Friendswood Sues Five Citizens
Friday, 19 June 2009 10:43 | Written by David Jennings | 
Recall that last week, I noted that the City of Friendswood was, in essence, suing its own citizens in this post: Friendswood City Gov’t Run Amuck. In a follow-up article in the Galveston Daily News, the mayor of Friendswood, David Smith, denied that accusation, saying:
On Monday, June 15th, the date of the hearing that Mayor Smith requested so that he would know, once and for all, five residents showed up to testify in opposition to the planned sale of Certificates of Obligation, traveling all the way to Travis County on their own nickle because that is the court that the city's lawyers hand picked, ostensibly because Judge Naranjo is familiar with certificates of obligation issues. Judge Naranjo postponed the hearing until July 13th.
Routine enough, I suppose. If one of the citizens that took the time and money to travel to the 5th floor of the Travis County Courthouse in Austin is satisfied with the result, that is good enough for me. Unfortunately, by taking the time to do what he and four others thought was their civic responsibilty, they put themselves squarely in the middle of the target for the City of Friendswood to sue them directly. How's that for handling civil opposition?
Yes, that is correct. Because five citizens dared to show their faces at a remote courthouse handpicked by the City of Friendswood and state their opposition on the record they are now the targets of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the city by the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, one of the most powerful and prestigious law firms in the country. Read it for yourself by clicking here (1.7 mb pdf).
It is very important to recall what Mayor David Smith is quoted as saying in the Galveston Daily News:
"That is not true". Well, if it wasn't then, it certainly is now. It is also imperative to point out a footnote in the lawsuit itself to get a sense of what is happening here. Remember, the Mayor stated that the only goal in filing the lawsuit in Travis County was so that the City would have a once and for all definitive answer on the issue of whether or not the City could issue debt without voter approval. And that is important because the voters had just rejected two bond proposals that would have paid for similar but not identical projects that the city wishes to pursue. If that were the case, if the City only wanted a once and for all answer, why pursue a lawsuit against five citizens?
Let's take a look at the second paragraph on the first page of this new lawsuit against five citizens.
In other words, there were no specific citizens that the City could identify prior to filing the lawsuit against all of their citizens. After five citizens took the time to drive to Austin and state their names for the record, the City immediately filed a lawsuit against them, which, if granted, will require them to either post a one million dollar bond or shut up. Sure is nice to be an incumbent politician.
But look further at the footnote referenced after the word "forward" above:
Okay, so, one of two ways that these citizens could be targeted by the City. Read on:
Interesting. The lawsuit against the five citizens spells out the two methods by which the five citizens could have intervened and then states that the five citizens did not use either method. Read on:
An "abundance of caution"? What? Requiring five citizens to hire lawyers, raise money, put their lives on hold, etc., is an abundance of caution? Sounds odd to me.
Truly, it sounds like intimidation of citizens, not caution. This case should make every voter, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal, approach any election with an "abundance of caution". Be very careful whom you put into office. Be very careful.
“That is not true,” he said.
Instead, the city is trying to answer, once and for all, whether the city can issue certificates of obligation to pay for park land outside city limits that it put a contract on in 2008.
A 1997 city charter amendment prohibits the city from issuing debt without voter approval that it could not finance from its own revenue streams, except in cases of “emergency or public need.”
The city had planned to issue $11 million in certificates of obligation to fund streets, drainage improvements, sports parks expansion, an animal shelter and a records building, but some residents said the city charter prohibited the city from accruing the new debt. While bonds require voter approval, certificates of obligation do not.
The city’s lawyers have advised city council members it is legal for the city to borrow the money and to use it to buy 60 acres in Alvin off FM 528 to create ball fields for the city’s growing youth sports organizations. The land is 1/4 mile from Friendswood’s city limits, and officials chose it for the sports park because it was cheaper than land in Friendswood.
Still, the city thought it best to seek a judge’s opinion, which Smith said was the most concise, expedient and least expensive method to answer the questions raised by residents.
“I want a definitive answer,” he said. “I don’t want to dance around politics with folks about can we or can’t we?”
On Monday, June 15th, the date of the hearing that Mayor Smith requested so that he would know, once and for all, five residents showed up to testify in opposition to the planned sale of Certificates of Obligation, traveling all the way to Travis County on their own nickle because that is the court that the city's lawyers hand picked, ostensibly because Judge Naranjo is familiar with certificates of obligation issues. Judge Naranjo postponed the hearing until July 13th.
A Travis County judge on Monday postponed a hearing until July to determine whether Friendswood can issue $11 million in debt without voter approval and buy park land outside city limits.
The delay gives Friendswood residents who are opposed to the city’s plan more time to prepare, said Mel Austin, a former city councilman and one of the five residents who showed up in Austin on Monday to argue against the city’s plan.
The rescheduled hearing will be held at 9 a.m. July 13 in the courtroom of Judge Orlinda Naranjo of the 419th Judicial District in Travis County.
“If we hadn’t shown up today, the city would have been going back with certificates of obligation in its pockets right now,” Austin said.
Routine enough, I suppose. If one of the citizens that took the time and money to travel to the 5th floor of the Travis County Courthouse in Austin is satisfied with the result, that is good enough for me. Unfortunately, by taking the time to do what he and four others thought was their civic responsibilty, they put themselves squarely in the middle of the target for the City of Friendswood to sue them directly. How's that for handling civil opposition?
Yes, that is correct. Because five citizens dared to show their faces at a remote courthouse handpicked by the City of Friendswood and state their opposition on the record they are now the targets of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the city by the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, one of the most powerful and prestigious law firms in the country. Read it for yourself by clicking here (1.7 mb pdf).
It is very important to recall what Mayor David Smith is quoted as saying in the Galveston Daily News:
Friendswood is not suing its residents by asking a judge to validate the city’s plan to issue $11 million in debt without voter approval, Mayor David Smith said.
“That is not true,” he said.
Instead, the city is trying to answer, once and for all, whether the city can issue certificates of obligation to pay for park land outside city limits that it put a contract on in 2008.
"That is not true". Well, if it wasn't then, it certainly is now. It is also imperative to point out a footnote in the lawsuit itself to get a sense of what is happening here. Remember, the Mayor stated that the only goal in filing the lawsuit in Travis County was so that the City would have a once and for all definitive answer on the issue of whether or not the City could issue debt without voter approval. And that is important because the voters had just rejected two bond proposals that would have paid for similar but not identical projects that the city wishes to pursue. If that were the case, if the City only wanted a once and for all answer, why pursue a lawsuit against five citizens?
Let's take a look at the second paragraph on the first page of this new lawsuit against five citizens.
This motion could not be filed until an intervenor or opposing party appeared. On June 15, 2009, five interested parties, Janis Lowe, Kathy Rogres, Deborah Winters Chaney, Mel Austin, and Leslie Roque, attended the trial and stated their names for the record. Now that opposing parties have come forward1, the City hereby requests a show cause order be signed by the Court...
In other words, there were no specific citizens that the City could identify prior to filing the lawsuit against all of their citizens. After five citizens took the time to drive to Austin and state their names for the record, the City immediately filed a lawsuit against them, which, if granted, will require them to either post a one million dollar bond or shut up. Sure is nice to be an incumbent politician.
But look further at the footnote referenced after the word "forward" above:
...the Expedited Declaratory Judgment Act permits interested parties to intervene by one of two methods: "filing an answer with the court at or before the time set for trial under Section 1205.041" or intervening after the trial date with leave of court.
Okay, so, one of two ways that these citizens could be targeted by the City. Read on:
The interested parties did not file an answer before the time set for trial, which was June 15, 2009. The interested parties also have not sought leave of court to intervene, stated that the (sic) intend to intervene, or taken any steps to formally intervene or otherwise join this lawsuit.
Interesting. The lawsuit against the five citizens spells out the two methods by which the five citizens could have intervened and then states that the five citizens did not use either method. Read on:
Nonetheless, the City files this motion out of an abundance of caution.
An "abundance of caution"? What? Requiring five citizens to hire lawyers, raise money, put their lives on hold, etc., is an abundance of caution? Sounds odd to me.
Truly, it sounds like intimidation of citizens, not caution. This case should make every voter, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal, approach any election with an "abundance of caution". Be very careful whom you put into office. Be very careful.