Skip to profile
AN INDEPENDENT CASE STUDY Mount Pleasant, Texas
MOUNT COMPLACENTTHE PAPER TRAIL
← Back to Who’s Who?
Editorial illustration of a laptop with a folder symbol and paper folders; symbolic imagery for OpenGov.
EDITORIAL ILLUSTRATION

Corporate / ORGANIZATION IN THE RECORD

OpenGov

Records portal provider

OpenGov

Linked record period: May 28, 2026 – Sep 18, 2026

Key dates ↓Related records ↓Source notes ↓

WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE

Role in the paper trail

Appears in the reported portal-disclosure concerns and later cybersecurity correspondence. Reports of exposure are distinguished from findings about cause or responsibility.

CHRONOLOGY

Key dates & context

  1. 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
  2. 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 ↗