Board Q&A

March 29, 2017
From: A. Nandlal

Please provide me the following information regarding the Normandy Forest camera system.
1. How much was spent on the camera system total?
2. Who monitors the system?
3. Who has access to view the videos?
4. Who authorized purchasing this system and is it true that what was originally order and payed for was not what was actually installed?
5. What is the purpose of this system in its entirety?

April 1, 2017

Ms. Nandlal,

Thank you for contacting the Board directly with your questions. They are answered below, as you posed them.

How much was spent on the camera system total?

The total amount spent on the camera system was $67,320. This amount included the cameras, housings, mounting columns, cables, cable trenching, and all installation equipment and labor, at the four entrance locations. It also covered system setup, testing, and repeated adjustments to properly calibrate the cameras.

Who monitors the system?

The camera system is not constantly monitored. When a report is filed with the Constable’s Office that requires investigation, and the constable has reason to believe there is data on our camera system that can further the investigation, a constable accesses and reviews the applicable video footage.

Who has access to view the videos?

The video files can only be accessed by the constables, for investigative purposes, and by the security company, for maintenance purposes. No MUD Director, HOA Board member, or resident has access to the camera footage.

Who authorized purchasing this system and is it true that what was originally order and payed for was not what was actually installed?

As part of the MUD Board’s ongoing efforts to work for the best interests of the District, then-president Rich Doll suggested we implement a security camera system. The entire Board debated the merits and decided (across months of public meetings) to install security cameras and associated signage at the entrances to the Normandy Forest subdivision.

The original cameras that were included in our package were eventually replaced, at no additional cost, with cameras that were more expensive and of higher quality. This occurred because the contractor found that the original solution did not provide the clarity that we expected and were guaranteed.

What is the purpose of this system in its entirety?

The purpose of the camera system was threefold:
1) Crime deterrent – visible cameras and clear signage advertise our strong commitment
to crime prevention
2) Law enforcement tool – an additional instrument to aid in solving crimes and limit the
opportunity for repeat crimes in our neighborhood
3) Neighborhood investment – keeping current with the amenities of area neighborhoods
and protecting property values by investing in maintaining a low crime rate in
our neighborhood

As our regular constables (and those who cover Normandy Forest while our constables are out) consistently report, our neighborhood continues to remain the safest in the area, by far. It is our hope that every resident of Normandy Forest views the camera system as a worthwhile investment in the value and safety of our properties and families.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to forward them in reply to this email or via a new Contact Us Inquiry.

Best regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors


March 09, 2017
From: T. Clevenger

Below is an email that I sent to Timothy Green, the attorney representing the MUD board. I would like to know whether the board was aware of any of this. Thank you.

Mr. Green,

I am an attorney and a blogger (LawFlog.com), and this morning I received the attached letter from Dwight Osteen, a candidate for Northwest Harris County MUD #28. It suggests that you are living with Anne Headley, an incumbent on the board. According to Mr. Osteen, your firm represents the MUD and will help administer the upcoming election.

I would like to know whether you live with Ms. Headley and what relationship your firm has with the MUD and the upcoming election. If you live with Ms. Headly, I would like to know whether that fact was disclosed to the board and/or your firm, and whether you sought or received a waiver of any potential conflicts.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

March 29, 2017

The attorney for NWHC MUD#28, Tim Green (Coats Rose), does not reside in Normandy Forest. The account/address of the President of the MUD was used for the purposes of posting a statement from Coats Rose to Nextdoor Normandy Forest.

Regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors


March 08, 2017
From: D. Osteen

Should someone want to mail a letter to the MUD, what physical mailing address should they use? This information is curiously missing from the website, at least in as far as I have searched.

March 29, 2017

Good morning, Mr. Osteen,

The Contact Us Form on the District website is the fastest way to communicate directly to the Board. Should a resident desire a communication be read at a Board meeting, that request can also be made through the Contact Us Form. Such a request would be subject to our legal counsel’s advice, mainly due to its implications to our required posted meeting agenda.

The MUD no longer has a dedicated physical address at which it can receive hardcopy written communications. All physical correspondence should be forwarded to our legal counsel. The contact information for Coats Rose (9 Greenway Plaza #1100, Houston, TX 77046) is posted on the District website under the Consultants tab.

Regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors


March 01, 2017
From: M. Tegtmeier

I’m searching for the attachments for the meeting minutes. Also looking for a public social media forum which is a legal way to communicate. Facebook perhaps?

March 03, 2017

Good Morning, Thank you for reaching out to the MUD Board. Please find answers to your inquiries below.

Missing Addendums

The addendums to the minutes are not posted on the website because those documents may contain personal identification information for constituents of the District. It is a violation of those persons’ privacy to release those details to the public. Addendums must be requested from our legal counsel so that they may be appropriately redacted prior to their release. Please contact Coats Rose and file an open records request to secure the documents in which you are interested.

Public Social Media Forum

It is unfortunate that you were unable to attend this week’s meeting of the MUD Board, as this issue was addressed in detail. The MUD Board and other state government officials have been clearly and repeatedly directed, by the Attorney General and legal counsel, not to participate in social media platforms. There are various reasons for this directive, including the possibility that board members will inadvertently (and almost inevitably) violate the Open Meetings Act. Violation of the Open Meetings Act is breaking the law. Comments, questions, or concerns for the Board or the business of the District should be voiced in person at public meetings or via the Contact Us form on our website.

Regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors


November 22, 2016
From: D. Osteen

Please email me a copy of the MUD Bylaws. Thanks.

February 27, 2017

Mr. Osteen,

The list below details the Laws Applicable to MUDs, as documented by the Association of Water Board Directors – Texas.

Article XVI, Section 59, Texas Constitution
Chapter 54, Texas Water Code
Chapter 49, Texas Water Code
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Rules: Chapter 293, 30 Texas Administrative Code
Attorney General of Texas approval of bond issues
Open Meetings Act
Public Information Act
Management and Preservation of Records
Conflicts of interest provisions for local governments
Disclosure of certain relationships with contractors and vendors
Statutes prohibiting bribery and corrupt influence
Election Code
U. S. Voting Rights Act
All laws relation to environmental quality
Property Tax Code
Public Funds Investment Act
Public Funds Collateral Act
Public Securities Procedures Act
Interlocal Cooperation Act
Professional Services Procurement Act
Public Works Payment and Performance Bonds
Prevailing Wage Rates
City consent and development standards
County development standards
Legislature meets every two years

Each of these items can be found using an internet search. Regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors

December 23, 2016

Dear Mr. Osteen:

Thank you for contacting the MUD Board with your feedback and requests. The information below should provide the answers you seek. If it does not, please do not hesitate to contact us.Thank you for reaching out to the MUD Board. Please find answers to your inquiries below.

Bylaws

The Municipal Utilities District/MUD Board does not have Bylaws. The Homeowners’ Association (HOA) has Bylaws. There may be information on the neighborhood or HOA website as to how to obtain a copy of that document.

Thank you for your interest. Best regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors


February 10, 2017
From: T. Pratt

I am confused as to why or how the board would have received 2016 along with 2014 and 2013 but that 2015 would have been skipped or delayed since according to your statement all of these documents are held by the same contractor, the attorney.  Lets not forget that we are not talking about storage boxes full of discovery documents that must be sifted through (which attorneys do in very short amounts of time for case going to trial) but rather about 50-75 pages that should be neatly filed in a binder along with the other years already approved by the state.  Also, each board member would have received copies of the same minutes and if getting them from the attorney is proving to be time consuming, there is no reason that these copies cannot be used since they would be identical approved copies that could be scanned in.

February 11, 2017

Good morning, Mr. Pratt, It would be great if you could lend your IT experience to the resolution of this problem, but you can’t. The issue is being worked on and worked around as best we can.

Your comments indicate you are not aware of the processes involved with the minutes and their posting. If you had been able to attend any of the meetings during with these issues were discussed, you would not only be in the know, but you would be able to accurately enlighten others. In any event, your comments will be addressed as directly as possible:

Delay of 2015 Minutes

The Board has received all of the minutes, but not all at once. We receive them one set, sometimes two sets, at a time, in preparation to review and approve them at the upcoming monthly meetings. For various reasons, including the fact that the minutes can be retrieved from the attorney, I doubt that each member keeps every printed copy and/or every electronic copy we receive (and surely not from as far back as 2013). Even if each Board member did engage in this retention, it would often prove ineffectual as the minutes we receive electronically are always distributed before they are approved. We cannot distribute or post unapproved minutes.

Minutes are reviewed and approved in the regular monthly Board meetings. There are times when corrections have been forwarded to the attorney electronically, communicated verbally, and, many times, corrections are submitted during the meeting in which the minutes are reviewed. Once the corrections are made, new copies of the minutes are not sent to the Board in any form. This is not the accepted practice and would result in additional attorney’s fees for the District.

In direct response to your statement, we did receive the minutes from 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016; we received those minutes, and most likely discarded all or most of them, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. When we overhauled the District website, we directed the legal and website teams to post minutes back to 2013, in an effort to give the residents a sizable and relevant slice of the Board’s recent progress. You can rest assured that while you are displeased with the fact that we started with 2013 and 2015 has not been posted, if the teams had started in the opposite direction, someone would be displeased that we started with 2016 and 2013 may have been delayed. We continue to press our legal team to forward the required information. As I do not work at the attorney’s office, I cannot illuminate the specific reason for the delay.

Storage and Retrieval Process

Without access to the attorney’s office and information/experience with how they actually store and retrieve the documents, we do not know if your scenario is in the right ballpark or completely false. However, it does seem that there should be an efficient storage and retrieval process, most likely one that is aided, or fully executed, by electronic means. Perhaps this indicates there is some issue with the retrieval process itself, the workload of the humans involved, or the way consultant- versus full-time-relationship requests are handled.

Copies of Minutes

Because each board member is not likely to retain each and every copy of the agendas and minutes they have received for 4+ years (from today back to January 2013), and because most of those minutes would likely be invalid as they lack corrections and signatures, it is a poor decision to gather as many documents as we could find and post them to the District website.

Can you imagine the outrage if a discussion between one interested, vocal resident who received a copy from a helpful Board member (before corrections and approval) and another interested, vocal resident who waited for the official minutes posted on the website, revealed a discrepancy? The discrepancy would, of course, be a valid correction that was submitted in the monthly meeting and added to the approved minutes. What if those interested, vocal residents shared their findings with each other and the District? The entire Board would immediately be wrongly accused of changing the minutes to hide something. That eventuality is inflammatory, divisive, innocent, and completely avoidable.

Without access to the attorney’s office and information/experience with how they actually store and retrieve the documents, we do not know if your scenario is in the right ballpark or completely false. However, it does seem that there should be an efficient storage and retrieval process, most likely one that is aided, or fully executed, by electronic means. Perhaps this indicates there is some issue with the retrieval process itself, the workload of the humans involved, or the way consultant- versus full-time-relationship requests are handled.

ETA of 2015 Minutes

As of yesterday (2/10/17), we anticipate availability of the 2015 minutes and agendas by Friday, 2/24/17. Once those minutes and agendas have been received by our website team, they will be posted to the District website.

Hopefully, your concerns have been adequately addressed. If you have further questions, please feel free to reach out once again.

Regards, The NWHCMUD #28 Board of Directors