{"id":1356,"date":"2016-06-15T15:42:37","date_gmt":"2016-06-15T20:42:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1356"},"modified":"2016-06-16T14:43:19","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T19:43:19","slug":"the-big-picture-part-1lea-dunns-memo-and-the-kanter-fiasco","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1356","title":{"rendered":"The Big Picture, Part 1: Lea Dunn\u2019s Memo and the Kanter Fiasco"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Big Picture, Part 1:<\/strong>
\nLea Dunn\u2019s Memo and the Kanter Fiasco<\/strong>
\nBy Susan M. Halpern<\/strong>
\nFormer Addison Councilmember (1992-1999)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Lea Dunn\u2019s January 4, 2015 memo draws a lot into focus, not just regarding Kanter, but with respect to how the prior Todd Meier-led council really operated.\u00a0 There\u2019s a lot to discuss, including so that it never happens again.\u00a0 To provide context for the many issues raised, I decided to piece together an outline, on the theory that an overview of the \u201cbig picture\u201d is helpful.<\/p>\n

As you review this, consider that you\u2019re hearing much of it for the first time.\u00a0 You certainly didn\u2019t hear any of this from Meier, in our Town\u2019s newsletter or otherwise.\u00a0 I\u2019ve made this point over and over: allowing one politician to dominate and control what appeared \u2013 AND WHAT DIDN\u2019T APPEAR \u2013 in our Town\u2019s newsletter was extremely unhealthy for Addison.\u00a0 It allowed for omissions and concealments that covered up improprieties.\u00a0 Addison\u2019s citizens had a right to expect far more from its government, and I for one am delighted to see our newsletter placed back into the hands of our capable staff.<\/p>\n

Secrecy and government don\u2019t mix; that\u2019s why the Open Records Act and the Open Meetings Act exist in the first place.\u00a0 Citizens have a right to full disclosure and real transparency, in other words, THE TRUTH.\u00a0 But that hasn\u2019t happened in Addison with Meier at the helm.\u00a0 Instead, we have lived the vicious cycle of governmental abuse of power.\u00a0 It\u2019s relatively straightforward: a government that is secretive, i.e., disregards the laws requiring disclosure and transparency, is (a) the very government most likely to engage in wrongdoing, and thus (b) the very government that most needs the scrutiny of its citizens, and yet (c) the very government that will fight that scrutiny hardest.\u00a0 It is exactly what Meier has brought to Addison, and the results speak for themselves: higher taxes, a tax rate above the rollback rate for the first time in Addison\u2019s history, and a demoralized and devastated staff.\u00a0 And, most significantly, a divided community, with a mayor whose \u201ctone at the top\u201d is to foment and escalate that division.\u00a0 Addison deserves far better.<\/p>\n

While there is some length to this outline, it may be the most important thing you\u2019ve ever read on Truth in Addison.\u00a0 I will publish it in parts, so stay tuned.<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0On February 23, 2016, at Meier\u2019s urging, accountant Larry Kanter gave the first of two one-sided, inflammatory presentations to Addison\u2019s council.\u00a0 Kanter attacked Addison\u2019s present and former staff and management, and painted an entirely misleading picture of Addison\u2019s finances.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0I was immediately skeptical about Kanter\u2019s claims, including because of the unprofessional and exaggerated nature of his presentation.\u00a0 I was very certain that there was way more to the story than what Kanter was saying.\u00a0 The whole thing was a classic Meier setup, and it was apparent to me that Meier was not allowing the full story to come out.\u00a0 I wrote several articles about all this that are available on the Truth in Addison website.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0After Kanter\u2019s initial presentation, I became aware that former City Manager Lea Dunn had written a memo addressing issues relating to Kanter.\u00a0 Putting two and two together, I became convinced that Lea Dunn\u2019s memo was the key to exposing what I was very convinced was a phony setup.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0So, two days later, on February 25, 2016, I submitted an Open Records Act request for documents relating to Kanter, his communications with the staff, and targeting documents that mentioned or dealt with Kanter\u2019s allegations that Addison\u2019s staff was not cooperating with him.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0Addison refused to produce Lea Dunn\u2019s memo to me, instead submitting the matter to the Texas Attorney General, seeking permission to WITHHOLD this document from me.\u00a0 With this background in mind, here is what happened.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0The Wrongful Withholding of Lea Dunn\u2019s Memo and Resistance to Open Records Act Requests.<\/strong><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0Addison violated the Open Records Act by not producing Lea Dunn\u2019s January 4, 2015 memo to me in response to my February 25, 2016 request.\u00a0 There just isn\u2019t any way to sugar coat it.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0In March 2016, as the 2016 election campaign was underway, Addison argued to exclude Lea Dunn\u2019s memo by telling the Texas Attorney General that it was a communication from an Addison consultant to Addison\u2019s attorneys.\u00a0 Contrary to this statement, Lea Dunn\u2019s memo was written by Lea Dunn and sent to the Finance Committee.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0Lea Dunn\u2019s memo quotes from accountant Larry Kanter\u2019s December 16, 2015 memo.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s memo was likewise not sent to Addison\u2019s attorneys.\u00a0 It was sent to the Finance Committee.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0No part of Lea Dunn\u2019s memo is even arguably covered by the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 It\u2019s not a close call<\/strong>.\u00a0 Addison\u2019s assertion that the privilege applied was wrongful.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0Lea Dunn\u2019s memo addressed Kanter\u2019s claims that Addison\u2019s staff wasn\u2019t cooperating with Kanter.\u00a0 Lea Dunn debunked every last bit of it, taking Kanter to task point by point, item by item. Among other things, Lea Dunn\u2019s detailed response demonstrated that Kanter was misrepresenting what had occurred.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0The fact that Kanter misrepresented events and intentionally painted the staff in a poor light SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RED FLAG to any council who was overseeing a legitimate review process.\u00a0 But, it wasn\u2019t a red flag to any of them, including Meier.\u00a0 And that confirms my theory that Kanter was not hired to conduct any legitimate review, he was hired to do exactly what Lea Dunn described in her memo.\u00a0 He was designed to paint the staff in a poor light, including as a means of attacking Lea Dunn.<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0This is confirmed by the fact that after Lea Dunn sent her memo, nothing happened.\u00a0 There was NO RESPONSE to Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.\u00a0 Not from Kanter.\u00a0 Not from Meier.\u00a0 Not to refute anything Lea Dunn said, and not to address anything Lea Dunn said.\u00a0 Lea Dunn\u2019s memo was met with silence.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0And most notably, there was no response to Lea Dunn\u2019s memo from the council.\u00a0 But then, it appears that Meier concealed Lea Dunn\u2019s memo from the council<\/span> as well, indicating an astonishing lack of accountability to Addison\u2019s council, not to mention the public.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0And of course, from all that we know, Kanter continued his work with Addison, with no correction of any kind in connection with the inappropriate conduct described in Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.\u00a0 Addison\u2019s staff continued to be subjected to Kanter\u2019s accusatory and abusive conduct.\u00a0 All of which certainly lends support to my theory that in attacking the staff, Kanter was, in fact, doing exactly what Meier wanted him to do.\u00a0 In Meier\u2019s view, there was no need to correct Kanter\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n

15.\u00a0If Lea Dunn\u2019s memo had been produced in early February 2016 as it should have been, it would have been impossible for Meier to orchestrate Kanter\u2019s inflammatory council presentations in February and March 2016.\u00a0 The TRUTH would have prevented it.\u00a0 Instead, the improper concealment of Lea Dunn\u2019s memo denied Addison\u2019s residents from knowing THE TRUTH, with the result that Meier and Kanter could say whatever they wanted.\u00a0 And they did, boldly misleading the public about what had occurred.<\/p>\n

16.\u00a0And, of course, Kanter\u2019s inflammatory accusations provided the basis for the campaign of lies Meier conducted in connection with the May 2016 election.\u00a0 It was an effort to influence an election based on a false record, and it was made possible by the wrongful concealment of Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.<\/p>\n

17.\u00a0It has Meier\u2019s fingerprints all over it.\u00a0 To accomplish his 2016 campaign, Meier needed Kanter\u2019s inflammatory presentations, and to accomplish those inflammatory presentations, Meier had to make sure that Lea Dunn\u2019s memo never saw the light of day.\u00a0 Meier\u2019s campaign would have been impossible had the TRUTH been known.<\/p>\n

18.\u00a0All of which leads me to conclude Lea Dunn\u2019s memo was concealed by Meier and his cadre \u2013 and by Kanter \u2013 for political reasons, including to support the campaign of lies orchestrated by Meier in connection with the May 2016 election<\/strong>.\u00a0 It was a cover-up, plain and simple.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0Addison\u2019s Attorneys Were Directed To Avoid Producing Information<\/strong><\/p>\n

19.\u00a0You must be wondering how this could have happened.\u00a0 I sure did.\u00a0 What I\u2019ve found so far is deeply disturbing, including because I believe so strongly that all governments must be accountable to their citizens.<\/p>\n

20.\u00a0Here\u2019s the biggest piece of it:\u00a0 Prior to the recent May 2016 election, Addison\u2019s attorneys were directed that in handling Open Records Act requests, their goal should be to find reasons to withhold documents from the public.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

21.\u00a0This is the first I\u2019d ever heard about Addison employing a policy of exclusion.\u00a0 Certainly this was never our policy when I was on the council.\u00a0 So where did it come from?<\/p>\n

22.\u00a0We certainly never heard about this policy of exclusion in the Meier-controlled newsletter.\u00a0 Instead, we heard lots of chatter about transparency and lots of claims that Meier was doing a great job.\u00a0 And of course, as he was concealing information from the public, Meier even claimed that his co-opting of our Town\u2019s newsletter provided transparency.<\/p>\n

23.\u00a0We also never saw adoption of a policy of exclusion by the council.\u00a0 I don\u2019t recall seeing it on an agenda.\u00a0 I was not told about a policy of exclusion in connection with any Open Records Act request I have submitted.\u00a0 And Addison didn\u2019t mention a policy of exclusion in its reality-be-damned submission to the Attorney General.<\/p>\n

24.\u00a0Since nothing of the sort was ever stated publicly, that can only mean that Addison had a secret policy of concealment regarding Open Records Act requests.<\/strong><\/p>\n

25.\u00a0Transparency is provided only when a government makes DISCLOSURE and TELLS THE TRUTH to its citizens.\u00a0 Meier\u2019s regime did neither.\u00a0 Oh sure, he talked a big game, but it was nothing more than lip service and an elaborate deflection.\u00a0 The truth about what happened is reflected in Addison\u2019s secret policy of exclusion.<\/p>\n

26.\u00a0And here is the key question regarding this astonishing attack on transparency in Addison: Who directed Addison\u2019s attorneys to approach Open Records Act requests in a manner that sought to conceal information rather than provide it?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

27.\u00a0I have asked this question, but have yet to get an answer.\u00a0 I do know that Addison\u2019s attorneys report to the council, so my reasonable conclusion is that this instruction must have emanated from the council.\u00a0 If that\u2019s true, then how was it done without visibility to the public?\u00a0 And if it\u2019s not true, then that means the instruction came from an individual.\u00a0 And if that\u2019s true, then we have a complete abuse of power by a councilmember.\u00a0 None of it bodes well for Addison.<\/p>\n

28.\u00a0But here\u2019s the other thing: Why would any attorney accept such an instruction, much less comply with it?\u00a0 Attorneys swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas.\u00a0 Why would any attorney who took such an oath agree to enforce an inappropriate policy of exclusion that is very much at odds with the Open Records Act?<\/p>\n

29.\u00a0Also consider this: The fact that Addison\u2019s attorneys did comply with the policy of exclusion means that Addison\u2019s taxpayers paid for Addison\u2019s lawyers to resist production of documents in connection with an unknown number of Open Records Act requests, including documents like Lea Dunn\u2019s memo that unquestionably should have been produced.\u00a0 This is just another example of the tax and spend reality of the Meier regime.<\/p>\n

30.\u00a0These events are appalling. The Open Records Act confers important rights on citizens that are a fundamental part of the accountability of elected officials to their constituents.\u00a0 Meier and his cadre trampled those rights.<\/p>\n

31.\u00a0And this, folks, is the REALITY of how Meier and his cadre treated \u201ctransparency\u201d: with abject disrespect for the rights of Addison\u2019s residents under the Open Records Act.<\/p>\n

32.\u00a0Consider as well the AG\u2019s handling of this matter.\u00a0 What a process!\u00a0 Suspending reality and instead accepting assertions that were obviously false on the face of the record, thereby rubber stamping improper concealment.\u00a0 Think of the AG\u2019s process this way: Garbage in, garbage out.\u00a0 And that\u2019s exactly what this process has been for residents of Addison: garbage.<\/p>\n

33.\u00a0Here are the last two pieces of all this.\u00a0 As time went on, Meier began to engage in revisionist history regarding Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.\u00a0 Meier publicly stated that he favored its production, and to that end, had directed Addison\u2019s staff and attorneys to take the matter to the Texas Attorney General.<\/p>\n

34.\u00a0Meier\u2019s statement is internally inconsistent and boldly misleading.\u00a0 Submissions to the AG are SOLELY for the purpose of WITHHOLDING documents, NOT producing them.\u00a0 Productions in response to Open Records Act requests don\u2019t need AG permission.\u00a0 Addison went to the AG on Lea Dunn\u2019s memo because Addison sought to WITHHOLD it from the public.<\/p>\n

35.\u00a0So, while Meier claimed to want Lea Dunn\u2019s memo produced, in reality, Meier acted to WITHHOLD Lea Dunn\u2019s memo from the public.\u00a0 That conclusion is bolstered by the fact that its production would have made Meier\u2019s 2016 campaign of lies impossible.<\/p>\n

36.\u00a0This also amplifies the need for access to the FACTS and the TRUTH, because that access is necessary in order to hold our leaders accountable.\u00a0 Meier\u2019s endless, inaccurate spin has harmed Addison.\u00a0 Neither he nor any other politician can ever again be placed in the position of having control over what Addison\u2019s residents hear, and what they DON\u2019T hear.\u00a0 What you\u2019ve read thus far should be proof enough of that.<\/p>\n

37.\u00a0And finally, we know that the new council held an Executive Session relating to the Open Records Act, or perhaps Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.\u00a0 When they came out of Executive Session, Meier made a motion that the council \u201cwaive\u201d the attorney-client privilege for the limited purpose of releasing Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.<\/p>\n

38.\u00a0It was another Meier-orchestrated farce.\u00a0 Lea Dunn\u2019s memo isn\u2019t privileged!\u00a0 But, Meier has to continue to make that claim.\u00a0 It is Meier\u2019s cover story<\/strong>.\u00a0 Without it, he\u2019d be forced to admit that Addison had no right to withhold Lea Dunn\u2019s memo, and violated the Open Records Act by doing so.<\/p>\n

39.\u00a0But back to the meeting: You have to wonder what was said in that Executive Session.\u00a0 I obviously don\u2019t know, but this much is clear: there were two lawyers in attendance.\u00a0 Meier is one, and it\u2019s pretty obvious what he would have said on the issue.\u00a0 The other lawyer was Addison\u2019s counsel, who orchestrated the reality-be-damned Attorney General submission.\u00a0 These were the lawyers advising the 5 layperson councilmembers.\u00a0 Both lawyers had reasons to continue the charade, and so it\u2019s doubtful that the 5 laypeople who were listening got anything close to objective advice about Lea Dunn\u2019s memo.<\/p>\n

So now you know a lot about the withholding of Lea Dunn\u2019s memo, and the shocking secret policy of preventing disclosure under the Open Records Act.<\/p>\n

In Part 2, I\u2019ll address the SECRET ADDENDUM to Kanter\u2019s engagement letter, and how it confirms that Meier and his cadre took affirmative steps to conceal Kanter\u2019s work from the public.\u00a0 I\u2019ll also address the formation and conduct of Addison\u2019s \u201cFinance Committee,\u201d and show how it secretly operated in a manner not contemplated by our Charter.<\/p>\n

We have to stay vigilant.\u00a0 We now have a council that believes in disclosure and TRUTH.\u00a0 They are bringing the Town forward, and hopefully that will mean REAL transparency for a long time to come.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n