Candias Webster

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 The same notice warns that the request may be treated as withdrawn without a timely written response.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. Jul 25, 2025Author’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.
3. Jul 26, 2025Author’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.
4. Aug 4, 2025Source 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
5. 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
6. Sep 22, 2025Author’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.
7. Oct 8, 2025Source 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
8. Oct 17, 2025Source 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
9. Oct 17, 2025Source record

   Vine directs officials to forward complaints to him and not respond

   Vine’s internal email addresses complaints from Kyle about Walmart, OSHA or other violations, and construction practices at that location. He directs the named recipients to forward those emails to him, avoid back-and-forth, and notes Webster’s work with an attorney regarding Kyle’s continued requests for information.

   Context, limits & source references

   The direction concerns the described complaints and actual recipients. It does not, by itself, establish a direction never to produce responsive records. Later meeting offers, the December meeting and subsequent responses remain part of the chronology.

   • October 17 Vine–Mayor–Council–Webster–Ream email, p. 1
10. Oct 20, 2025Source record

    Fire-watch dispatch records produced after the October 18 request

    Nipp transmits fire dispatch logs on October 20 and directs fire-report and utility-report requests to the appropriate City departments. Kyle acknowledges receipt.

    Context, limits & source references

    The City supplied fire documents with its October 31 response. The broader response dispute concerns what remained unanswered or unproduced after that delivery.

    • Request km-2025-10-18-mppd-fire-watch · October 18–20 messages
11. Oct 22, 2025Source 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. Dec 30, 2025Records 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
16. 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
17. Feb 2, 2026Records 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
18. 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
19. Mar 10, 2026Records 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
20. 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
21. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
22. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
23. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
24. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
25. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
26. Apr 27, 2026Source 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
27. Jun 3, 2026Author’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
28. June 15 invoice · June 15 payment confirmationSource 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
29. Jul 23, 2026Source 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
30. Aug 6, 2026Source 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
31. Sep 15, 2026Source record

    City reports reaching its personnel-time threshold

    Webster transmitted the September 15 compensation invoice for two hours at $15, totaling $30, and reported 36 cumulative hours for the fiscal-year period. The email required payment before delivery; Webster sent a production link the next day.

    Context, limits & source references

    The invoice and City-reported personnel totals are documented. Payment has not been verified in this batch, and neither the accuracy of the cumulative total nor the legal treatment of later charges is determined here.

    • Webster’s September 15 invoice-transmittal email
    • September 15 compensation invoice, p. 1
32. Sep 15, 2026Author’s account

    September Council recordings and related records requested

    Kyle sent a preservation notice and records request covering the complete September 1 and September 15 Council meetings, separately retained audio, recording-related records and the surrounding context of his participation. His message also preserved the March 17 presentation restrictions and the later clarification allowing a presentation.

    Context, limits & source references

    The account of the September 15 exchange and the suggested clip positions are requester statements; this update does not credit a new listening review.

    • Kyle’s September 16 Council-meeting preservation and records request
33. Sep 16, 2026Source 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
34. Sep 16, 2026Source record

    Compensation-study delivery and closure remain disputed

    Webster provided the September 16 production link and marked the August 31 compensation request closed. Kyle identified disputed gaps in workbooks, interim reports, internal restructuring records and meeting-recording materials. In her native reply, Webster highlighted “Already produced” against his first four categories and supplied the City’s general livestream listing for the recording. Kyle then asked for the exact filenames, worksheets or pages, or for the records to be resent.

    Context, limits & source references

    The City says the materials were produced; Moring identifies items he could not locate. A general livestream listing does not identify a particular recording or reconcile the supporting files he requested.

    • Webster’s September 16 production and closure emails
    • Kyle’s two September 16 follow-ups
35. Sep 18, 2026Records 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
36. Sep 18, 2026Recorded 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