\n
In Part 1 of the Big Picture, we discussed Addison\u2019s improper withholding of Lea Dunn\u2019s memo, in violation of the Open Records Act.\u00a0 We learned that Lea Dunn\u2019s memo refuted the accusations made by accountant Larry Kanter in the inflammatory presentations that Todd Meier used as the basis of his 2016 campaign of lies.\u00a0 Thus, we confirmed that had Lea Dunn\u2019s memo been produced as it should have been, the TRUTH would have prevented Meier from orchestrating his outrageous, falsely-premised campaign.<\/p>\n
We also learned that Addison\u2019s attorneys were actually directed to process Open Records Act requests by doing all they could to find ways to withhold documents that were requested under the Open Records Act.\u00a0 This secret policy of exclusion was not publicly disclosed until now.\u00a0 It is not on any agenda I can find, and I don\u2019t ever recall hearing about a vote to adopt it.\u00a0 But, since the attorneys report to the council, it stands to reason that the directive came from the council or some member of it.\u00a0 Think about that in the face of the constant lip service given to \u201ctransparency\u201d by Meier and his cadre.<\/p>\n
And, we learned that the attorneys followed this secret policy of exclusion, concealing Lea Dunn\u2019s memo by falsely representing to the Texas Attorney General that Lea Dunn\u2019s memo was a communication from a consultant to Addison\u2019s attorneys, a contention on which the AG relied in agreeing with Addison\u2019s position.\u00a0 Indeed, Addison continues to withhold documents based on its phony claims of privilege.\u00a0 All of what you\u2019re reading is after reviewing a fraction of the information relating to Kanter.<\/p>\n
All this demonstrates (a) the lack of disclosure and transparency that has epitomized the Meier regime, and (b) the inherent dangers in allowing one politician the exclusive power to control what Addison\u2019s citizens hear and, even more importantly, what they don\u2019t hear. That happened in Addison for years, as Meier used the power of our Town\u2019s newsletter to manipulate issues and conceal important information. Thankfully, the current council has returned the newsletter to Addison\u2019s fine staff, and we are clearly headed in a new direction in terms of achieving actual, real transparency.<\/p>\n
But Addison\u2019s is a cautionary tale, and we must understand all of what happened to make sure it never happens again.\u00a0 So, in Part 2, we turn to the issue of a SECRET addendum signed in connection with Kanter\u2019s engagement letter that confirms the intent to keep his work concealed.\u00a0 We also discuss the Meier-led council\u2019s misguided decision to form a \u201cFinance Committee\u201d with no defined mission, no oversight or accountability, and no rules regarding powers it should never have been exercising.\u00a0 As with Part 1, Part 2 will demonstrate a complete lack of transparency by the Meier-led regime.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0The Secret Addendum to Kanter\u2019s Contract: Setting Up an Argument To Conceal<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0As it turns out, the idea to try to conceal Kanter\u2019s work by claiming attorney-client privilege was part of a secret plan that was apparently hatched very early on in Kanter\u2019s engagement.\u00a0 To understand, we have to review documents relating to Kanter\u2019s engagement, one of which you\u2019ve likely never heard about before, and consider a timeline of sorts.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Kanter signed an engagement letter with Addison on April 23, 2014.\u00a0 That letter was the contract between Addison and Kanter, and described his work in very vague terms: \u201cThe purpose of this engagement is to provide consulting services to Addison regarding its current operational environment and how it may be modified or improved in light of recent profession wide developments in the areas of operations, policies, procedures and internal control environments.\u201d<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0Let\u2019s pause for a simple point regarding the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 For something to be attorney-client privileged, it has to be seeking or rendering legal advice.\u00a0 The description of Kanter\u2019s work clearly does not meet that definition. Kanter was not seeking or rendering legal advice.\u00a0 Thus, it is highly unlikely that any part of Kanter\u2019s work could somehow be protected under the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 There simply was no part of the description that implicated legal matters.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Kanter\u2019s engagement letter contemplated presentation of \u201cpreliminary observations to the Town Council,\u201d and stated that Kanter would collaborate with \u201cthe City Manager and Finance Committee of the Town Council.\u201d\u00a0 However, there was no clear identification of the person\/entity to which Kanter was accountable.\u00a0 That was a key omission.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0Kanter\u2019s engagement letter was signed by Meier, not by City Manager Lea Dunn.\u00a0 This was unusual to say the least, because Addison\u2019s Charter provides that the Town\u2019s business is conducted by the City Manager, not by the mayor.\u00a0 If you look at the many agenda items relating to contracts, they are always stated in terms of authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0Just weeks after Kanter\u2019s engagement letter was signed, the May 2014 election was held.\u00a0 Meier\u2019s candidates (Moore, Carpenter and Heape) won, delivering a council majority to Meier.\u00a0 The new councilmembers were sworn in on May 19, 2014, and participated in their first regular meeting on May 27, 2014.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0The second regular meeting of the new council occurred on June 10, 2014.\u00a0 At that meeting, Meier sought council approval of Addendum #1 to Kanter\u2019s engagement letter.\u00a0 The circumstances surrounding this SECRETIVE document are highly irregular.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0The request for council approval of Addendum 1 was placed on the council\u2019s Consent Agenda as Item R2e, which read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cApproval of an amendment to the contract with Kanter Financial Forensics, LLC for the review of the Town’s financial and accounting practices in an amount not to exceed $37,500 plus expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n Anyone reading this item would have reasonably concluded that the only change to Kanter\u2019s contract was to increase the maximum dollar amount of Kanter\u2019s engagement from $12,000 to $37,500.\u00a0 That conclusion was incorrect.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0The reality of Addendum 1 was very different from the foregoing agenda description.\u00a0 Addendum 1 was actually an effort to (a) fundamentally change the nature of Kanter\u2019s engagement, and (b) set Addison up, consistent with Meier\u2019s directive, to argue for concealment of Kanter\u2019s work product, which is ultimately exactly what Addison did in concealing Lea Dunn\u2019s memo and a lot of other information from the public.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0To accomplish these inappropriate goals, Addendum 1 first stated that Cowles & Thompson (City Attorney John Hill\u2019s law firm), not Addison, was engaging Kanter.\u00a0 This was a complete fiction and it never happened.\u00a0 At all times, Kanter was engaged by the Town of Addison, although it was clear that he was reporting to Meier and his cadre.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0Next, Addendum 1 stated that Kanter\u2019s work would be run through Cowles & Thompson for the purpose of arguing for application of the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 On this point, Addendum 1 (written by Kanter) provided:<\/p>\n \u201cIt is understood that we will report to Cowles & Thompson and the Town Manager.\u00a0 We understand that the work performed by us will be confidential, constituting a portion of your work product, and is to be regarded by us as being covered by the attorney-client privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, Meier and his cadre were trying to CONCEAL Kanter\u2019s work.\u00a0 So, they employed a fiction to try to create an argument for the application of the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 And, they hid their attempt to do so by concealing the true nature of Addendum 1 from the public, instead misrepresenting that it only increased the dollar amount of Kanter\u2019s contract.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0Beyond the absence of an accurate description, Addendum 1 \u2013 the document itself \u2013 was nowhere to be found online.\u00a0 The public had no idea that the purpose of Addendum 1 was to try to hide Kanter\u2019s work from the public.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0The failure to include the document was unquestionably intentional.\u00a0 Addison\u2019s online agendas typically include a link to relevant documents.\u00a0 But not in this case.\u00a0 If you look at the agenda, you won\u2019t see any link to Addendum 1 on Item R2e.\u00a0 In addition, Addendum 1 was not included in the accompanying PDF packet online.\u00a0 And, you can\u2019t find Addendum 1 in the minutes of the June 10, 2014 meeting that were approved at the council\u2019s next meeting on June 24, 2014.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0The council also had a work session on June 10, 2014 relating to Kanter, but there was no mention of Addendum 1 on the agenda, and the work session was not recorded, so its content is unknown.\u00a0 There are likewise no document links relating to the work session item.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0The entire consent agenda at the June 10, 2014 council meeting was approved with no discussion of any specific item, including R2e relating to Secret Addendum 1.\u00a0 Consideration of the consent agenda, including the vote to approve it, lasted less than 2 minutes.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0When you consider the absence of an accurate description of Addendum 1, the failure to include the document in the online materials, and then you watch the video of the June 10, 2014 council meeting, it is not at all clear that the council (except Meier and perhaps Blake Clemens) ever saw Addendum 1.\u00a0 It is quite possible that they believed that all they were voting for was the increase in approval of work by Kanter from $12,000 to $37,500.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0Think about it another way.\u00a0 Any member of the council who had seen Addendum 1 should have immediately challenged the misleading and inaccurate description of the item in the council\u2019s agenda.\u00a0 After all, Meier and Clemens were the ones who tanked the December 3, 2013 council meeting three and a half hours into it, after Meier\u2019s motion to conduct a nationwide search for a new city manager failed, and literally as the council was about to vote on Chris DeFranciso\u2019s motion to appoint Lea Dunn as the City Manager.\u00a0 Meier and Clemens suddenly claimed the meeting wasn\u2019t properly noticed because although the meeting was noticed for Town Hall, the notice didn\u2019t say \u201ccouncil chambers.\u201d\u00a0 Funny how that level of detail was used to disrupt a meeting when Meier didn\u2019t want what was about to happen, but a glaring misrepresentation in describing Addendum 1 drew not even a whisper.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0Here\u2019s another way of looking at it.\u00a0 If the council thought it was only voting on an increase in the dollar amount of Kanter\u2019s engagement, then it approved nothing else. What was actually signed was fundamentally different, and may well have been unauthorized.\u00a0 Alternatively, if the council did approve all the terms of Addendum 1, then every last member of the council participated in a glaring misrepresentation to the public.\u00a0 Again: so much for transparency.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0I don\u2019t care who you support or who you voted for, these facts are irrefutable and describe behavior and tactics that are completely unacceptable.\u00a0 For those who have supported Meier, you need to understand that he has misled you as well.\u00a0 Meier has hidden behind your loyalty to excuse his improper conduct.\u00a0 Meier has also fed division in Addison, creating an \u201cus and them\u201d mentality that focuses attention away from his conduct.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0This concealment by our government is inexcusable and unacceptable, and no true leader would demand that citizens \u2013 including supporters \u2013 look the other way.<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0On June 11, 2014, the day after the council meeting, Addison\u2019s attorney, John Hill signed Addendum 1.\u00a0 Addendum 1 was not signed by any staff.\u00a0 In fact, it is entirely unclear whether Addendum 1 was ever seen by anyone on the staff, including City Manager Lea Dunn.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0The Fallacy of SECRET Addendum 1 and the Reality of Meier\u2019s Secret Regime.<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0Let\u2019s talk about a few different issues here.\u00a0 First and foremost, you CAN\u2019T do what Addendum 1 tried to do.\u00a0 You can\u2019t CREATE a privilege.\u00a0 Privileges arise based on existing facts.\u00a0 You can\u2019t create an alternative set of fictional facts so as to argue for the application of a privilege.\u00a0 Privileges exist or they don\u2019t.\u00a0 And the attorney-client privilege did not exist with regard to Kanter\u2019s work.\u00a0 Again, it\u2019s not a close call.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0It\u2019s as simple as this: Addison couldn\u2019t change the character of Kanter\u2019s non-privileged work by running it through attorneys.\u00a0 The law doesn\u2019t work that way.\u00a0 You can\u2019t take non-privileged information and cloak it with privilege just by passing it through an attorney.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0BUT THEY TRIED, DIDN\u2019T THEY?<\/strong>\u00a0 And that\u2019s the key.\u00a0 This is a clear, irrefutable example of how Meier and his cadre actually operated.\u00a0 It confirms all that Truth in Addison has been saying for a very long time regarding the appalling lack of transparency and outright deception that has defined the Meier regime.\u00a0 And for the privilege of being deceived and hoodwinked by Meier, we taxpayers paid Kanter more than $125,000.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0Here\u2019s another thing: Despite the wording of Addendum 1, Kanter was NEVER retained by Cowles & Thompson in connection with his engagement by the Town of Addison.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0Indeed, Kanter always knew who had engaged him.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s billing statements were titled \u201cAddison Billing Detail,\u201d and were all sent to \u201cTown of Addison Texas\u201d at Addison\u2019s Belt Line Road address.\u00a0 To my knowledge, Kanter did not send any statements addressed to Cowles & Thompson.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0It is also very clear that despite the wording of Addendum 1, Kanter never reported to Lea Dunn or to Cowles & Thompson.\u00a0 As will be seen, Kanter actually reported to the Finance Committee, i.e., Meier, Clemens and DeFrancisco.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0But here\u2019s the important thing: Addendum 1 confirms the intent to try to improperly conceal Kanter\u2019s work from the public.\u00a0 And, its timing confirms that the plan to do so was hatched very early on in Kanter\u2019s engagement, facilitated by a council beholden to Meier.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0And how about that newsletter that Meier was always claiming was the key to transparency?\u00a0 Was Secret Addendum 1 revealed there?\u00a0 Nope.\u00a0 Not a word about Secret Addendum 1 in our Town\u2019s newsletter.\u00a0 In fact, in the newsletter, Meier made comments about Kanter\u2019s work, and then stated that the council had shown its commitment to setting the \u201cright tone at the top\u201d because they \u201cauthorized [Kanter\u2019s] continued work with us later in the evening in our consent agenda.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s it.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0Obviously, Meier\u2019s scant post about Kanter\u2019s \u201ccontinued work\u201d wholly failed to provide full disclosure or anything resembling \u201ctransparency\u201d regarding the improper secrecy that Addendum 1 actually sought to achieve.\u00a0 The TRUTH tells us that Meier was unquestionably concealing information from the public, and this is a great example of the manipulation of information and issues in our Town\u2019s newsletter.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0Also consider all this in light of the issues raised in Part 1 of this series.\u00a0 We saw that after the Town agreed to a termination without cause on March 29, 2015, ending Lea Dunn\u2019s tenure in Addison, we heard nothing from Kanter for almost a full year, until Meier brought him back for his inflammatory campaign-related presentations in February and March 2016.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0The picture takes shape very easily.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s real purpose was to assist Meier in his desperate efforts to find some way to get rid of Lea Dunn, whose appointment as City Manager Meier had fought for many months and more than 10 council meetings during 2012-13.\u00a0 But Kanter never found anything that would accomplish Meier\u2019s real purpose.\u00a0 There simply was no smoking gun.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0Nonetheless, the entire situation made it impossible for Lea Dunn to do her job.\u00a0 Think about it: the real \u201ctone at the top\u201d of Addison\u2019s council was set by Meier and his cadre, who constantly attacked and undermined Lea Dunn.\u00a0 I\u2019ve even heard about councilmembers freely discussing the \u201cneed\u201d for Lea Dunn \u201cto go.\u201d\u00a0 Can you imagine how hard it was for Lea Dunn to work under these circumstances?\u00a0 And yet she did her job and did it well.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0In the end, the council\u2019s and the Finance Committee\u2019s interference with the council\/city manager form of government, aided significantly by Kanter\u2019s meddling and abusive conduct, led Lea Dunn to offer her resignation, subject to receiving her severance.\u00a0 Contractually, it was a termination without cause.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u201cWithout cause.\u201d\u00a0 That means there was no cause to fire Lea Dunn.\u00a0 And of course, Meier immediately agreed to provide Lea with her severance package.\u00a0 It was easy for Meier to spend Addison\u2019s taxpayer dollars to settle his political score over Lea Dunn\u2019s appointment as Addison\u2019s City Manager.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0I submit that once Lea Dunn left Addison, with her severance approved on March 29, 2015, Kanter had no further purpose.\u00a0 That is confirmed in the few documents that I did receive in March 2016 in response to my Open Records Act request, because the last bill Kanter submitted was in March 2015.\u00a0 That\u2019s right, once Lea Dunn was gone, it appears that Kanter stopped working for Addison.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0That is, of course, until Meier brought him back almost a year later, in February 2016, to kickoff Meier\u2019s campaign of lies.\u00a0 By then, Eric Cannon had also left to take another job.\u00a0 There was no one left to refute whatever Kanter said.\u00a0 So, Kanter was free to recycle the very same accusations he had made in his December 2014 memo, all of which had been refuted by Lea Dunn, point by point, in the memo Meier worked to conceal.\u00a0 Both Meier and Kanter clearly knew that what Kanter was saying had been refuted, but still they used it to create a public spectacle, including so that Meier could falsely claim that Addison was a mess until he and his cadre arrived to save the day.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0Formation of a Finance Committee With No Rules, Guidelines or Accountability<\/strong><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0On March 11, 2014, Addison\u2019s council voted to form a Finance Committee.\u00a0 But it wholly failed to consider important issues regarding accountability and oversight, and that cost Addison dearly.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0There was no notice to the public that the council was considering forming a finance committee.\u00a0 Item R5 was titled: \u201cDiscussion, consider and take action regarding a transitional audit, including authorizing an agreement for transitional audit services.\u201d That description gave no notice that the council was considering the formation of a finance committee.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0There is no such thing as a \u201ctransitional audit.\u201d\u00a0 The term has no meaning in the accounting world.\u00a0 And, Addison had just completed its annual audit, and the audit was clean.\u00a0 But of course, Meier had to come up with some description to justify hiring Kanter.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0Meier made the motion to form the Finance Committee.\u00a0 Meier stated that its \u201cfirst charge\u201d was \u201cto assimilate what we heard tonight,\u201d and then come to council with \u201cnext steps based on what we heard and what we\u2019ve discussed tonight.\u201d<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0The problem is that there is no record of the discussion Meier referenced.\u00a0 Apparently, that discussion occurred in connection with Item WS2, titled: \u201cDiscussion regarding a transitional audit.\u201d\u00a0 There is no video of the work session, and the description of the work session gave no notice regarding the possibility that the council was intending to form a committee.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0Meier suggested that he and Chris DeFrancisco (a banker) be put on this new, wholly undefined committee.\u00a0 Longtime Meier-supporter Blake Clemens asked to be appointed to the committee.\u00a0 The council acquiesced.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0Aside from Meier\u2019s comments, there were no rules or procedures established for this new committee.\u00a0 Most importantly, there were no requirements established for accountability to the council or the public, nor was that issue discussed.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0In fact, it wasn\u2019t until almost a year later, at the council\u2019s March 10, 2015 meeting, that the council finally adopted what were called \u201cguidelines\u201d regarding the Finance Committee.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0It was too little too late.\u00a0 By then, all of the events contained in Lea Dunn\u2019s memo had occurred, including the litany of Kanter\u2019s abusive conduct towards Addison\u2019s staff.\u00a0 All during that time, the Finance Committee apparently operated without guidelines or rules.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0The Finance Committee did not notice its meetings, did not publish agendas, and did not appear to have ever created or approved minutes of its actions.\u00a0 I assume that the public would not have been permitted to attend its meetings, even if some member of the public had been able to find out when they were meeting.\u00a0 In fact, it\u2019s not even clear that the staff could have attended.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0Aside from occasional \u201cupdates,\u201d the council as a whole had no visibility to what this committee was doing.\u00a0 And, of course, the updates to council were filtered.\u00a0 The Finance Committee was free to operate in an unsupervised, unspecified manner, while concealing its activities from the public, the council AND ADDISON\u2019S STAFF.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0Pause here and consider the significant irony of all this in light of Kanter\u2019s inflammatory attacks on Addison: the Finance Committee was set in motion and operated in an environment entirely lacking in rules, guidelines, controls, accountability and transparency.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0In the Absence of Limitations and With No Accountability Requirements, the Finance Committee Began Taking Action as if It Had Authority to Do So.<\/strong><\/p>\n 50.\u00a0It wasn\u2019t long at all before the Finance Committee began to act like a body that had \u2013 well \u2013 power to act.\u00a0 In the absence of controls and accountability, the Finance Committee essentially became a council of 2 or 3.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0And it\u2019s clear that part of what the Finance Committee did was direct and supervise Kanter\u2019s work.\u00a0 Kanter began to report to the Finance Committee, not Addison\u2019s council.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s time entries clearly establish this. For example, on June 23, 2014, Kanter billed for a conference call with Blake Clemens \u201cto provide update on progress and suggest a Finance Committee meeting,\u201d and then Kanter billed time on June 30, 2014 to meet with the Finance Committee.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s time entry for June 20, 2014 read: \u201cprovided progress report.\u201d<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0No one knows what was discussed in those meetings.\u00a0 There was zero transparency.\u00a0 The public had no clue and the council likely had no clue either.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0But it\u2019s even worse than that.\u00a0 Lea Dunn\u2019s memo also makes clear that both Lea Dunn and Eric Cannon were EXCLUDED FROM MEETINGS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, including meetings at which Kanter appeared and made presentations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0Think about that for a moment.\u00a0 While its name sounded benign, perhaps in an effort to suggest legitimate work, the exclusion of Lea Dunn and Eric Cannon from Finance Committee meetings unquestionably established the existence of a very different agenda. Ask yourself: What legitimate work could the Finance Committee have been conducting if it excluded the City Manager and the Chief Financial Officer from its meetings?<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0Look at it this way.\u00a0 If the Finance Committee was populated by members of the council, and members of the council were prohibited by Addison\u2019s Charter from directing any employee except Lea Dunn, and Lea Dunn was being excluded from meetings of the Finance Committee, then what legitimate business could the Finance Committee have been conducting?<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0Here\u2019s another interesting part of all this.\u00a0 I sent an Open Records Act request to Addison, asking for documents relating to the formation of the Finance Committee.\u00a0 After some back and forth, this is what I was told by the City Secretary:<\/p>\n \u201cI was informed that the Finance Committee came from recommendations from Mr. Kanter. It was an ad hoc group put together to create the guidelines & policy which was then approved by Council. When the Mayor referenced the committee before those guidelines were adopted it was that ad hoc committee meeting with the City Attorney.\u201d<\/p>\n I asked who the \u201cinformant\u201d was, but got no answer.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0It has Meier\u2019s fingerprints all over it because it\u2019s a classic attempt at revisionist history.\u00a0 Now all of a sudden the Finance Committee was nothing more than an \u201cad hoc group?\u201d\u00a0 Meeting with the City Attorney?<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0It\u2019s just not true. The fact is that the Finance Committee, acting primarily through Meier and Clemens, were supervising and directing Kanter\u2019s work and meeting with him about it, to the exclusion of the council.\u00a0 Kanter\u2019s timesheets establish what Meier and Clemens were doing, and remember, there are countless other documents that Addison continues to withhold.\u00a0 Who knows what else is there to be found.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0But, there are a few documents that confirm what I\u2019m saying.\u00a0 On September 11, 2014, Kanter wrote an email to the members of the Finance Committee (not the council), describing a meeting he had with CFO Eric Cannon.\u00a0 Kanter noted that Cannon had offered employment to a candidate who was not a CPA, but who was still sitting for the CPA exam.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0Clemens replied all to this news: \u201cI thought we agreed that whomever Eric chooses that they have both a CPA certificate and a good level of experience (govt accounting experience is not a requirement).\u201d\u00a0 Meier replied: \u201cNo Blake, that is exactly how I recall it.\u00a0 Do you think we need to have a Finance Committee meeting and include Lea [Dunn]?\u201d<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0Now think about that for a minute.\u00a0 There is no question what they were doing: the Finance Committee was directing who CFO Eric Cannon could and could not hire<\/strong>.\u00a0 And they\u2019re ASKING whether they should include Lea Dunn.\u00a0 It\u2019s utterly inconceivable that she would have been excluded in the first place.<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0In so doing, the Finance Committee usurped the authority of Addison\u2019s City Manager, Lea Dunn, and appeared to violate Addison\u2019s Charter:<\/p>\n \u201c[N]o member of the Council shall give directives to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.\u201d<\/p>\n