TARPLEY Are 864. The Last Three Digits of The Social

TARPLEY are 864.
The last three digits of the social security number for SHIRLEY DEMUS
TARPLEY are 320.
C. Respondent CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES (hereafter referred as “C-FB ISD Board of Trustees”), may
be served with process by serving on LYNN CHAFFIN, an Individual who is a resident of
Texas, in her capacity as President of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with
process at the following address: Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery.
D. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving
on NANCY CLINE, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as Vice President
of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following address:
16801 Westgrove Drive, Addison, TX 75001. Service of said Respondent as described above
can be effected by personal delivery.
E. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving
on FRANK SHOR, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in his capacity as Secretary of C-
FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following address: 1620 E
Beltline Rd, Carrollton, TX 75006. Service of said Respondent as described above can be
effected by personal delivery.
F. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving
on NANCY WATTEN, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as Assistant
Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following
Page 2 of 57
PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
address: 2744 Bay Meadow Ct., Farmers Branch, TX 75234. Service of said Respondent as
described above can be effected by personal delivery.
G. Respondent, C-FB ISD on behalf of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served
with process by serving on BOBBY BURNS, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in his
capacity as Superintendent of C-FB ISD, and may be served with process at the following
address: 1445 N. Perry Road, Carrollton, TX 75006. Service of said Respondent as described
above can be effected by personal delivery.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
A. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
B. This court has jurisdiction over the parties because Respondents are Texas
residents.
C. Venue in DALLAS County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(3) of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this county is the county of the principal
office of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, Respondent herein. Furthermore, because venue is proper
with respect to Respondent C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, venue for this action with respect to all
Respondents is proper under 15.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
D. Section 551.142 of the Open Meetings Act confers jurisdiction on this, the
District Court, over actions seeking mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse
violations or threatened violations under the Texas Open Meetings Act (referred to as “TOMA”
or “the Act”)—thereby waiving sovereign immunity to this type of lawsuit and its request for
attorney fees. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. (Vernon 2004).
Page 3 of 57

E. This, the District Court, also has jurisdiction under Article 5, section 8 of the
Texas Constitution, and may issue declarations under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act
(UDJA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann., §§ 37.001 et seq. (Vernon 1997).
IV. STANDING
Texas Government Code § 551.142(a) provides, “An interested person, including a
member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or
reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.”
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (Vernon 2004). The standing conferred by Texas Government
Code § 551.142 is broader than taxpayer standing, and its citizens do not need to prove an
interest different from the general public “because the interest protected in the Open Meetings
Act is in the interest of the general public.” Hays County Water Planning P’ship v. Hays
County, 41 S.W.3d 174, 177-8 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. Denied).
An individual entitled to seek a writ of mandamus or injunction may also seek a
declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, chapter 37 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Cox Enters., 679 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.. App.—Texarkana
1984) (recognizing news media’s right to bring declaratory judgment action to determine if the
board had violated TOMA); See also City of Fort Worth v. Groves, 746 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. App—
Fort Worth 1998, no writ) (resident of Arlington had standing to bring suit for declaratory
judgment and injunction against the city for a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act). A
taxpayer living within the School district has standing to file a suit under §551.142. Salazar v.
Gallardo, 57 S.W.3d 629 (Tex App—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Finally, members of the
Page 4 of 57

public have the right to seek relief by mandamus to correct an abuse of discretion and/or to
compel the performance of a ministerial duty by public officials Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §
551.142
Petitioner, SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY, is a resident living within the tax district for
the Carrollton-Famers Branch Independent School District (hereafter called “C-FB ISD”; she is a
retired C-FB ISD teacher; she began to work in the C-FB ISD in 1969; and she is a former City
of Carrollton City Council member. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY strongly believes that the C-
FB ISD Board of Trustees’ actions result in harm to the children of the district for which she
cares so much about. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY has standing to file this suit.
V. SUMMARY
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has a pattern and practice of violating the notice and
open meeting provisions of the TOMA, as evidenced by the fact that C-FB ISD has continued to
violate the TOMA prior to this suit. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY seeks a declaratory
judgment under the UDJA that C-FB ISD has violated the TOMA through its past actions.
SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY seeks injunctive relief to prevent C-FB ISD from continuing to
violate the TOMA through these actions.
VI. SUMMARY OF PEOPLE DISCUSSED IN THE FACTS AND THE FACTS
1. Summary of People Discussed in the Statement of Fact
Mr. Robert Luna, Esq.—Purported Attorney for Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees and
Lynn Chaffin, in Cause No. 09-07085 filed in the 95th District Court of Dallas County, Texas and
Attorney for Appellant, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees and Lynn Chaffin, in the Texas Court of
Appeals, Dallas Division case assigned Cause No. 05-09-01166-CV
Ms. Lynn Chaffin—President for C-FB ISD Board of Trustees.

Page 5 of 57

Ms. Nancy Cline—Vice President of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Mr. Frank Shor—Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Ms. Nancy Watten—Assistant Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Mr. James Goode—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Ms. Karin Webb—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Mr. Richard Fleming—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Dr. Bobby Burns—Superintendent of C-FB ISD
Ms. Georgeanne Warnock-Principal of R.L. Turner High School, Carrollton TX
Mr. Mark Gommesen—a concerned resident living in the C-FB ISD with a child attending a C-
FB ISD school.
2. Statement of the Facts
C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is appointed by the voters residing in its school district to
conduct business, develop policy, and make decisions on behalf of the school district regarding
the local education system for the benefit of the children and the community at large residing in
that school district.
On June 25,, 2009 at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch
Independent School District (“C-FB ISD”), where a quorum of board members were present and
seated. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they would
reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections under
which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s exact words were, “Anything else, alright,
Page 6 of 57

we do have items for closed session, it is 9:38, I am going to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 and we
will come back at 9:45 in closed session.” Ms. Chaffin then adjourned the meeting.
On June 25, 2009, at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch
Independent School District (“C-FB ISD ”), where are quorum of board members were present
and seated, the board reconvened from executive session after the failure of a vote to call a
special election James Goode stated as follows:
“I believe we have one other item based upon closed

session, and that is that I would like to make a motion that we
approve all the matters that we discussed in close session that we
need to take future action on.”
Nancy Watten seconded the Motion. Lynn Chaffin called the Motion and the Motion was
passed. Three items were discussed in closed session. There is no designation as to which item
or items—one of the three, two of the three, or all of them—were actually designated as items
(quoting James Goode) that “that we [the board] need to take future action on.”
On August 13, 2009 at Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, where are quorum of
board members were present and seated, the presiding officer asked for any comments from
board members. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they
would reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections
under which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s statement was,
“Um Item Number, Number 6, comments from board members

regarding posted agenda items. Board members? Hearing none
seeing none, item number 7 closed meeting as authorized under the
Texas Government Code including but not limited to, to uh,
§551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property;
551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082
School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or
Page 7 of 57

Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student
Information; 551.084 Investigation.We will now leave closed
session and go into or leave open session and go into closed
session for items a, b and c. We are adjourned from open session
at 11:32. You guys get to leave; lucky you.”
The Agenda for the closed session states:
“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange,

Lease, or Value of Real Property
B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-
07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent
School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial
District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 –
Consultation With Attorney)
C. Report From Attorney”
The August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting and
agenda item for the closed session only states “Report from Attorney.” There was no designation
as to what the attorney was reporting on. This deviates from the school districts prior practices
of at least designating the case or topic for discussion when acting in close session. The C-FB
ISD conducted the meeting, where a quorum of board members were present and seated, and
received a report from an unidentified attorney in closed sessions. Because the report was made
in closed session, the public still does not have an understanding as to which attorney
communicated the report and the public still does not have a clear understanding as to the subject
of such report by an unidentified attorney .
On August 27, 2009 the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees sat in quorum and conducted an
opened and closed meeting. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees discussed the Fleming case in
closed session. August 27th 2009, Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting
Page 8 of 57

and agenda items do not list any mention of the 95th District Court Case Number 09-07085.
There was no supplemental agenda item placed on the agenda such that this information could be
discussed. However, in a subsequent Freedom of Information Request by Mr. Mark Gommesen,
Mr. Gommesen received documentation which reveals that board member Karin Webb posed a
question as to why such litigation was not on the agenda with a reply by Mr. Mark Hyatt. Mr.
Hyatt stated, “At this time there is no apparent action that is required. Any new information
related to the lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item.”
The Board discussed the Fleming Case at this meeting; however, no such item was listed on the
Agenda. Most importantly, it should be noted that the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ attorney
was not seen at the school board meeting or through the windows during the closed session.
At the August 27 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, where the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin asked for comments from board members, following that section of the
agenda, Chaffin stated,
“We will close the regular board meeting and we will go into
closed meeting as authorized by Texas Government Code to
Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real
Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices;
551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter
or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student
Information; 551.084 Investigation. So I will declare this regular
meeting to be closed at 10:06 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes
in closed session.”
At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exception the meeting was allowing the board to close
the meeting.
Page 9 of 57

At the September 10, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated as follows:
“Okay in that case we are going to adjourn the open

meeting and go into closed session as authorized by the Texas
Government Code §551. Um, So I will adjourn this meeting at
8:57 and we will reconvene in 10 minutes.”
At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exceptions to the Open Meetings Act allowed them to
close the open meeting.
At the September 24, 2009 Special Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated
“Um that said we will move on to our agenda item, our first
agenda item for tonight is a closed meeting to hear a third level
grievance, so we are going to have to ask you all to leave. We are
so sorry, but I am going to go ahead and close this open session
and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.”
close the session.
At the October 8, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Ms. Chaffin stated,
“Agenda item 4 which will be closed meeting as authorized under

the Texas Governement Code including but not limited to,
§551.071 .071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property;
Information; 551.084 Investigation. So we will go, we will
adjourn from open session at 9:06 and we will reconvene in closed
session.”
Page 10 of 57

Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were provided for the
meeting to be properly closed.
Reconvening from closed meeting, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin disclosed
that the board was in closed session for Real Property (or §551.072) by stating,
“Alright, I will reconvene this meeting of the Carrollton Farmers

Branch ISD Board of Trustees in open session at 9:35PM on
October the 8th. And Board members we've just been discussing
item 5, (pause) 4 a. all matters related to Real Property is there
anything, any action that needs to be taken at this time? Hearing
none seeing none. Board Members we are going to adjourn public
session at 9:36 and we will go back into closed session in 5
minutes."
Again, Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were provided
for the meeting to be properly closed.
At the November 12, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, the notice and agenda
read,
“Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral

Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. C-
FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD.” At the point where Lynn
Chaffin stated, “Item 3 Comments from Board Members …
Hearing none and seeing none, we are going to take a brief recess
and we will reconvene at 8:45 in closed session for agenda item
number 4 which is a closed session.”
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustee sat in quorum and conducted a meeting. At no point did Ms.
Chaffin publically state the specific sections allowing the board to go into closed session.
During this closed session, the Board discussed the investigation of R. L. Turner High School.
No mention of an investigation of a high school, or more specifically R.L. Turner High School
was mentioned anywhere on the agenda. The investigation at R. L. Turner High School is not in
Page 11 of 57

any way related to Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD. Coincidently, Mark
Gommesen received an email from Nancy Watten regarding a Public Information Act request
regarding an unknown investigation and Nancy Watten confirmed the investigation pertained to
Lance Campbell, a former principal of R.L. Turner. At least, one of the board members left the
closed meeting after the board began to discuss this topic due to fear of a possible open meetings
violation.
After the closed session on November 12, 2009, the board reconvened in open session.
Lynn Chaffin asked if there were any items discussed in closed session requiring action. No
members of the board responded. Lynn Chaffin then stated,
“Hearing none and seeing none, I would like to make a

statement to the public. The board had received an allegation of
issues of impropriety and the board took those allegations very
seriously. We initiated an investigation with an external firm. No
violations of law were identified. No violations of policy were
identified that rose to the level of a reportable ethical complaint.
However, as a result of this investigation, the board has extensively
reviewed its policies. And those policies are being reviewed at all
of our campuses to ensure that we have a consistency of
application of those policies. So we appreciate the public for, uhm,
having reported those, those issues and those concerns and brought
them to our attention.”
At no time, has the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees publically voted to take action to initiate
an investigation. Additionally, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has not provided the public with
enough information to determine the scope and topic of investigation. Lynn Chaffin by her own
statement indicates that the investigation was brought to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’
attention by the public; however, all discussions and action were taken in closed session. Lynn
Chaffin, by her own statement, indicated there was some “wrong” committed but according to
Page 12 of 57

her standards it did rise to an ethical violation—the public has never been informed as to what
the violation is or consists of—therefore, how the public cannot measure honesty and integrity of
the system.
Taxpayer funds paid for the investigation, no public action or agenda has ever been
published on this investigation authorizing the Board of Trustees to take action to initiation the
investigation and hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. The public, at this time, does
not know the person or persons hired to conduct such investigation. Since there has been no
action to start an investigation or hire counsel to conduct an investigation, there is no proof that
any investigation has actually been conducted. If this investigation in any way relates the R.L
Turner, then the subject of the investigation was initiated to explore purported profound
improprieties—the extent of which can be determined through, live testimony, discovery and any
in camera1 reviews of certified closed session minutes or recordings.
VII. STATEMENT OF LAW
1. Duties and Authority of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
Texas Education Code § 11.051 regarding governance of an independent school district
and the number of trustees that may be elected reads as follows: “(a) An independent school
district is governed by a board of trustees who, as a body corporate, shall: (1) oversee the
management of the district; and (2) ensure that the superintendent implements and monitors
plans, procedures, programs, and systems to achieve appropriate, clearly defined, and desired
results in the major areas of district operations. (a)(1) Unless authorized by the board, a member

1
Petitioner files contemporaneously with the Petition a Motion to Tender Documents for In Camera Inspection
Page 13 of 57

of the board may not, individually, act on behalf of the board.” Tex. Educ. Code §11.051
(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees internal policy says board members as individuals shall
not exercise authority over the District, its property, or its employees. See C-FB ISD Board of
Trustee Policy BBE(Local). Except for appropriate duties and functions of the Board President,
an individual member may act on behalf of the Board only with the express authorization of the
Board. Id. Without such authorization, no individual member may commit the Board on any
issue. Id. Also, because the Board is a body corporate, members can perform no valid act
except as a body at meetings properly convened and conducted by a board sitting in quorum.
Toyah ISD v. Pecos-Barstow ISD, 466 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio, 1971, no writ);
Buchele v. Woods, 528 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler, 1975, no writ) .
Texas Education Code § 11.1511(a) describes the specific powers and duties of a school
board, and reads as follows: “(a) In addition to powers and duties under Section 11.151 or other
law, the board of trustees of an independent school district has the powers and duties provided by
Subsection (b).” Texas Educ. Code § 11.1511 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).
Texas Education Code § 11.1511(b)(5) reads, “the board shall… adopt a policy to establish a
district- and campus-level planning and decision-making process as required under Section
11.251.” § 11.1511
Texas Government Code § 551.001 subsection (3)(E) indicates that a school board is a
governmental body to which the Act will apply.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.001
(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). The board of trustees may act only by majority
Page 14 of 57

vote of the members present at a meeting, held in compliance with the Texas Open Meets Act
(referred to as “TOMA” or “the Act” located in Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, at
which a quorum of the board is present and voting. Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.002
2. History and General Definition of the Texas Open Meeting Act
Even prior to the passage of the TOMA, Texas Government Code §§551.001 et seq., a
collegial entity, with power shared equally between colleagues, could only act as an entity at a
properly noticed meeting, not through its individual members. Webster v. Texas & Pacific Motor
Transport Co., 166 S.W. 2d 75 (Tex. 1942). This principle is still good law 60 years later. See
Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002,
pet denied); see also Austin Neighborhoods Council, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of
Austin, 644 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.App.-Austin 1982, writ refused n.r.e.).
With the passage of the TOMA, came the “Golden Rule” of the Act: all "meetings" held
by "governmental bodies" must be open to the public unless an executive [or closed] session is
expressly permitted. §551.002. A “meeting” is defined under the TOMA as all "deliberations"
between a quorum of members of a governmental body or between a quorum and any other
person.. §551.001(4). A "deliberation" is a verbal exchange between a governmental body or a
quorum and any other person concerning an issue within the governmental body's jurisdiction or
any public business. Tex. Gov’t Code §551.001(2). Texas Government Code § 551.103(a)
requires a governmental body to keep either a certified agenda or make a tape recording of the
proceedings of each closed meeting, except for when the governmental entity is participating in a
Page 15 of 57

private consultation permitted under Texas Government Code § 551.071 when the governmental
body is consulting with the governmental body’s attorney. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551.103 &
551.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).
There are numerous Texas Attorney General Opinions regarding TOMA. The U.S.
Supreme Court, has stated that even though most Attorney General opinions are considered
advisory on the courts, they are entitled to careful consideration. Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176,179-81 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied). (citing Harris
County Comm'rs Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77, 95 S.Ct. 870, 43 L.Ed.2d 32 (1975);
Commissioners Court of El Paso County v. El Paso County Sheriff's Deputies Ass'n, 620 S.W.2d
900, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.---El Paso 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
3. Notice Requirement of the TOMA
The Texas Government Code § 551.041 reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written
notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.”
Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.041 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). That means a
governmental body must give the public notice of the subjects that will be discussed and
considered in an open meeting or a closed session. Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd ofTrs. Of Austin
Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. 1986); Porth v. Morgan, 622 S.W. 2d 470 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e). When the notice specifically discloses the subject to be
considered at the upcoming meeting, the statute's notice requirement is met. See Cox Enter., 706
S.W.2d at 959.
Page 16 of 57

The only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification
of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions—this is done by way of publishing an
agenda. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the
more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch.
Dist, 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the
Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." City of
Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.); Cox Enters.,
Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. After explaining that notice under the Act "should specifically disclose
the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting", the court held that describing agenda
items as “litigation” when the suit was related to a desegregation lawsuit and “personnel” when it
pertained to the selection of a new superintendent, "did not provide full and adequate notice,
particularly because the subject slated for discussion was one of special interest to the public."
Cox Enters., Inc. at 959. No judicial decision or attorney general opinion states that a
governmental body must indicate in the notice whether a subject will be discussed in open or
closed session. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 6. However, if the notices posted
for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects for public
deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from this
practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of the notice. Id.
In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is
alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the
consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Id. at 958. (quoting Lower
Page 17 of 57

Colorado River Authority v. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex.1975). The
Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance
with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be;
but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The
Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through
knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be compelled to resort to
the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has complied with TOMA—
rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the
public needs no assistance from the Courts. Id. at 960.
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own policy posted on its website is as follows:
“Agendas for all meetings shall be sufficiently specific to inform

the public of the subjects to be deliberated at the meeting, setting
out any special or unusual matters to be considered or any matter
in which the public has a particular interest. Deliberations or
actions pertaining to the Superintendent and principals are of
particular public interest, and notice of those subjects must be
worded with such clarity that the public will understand what the
Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enterprises, Inc. v.
Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986); Point Isabel
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops. M-494 (1969),
H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See C-FB ISD
Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal).
“The terms “employee briefing” or “staff briefing” do not give

adequate notice of the subject matter to be presented to the Board
by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-169 (2000).”
Id.
“The subject of a report or update by District staff or a member of

the Board must be set out in the notice in a manner that informs a
reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. GA-668
Page 18 of 57

(2008).” Id.
4. Meeting Must be Open to the Public Unless the Topic Falls Under an Exception
“Every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the
public, except as provided by this chapter”. § 551.002. Only certain deliberations may be held in
closed sessions. In Cox, decided by the Supreme Court of Texas, the court held, “The Texas
Open Meetings Act requires every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body to
be open to the public, with certain narrowly-drawn exceptions. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at
958. The Supreme Court of Texas in Cox states, “The Act's purposes cannot be circumvented
by mere reference to one of the section 2 exceptions. Id. The advance notice given under section
3A(a) should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting.” Id. at
959. Finally the Supreme Court of Texas in Cox held, “The Act's exceptions, however, do not
extend to any "final action, decision, or vote." Id. The reference to the section 2 exception has
been codified into the current Texas Government Code and is described in detail under
subchapter D of §551 of the Texas Government Code.
Texas Gov’t Code § 551.101 states the requirements for holding a closed session. It
provides: If a closed meeting is allowed under this chapter, a governmental body may not
conduct the closed meeting unless a quorum of the governmental body first convenes in an open
meeting for which notice has been given as provided by this chapter and during which the
presiding officer publicly: (1) announces that a closed meeting will be held; and (2) identifies the
section or sections of this chapter under which the closed meeting is held. Tex. Gov’t Code §
551.101 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). A careful and plain reading of the TOMA
Page 19 of 57

reveals that if a closed meeting is authorized (i.e. an exception applies), the governing body must
comply with the procedural steps enumerated in TOMA. Martinez v. State, 879 S.W.2d 54, 56
(Tex.Crim.App.1994). On the other hand, if one of the exceptions does not apply, then the
closed meeting violates the Act regardless of whether the governing body complied with the
procedural steps. Id. The policy behind the TOMA is that the public should be aware of which
members of a governing body are present in a closed meeting and whether a quorum exists.” Id.
Additionally, the presiding officer must identify the section or sections that authorize the closed
session for the following reasons: 1) to cause the governmental body to assess the applicability
of the exceptions before deciding to close the meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal
position as relying upon the exceptions specified; and 3) to inform those present of the
exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to object intelligently. Lone Star Greyhound
Park, Inc. v. Tex. Racing Comm’n, 863 S.W.2d 742, 747 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied).
However, when judging the sufficiency of the presiding officer’s announcement in light of
whether it effectuated or hindered the purposes of §551.101, the Lone Star Court found that the
presiding officer’s reference to the content of a section, rather than to the section number,
sufficiently identified the exception. Id. at 747.
5. Exceptions to the Requirement of Publicly Held Meetings
The “Consultation with Attorney” exception is located in the Texas Government Code at
§551.071. Section 551.071 reads, “A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation
with its attorney except: (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about:
(A) pending or contemplated litigation; or (B) a settlement offer; or (2) on a matter in which
Page 20 of 57

the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter. Tex. Gov’t
Code § 551.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).
This provision allows the attorney to perform his duty to counsel his client while
upholding notions of attorney-client privilege and the attorney’s duty to preserve client
confidences. Tex Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0506 (2002) at 4; JC-0233 (2000) at 3; JM-238 (1984)
(as modified by Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC 0506 (2002)); H-816 (1976); M-1261 (1972). It
allows the governmental body to seek the attorney’s advice regarding pending or contemplated
litigation or settlement offers. Lone Star Greyhound Park, Inc., 863 S.W.2d at 748. However,
“General Discussions of policy, unrelated legal matters, is not permitted under the language of
[this exception] merely because an attorney is present” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-100 (1983)
at 2.
In Cox, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “…a school board is not expected to
disclose its litigation strategy, but it cannot totally conceal that a pending desegregation lawsuit
will be discussed” and the Texas Attorney General John Cornyn opined that even though the
school board discussed the lawsuit in executive session, the school board could not escape
publishing adequate notice as required by the TOMA. See Cox Enters., Inc. at 959.; Tex. Atty
Gen. Op No. JC-0057 (1999). “Since a governing body can consult privately with its attorney,
logic dictates that the information discussed at that meeting should be protected by the attorney-
client privilege.” Markowski v. City of Marlin, 940 S.W.2d 720, 727 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997,
pet. denied). However, the party asserting the privilege has the burden of proving that the
Page 21 of 57

attorney-client privilege applies. Id. (citing Peeples v. Hon. Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist., 701
S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. 1985) (in the discovery context). “Sometimes the only way to prove the
privilege is through an in-camera inspection of the privileged documents or other materials.” Id.
at 727) (citing Weisel Enter., Inc. v. Curry, 718 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1986); Kavanaugh v.
Perkins, 838 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex.App.---Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding).
In Ramos, the City of Farmers Branch claimed it properly closed the session regarding an
new ordinance and that if it discussed anything outside of the attorney client privilege then it was
merely to state opinions. Ramos 235 S.W.3d at 468. The Court agreed that opinions may be
discussed in closed session. Id. However, the Court also stated,
“Ramos alleged that the City, in closed meetings, ‘drafted,

deliberated, negotiated, debated, and agreed upon” the provisions
of the ordinance and then "negotiated, modified and revised" the
ordinance to "secure the votes" of appellants. Further, Ramos
alleged that the public vote was no more than a rubberstamp of the
"agreement reached in secret." These allegations, if true, suggest
appellants acted outside the lawful bounds of an executive session
and would constitute more than an expression of opinion.” Id.
Other Exceptions cited by the Board include:
“DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY; CLOSED

MEETING. A governmental body may conduct a closed meeting
to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real
property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a
detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body in
negotiations with a third person.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072
“PERSONNEL MATTERS; CLOSED MEETING. (a) This

chapter does not require a governmental body to conduct an open
meeting: (1) to deliberate the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a
Page 22 of 57

public officer or employee; or (2) to hear a complaint or charge
against an officer or employee. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply
if the officer or employee who is the subject of the deliberation or
hearing requests a public hearing.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.074
“DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR

SECURITY AUDITS; CLOSED MEETING. This chapter does
not require a governmental body to conduct an open meeting to
deliberate: (1) the deployment, or specific occasions for
implementation, of security personnel or devices; or (2) a security
audit.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072
“SCHOOL CHILDREN; SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES;

DISCIPLINARY MATTER OR COMPLAINT. (a) This chapter
does not require a school board to conduct an open meeting to
deliberate in a case: (1) involving discipline of a public school
child; or (2) in which a complaint or charge is brought against an
employee of the school district by another employee and the
complaint or charge directly results in a need for a hearing. (b)
Subsection (a) does not apply if an open hearing is requested in
writing by a parent or guardian of the child or by the employee
against whom the complaint or charge is brought.” Tex. Gov’t
“SCHOOL BOARD: PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE

INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT. (a)
This chapter does not require a school board to conduct an open
meeting to deliberate a matter regarding a public school student if
personally identifiable information about the student will
necessarily be revealed by the deliberation. (b) Directory
information about a public school student is considered to be
personally identifiable information about the student for purposes
of Subsection (a) only if a parent or guardian of the student, or the
student if the student has attained 18 years of age, has informed the
school board, the school district, or a school in the school district
that the directory information should not be released without prior
consent. In this subsection, "directory information" has the
meaning assigned by the federal Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g), as amended. (c)
Subsection (a) does not apply if an open meeting about the matter
Page 23 of 57

is requested in writing by a parent or guardian of the student or by
the student if the student has attained 18 years of age.” Tex. Gov’t
“INVESTIGATION; EXCLUSION OF WITNESS FROM

HEARING. A governmental body that is investigating a matter
may exclude a witness from a hearing during the examination of
another witness in the investigation.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072
6. Final Actions and Explanation of Compliance with Notice Provisions of TOMA
Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action, decision, or vote on a matter
deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be made in an open meeting that is
held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.102
(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). A governmental body can only take steps to put into
action a governmental decision only after a “final action, decision, or vote” in open session is
voted upon at a time when a majority of the board is present—constituting a quorum and such
item has been adequately described in the Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); Tex. Gov’t
Code § 311.013(b) (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009); and § 551.041. This act of
taking “a final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this
Petition.
One of the key requirements to “final actions” is compliance with the notice provision.
The notice under the Act is located in the Texas Government Code § 551.041 and reads, “[a]
governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting
held by the governmental body.” § 551.041 . The only way that the general public can monitor
its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed
Page 24 of 57

sessions—this is done by way of publishing an agenda. Once the board publishes an agenda, it
may not deviate from that agenda for to do so would result in a violation of TOMA—this is a
violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §
551.142 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).
consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc.. at 958.
(quoting Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to
state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the
Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than
full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960.
The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the
more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. See Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep.
Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions
of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government."
Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957.
Again, the Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s
interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be
compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has
complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to
comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Cox Enters., Inc., 706
Page 25 of 57

S.W.2d at 960.
Unfortunately, examples of adequate notice of “final actions” are scant according to
Texas case law. However, here are a few snippets of cases addressing such issues.
“Respondent violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when it

altered the Transportation Plan from the form it [sic] was approved
and voted on in public on May 16, 2000. Any changes made to the
Transportation Plan ... were not made with the public being able to
observe how its government was conducting public business. As
such, Respondent violated ... Tex. Gov't Code § 551.002, §
551.021, § 551.022, 551.041, § 551.043, and/or § 551.102." Hays
County v. Hays County Water Planning P'ship, 69 S.W.3d 253
(Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.).
“First, the City Council voted to table the approval of

Weatherford's second rezoning application before it went into
closed session and then simply voted again to table the application
after the closed session. Further, the action taken by the City
Council before and after the closed session was essentially the
action Weatherford requested; namely, that the Council not
consider his second rezoning application. Finally, even if opinions
were expressed by the Council members in the closed session, such
expression is not prohibited, as long as the final decision or vote
was made in an open session. Weatherford v. City of San Marcos,
157 S.W.3d 473, 483 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. denied).
If a notice specifically discloses the subject to be considered,

TOMA's requirements are met and the governmental body can take
final action, decide, or vote on a matter. City of San Angelo v. Tex.
Nat'l Resource Conservation Comm'n, 92 S.W.3d 624, 629
(Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.).
“Our citizens are entitled to more than a result. They are entitled
not only to know what government decides but to observe how and
why every decision is reached." Ramos, at 470. (quoting Acker v.
Tex. Water Comm'n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990).
As a reminder to the Court, Petitioner highlights C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own
policy related to notice posted on its own website and is as follows:

Page 26 of 57

Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enters., Inc., 706
S.W.2d at 959; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops.
M-494 (1969), H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See
C-FB ISD Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal).

by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. No. JC-169
(2000).” Id.

reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. No. GA-
668(2008).” Id.
7. Enforcement of TOMA
Texas Government Code § 551.142(a) provides, “An interested person, including a
member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or
reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.”
Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.142 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). Additionally, Texas
Government Code § 551.142(b) provides, “The court may assess costs of litigation and
reasonable attorney fees incurred by a Petitioner or Respondent who substantially prevails in an
action under Subsection (a). § 551.142. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider
whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the governmental body
had a reasonable basis in law.” § 551.142.

Page 27 of 57

8. Consequences of TOMA Violation According to State Law
“Compliance with the Open Meetings Act is mandatory, and actions taken by a
governmental body in violation of the Act are subject to judicial invalidation.” City of Bells v.
Greater Texoma Util. Auth., 744 S.W.2d. 636, 640 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no writ). See
Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646.; Garcia v. City of Kingsville, 641 S.W.2d
339, 341 (Tex.App.---Corpus Christi 1982, no writ). The Court of Appeals in Dallas stated,
“Although the trial court, in its amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluded that
GTUA had substantially complied with the Act with respect to any meetings relevant to the bond
issues in question (including the meeting which authorized this suit), we need not decide whether
the trial court was correct because substantial compliance is not sufficient.” City of Bells, 744
S.W.2d. at 640. “Literal compliance is required under the Act.” Id.; See Smith County v.
Thorton, 726 S.W.2d 2, 2--3 (Tex.1986). The Dallas Court of Appeals preceded to instruct the
District court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the case—procedurally speaking the Petitioner
in the case was the party who violated the open meeting act and the Petitioner’s action were
invalidated. City of, 744 S.W.2d. at 640.
VIII. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested herein and clearly demands that right.
The Respondent had a clear legal duty to perform the act which is the subject of relief
herein, and the Respondent has refused to perform a ministerial act that the Respondent is
required to perform. There is no other adequate remedy at law available, whether through
appeal to the Board itself or otherwise, to rectify the improper action or omission complained of
Page 28 of 57

herein. In fact such appeals have been made to the Board itself by the public but such appeals
have been largely ignored.
1. The Texas Opens Meeting Act Applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
The TOMA applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees. The Texas Education Code §
11.1511(b)(5) which reads, “the board shall… adopt a policy to establish a district- and campus-
level planning and decision-making process as required under Section 11.2512.” § 11.1511. The
C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is the entity whereby its members are appointed by vote of the
people and given the authority to act on behalf of the school district to initiate policy, make
decisions, and direct and steer the school district into the future. Furthermore, the Texas
Government Code § 551.001(3)(E) indicates that a school board is a governmental body to
which the Texas Open Meetings Act (also referred to as “TOMA” or the “Act”) will apply.”
§551.001. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is a governmental body; therefore, the TOMA
applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees.
2. Alleged TOMA Violations at Certain C-FB ISD Board Meetings
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has violated the TOMA on several occasions. TOMA
requires meetings of governmental bodies to be publicly held when exercising governmental
authority where all discussions are open to the public subject to a few exceptions that allow
deliberations and discussions to take place in closed sessions. Regardless of whether a
particular item is discussed in an open or closed sessions--before the governmental authority can
take any action-- the “decided action” must be finalized and voted on in an open (public)

2
Texas Education Code § 11.251 provides a comprehensive definition of “Planning and Decision Making” as
applied to school districts.
Page 29 of 57

session. TOMA also requires advance notice for each meeting, and TOMA provides for civil and
criminal enforcement when a governmental body violates the Act. Implicit in the requirement
for advance notice is the requirement for clarity so that the public can identify what is being
discussed and what is being acted upon. The Board of Trustees may not discuss any item or
subject not listed on the Agenda in an open or closed meeting; except to say that such item
should be scheduled for discussion at a later time when it can properly be listed on the agenda.
A. Final Action Too Vague for Public Understanding
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA on June 25, 2009 when the board
passed a motion to take action which failed to designate which items on the agenda where being
voted on at that time thereby denying the public the ability to determine what agenda discussion
items resulted in a decided action. Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action,
decision, or vote on a matter deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be
made in an open meeting that is held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” §
551.102. A governmental body can only take steps to put into action a governmental decision
only after a “final action, decision, or vote” in open session is voted upon at a time when a
majority of the board is present—constituting a quorum and such item has been adequately
described in the Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); § 311.013(b); and § 551.041. This act
of taking “a final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this
Petition.
Page 30 of 57

held by the governmental body.” § 551.041 . The only way that the general public can monitor
violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; § 551.142.
consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc.. at 958.
Page 31 of 57

S.W.2d at 960.
In the case at bar, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, voted June 25, 2009, the board
reconvened from executive session James Goode stated in the form of a Motion as follows:
“I believe we have one other item based upon closed session, and
that is that I would like to make a motion that we approve all the
matters that we discussed in close session that we need to take
future action on.”
Nancy Watten seconded the Motion. Lynn Chaffin called the Motion and the Motion was
passed. Three items were discussed in closed session. There is no designation as to which
action or actions—one of the three, two of the three, or all of them—were actually designated as
items (quoting James Goode) that “that we [the board] need to take future action on.”
The public was not alerted to the topics up for consideration at the time the “final action”
vote was made. An agenda was posted but the board did not designate which items on the
Agenda were being considered for action. The Board gave less than full disclosure of its actions
because the public has no idea which agenda items discussed in closed session resulted in
decided actions. The public does not have knowledge of the inner workings of the C-FB ISD
Board Trustees. Because the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees identified items to be discussed in
closed session and we know that the board decided to take some action but the C-FB ISD Board
of Trustees failed to indicate which items, based on the agenda, it had decided to take action on
when pursing a its Motion after reconvening in public session, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
did not comply with TOMA which requires all final action that complies with the notice
Page 32 of 57

provisions of the TOMA—this is because the public cannot identify which agenda items were
approved for final.
Any closed session actions taken by the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, as approved at the
June 25, 2009 Board Meeting could and should be judicially invalidated. Texas law reads,
“Compliance with the Open Meetings Act is mandatory, and actions taken by a governmental
body in violation of the Act are subject to judicial invalidation.” City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d. at
640. See Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646; Garcia, 641 S.W.2d at 341.
Because the public cannot determine what actions were taken, the Petitioner cannot specifically
state what actions should be judicially invalidated. Petitioner will file a Motion to Tender
Documents for In Camera Inspection—included in that Motion is a request to view all minutes
corresponding to this closed session. After such time as the in camera review, the Petitioner can
supplement her petition to designate which items she requests judicial invalidation. For an
example of judicial invalidation see the decision by The Court of Appeals in Dallas which stated,
“…substantial compliance [with TOMA] is not sufficient” and because the Petitioner in that case
filed to comply with TOMA the court dismissed the petitioner’s case. City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d.
at 640.
B. Inadequate Agenda Notification of Discussion Held in Closed Session
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ Agenda for the board meeting held on August 13,
2009 violated the Notice requirement of the TOMA because the Agenda Item “C” stated
“Report from Attorney” but the agenda failed to designate which case this report pertained.
Once again, as Petitioner has stated before, the only way that the general public can monitor its
Page 33 of 57

governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions.
The Texas Government Code § 551.041 reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written notice
of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” §
551.041. That means a governmental body must give the public notice of the subjects that will
be discussed and considered in an open meeting or a closed session. Cox Enters., Inc., 706
S.W.2d at 958; Porth, 622 S.W.2d at 470. When the notice specifically discloses the subject to
be considered at the upcoming meeting, the statute's notice requirement is met. See Cox Enter.,
706 S.W.2d at 959.
more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch.
Dist, 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the
Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235
S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. After explaining that notice under the Act
"should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting", the court
held that describing agenda items as “litigation” when the suit was related to a desegregation
lawsuit and “personnel” when it pertained to the selection of a new superintendent, "did not
provide full and adequate notice, particularly because the subject slated for discussion was one of
special interest to the public." Cox Enters., Inc. at 959. No judicial decision or attorney general
opinion states that a governmental body must indicate in the notice whether a subject will be
discussed in open or closed session. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 6. However, if
the notices posted for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects
Page 34 of 57

for public deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from
this practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of the notice. Id.
consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Id. at 958. (quoting Lower
Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to state that general
notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though
the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not
substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is
intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and
the public should not be compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that
a public body has complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent
willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Id. at
960.
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own policy posted on its website is as follows:

Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enterprises, Inc. v.
Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986); Point Isabel
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops. M-494 (1969),
H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See C-FB ISD
Page 35 of 57

Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal).

by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-169 (2000).”
Id.

reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. GA-668
(2008).” Id.
The August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting and
Agenda Item “C” for the closed session only states “Report from Attorney”. There is no
designation as to which case, incident, or investigation on which the attorney is reporting. This
deviates from the school districts prior practices of at least designating the case or topic for
discussion when acting in close session. The law states that a deviation in notice can result in a
violation. The statement “Report from Attorney” deviates from the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
practice of at least designating the case or matter being discuss. There was no announcement by
the Board of Trustees to the public at any time giving further clarifying subject of the report from
its attorney3. To date, the public still does not have an understanding as to what was discussed
during this closed session; therefore, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ Agenda for the board
meeting held on August 13, 2009 violated the Notice requirement of the TOMA. The law states
that the TOMA is mandatory and to be construed in favor of open government.
Furthermore, Texas Law states that a school board cannot rely on the attorney client
privilege to discuss policy. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No JM-100. The Petitioner suspects that the C-

3
It should be noted that if the Board of Trustees had clarified the agenda in an open meeting—this would have
violated the TOMA by discussing something not on the Agenda.
Page 36 of 57

FB ISD Board of Trustees was discussing an investigation which the board has determined that
situation to be a policy issue but that the board intentionally disguised the purpose of the report
under the concealment of attorney client privileged. However, because the public cannot
determine the subject of the report the board; it is unclear whether there is a clear violation of
TOMA for lack of adequate notice or whether there is a clear violation of TOMA for lack of
adequate notice and an intentional act to disguise a report under the guise of attorney client
privilege to cover discussions that are related solely to policy. Worst case scenario is that the C-
FB ISD Board of Trustees is hiding something so egregious and damaging that the Board has
resorted to misinformation as a way to hide the truth from the public—this is something the
public would have a strong interest in knowing.
Because the public has not been adequately informed, it is suspected but not clearly
known at this time that the Board of Trustees was receiving a report from counsel regarding an
investigation ultimately announced to the public on November 12, 2009. However, there has
never been a public announcement, action, or agenda related to an investigation on August 13,
2009 or any other day, prior to November 12, 2009. The Board of Trustees has not taken action
to initiation any investigation and not taken any public action to hire an outside firm to conduct
the investigation. The public, at this time, does not know the person or persons hired to conduct
such investigation. Since there has been no action to start an investigation or hire counsel to
conduct an investigation, there is no proof that any investigation has actually been conducted. If
this investigation in any way relates the R.L Turner, then the subject of the investigation was
initiated to explore purported profound improprieties—the extent of which can be determined
Page 37 of 57

through, live testimony, discovery and any in camera reviews of certified closed session minutes
or recordings. Petitioner will shortly a Motion to Tender Documents for In Camera Inspection
After such time, as the in camera inspection Petitioner can supplement her petition to more
accurately address this issue. It stands to reason that if the board has improperly used the
attorney client privilege to disguise discussions of policy; Texas law states that the C-FB ISD
Board of Trustees has the burden to prove the attorney client privilege applies. A closer review
of all claims of attorney client privilege related to the agenda items discussed in this petition may
need to be reviewed by this Court to determine if such privilege truly applies.
C. Discussion of an Item Not on the Agenda
The C-FB ISD Board of Trustee violated the TOMA by holding discussion about an the
Fleming case when such item was not listed on the agenda. The Texas Government Code §
551.041 provides that “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place,
and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body” whether such item is to be
discussed in opened or closed session. §551,041; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958; Porth,
622 S.W.2d at 470..
As Petitioner has stated before, the only way that the general public can monitor its
governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed
sessions—this also applies to final actions taken by the Board . Courts have ruled that the more
important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the
agenda must be. See Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797
S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are
Page 38 of 57

mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d
at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957.
On August 27 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, the notice of meeting
and agenda items do not mention the discussion of the 95th District Court Case Number 09-
07085 styled Fleming v. C-FB ISD in closed or open session. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees
discussed the Fleming case in closed session. The Agenda for the closed session states as
follows: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real
Property- Action””. No supplemental agenda item was placed on the agenda such that this
information could be spoken about. In a subsequent Freedom of Information Request by Mr.
Mark Gommesen, Mr. Gommesen received documentation whereby board member Karin Webb
posed a question as to why such litigation was not on the agenda with a reply by Mr. Mark Hyatt.
Mr. Hyatt stated, “At this time there is no apparent action that is required. Any new information
related to the lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item.”
The November 12th, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting
and agenda item for the closed session states:
“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange,

Lease, or Value of Real Property – Action Exec. Summary -
Real Property Closed Session 11-1
B. Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include

Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham
vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD Exec. Summary -
Henslee Report Closed Session
”
There is no designation anywhere on the agenda that an investigation would be discussed either
in open session or in closed session. The investigation would not and is not related to
Page 39 of 57

Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD. Testimony from the school board can and
will prove this. In fact, Nancy Watten admitted to Mark Gommesen that the investigation was
related to a former principal from R.L. Turner named Lance Campbell.
Texas is law is very clear. Any item discussed in open or closed session must be listed
on the agenda. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA because the board discussed
the Fleming case on August 27, 2009 when such item was not on the agenda and the Board
discussed an investigation on November 12, 2009 when such item was on not the Agenda
because Texas law requires full disclosure of all items to be discussed at a Board Meeting—
whether in open or closed session.
D. Never Voted to Initiate an Investigation Through an Outside Firm and Never

Voted to Accept Investigation Report
The Board of Trustees has violated the TOMA by starting an investigation without
providing notice to the public and taking any “final action” to hire an outside firm to conduct the
investigation. Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action, decision, or vote on a
matter deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be made in an open meeting
that is held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” § 551.102. A
governmental body can only take steps to put into action a governmental decision only after a
“final action, decision, or vote” in open session is voted upon at a time when a majority of the
board is present—constituting a quorum and such item has been adequately described in the
Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); § 311.013(b); and § 551.041. This act of taking “a
final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this Petition.
Page 40 of 57

held by the governmental body.” § 551.041. The only way that the general public can monitor
violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; § 551.142.
consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc. at 958.
Page 41 of 57

S.W.2d at 960.
The Board of Trustees has not taken action to initiation any investigation and has not
taken any public action to hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. The public, at this
time, does not know the person or persons hired to conduct such investigation. Since there has
been no action to start an investigation or hire counsel to conduct an investigation, there is no
proof that any investigation has actually been conducted. If this investigation in any way relates
to irregularities at R.L. Turner, then the subject of the investigation was initiated to explore
purported profound improprieties. The C-FB ISD has violated TOMA by taking action without
a “final action” vote on open session.
E. Improper Closing of Open Session to go into Closed Session
The C-FBISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA when the presiding officer closed the
meeting and failed to publically identify the section or sections allowing them to close the
meeting. The Texas Government Code §551.101 states that if a closed session is allowed the
presiding officer must, “publically (a) announce[s] that a closed meeting will be held; and (b)
identifies the section or sections of this chapter under which the closed meeting is held.”
§551.101.
A careful and plain reading of the TOMA reveals that if a closed meeting is authorized
(i.e. an exception applies), the governing body must comply with the procedural steps
Page 42 of 57

enumerated in TOMA. Martinez, 879 S.W.2d at 56. On the other hand, if one of the
exceptions does not apply, then the closed meeting violates the Act regardless of whether the
governing body complied with the procedural steps. Id. The policy behind the TOMA is that
the public should be aware of which members of a governing body are present in a closed
meeting and whether a quorum exists.” Id. Additionally, the presiding officer must identify the
section or sections that authorize the closed session for the following reasons: 1) to cause the
governmental body to assess the applicability of the exceptions before deciding to close the
meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal position as relying upon the exceptions
specified; and 3) to inform those present of the exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to
object intelligently. Lone Star Greyhound Park, Inc, 863 S.W.2d at 747. However, when
judging the sufficiency of the presiding officer’s announcement in light of whether it effectuated
or hindered the purposes of §551.101, the Lone Star Court found that the presiding officer’s
reference to the content of a section, rather than to the section number, sufficiently identified the
exception. Id. at 747.
On August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, where are quorum of
board members were present and seated, the presiding officer asked for any comments from
board members. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they
would reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections
under which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s statement was,
“Um Item Number, Number 6, comments from board members

regarding posted agenda items. Board members? Hearing none
seeing none, item number 7 closed meeting as authorized under the
Texas Government Code including but not limited to, to uh,
Page 43 of 57

§551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property;
Information; 551.084 Investigation. We will now leave closed
session and go into or leave open session and go into closed
session for items a, b and c. We are adjourned from open session
at 11:32. You guys get to leave; lucky you.”
“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease,or

Value of Real Property
B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085,
Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent
Consultation With Attorney)
C. Report From Attorney”
The C-FBISD Board of Trustees’ Presiding Officer, Lynn Chaffin, says that the Board
will close the session relying on closed meeting “as authorized under the Texas Government
Code including but not limited to, to uh, §551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real
Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School
Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally
Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation.” This statement is confusing.
Furthermore, not all exceptions would apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD
Board of Trustees is making a blanket statement of exceptions without considering whether such
exception apply to the items being discussed. This is a violation of TOMA.
Page 44 of 57

At the August 27 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, where the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin asked for comments from board members, following that section of the
agenda, Chaffin stated,
“We will close the regular board meeting and we will go into
closed meeting as authorized by Texas Government Code to
Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real
Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices;
551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter
or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student
Information; 551.084 Investigation. So I will declare this regular
meeting to be closed at 10:06 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes
in closed session.”
“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real
Property- Action.” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exception the meeting was
allowing the board to close the meeting. Petitioner says this because not all exceptions would
apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is making a blanket
statement of exceptions without considering whether such exception apply to the items being
discussed. This is a violation of TOMA.
At the September 10, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated as follows:
“Okay in that case we are going to adjourn the open

meeting and go into closed session as authorized by the Texas
Government Code §551. Um, So I will adjourn this meeting at
8:57 and we will reconvene in 10 minutes.”
Page 45 of 57

“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease,or
Value of Real Property - Action
B. Hear Level III Grievance Appeal of Ms. Linda Price
C. Hear Level III Workers’ Compensation Grievance Appeal of
Ms. Linda Price
D. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085
,Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent
Consultation With Attorney)”
close the open meeting. This is a violation of TOMA.
At the September 24, 2009 Special Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated
“Um that said we will move on to our agenda item, our first
agenda item for tonight is a closed meeting to hear a third level
grievance, so we are going to have to ask you all to leave. We are
so sorry, but I am going to go ahead and close this open session
and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.”
“A. Hear Level III Grievance Under Board Policy FNG (LOCAL)”
close the session. This is a violation of TOMA.
At the October 8, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in
quorum, Ms. Chaffin stated,
“Agenda item 4 which will be closed meeting as authorized under

the Texas Government Code including but not limited to, §551.071
Page 46 of 57

.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074
Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School
Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint;
551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084
Investigation. So we will go, we will adjourn from open session at
9:06 and we will reconvene in closed session.”
“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or

B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085,
Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent
Consultation With Attorney)”
The C-FBISD Board of Trustees’ Presiding Officer, Lynn Chaffin, says that the Board
will close the session relying on closed meeting “as authorized under the Texas Government
Code including but not limited to §551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property;
551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District
Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student
Information; 551.084 Investigation.” This statement is confusing. Furthermore, not all
exceptions would apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is
making a blanket statement of exceptions without considering whether such exception apply to
the items being discussed. This is a violation of TOMA.
Reconvening from closed meeting, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin disclosed
that the board was in closed session for Real Property (or §551.072) by stating,
Page 47 of 57

“Alright, I will reconvene this meeting of the Carrollton Farmers
Branch ISD Board of Trustees in open session at 9:35 PM on
October the 8th. And Board members we've just been discussing
item 5, (pause) 4 a. all matters related to Real Property is there
anything, any action that needs to be taken at this time? Hearing
none seeing none. Board Members we are going to adjourn public
session at 9:36 and we will go back into closed session in 5
minutes."
The law does not allow for a disclosure of what was discussed in closed meeting to be sufficient
notification of what exceptions allow a closed meeting. Again this is to 1) to cause the
governmental body to assess the applicability of the exceptions before deciding to close the
meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal position as relying upon the exceptions
specified; and 3) to inform those present of the exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to
object intelligently. This does not clear up the prior violation of TOMA.
Also, Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were
provided for the meeting to be properly closed when she again closed the meeting. This is a
violation of TOMA.
At the November 12, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, the notice and agenda
read,
“Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral

FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD.” At the point where Lynn
Chaffin stated, “Item 3 Comments from Board Members …
Hearing none and seeing none, we are going to take a brief recess
and we will reconvene at 8:45 in closed session for agenda item
number 4 which is a closed session.”
Page 48 of 57

“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or
B. Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral
FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD”
The C-FBISD Board of Trustee sat in quorum and conducted a meeting. At no point did
Ms. Chaffin publically state the specific sections allowing the board to go into closed session.
This is a violation of TOMA
XI. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION
Unless CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, are immediately enjoined and restrained,
Respondents will act or discuss any items not listed on the Agenda, will discuss items on the
Agenda that are not adequately noticed, will not follow statutory procedures to open and close a
meeting, will act on things that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, and continue to
violate TOMA.
1. Elements for Injunctive Relief
In light of the above described facts, Petitioner seeks recovery from Respondent. The
nature of the lawsuit is to redress and stop continuus TOMA violations.
Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of this lawsuit because there is an
overwhelming amount of proof of Board member statements and action from videos of Board
Meetings and documents provided by Board members.
Unless this Honorable Court immediately restrains the Respondent, the Petitioner will
suffer immediate and irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law to give
Page 49 of 57

Petitioner complete, final and equal relief. More specifically, Petitioner will show the court the
following:
A. The harm to Petitioner is imminent because the Board continues to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money and the Board continues to violate
Open Meetings Act. The ultimate harm is that the public does know what its government
is going—this is the essence of a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
B. This imminent harm will cause Petitioner irreparable injury in that money will be
sent when such spending may and most likely is inappropriate because the Board has not
follow the law to take such action and such action can be voided—thereby wasting tax
payer money.
C. There is no adequate remedy at law which will give Petitioner complete, final and
equal relief because if the Board is not restrained then the Board will continue to act
without properly notifying the public of its actions. The People have the right to know
what is going on with its elected officials.
2. Bond
Petitioner is willing to post a reasonable temporary restraining order bond and request the
court to set such bond; however, the Petitioner has filed this suit under a Pauper’s Oath and does
not have the resources to post a bond. She is a concern citizen and retired school teacher.
1. Remedy
Petitioner have met Petitioner' burden by establishing each element which must be
present before injunctive relief can be granted by this court, therefore Petitioner are entitled to
Page 50 of 57

the requested temporary restraining order.
Petitioner request the court to restrain Respondent from violating the TOMA including:
acting or discussing any items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items
on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a
meeting, and from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions
from this day forward.
It is essential that the court immediately and temporarily restrain
CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any
items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are
not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not
acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward. It
is essential that the court act immediately, prior to giving notice to Respondent and a hearing on
the matter because it is not known which attorney might represent the board in this action and the
board will not to follow TOMA if it needs to send someone to Court to represent this action.
In order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this action, Petitioner request
that the Respondent be temporarily enjoined from acting or discussing any items not listed on the
Agenda, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any items not listed on any
Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed,
from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not acting on decisions that
were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward.
Page 51 of 57

On final trial on the merits, that the Court permanently enjoin
CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any
items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are
not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not
acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward.
XII. DECLARATIONS
There exists a genuine controversy between the parties herein that would be terminated
by the granting of declaratory judgment
A. Declaration that on June 25th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the
section or section numbers allowing a meeting to be properly closed under
TOMA.
B. Declaration that on June 25th 2009 the motion made by James Goode, “I believe we
have one other item based upon closed session, and that is that I would like to make a
motion that we approve all the matters that we discussed in close session that we need to
take future action on” is not sufficient notice of what items what final action was to be
taken.
C. Declaration that on August 13th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the
section or section numbers allowing a meeting to be properly closed under
TOMA.
D. Declaration that on August 13th 2009, that “Report from Attorney” as noticed on
the agenda for August 13th 2009 was not sufficient notice to meet the notification
Page 52 of 57

requirements of the TOMA.
E. Declaration that on August 27th 2009, the Board of Trustees intended to violate
the TOMA by not adding to the agenda the 95th District Court Case Number 09-
07085, when Mr. Mark Hyatt disclosed that “Any new information related to the
lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item” without
supplementing the agenda.
F. Declaration that on August 27th 2009, Lynn Chaffin, by declaring all permissible
sections did not specify what section or sections were allowing the Board to
properly close the meeting.
G. Declaration that on September 10th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the
section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby violating the notice
provisions of the TOMA.
H. Declaration that on September 24th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the
I. Declaration that on October 8th 2009, by declaring all permissible sections did not
specify what section or sections were allowing the Board to properly close the
meeting.
J. Declaration that on October 8th 2009, after reconvening from closed session, and
subsequently adjourning to go into closed session, Lynn Chaffin did not
publically cite the section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby
Page 53 of 57

violating the notice provisions of the TOMA.
K. Declaration that on November 12th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the
L. Declaration that on November 12th 2009, the agenda topic “Counsel Briefing From
Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding
Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD” was not sufficient notification that
the board would be discussing an investigation about a principal or a high school.
M. Declaration that the board has never taken action to initiate an investigation into a
principal or a high school.
N. Declaration that on November 12th 2009, that the public statement was not
acceptable action by the board to accept the final report of an investigation into a
principal or a high school.
XIII. ATTORNEY'S FEES
Pursuant to Section 37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, request is
made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by Petitioner herein,
including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just.
Additionally, Texas Government Code § 551.142(b) provides, “The court may assess
costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees incurred by a Petitioner or Respondent who
substantially prevails in an action under Subsection (a). In exercising its discretion, the court
shall consider whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the
Page 54 of 57

governmental body had a reasonable basis in law.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (Vernon
2004).
XIV. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court issue a
writ of mandamus commanding Respondent, to stop the Board from acting or discussing any
items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately
noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, from not acting on decisions
that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, from violating the TOMA from this day
forward, and for such other and further relief to which Petitioner may be entitled.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Shirley Demus Tarpley, Petitioner herein,
respectfully pray that:
A. CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton
Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, will be cited to appear and
answer herein;
B. A temporary restraining order will issue without notice to
CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and
LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch
Independent School District, Respondents, restraining Respondents, Respondents'
officers, agents, servants, employees, agents, servants, successors and assigns, and
attorneys from directly or indirectly acting or discussing any items not listed on the
Page 55 of 57

Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not
following procedure to open and close a meeting, from not acting on decisions that were
not properly voted open as “final actions”, and from violating the TOMA from this day
forward;
C. The Court sets a reasonable bond for the temporary restraining order with
the understanding that this case is filed under a Pauper’s Oath;
D. After notice and hearing, a temporary injunction will issue enjoining and
restraining CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton
Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, Respondents' officers, agents,
servants, employees, successors and assigns, and attorneys from directly or indirectly
acting or discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the
Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a
meeting, from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final
actions”, and from violating the TOMA from this day forward;
E. After trial on the merits, the Court permanently enjoin
CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and
LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch
Independent School District, Respondents, Respondents' officers, agents, servants,
employees, successors and assigns, and attorneys from directly or indirectly acting or
discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that
Page 56 of 57


TARPLEY Are 864. The Last Three Digits of The Social

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TARPLEY Are 864. The Last Three Digits of The Social

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TARPLEY are 864.

TARPLEY are 320.

C. Respondent CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

be served with process by serving on LYNN CHAFFIN, an Individual who is a resident of

Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery.

can be effected by personal delivery.

on FRANK SHOR, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in his capacity as Secretary of C-

effected by personal delivery.

on NANCY WATTEN, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as Assistant

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

described above can be effected by personal delivery.

above can be effected by personal delivery.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

C. Venue in DALLAS County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(3) of

attorney fees. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. (Vernon 2004).

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

Texas Government Code § 551.142(a) provides, “An interested person, including a

reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.”

County, 41 S.W.3d 174, 177-8 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. Denied).

An individual entitled to seek a writ of mandamus or injunction may also seek a

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

violate the TOMA through these actions.

VI. SUMMARY OF PEOPLE DISCUSSED IN THE FACTS AND THE FACTS

1. Summary of People Discussed in the Statement of Fact

Ms. Lynn Chaffin—President for C-FB ISD Board of Trustees.

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

Mr. Frank Shor—Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees

Ms. Nancy Watten—Assistant Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees

Mr. James Goode—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees

Ms. Karin Webb—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees

Mr. Richard Fleming—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees

Dr. Bobby Burns—Superintendent of C-FB ISD

Ms. Georgeanne Warnock-Principal of R.L. Turner High School, Carrollton TX

2. Statement of the Facts

that school district.

On June 25,, 2009 at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

On June 25, 2009, at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch

special election James Goode stated as follows:

“I believe we have one other item based upon closed

“Um Item Number, Number 6, comments from board members

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

The Agenda for the closed session states:

“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange,

of such report by an unidentified attorney .

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

discussed. However, in a subsequent Freedom of Information Request by Mr. Mark Gommesen,

agenda, Chaffin stated,

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated as follows:

“Okay in that case we are going to adjourn the open

close the open meeting.

quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated

close the session.

quorum, Ms. Chaffin stated,

“Agenda item 4 which will be closed meeting as authorized under

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY

meeting to be properly closed.

“Alright, I will reconvene this meeting of the Carrollton Farmers

for the meeting to be properly closed.

“Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY