Legal / PERSON IN THE RECORD
Lea Ann Ream
Shareholder · Davidson Troilo Ream & Garza, P.C. · Interim City Attorney
Davidson Troilo Ream & Garza, P.C. · City counsel
Linked record period: Nov 26, 2025 – Sep 18, 2026
WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE
Role in the paper trail
Appears in the produced Ordinance 2025-24 thread, City-counsel contact with the DA and the September 18 search discussion. The ordinance thread’s production history and privilege issue are separately documented.
Role sources: Lea A. Ream · firm attorney biography ↗ · Firm employment-practice listing ↗ · Texas Municipal League City directory ↗
DOCUMENTED STATEMENTS
In the record
“Please do not reply to Mr. Moring.”
November 25, 2025, 8:37 p.m.; quoted chain in Webster’s native reply
“Mr. Moring’s numerous requests have led to this recommendation.”
Same November 25 message
“Mr. Moring has submitted 45 requests since June of this year. Only three are currently open.”
Same November 25 message; Ream’s stated figures
CHRONOLOGY
Key dates & context
- Source 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
- Source 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
- Source 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
- Source 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
- 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 notes
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 ↗