Attorney General Asked to Decide if Auditor Report is to be Released

Filed under: City |

In this past City Council meeting, the City Council voted to amend the contract with the auditor hired to audit Main Station and MARA, Inc.  In the July 17 City Council meeting the City Council voted to vacate the Dunanville Community and Economic Development Corporation and placed four council members on the board. At that July 17 meeting, the council met in executive session and held discussions with the council, and by all appearances, with the auditor Sandy Alexander.

On July 26, received copies of voicemails that were left with Monte Anderson of MARA, Inc.

While preparing a story about the voicemails, an email was sent to City Manager Dan O’Leary that requested  a statement from the city about the following:

Specifically, was the auditor given authorization to negotiate and settle on behalf of the DCEDC and the City of Duncanville as stated in voicemail #2. When was it discussed with the City Council to give him authorization to negotiate and settle on behalf of the DCEDC and the City of Duncanville, as he states in voicemail #2 he talked with the attorney and the council and has been give authorization to discuss directly with Anderson? What other properties is the auditor speaking of in voicemail #2 when he states that “also the other properties”?

Reference voicemail #3, does the city have a response regarding the language, and the threatening and condescending tone Alexander used to a Duncanville business owner?

Also, does the city have any statement regarding the entire situation?

In addition, we requested a copy under the Texas Public Information Act, a copy of the report from the auditor of Main Station presented to the city council.

We never received a response from the city for the information requested, and we never received any comment from O’Leary.

On August 8 we received an email from LeeAnna McComas, a paralegal to William W. Krueger, III, with an attached letter from Julie Y. Fort of McKamie Krueger, LLP.  The letter advised that a letter had been sent to the Office of the Attorney General on August 8, 2012 requesting a decision of whether the information we requested should be released under the Texas Public Information Act.

In the letter to the Attorney General, it says that the city is seeking to withhold the information based on the following:

  • Section 552.103 of the Texas Public Information Act
  • Section 552.022 of the Texas Public Information Act
  • Texas Rules of Evidence
  • Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Section 552.103 is an exception to the Texas Public Information Act that covers litigation or settlement negotiations involving the state of a political subdivision. The section states that it is an exception if it is information “relating to litigation of a civil or criminal nature to which the state or a political subdivision is or may be a party or to which an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision, as a consequence of the person’s office or employment, is or may be a party.”

The letter also requested a decision within ten (10) business days of the date it was received. will keep our readers informed on the progress of our request.