kyle contrasts City and DSHS inspection records, raises the October 17 agency meeting and disputes the characterization of his complaints. Vine later describes a platform migration reported to him by Lin, while expressly acknowledging uncertainty about whether missing fields, PDF conversion or absent inspector notes explain individual records. Lyon identifies code-enforcement standards as something to examine; Vine proposes an internal process review and says he will look at the points marked with red stars.
Context, limits & source references
The selected passages come from Moring’s recording; time marks are approximate. Vine describes possible explanations, not a technical finding about a specific missing field. The CAD permit history shows one correction but does not establish what happened to every inspection record.
- Updated transcript, PDF pages 104–107, 112–114, 125–126, 139–143 and 159–160
- Recorded conversation
Transparency assurances alongside workload and response concerns
Vine describes the City as transparent and honest, then discusses workload and requests the City believes repetitive. Hinton says they will not tell Kyle to stop submitting requests. Vine says Kyle should at least receive a response; when Kyle says he receives only no-responsive-records answers, Vine suggests that may need to change.
Context, limits & source references
Quotations and times follow the saved transcript. The audio and speaker labels have not been listening-verified in this update. This records an assurance and a discussion of response practice, not a determination that a particular search was complete or that requests were legally repetitive.
- Updated transcript, PDF pages 92–95; 01:02:19–01:04:18
- Recorded conversation
“Those are not meeting those keywords”: the two search requests
Lyon gives the keyword-search explanation, asks for correspondent/date details and raises a hypothetical possibility of more emails. Kyle says he had already supplied specific instructions. Kyle confirms this selected exchange concerns both the Moring-related and Walmart-related requests and corrects Lyon’s words to “Those are not meeting those keywords.” The January 12 native forwarding message preserves both original requests.
Context, limits & source references
Participant confirmation covers the selected exchange, not the entire meeting. The “hundred more emails” statement is hypothetical. Actual search correctness must be compared with the written requests and supplied queries; no missing-message count is established.
- Updated transcript, PDF pages 11–12 and 15–17; 17:00–18:14 and 19:41–21:50
- Records request / response
Email platform, search and export capabilities
The City identifies Microsoft 365 and Purview, describes native PST or MSG exports, and identifies Bryan IT as the technical administrator executing complex mailbox searches at its direction.
Context, limits & source references
Available capabilities do not prove which settings, sources or exports were used for each individual request.
- R008 · Revised Exhibit E; source E04, pages 2–3 · Candias Webster, for the City
- Source record
March 17 Council presentation and agenda-item restrictions
Lyon’s March 17 emails first limit the agenda-item discussion and say there will be no PowerPoint presentation. A later email permits a presentation coordinated through Webster, subject to the stated time and agenda limits. Kyle’s September 15 preservation request later recounts the sequence.
Context, limits & source references
Read the separate directions and later clarification together. The current comparison does not add fresh listening verification or a TOMA finding.
- March 17 emails: initial directions, PowerPoint refusal and later clarification; September 15 preservation request
- Source record
Walmart, CT and MPPD communications
Webster’s signed form for OR-25-055840-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/2/25. Compare the certification with official correspondence, RMS activity and the particular records produced. Keep minor-sensitive material separately flagged.
Context, limits & source references
Original request permits PDF/MSG/EML; metadata where feasible. Existing emails and the City’s explanation warrant comparison, but exact delivery reconciliation and knowing-falsity findings are not established. Whole case file is not selected.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 309 · OR-25-055840-IC
- Source record
Ordinance 2025-24 records
Webster’s signed form for OR-25-057987-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 11/26/25. Connect the certification to the Council and ordinance correspondence requested.
Context, limits & source references
Read the certification alongside the November 25 evening correspondence, paying attention to the request’s cutoff date and what the City says it had already supplied.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 90 · OR-25-057987-IC
- Source record
Aggregate public-information request data
Webster’s signed form for OR-25-058955-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/11/25. Compare the production assertion with the requested 2024–2025 request data.
Context, limits & source references
A checkbox/response discrepancy needs explanation but does not itself establish concealed records: all existing records could mean zero. Stated counts or later timekeeping rules do not prove a preexisting historical master log.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 22 · OR-25-058955-IC
- Source record
Chief Buhman’s phone history
Webster’s signed form for OR-25-059503-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/17/26 [as written]. Compare asserted delivery dates with the later screenshot correspondence and retained image evidence.
Context, limits & source references
The stated production date is after the signature date. Preserve it as written; cause unresolved. May 12 attachment labels do not prove Kyle received images. This personal-phone request differs from the Citywide provider CDR format/fee issue.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 16 · OR-25-059503-IC
- Source record
January 13 City-official Walmart visit
Webster’s signed form for OR-26-004942-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 1/21/26. Connect the certified assertion to the visit records and the corresponding production.
Context, limits & source references
Three listed attachments are not the entire requested universe; software capabilities and request wording do not prove particular media were created. Form’s title says Assistant City Manager/ City Manager; retain as written.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 70 · OR-26-004942-IC
- Source record
City email search for Moring, whistleblower and OSHA
Webster’s signed form for OR-26-006368-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 2/2/26. Compare the certification with search scope, later-located correspondence and completeness objections.
Context, limits & source references
Request subject ends December 29 but body includes December 30; PDFs allowed if native infeasible. Kyle’s 366/19 counts and later claimed missing native emails are not independently reconciled here. Companion Walmart OR-26-006369 is separate; no signed form located for it.
- Signed certification · source PDF p. 75 · OR-26-006368-IC
- Source 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
- Timing comparison
June 3: a localized increase after the noon CDR escalation
39 internal outgoing record groups in the two hours after the 12:02:29 p.m. email; 23 in the preceding two hours. The comparable-window median is 17.5.
Context, limits & source references
23 of the 39 records last under 30 seconds. Activity spans several departments. The full-day count is 121 against a comparison median of 114 and range of 74–149. This is an exploratory timing association, not proof of a response to the email.
- city:255139 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73380
- city:255162 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73357
- city:255171 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73348
- city:255244 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73275
- city:255256 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73265
- city:255267 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73254
- Author’s account
CDR formats and the replacement-request charge disputed
Kyle raises differing call-log formats and requests a replacement March 4-forward production, accepting a further fee under protest. Reviewed files include older vendor CDR workbooks, newer City PBX exports and a later CSV delivery.
Context, limits & source references
Different source/export formats are documented; that alone does not establish alteration. Whether any charge duplicated earlier work requires matching scope, delivered periods and invoices.
- CDR request km-2026-06-03-cdr-replacement; call-timing audit 33; C240
- Source record
Second $15 CDR invoice; payment confirmed by Kyle
The June 15 invoice charges one hour/$15 for the separate CDR update. Kyle subsequently confirmed he paid the second $15.
Context, limits & source references
June 15 is the invoice date. Kyle’s June 15 email says the $15 payment was completed that day. The method and exact transaction time are not established; the payment statement does not prove delivery of the requested records.
- C248 invoice; C234/C235; Kyle’s firsthand payment confirmation
- Records request / response
First Amended Petition
Moring’s amended pleading presents thirteen count-specific public-records disputes and asks for mandamus relief.
Context, limits & source references
These are the petitioner’s allegations, not findings that the City violated the law.
- R001 · Cause 44437; First Amended Petition · Kyle Douglas Moring
- Timing comparison
Three call-activity windows: the result changes when short calls are excluded
All three event windows and 24 same-weekday comparison windows match the original call-log rows. Unfiltered groups are 45 (April 7), 42 (May 28) and 40 (June 23). At least 30 seconds leaves 13, 16 and 16; only June 23 remains above its comparison range of 5–15.
Context, limits & source references
10,585 raw row occurrences were reconciled by timestamp, normalized endpoints, type and duration. Local City-line labels and the retained grouping rule remain stated assumptions. April 7 and June 23 overlap other email windows. Clocks were not independently calibrated. Counts do not establish participants, content, coordination or causation.
- March 3–June 1 primary PDF and May 31–July 24 native CSV; all 27 selected windows reconciled.
- Source record
July inspection packets: standard PDF metadata absent
The 14-page annual inspection packet supplied July 23 lacks a standard PDF document-information dictionary and XMP metadata stream. The complaint-inspection packet supplied the same day also lacks those containers. These copies limit verification of creator, producer and creation-date fields.
Context, limits & source references
The absence is established in the supplied copies. Without an earlier version of the same files, the comparison does not identify a removal operation, author or intent. Inspection dates and the July 23 production date are separate.
- Walmart Annual Food Inspection 7-9-26.pdf · byte-level metadata inspection; original retained
- Records request / response
Historical OAG decision-search snapshot
A saved search-results page records a query concerning Mount Pleasant on August 3, 2026.
Context, limits & source references
It is not an OAG determination or proof that a ruling request was never filed. Search coverage, filters and later updates affect the result.
- R011 · Revised Exhibit S; source S01 · OAG search page retained by Moring
- Source record
Later CSV production and separate $15 payment
The City transmits Call log.csv for the May 31–July 24 request. The invoice and receipt record a $15 sale. Kyle asks for the original vendor transmittal with the attachment intact.
Context, limits & source references
This is a later requested date range; it is not necessarily the same records charged again. A CSV alone does not preserve original-message metadata.
- C237–C239; request km-2026-07-24-cdr
- Source record
Council escalations counted from the original mailbox
146 distinct outgoing emails to the Mayor or a Council member were reconciled to original mailbox bytes using SHA-256, Message-ID, date and actual recipient headers. The retained classification contains 28 action requests, 6 governance notices and 112 records/administrative exchanges.
Context, limits & source references
Message identity and availability are verified. The retained classification is an analytical scheme, not a new attachment-by-attachment adjudication. Reading copies select text and omit attachments. This does not prove delivery, reading, nonresponse or the truth of allegations. The count spans October 16, 2025–August 6, 2026; the export ends August 15.
- Original mailbox messages and retained Council register; 146/146 identity checks passed.
- Records 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
- Records 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
- Records request / response
The City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction
The City invokes governmental immunity, disputes whether the requirements for mandamus relief are established and asks for dismissal.
Context, limits & source references
A request for dismissal is not an order dismissing the case. This eight-page copy does not include the separately retained exhibits.
- R002 · Cause 44437; filed August 28, 8:49 a.m. · City of Mount Pleasant
- Records request / response
Response to the plea and focused evidence
Moring opposes the City’s jurisdictional arguments and identifies records and record families he says remain unsupplied. The filing includes the PR exhibit series.
Context, limits & source references
Filing acceptance does not mean every exhibit was admitted or every assertion accepted. Later productions may change an earlier omission claim.
- R003 · Cause 44437; response with PR-A–PR-K · Kyle Douglas Moring
- Records request / response
Notice of revised hearing exhibits
The accepted notice describes the revised A–AD hearing set and maps earlier exhibit references to that set.
Context, limits & source references
An exhibit index does not establish admission. The notice is distinct from the exhibit files and reserved pages.
- R004 · Cause 44437; September 9 notice · Kyle Douglas Moring
- Records request / response
Supplemental notice of subsequent production
Moring reports a subsequent production and identifies additional supporting material, while crediting earlier receipt of matching underlying plan content.
Context, limits & source references
The notice does not claim the underlying plan content was first received on September 15. Filing is distinct from admission.
- R005 · Cause 44437; September 16 notice · Kyle Douglas Moring
- Source record
Compensation production: blank authorship fields and Webster’s file activity
The two PDFs lack standard information/XMP containers. Five Office files have blank or absent creator and lastModifiedBy fields and September 15 core timestamps. The saved SharePoint listing names Webster under Modified By. All seven files byte-match the delivered ZIP.
Context, limits & source references
Other metadata remains. The SharePoint listing connects Webster to the production workflow but does not identify what she changed. Copying or export can affect properties; the earlier maintained versions and system audit logs remain unverified.
- September 16 compensation OneDrive ZIP and expanded files; saved SharePoint listing; Webster’s delivery/closure email
- Source record
Later-obtained City-to-TCEQ email identified
Kyle notified City counsel of a November 14, 2025 City-to-TCEQ email he said he received through a September 16 TCEQ production, and proposed it as an additional exhibit in Cause 44437.
Context, limits & source references
The transmittal identifies a comparison source; it does not by itself prove omission from a particular City production.
- Kyle’s September 16 second supplemental notice transmittal
- Source record
Five production PDFs acknowledged; DTRG confirms 517 pages
Kyle acknowledged five September 16 PDFs totaling 517 pages and said he located embedded attachments. A September 17 response bearing Lea Ream’s From header and Marla Dial’s signature confirmed that total and supplied a reading order. The response deferred remaining questions to Beck; Kyle maintained his completeness questions.
Context, limits & source references
This supersedes an unqualified statement that Part 1 remained undelivered. Receipt and the agreed page total do not establish that all responsive records were produced.
- Kyle’s September 17 receipt and completeness email
- Marla Dial’s September 17 response
- Records request / response
September 18 conversations: selected excerpts
Selected September 18 conversations address search details, possible costs and dismissal. The recordings are available with readable excerpts.
Context, limits & source references
These selected conversation excerpts are not a certified court record and do not establish the case’s final disposition.
- R012 · Selected conversation audio and readable excerpts · Recording retained by Kyle Moring
- Recorded conversation
Comments about details beside the request for a search summary
In the selected conversations, Ream discusses the level of detail sought, City expense and uncertainty about technical record-export questions. Kyle asks for the Walmart search summary and connects his concern to search logic, metadata and native files. The audio and selected text let readers compare their explanations.
Context, limits & source references
The ~ symbol marks approximate timing. The speakers’ analogies and descriptions do not establish metadata removal or the technical correctness of a query. The question of actual charges requires comparison with billing records.
- September 18 conversations outside the hearing; selected audio excerpts and accompanying text
- Recorded conversation
Walmart search rerun, possible costs and dismissal discussion
Bryan discusses changing AND to OR and anticipates more emails; Lyon discusses the parameters. Webster says an earlier OR screenshot returned the same amount, while Kyle says he has not received it. The discussion includes possible review costs, a proposed export and conditional dismissal. Those statements do not establish that the export or dismissal was completed.
Context, limits & source references
Compare the competing search descriptions with the saved query and delivered records. The apparent screenshot request has only uncertain gist support and is not identified as the OR screenshot. Kyle’s account of the hearing and his reasons for agreeing are separate from these non-courtroom recordings. Transcript times are approximate.
- September 18 conversations outside the hearing; selected audio excerpts and accompanying text
- Source record
Texas Cyber Command reports no responsive records
TXCC’s Office of General Counsel said it searched its files, found no responsive information and closed the request concerning Mount Pleasant/OpenGov security records and the DIR transfer.
Context, limits & source references
This is the agency’s stated search result. It does not establish what happened to the earlier DIR report or whether the underlying concerns were resolved.
- TXCC Office of General Counsel email, September 18
Source notes
Symbolic editorial illustration; imagined objects and buildings, not official insignia or documentary evidence.
This profile is drawn from the case study’s reviewed chronology and correspondence index, through September 21, 2026. Roles identify the capacity described by the linked material; the date range is not a verified employment term.
Source statements, transcript excerpts, reported concerns, historical comparisons and timing analysis retain their separate labels. An invitation does not prove attendance. A copied recipient does not establish agreement or action. A call-number match does not establish call content.
Editorial portraits are illustrations, not documentary photographs. Original documents and recordings control over the profile summary. About the method ↗