(For all the new visitors to the site, please be aware that nearly all text that appears in bold are links to other important documents that will be necessary to understand the full story).

It is time for another update on the latest attempts by the Woodlands Community Service Corporation (WCSC) dba Community Associations of The Woodlands (CATW) to prohibit the flow of information to the residents of The Woodlands.

In order to get up to speed on this particular issue it is necessary to refer to the initial story pertaining to this specific request for attorney fee bills. In the initial story the Attorney General sent a letter to the WCSC asking the question, “Please explain whether the WCA [Woodlands Community Association] receives a copy of the submitted attorney fee bills or has a right of access to these fee bills.”

We have obtained a copy of the response from the WCSC to the Attorney General. Please note that the date on the original seven day letter from the Attorney General was October 30, 2006. Also note that the date on the response letter from the WCSC was November 17, 2006. That means that the WCSC took approximately 17 days to answer this request in which the Attorney General gave them seven days to respond. It appears the WCSC thinks they are above the law, even when the Attorney General is involved.

In regards to the response itself, the WCSC attempts to explain that the WCA members as individuals have a right of access to the information, but that the WCA as a governing body does not have a right of access to this information. Wow!! I smell whiffs of desperation in that reasoning. Lawyers never cease to amaze.

On November 20, 2006, just three days after the receipt of the WCSC’s response, the Office of the Texas Attorney General issued this ruling. The ruling stated that it was not necessary for the WCSC to release the attorney fee bills in question. This ruling was interesting given the fact that in an earlier ruling regarding a different request for attorney fee bills, the Attorney General ruled just the opposite.

Realizing that something different had occurred in this ruling, I set out to obtain any additional info or briefs that the WCSC may have sent the Attorney General. Actually, before the ruling, I had been trying to get a copy of WCSC’s brief by asking the records manager at the WCSC for any brief that Michael Beller (WCSC Attorney) had sent to the Attorney General in regards to this matter. The Public Information Act states that the requester should receive a copy of any brief sent to the Attorney General in regards to seeking a ruling pertaining to a dispute involving public information. After a week with no response from the records manager, I was forced to contact the General Manager, Mr. Norrell, about this issue. Very shortly after contacting Mr. Norrell, I received the following email:

I have researched your question and learned that the packet of information which Mr. Beller sent to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas was solely pertaining to business of the Woodlands Community Service Corporation, Inc. The Woodlands Community Service Corporation, Inc. is a private non-profit entity, not a governmental body. The information you site is not public information being assembled, collected, or maintained for or on behalf of a property owner’s association, nor does it refer to a public information request or complaint. The Woodlands Community Service Corporation, Inc. is not required to provide copies of its non-public business documentation.

Regards,

Lisa Morris
Information Technology
Records Manager
Community Associations of The Woodlands
2201 Lake Woodlands Drive
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
{281} 210-3844

I then proceeded to go the Chairman of the WCSC Board (sometimes referred to as the secret board), Bruce Tough. Mr. Tough stated that he would get me a copy of Mr. Beller’s brief. That conversation with Mr. Tough was months ago. I still have not received the brief or any direct contact from Mr. Tough in regards to this issue. However, I have found out through other means that Mr. Tough claimed he could not obtain the brief due to client-attorney privilege issues. Wow!! Does Mr. Tough really expect anyone to believe that? This claim of attorney client privilege turned out to be a keen insight into Mr. Tough’s psyche since the Attorney General never mentioned the words client-attorney privilege and had no problems providing a copy of the brief when asked.

It is apparent by the WCSC’s behavior that they did not want anyone to be able to offer up a rebuttal to the brief before the Attorney General made a ruling. They were successful in that regard and therefore, the letter ruling referred to above was made with inaccurate information. Some other reasons became apparent for this behavior once I actually obtained a copy of the brief.

One reason for the secrecy may be that the WCSC farmed the brief out to Bickerstaff, Heath Pollan & Caroom, L.L.P., a well known and I am sure a very expensive law firm. The individual who actually wrote the brief, Mr. C. Robert Heath, is nationally known for his expertise in open government and ethics law. Additionally, Mr. Heath served for six years as Chairman of the Opinion Committee for the Texas Attorney General. Isn’t it interesting that the WCSC, under the control of Mr. Tough, is willing to go to such extremes in effort and cost to prevent the residents from obtaining information on WCSC expenditures? Why would an organization that is nearly completely funded by resident provided ad valorem service fees go to such extremes to keep the residents from seeing where their money is being spent?

Another reason for the secrecy may be that the brief contained several omissions and factual errors. I am not for sure what is worse, paying through the nose to hire a nationally known law firm or to have the brief that this law firm produces contain factual errors and omissions.

I also find it interesting that Bickerstaff, Heath Pollan & Caroom, L.L.P. is located less than a mile from the Attorney General’s Office. That would certainly make any correspondence or travel between the two locations very convenient. Equally interesting, as mentioned above, is Mr. Heath’s previous position as chairman on the opinion committee for the Texas Attorney General.

I wonder just how much this aggressive defense cost? I have heard amounts as high as six figures. Of course, the six figures is a guess since the WCSC continues to spend the resident’s money without releasing details of their expenditures.

In response to this ’shock and awe’ campaign by the WCSC, a rebuttal brief was sent to the Attorney General pointing out the factual errors and omissions in Mr. C. Robert Heath’s brief. One of the key items in this rebuttal brief, is that contrary to what Mr. Heath argued, the WCSC does not have an independent board. It in fact has a board that is derived directly from the board members of the property owner’s associations. This fact makes the WCSC board dependent not independent as Mr. Heath claims.

Also, a lease agreement was mentioned in Mr. Heath’s brief. The point of mentioning the lease agreement was to show that the lease between the WCA and WCSC, for the building located at 2201 Lake Woodlands Drive, is a typical arms-length lease agreement. Mr. Heath correctly points out that the initial payments for this lease agreement were $25,000/month. However, he did not mention that the lease payments have been as low as $11,000/month in 2004 and currently the lease payment as of December 1, 2006 is $15,500/month. That is nearly a 40% decrease in the lease cost since the lease was signed in 2000. I don’t believe that the typical building lease has decreased by 40% in the last six years. Additionally, the lease agreement allows the General Manager of the WCSC to set the cost basis for the lease payment. An arms-length lease agreement does not allow the tenant (WCSC) to determine the cost incurred by the landlord (WCA).

In light of the information presented within, it is imperative that every board member of the WCSC, WCA and TWA correct the misrepresentation that has been made to the Texas Attorney General. This can be accomplished by individual board members sending correspondence to the Attorney General in support of the rebuttal brief. Board members have a moral and financial obligation to demand that the Attorney General be given accurate and correct information. Failure to do so would only further the suggestion that the members of these boards represent themselves, not the residents of The Woodlands.