Carol A. Spencer – Republican Activist in the Great State of Texas

More Sloppy (Illegal?) Gov’t

I wrote extensively on March 30 about what appear to be flagrant violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) by the City of Bastrop with its called meeting on March 31.

But wait! There’s more.

Another meeting has been called. This time for Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The agenda says it’s a Special City Council Meeting. But you wouldn’t know that by scanning the list of meetings. It’s not called a Special City Council Meeting on the list of City Council meetings. It’s called “Pet Microchipping Townhall Meeting”.

What’s a city-sponsored “Townhall Meeting” anyway? There is no such meeting type in the Bastrop Charter or Rules of Procedure. Both the PDF and HTML agendas for this meeting repeatedly refer to a City Council meeting or the Council. The HTML public agenda actually says this is a “Special City Council Meeting”. All references to the Council, on both agendas, are highlighted below. Why would any member of the public accessing either of these agendas think this is not a City Council meeting?

2025-04-02Special City Council Meeting 04_02_2025 05_30 PM _ Bastrop, TX-HTML Download

2025-04-02Special City Council Meeting 04_02_2025 05_30 PM _ Bastrop, TX-PDF Download

And, did I mention that once again, the HTML version of the agenda says there will be a closed session at 5PM, a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at 6PM and the meeting starts at 6:30. Yes, it does, and it also says, in the upper right corner, that the meeting starts at 5:30. One agenda. Two different meeting start times. The PDF version of the agenda also says the meeting starts at 5:30. So, which is it?

As a member of the public, I have to guess if the meeting starts at 5:30 or at 6:30. I have to guess if that “Mayor’s State of the City Address” will be given or repeated from the other poorly noticed meeting two days earlier, or not. I also have to guess who is giving presentations and guess at the subject matter. Presentations should be identified along with the presenter on an agenda.

The point of the Texas Open Meetings Act is so that citizens know what is going on at City Hall, what their elected officials are up to, and to allow citizens a forum to express their views on the topics advertised.

Governing bodies and city officials can’t just make it up as they go. This meeting completely fails the TOMA test. It should be properly noticed as a Council meeting with a quorum of the Council in attendance to officially listen to and collect citizen input on this subject.

Sloppy Gov’t or Illegal Gov’t?

At what point does sloppy government actually become illegal government? At what point does the business conducted at improperly noticed special meetings become moot? At what point does a presentation by a council person who is also a candidate become illegal electioneering in City Hall?

On Friday, March 28, notice of a City of Bastrop Special Council meeting was posted. Two versions are provided for the public online: HTML and PDF. I typically grab the HTML version. I took screen shots of that last night.

Agenda Screenshot Saturday March 29 at 8:15PM of HTML version of the agenda

This morning, while doing a search for “State of the City”, I happened to view, then grab, the PDF version.

Agenda capture Sunday March 30 at 9:30AM of PDF version of the agenda

What a difference!

At the top of the HTML agenda is an Executive Session at 5PM. No rationale for that Executive Session is shown. That is required by law.
In the PDF version, that Executive Session has been removed.
Is there, or is there not, an Executive Session? If there is, what’s the subject?
“Staff and Board Reports” is an item on the HTML agenda. Not on the PDF version.
Will there, or will there not, be Staff and Board Reports?
The HTML version lists “Presentations” during the meeting, but no indication of the subject of those “Presentations”.
How can the public know if they’d be interested in attending to hear those “Presentations” if they don’t know what they are?
The HTML agenda includes “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at 6PM.
The PDF agenda does not list a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” at all, but rather during the meeting it lists “City of Bastrop Presentation” but not by whom nor the subject matter.
Will there be a “Mayor’s State of the City Address” by Council candidate and Mayor Pro Tem John Kirkland? If so, that would seem to be illegal electioneering in City Hall. Perhaps that’s why the item name change.
A search of City of Bastrop agendas since 2005 for “State of the City” returns only one other instance of such an address at a noticed Council meeting: in 2023 upon the retirement of Mayor Connie Schroeder.
The City website home page shows that a “State of the City” address was just done on September 16, 2024 by the City Manager at a Chamber meeting. The video remains online. So why another one just 6 months later? Could it be there’s an election coming up on May 3?
The HTML agenda says the meeting starts at 6:30. The PDF agenda says it starts at 6.
So an attendee referencing the HTML agenda will be a 1/2 hour late to a meeting that the PDF agenda says starts at 6PM. Is that a legal meeting? Questionable at best.
The HTML agenda says the meeting location is Bastrop City Hall City Council Chambers (top right). The PDF agenda says it is the Convention Center.
So an attendee referencing the HTML agenda will go to City Hall. An attendee referencing the PDF agenda will go to the Convention Center.
Finally, on the CityofBastrop.org website list of meetings, this meeting isn’t even listed as a “Special City Council Meeting” but rather is listed like this:

How is a member of the public supposed to know that this is actually a Special City Council Meeting? If I didn’t look at the agenda itself, I would have guessed this was a meeting of some organization and that it didn’t pertain to me.

So at what point does sloppy government become illegal government? I submit that it has done so with the publication of this meeting if the City Council chooses to hold this meeting in the face of so many notice irregularities.

March 31 Update

After sending an email to the City Manager, City Council members, City Attorney and some members of the press about this “Town Hall”, I received a quick response from the City Manager. While I appreciate her rapid response, her comments concern me.

“This is an informational meeting to give the residents an opportunity to hear from the developer, also learn the history of the project from a timeline perspective and what the local government code actually states, and lastly, where the project stands.”

Since when does a city government hold a meeting that is not a Council meeting or Planning & Zoning meeting to allow a developer to present (sell) his development concept or plans? If the developer wants to hold such a meeting, well, that’s his or her prerogative. But the city should not be doing so.

Will the city do this for every developer that wants a public forum to “sell” interested parties on its project? On what basis will the city turn down the next developer who asks for such a forum? City government cannot discriminate. This isn’t the first controversial development and it won’t be the last.

If the developer were not allowed to speak, but the city wanted to hold an educational meeting about its code and use various completed development examples to explain that code, that would be one thing. But to hold a “Townhall” on behalf of a single developer is completely inappropriate.

Why Do I Feel Like I’m Back in NJ?

Senate bill SB15 has been passed on the Texas Senate floor and has been sent to the Texas House. The bill’s authors are Bettencourt (R), Campbell (R), Creighton (R), Gutierrez (D), Hagenbuch (R), Hughes (R), Middleton (R), Nichols (R), Paxton (R) and West (D). Co-authors are Johnson (D), Kolkhorst (R) and Parker (R).

There’s an identical bill in the House, HB3919. Bill author? Gates (R). This bill was just referred to the House Land & Resource Committee.

What are these Republican legislators thinking? Why would they do this to any municipality: legislatively remove their right to zone their municipality as they see fit and as their residents desire via public hearings?

Sec. 211.052. APPLICABILITY. (a) This subchapter applies only to a municipality that:
(1) has a population of more than 150,000; and
(2) is wholly or partly located in a county with a population of more than 300,000.

According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities: Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Arlington, Corpus Christi, Plano, Lubbock, Laredo, Irving, Garland, Frisco, McKinney, Grand Prairie, Brownsville, Killeen, and Denton. And, there are 6 or more that will likely be affected after the 2030 census.

How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law?

These bills are an outrageous intrusion by the legislature into local growth and zoning. They demand that any lot over 5 acres must be zoned at 31.1 units per acre. Both bills say:

(b) A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or other measure that requires:
(1) a residential lot to be:
      (A) larger than 1,400 square feet;
      (B) wider than 20 feet; or
      (C) deeper than 60 feet; or
(2) if regulating the density of dwelling units on a residential lot, a ratio of dwelling units per acre that results in fewer than 31.1 units per acre.

Yes, you read the right. A municipality will lose control of zoning, not being allowed to require lots to be larger than 1,400 square feet.

There’s nothing in these bills that takes into account slopes, flood plain, wetlands or any other topographic impediment to small lot development. It says nothing about sewer, septic, water, parkland, open space or any other infrastructure. It makes no exception for home-rule municipalities. It’s as if every lot is just a flat sheet of paper on which one can draw roads and lot lines.

Only due to an amendment from the Senate floor can these municipalities zone larger lots over an aquifer. Well, isn’t that a nice hat-tip to our water needs?

The fiscal note for this bill in the Senate is a joke. It says “No significant costs to state agencies are anticipated.” Really? What about schools? Health care services? Road repair? Water resources?

According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher.

Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. For a five acre lot, that is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Morris County NJ was the 9th highest per-capita income county in the United States when I lived there. It’s the only state where property taxes are higher than Texas. Affordable housing is a major issue there as well. What we found, though, was that small lot zoning was very, very expensive to our property taxpayers because of the costs of services to support it.

In the mid-1980s, every municipality in NJ was mandated by the NJ Supreme Court to build its “fair share” of low and moderate income housing. This wasn’t Section 8 housing. It was low income housing for those who were under 50% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Moderate income housing was for those whose income was 50% to 80% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. No renter could pay more than 30% of their gross income in rent. Originally, housing numbers were assigned by the courts. Subsequently, a Council on Affordable Housing determined each municipality’s “fair share”. Developers could build 5 or 6 market value townhouses for every one low/moderate income unit they provided. Housing was built and developers made millions and millions. All in the name of providing “affordable housing”.

The costs to municipalities? Schools, roads, police. Our town was 5,000 housing units, mostly small formerly summer cottages for New Yorkers that in the 1950s had been turned into year round homes. They were on small lots. Yet, we were ordered to build 924 units of low & moderate income housing. With the market-value density bonus, that would have been 5,400 new housing units to be built in 6 years. The impacts would have been devastating. Hence the fight. Hence my raising my hand to say “Someone needs to stop this.” Cripe, our town fought hard against 6 or 7 to the acre, not 31.1 as demanded in these TX bills. Yes, we built housing, some family, some seniors, some townhouses, some duplexes. And yes, the demand for services significantly increased. And no, property taxes did not go down. In fact, they went up.

What are these TEXAS Republican legislators thinking? Apparently, they are not. The same old story: developers make millions and taxpayers are left paying the bill.

SUMMARY OF THIS BLOG AS SUBMITTED TO THE LAND & RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TEXAS HOUSE on march 28, 2025.

DO NOT PASS THIS BILL. To read my full blog post on it, use this link: https://republicancarol.org/why-do-i-feel-like-im-back-in-nj/ Along with 5 citizens, I started a citizens group to fight mandated low and moderate income housing in NJ in the 1980s. I spent 8 years on the Planning Board, 6 years on the Town Council and 4 years as Mayor in Denville Township NJ as a result. I never thought I’d see this in Texas. Here, it’s y’all in the legislature. There, it was the courts. The density given to developers in our case was 6 or 7 units/acre. This TX bill forces THIRTY ONE units per acre! The Senate fiscal report totally ignores the consequences to local municipalities and the State of Texas for such forced high density. There are those that actually cost taxpayers: schools, roads, police, healthcare, other municipal services. Then there are the resources: water, sewage treatment, loss of wetlands, runoff, flooding, parks, open spaces. This bill mandates 31 units/acres on 5 acres OR MORE.

Let’s talk water requirements: According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher. Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. That is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. For 2 people per household, that’s still 775,000 gal/month/5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Schools? According to TEA, average state revenue to school districts and charter schools per student is $5,809. In the US, there are an average of 1.94 children per household. Even if we use only 1 child per household for these small homes, on average, that’s 31 children per developed-acre added into a school system. The cost to the State of Texas? $900,395 in required state funding for one 5-acre development. And, then there’s the local property tax contribution to a child’s education. How many of these developments will there be? According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities. How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law? And, what if they win so every developer gets this benefit in every municipality? The legislature will have created a nightmare in Texas.

NJ is the only state with property taxes higher than TX. And, forced high-density low & moderate income housing did nothing but drive them up. This is the same old story. Developers get more density, make millions, and taxpayers are left paying the bill. Please tell me I’m reading this bill wrong because if not, this is a horrible idea.

Another Charter “Stick in the Eye”

My last post about City of Bastrop officials’ actions violating the citizen-adopted Home Rule charter was pretty long. But that doesn’t mean those are the only violations of Charter provisions.

Voters adopted the Charter making the City a “Home Rule” city. Voters have to approve all changes to the Charter. At least, one would think so. But apparently, this City Council thinks it can modify and waive provisions of the Charter whenever it wants to do so.

First example is waiving the provision that the City Manager live within the City limits. “The City Manager need not be a resident of the City at the time of appointment but shall reside within the City while in office.”

The City Council waived that provision, somehow, allowing Sylvia Carrillo to live in the Colony. According to Bastrop CAD records, she and her husband purchased their house in the Colony, outside City limits, in April 2024. By that time, Carrillo had been City Manager for almost two years, since late 2022. Clearly, she was aware the Charter forbade her from living outside City limits.

Thinking they could codify their actions, the City Council put a Charter change on the ballot in November: “Shall Section 4.01 of the Charter be amended to remove the requirement that the City Manager must reside within the City Limits?” But their action wasn’t codified. In fact, it was resoundingly defeated.

Has the City Manager complied with this provision? Carrillo is still showing as the owner of the Colony property, and no other in Bastrop County.

Second example is requiring the Mayor to have Council permission to perform duties assigned to him/her under the Charter. No such authority is granted under the Charter, yet in April 2024, the City Council unilaterally targeted the Mayor, stripping him of duties and city obligations to the position.

At a Special Meeting, the City Council voted to not reimburse his expenses for events and functions. They voted to remove his office space in City Hall. They voted to force him to get their approval to speak at city or city-sponsored functions, which they refused when asked. They voted to remove his contact information from the website, preventing citizens from contacting him. They voted to change the level of authority on his access credentials. They revoked all of his appointments to City boards, commissions and authorities. Some of these targeted actions were in conflict with actual ordinances and with the City Charter. All disenfranchised the voters who put him in office.

More sloppy government. Item R2024-49 was submitted by Mayor Pro Tem John Kirkland. At the meeting, it was moved by Councilwoman Meyer and Mayor Pro Tem Kirkland seconded. However the minutes from the meeting are below and are wrong. They name no second. And, note the comment that Council Member Lee was absent.

Simply viewing the meeting video proves Councilwoman Lee was there, and in fact spoke on this issue. And, if she were absent, how could the vote have been 5-0? There would have been only 4 voting Council members present. The actual vote was 4-1, with Councilwoman Lee voting “no”. (Wonder now why there’s a vendetta against her?)

But hey, what difference does that make anyway? When this City Council decides to target someone, what difference does the law make? Based on the record, it doesn’t seem to matter at all to John Kirkland, his gang of three, and the City Manager.

The City Charter is Meaningless

Last November, five months ago, y’all who live in the City of Bastrop went out and voted on Charter Amendments: 12 of them to be exact. Defeated were G (57.3% opposed) and L (62.4% opposed). All others passed.

Prop G would have required replacing all gender-specific terminology with gender-neutral terminology in the Charter. Prop L would have allowed the City Manager to live outside the city limits. Both were soundly defeated. Ten were passed.

You wouldn’t know that by the City’s website or the actions of the City Manager and City Council, led now by Mayor Pro Tem and Council Candidate John Kirkland.

Council Overturns Public Vote Results

The Council, in a 3 to 2 vote with John Kirkland breaking the tie, overturned the will of the voters on Prop M. That’s right. They just decided that your vote didn’t count. Why? Because Ken Paxton might sue the City over it. And, the lawsuit might cost $400,000 to defend.

Prop M was the marijuana question. And, for the record, if I were a City of Bastrop voter, I would have voted against Prop M.

Why didn’t Kirkland and his gang put that question’s results on hold until all the facts were in? That would have been the responsible thing to do. Overturning a public vote is an affront to representative government.

And while we’re questioning financial decisions, why didn’t Kirkland put the vendetta against Mayor Nelson on hold until all the investigations were completed? If the City Council is so worried about spending money frivolously on lawyers, why did the Council majority support Kirkland’s spending of taxpayer dollars in the amount of $137,000+ to continuously denigrate an elected official with false allegations? Why not wait until they heard from those allegedly investigating all this?

And what will they overturn next: letting the City Manager live outside the City even though the Charter says she must live in the City? Oh, that’s right, they already did that too.

Charter Ignored in Calling Meetings

The City Charter says “Such special meetings may be called as necessary upon written notice to the City Secretary by the Mayor or by any three of the other members of the Council.”

I submitted Open Records Requests for the November 21, 2024, December 17, 2024, January 17, 2025, January 22, 2025, and March 4, 2025 special meeting calls. None were called in compliance with the City Charter.

Think about it. If the City Council complied with the City Charter, there must be documents requesting these meetings. But, according to city officials, there weren’t.

In every case but the first one, I was told, in writing, that there were no documents responsive to my request. I received only one response and that was to my first request. It was only sent to me after my repeated protestations that there had to be some document(s) calling the meeting. City Manager Carrillo had requested the meeting via email to the Council people. Because 4 Council people replied they could attend, Carrillo contends that is the equivalent of them providing “written notice to the City Secretary”. Except, Carrillo isn’t the City Secretary.

More sloppy government. And, a City Manager and Mayor Pro Tem flagrantly willing to ignore the City Charter that the public voted to put in place. This City Manager and Mayor Pro Tem Kirkland constantly thumb their noses at you, the voting public.

Charter Changes Not Online

The City Charter has not been updated online. The election took place in November and has been certified by the City Council. Yet, the nine approved changes aren’t there. How can any person be expected to understand what this Council is doing, and under what authority they’re doing it?

Leadership Counts

Leadership counts. It’s expected that leadership will follow the rules. It’s not appropriate for City Council and their staff to make it up as they go along. They have reference material to use if they have questions. They can read the Charter just like I can (except it’s out of date). It’s the framework for transparent and open government. When they don’t follow it, they’re doing a disservice to every taxpayer and voter in the City of Bastrop.

Bastrop County: Back This Bill

March 15 update: House Bill 4946 has not yet been assigned to a committee. I’ll update this post once this happens with committee contact information.

Last legislative session, I wrote a bill that would allow the County Commissioners, if they so chose, to manage growth on unincorporated lands. Cities already have the right to do so, but Bastrop County is more than 97% unincorporated land, so no future planning allowed. We see it and feel it.

Representative Stan Gerdes worked with me on the bill. It had the unanimous support of the Bastrop County Commissioners Court. It made it to a committee where it died. That bill would have applied to smallish counties that bordered on the 6 counties (at the time) with populations over one million.

HB4946 Snippet The bill is back this session. Special thanks to Rep Gerdes and his staff for, once again, shepherding this through the process. Bill number 4946 is exactly the same as the 2023 bill, but now applies only to the five counties in HD17: Bastrop, Burleson, Caldwell, Lee and Milam.

Below is a chart showing the amount of unincorporated land in each, and their rate of growth from the 2010 to 2020 Census. Bastrop County grew at a whopping rate of 31% in just 10 years.
chart showing unincorporated land in HD17 counties

This bill would allow planning for roads, infrastructure, water resources and other affects of rapid development. It would go a long way in keeping Bastrop County from being East Austin. Please contact Representative Stan Gerdes office in support of this bill: Contact form or by phone: (512) 463-0682.

Key points in House Bill 4946:

This is enabling legislation, meaning a county does not have to do it if they don’t want to.
If the governing body chooses not to do this, there is a petition process to get the question to the ballot so voters can decide.
The commissioners court must appoint a Planning Commission which will adopt a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the county only after noticed public hearing(s) on that plan.
The commissioners court must also hold noticed public hearings on the plan and regulations before final adoption.
Current non-commercial agricultural and ranching operations are unaffected. Commercial agricultural and ranching operations may be reasonably restricted only “to protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, and general welfare”.
Protection of historic designated areas keep the current protections.
Affected property owners may protest adoption under rules set forth in the bill.
A commissioners court may grant special exceptions due to hardship.
The Act would take effect September 1, 2025.

Campaign Literature 101

It’s started. The other day I received this piece of campaign literature from Representative Stan Gerdes. Oops! I’ll bet that’s what you thought too.

No. It wasn’t from Stan Gerdes. It was about Stan Gerdes. It was from Americans for Prosperity.

About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Read Between the Lines” about campaign literature. All campaign literature is sophisticated marketing material. It’s meant to manipulate. Don’t be fooled.

This piece of literature was paid for by Americans for Prosperity (AFP). That’s a PAC, a political action committee. Who are they? Who else have they funded?

A look at their legally required reporting to the Texas Ethics Commission shows AFP supported ten current Republican Texas House members¹. Six of those ten voted to impeach Ken Paxton, including Stan Gerdes. The other five were Angie Chen Button, Janie Lopez, John Lujan, Morgan Meyer, and Ben Bumgarner.

School Choice

So while Stan Gerdes and the other five have all signed on as co-sponsors of HB3, the House bill on Education Savings Accounts, they also voted to impeach Ken Paxton.

Did you know there are two school choice bills? Maybe not and this literature doesn’t tell you that.

The Texas Senate has passed one (SB2) and has sent it to the Texas House for consideration. And, that’s where it sits.

The Texas House has its own bill (HB3) and that one has its first public hearing on Tuesday March 11. Should that pass as it is written, the Senate and House will have to come together to iron out the differences between the two bills. If they can’t do that, school choice will not make it to the Governor’s desk.

If you’re going to call Stan Gerdes’ office as this literature suggests, ask which of the two bills he supports. If his staff says the House bill, HB3, ask if he’d also support the Senate bill. If not, why not. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Read Between the Lines

¹ Only one rep receiving AFP donations voted against Ken Paxton’s impeachment. The other three are new reps.