Special Meeting Recap: May 6, 2025
- Muducation
- May 20
- 4 min read
"Protecting the District... from Accountability?"
Ah, another Special Meeting with a mysterious missing invite for Director David Flores. Coincidence? Doubtful. If this is a recurring clerical error, it's starting to look a lot like a pattern. If it's intentional—well, that's another kind of special.
Also, in classic MUD fashion, the recording conveniently starts mid-sentence. Because nothing says “transparent governance” like starting in the middle.
The Not-So-Open Open Session (:54)
Director Norrell helpfully reminds everyone that they need to begin in open session (you know, for legality reasons). Avila claims there’s “no agreement on the table,” which Jones immediately contradicts with “we have it,” prompting a passive-aggressive round of who-knows-what when. Spoiler: Avila does confirm.
Jones clarifies: they’re here to hire a second attorney. Because apparently one legal counsel isn’t enough when your agenda is vengeance disguised as fiduciary virtue.
Avila makes a motion to engage "this law firm" (still unnamed at this point!) to file suit against engaged citizens working to let neighbors know what is happening behind the scenes in their local government.
Avila, ever the champion of backroom dealings, asks the board’s current attorney if he’s required to say who the firm is out loud. The first lawyer indicates he probably should, but doesn’t have to. Guess which door he chooses? Seems transparency just isn't his thing.
Whispered Contracts & Unspoken Claims (2:20)
Norrell chimes in—did Avila say the name of the firm?Avila mumbles, “It’s in the contract.”Norrell: “Oh good, I didn’t want to say it out loud.”Because saying things out loud in a public meeting might accidentally alert the public.
(We’re not afraid to say it out loud - its Low Swinney Evans and James PLLC)
Rocco, our fourth wheel on this litigation parade, seconds the motion with no questions asked. Because nothing screams “due diligence” like silence.
Norrell's Moment of Heavy-Hearted Hubris (3:24)
Norrell begins her soft-focus monologue about how “difficult” this decision is—before swerving into her fiduciary duty, which apparently includes using taxpayer money to make people stop alerting the public to how she is governing. She’s just doing what she “feels she needs to do” to “protect the district.”
Cue dramatic soundtrack.
This focus on fiduciary duty is ironic when you consider all of the times these sitting board members have shown no concern for fiduciary responsibilities. For instance... when they…
*Double contracted for services because the primary contractor was not performing
*Voted to pay bills and finances on the consent agenda, without discussion
*Spent 50,000 on a deadly playground
*Created contracts that are not in the fiduciary best interest of the District
*Did not competitively bid contracts to secure the best value for the District (Sage & Roving Patrol)
*Failed to update the budget to reflect actual spending
*Voted to fund special interest projects before making sure the water infrastructure of the neighborhood was sound
Maybe if they are really concerned with fiduciary responsibility it would be reflected in pursuing any of these wasted taxpayer dollars.
Jones and the Seven-Year Grudge (4:01)
Jones steps up to correct Avila. “It’s been more like 7 or 8 years,” she says, as if this vendetta needed more runtime.
Her concern? “We’ve lost good people.” The kind who apparently couldn’t “feel comfortable or safe.” A claim she continues to spout in public meetings - with no evidence.
She then proudly announces the triumphant return of Sage Management—because nothing says “safe work environment” like weaponizing code enforcement against your neighbors.
Jones insists the lawsuit is to protect district employees and the board—a touching sentiment that unfortunately clashes with Texas Law, which prohibits spending public funds on personal grievances.
Rocco's Real Estate Revelations (5:06)
Rocco admits he’s not really sure how far his fiduciary duties go (we agree), but he’s very concerned about property values. He doesn’t cite data, but he’s worried. So worried, in fact, that wasting taxpayer money by hiring a second attorney to prosecute neighbors who ask too many questions clearly must be the answer. Because that will definitely, for sure, boost property values. (Which, by the way, have continued to climb year over year without regard to any outside influences - including bad governance, self interested Board members, or deed restriction enforcement.)
Adjourned in Record Time (6:34)
That’s it. Six minutes and thirty-four seconds of high-speed governance fueled by hurt feelings, hazy legal reasoning, and a whole lot of taxpayer money.
Final Thoughts from MUDucation.org
You, dear neighbors, are now funding litigation that wasn’t explained, debated, or publicly justified—with no mention of cost, scope, or legal merit.
Why? Because your elected officials and some of their shady contractors feel unsafe around the people who ask hard questions.
This board has confused “fiduciary duty” with “personal vendetta,” and is hoping no one notices.
But we noticed.And now—so have you.
Stay tuned.We’re not done watching.
Watch the May 6 meeting yourself here...
