No.

_________________________

GREG HATCH AND LAURA HATCH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff,

VS.
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS

Defendant.
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

Plaintiffs Greg Hatch and Laura Hatch (the Hatches) complain of Defendant City of

Plano, Texas, and for cause of action show:

I.

Overview

1. The Texas Legislature provides Texans a tradition of fair, democratic, open

government. Texas protects the democratic process through the Texas Open Meetings Act (Open

Meetings Act or the Act). Local government officials, like City Council members, must abide

by the Act or face civil penaltiesordinances may be declared voidand be prosecuted as

criminals who may serve up to 180 days in jail. Tex. Govt Code 551.143, .144 (penalties); id.

at 551.141 (ordinance voidable).

2. In other words, Texas places an extraordinarily high value upon basic democratic

government principles. Texas enshrines those principles in the Open Meetings Act. Through the

Act, Texas ensures that all citizens may know what the citizens government is doing and have an

opportunity to both observe deliberations and participate in democratic government.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1

 3. As the Texas Supreme Court held, 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. The explicit command of the statute is for openness at every stage of the

deliberations. Acker v. Texas Water Commn, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990) (citation

omitted).

4. Unfortunately, local officials at the City of Plano (the City) chose to reject those

principles by explicitly violating the Act. The City considered an ordinance of public importance

by holding secret deliberations in closed meetings where they made their decisions. Before

violating the Act, Plano City leaders openly expressed their intent to violate the Act. The City

then violated the Act.

5. After violating the Act, City leaders separately confirmed, in writing, that they had

violated the Act. City Manager Bruce Glasscock, for instance, repeatedly confirmed to third

parties that Council had already deliberated and decided upon the matter, that he was aware where

every single council member stood on the Ordinance. He discouraged lobbyists who supported

his position from even contacting their representatives, since the matter was already decided per

the Citys secret, prearranged plan.

6. As planned and pre-agreed, the ordinance passed.

7. As a result, citizens of Plano were deprived of opportunity to learn about or

participate in their government. Citizens nonetheless requested a dialogue about the matter of

public importance, but the City mocked its citizens and fought their efforts to involve citizens in

the Citys discussions. City documents later revealed that the City never wanted citizen input and

in fact avoided citizen input for fear of criticism.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2

 8. The matter had been decided beforehand in private, closed-door meetings. The

City left Plaintiffs with no alternative but to seek an order to void the ordinance and instead require

the City to comply with Texas civil and criminal law.

Background: the City Adopts a Controversial New Ordinance

9. In 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2014-12-7 (the Ordinance), Exh. E,

which established a new City bureaucracy for handling claims by citizens against one another and

imposed a host of regulations upon businesses and individuals based upon their views about human

sexuality.

10. The City, however, held its substantive deliberations about the Ordinance in private

meetings convened for that purpose, according to the City itself, before a public meeting was ever

announced. In fact, the City clarified that it would hold no public meeting at all unless the City

had already gathered the City Councils consensus. Exh. A, p. 2.1

11. After the Ordinance passed, transgender persons immediately complained that City

leaders had deliberately excluded them from private deliberations before the Ordinance was

passed. See, e.g., Planet Transgender, Hold EQTX accountable (video available at:

http://planettransgender.com/new-texas-gov-greg-abbott-is-gunning-for-trans-people-and-eqtx-

is-helping-him-aim). The transgender citizens stated that they had been discriminated against and

excluded. It appears from public documents that the City and its partners may well have

discriminated against them and excluded them. For instance, public documents reveal that City

leaders were informed that transgender citizens would likely oppose portions of the Ordinance,

and the City responded by again reminding those who raised the issue that they should refrain from

1
Unless otherwise noted, the documents are public documents and public records created by the
City of Plano itself.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3

mentioning the Ordinance publicly. Exh. A, p. 4-6 (The agenda and documents will be made

public on December 4th when the entire council agenda is posted on line [sic].). Regardless, it

appears all Plano citizens, including transgender citizens, were denied their rights to open

democratic government.

12. Other citizens believed that the Ordinances business regulations were unnecessary,

since Plano residents and businesses treat each other with kindness. See, e.g., Statement of Collin

County Republican Party Chairman George Flint (12/9/2014), available at

https://www.collincountygop.org/news/support-religious-liberty-in-plano/. Religious citizens

also objected, since the Ordinance appeared to criminalize their long-held beliefs about human

sexuality, and no City Council members had held any substantive debate or inquiry about the

Ordinance. See id. Most citizens, however, would only hear about the Ordinance after it passed,

since the City concealed its plan for the Ordinance and the City Councils substantive

deliberations. In short, the City violated the rights of all of its citizens to open democratic

government.

II.
Discovery Control Plan

13. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 190.3. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that its suit is not governed by the expedited-

actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff seeks non-monetary relief

as well.

III.
Claim for Relief

14. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Ordinance No. 2014-12-7 is void and that the City

violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. Texas law authorizes Plaintiffs to obtain declaratory relief

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4

under the Open Meetings Act. Tex. Govt Code 551.141, .142. Texas law also authorizes

Plaintiffs to seek declaratory relief (and attorneys fees) pursuant to Sections 37.004 and 37.009

of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

15. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration preventing the City from simply re-enacting

Ordinance No. 2014-12-7 or a comparable ordinance unless and until the City ameliorates its

illegal action, as required by Texas law.

16. Plaintiffs also seek court costs and attorneys fees to which they are entitled, under

both the Open Meetings Act and the Declaratory Judgments Act.

IV.
Parties

17. Plaintiffs Greg Hatch and Laura Hatch are longstanding residents of Plano, Texas,

and were residents of Plano at all relevant times, even though no residency is required for this

action. Tex. Govt Code 551.141 (any interested person may bring a claim).

18. Defendant City of Plano, Texas, is a municipal corporation located in Collin and

Denton Counties in the State of Texas. The City may be served with process through the City

Secretary, Lisa Henderson, at 1520 K Ave., Suite 300, Plano, Texas 75074.

V.
Jurisdiction and Venue

19. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit and is jurisdictionally competent to

render judgment in this matter. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Const. Art. 5 8 and

Tex. Govt Code 24.007. Moreover, the Act expressly waives any sovereign immunity for

violations of the Act. Tex. Govt Code 551.141; see generally Tex. Atty Gen. Open Meetings

Handbook (2016), p. 63 (citations and quotations omitted) (the Open Meetings Act expressly

waives sovereign immunity for violations of the Act.). Indeed, the Act has one primary purpose:

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5

to provide remedies, both civil and criminal, against governments and their officials when they

deny citizens open democratic government.

20. This Court likewise has jurisdiction because it has subject-matter jurisdiction over

the declaratory relief sought.

21. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.002.

The events and omissions giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in Collin County, Texas.

Defendant is a municipal corporation located primarily in Collin County with its principal office

in Collin County. Plaintiff is a resident of Collin County.

VI.
Factual Background

Background: Planos Municipal Legacy of Public Corruption and Unethical Conduct

22. Plano is stained by a sad legacy of public corruption among its City officials. Two

of its recent mayors became incarcerated in federal prison after defrauding taxpayers and citizens.

See generally United States v. Harvard, 103 F.3d 412, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1997) (Harvard, a former

Plano mayor, was another mayors co-defendant; he agreed to testify against the other mayor

regarding their criminal conspiracy to defraud taxpayers out of millions of dollars). Federal

authorities prosecuted and then incarcerated Planos mayors for stealing tens of millions of dollars

from Texas taxpayers.

23. Unfortunately, City leadership today continues that legacy. In a symbolic example,

Glasscock and council members decided in recent years2 to recreate and name a City monument

to honor of one of Planos incarcerated former politicians. McCall Plaza Celebrates Remodeled

2
Council members Harry LaRosilire, David Downs, Lissa Smith, Ben Harris, and others.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6

Reopening in April, Plano Profile, available at https://planoprofile.com/2016/02/12/mccall-plaza-

celebrates-remodeled-reopening-in-april/.

24. City officials chose to honor a politician and criminal rather than honor Planos

policemen, firemen, and military veteransall of whom literally put their lives at risk for citizens

every day. Instead of honoring them, LaRosiliere led a ceremony honoring a former politician and

naming a city space after an inmate who stole millions of dollars from taxpayers.

Planos Continuing Legacy of Troubled Leadership

25. Like Planos troubled former mayors, LaRosiliere has a history of ethical and legal

troubles: both state authorities and his own employer have taken serious legal action against him.

To begin with, LaRosiliere has been sanctioned by the Texas Securities Board as a stockbroker for

unethical conduct. Exh. E, p. 33-35.

26. Specifically, LaRosiliere hid his bankruptcy from a financial institution while

seeking employment and later gaining access to the private financial information of financial

institutions clients. Exh. C, p. 33-34.

27. After it was finally revealed, LaRosiliere eventually agreed to be reprimanded by

the Texas Securities Board for hiding information he knew he was required to disclose. Id.

28. LaRosiliere then worked for Prudential Securities, but LaRosilieres employment

there ended abruptly. Prudential sued LaRosiliere and sought emergency relief against himfor

both lying and stealing. Specifically, Prudential sued LaRosiliere for stealing trade secrets,

stealing confidential information, breach of contracts, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious

interference, and theft. Prudential Securities v. LaRosiliere, No. 9609220A (Dallas County).

LaRosiliere never even filed a public response, despite extensive pleadings by Prudential

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7

Securities detailing how he apparently stole confidential information, trade secrets, client, and

property. Exh. C (Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and Memorandum).

29. Under LaRosilieres leadership, the City of Plano has rejected all recent citizen

petitions for referenda. That has already led to ongoing litigation by citizens who allege that the

City again, after the facts discussed in this Petition, violated its promises and obligations to provide

democratic government. Carruth v. Plano, No. 380-00469-2016 (Collin County 2016), Pet., p. 2.

30. In the present case, LaRosiliere admitted there was no public debate by City

Council about the Ordinance. Instead, he responded to complaints by a State Representative that

the City had lied to its State Representatives about the existence of the Ordinance and had hidden

the Ordinance from the public: We discussed it within our executive [Session] because it was

within the purview of our, of our [sic]how we operate to talk about it in executive.3 Plano

City Council Meeting, Dec. 8, 2014 (opening by Mayor) (available at:

http://planotx.swagit.com/play/12082014-1248 in Item 3 (Part 2 of 2) at 2:28). Towards the end

of the meeting, LaRosiliere repeated this assertion, announcing once again that Council had

already discussed the Ordinance in executive session. To LaRosiliere, a secret discussion is

apparently as good as a public discussion. From his repeated trainings, however, LaRosiliere

should know that it is illegal to hide substantive discussions about the ordinance by holding them

3
It is illegal to hold such discussions, whether LaRosiliere, Glasscock, and the City Council did
so in executive session or whether they simply walked around and asked each council member.
The Act explicitly bans all such activities. Either way, it is illegal.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8

in executive session4, just as he knew that it is wrong to lie on a job application or steal from his

employerin fact, this is one of the few things that a council member may be incarcerated for.5

Plano City Council Circumvents and Ignores the Open Meetings Act

31. The Texas Legislature passed the Open Meetings Act in order to ensure

government decision-making is accessible to the public, so that the political process functions

fairly. Tex. Govt Code 551.001 et seq. Under the Act, government bodies must hold their

meetings open to the public, subject only to narrow exceptions, and provide public notice of the

time, place, and subject matter of meetings. Id.; see generally Tex. Atty Gen. Open Meetings

Handbook (2016).

32. The Act undergirds the democratic process: it ensures that the public is aware of

what its government does, by requiring government to conduct its substantive deliberations and

decisions in public. Because of that, citizens will be better informed and thus better voters.

33. The City, however, through the City Council, held secret deliberations to thwart the

public from ever learning City leaders positions and how they arrived there. The City Council

met in executive session, gathered a consensus (either there or elsewhere), decided upon an

ordinance, Ordinance No. 2014-12-7, and then later publicly ratified their already-agreed-upon

action. In private discussion, the City Council decided that it would roll out Ordinance No. 2014-

12-7 to the public at the last possible moment, in a sole meeting, where they would then pass the

Ordinance as they had already agreed. That violates both the Act and basic principles of

democratic government. It is more akin to Tammany Hall than Texas democratic government.

4
No Texas court (nor the Attorney General) has ever allowed such wide-ranging and illegal uses
of executive session.
5
If prosecuted, City officials would face potential fines and jail time, as well as potential removal
from office. Whether prosecuted or not, City officials also appear to have violated the Citys own
Code of Ethics, which is itself a potential cause for removal from office.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9

 City Officials, Including Glasscock and LaRosiliere, Plan Illegal Closed-Door Discussions

34. In fall 2014, Plano City Manager Glasscock, City Attorney Paige Mims, and City

Council convened two executive session meetings to determine the Plano City Councils political

willingness to pass the Ordinance and their consensus regarding any such Ordinance. Exh. A.

35. The City met in executive session specifically to determine how the City Council

would act upon an Ordinance. A City Council member, Lissa Smith, asked Glasscock if the City

would vote upon the ordinance in executive session, and Glasscock responded by stating that the

Council would determine how they would both discuss the substance and decide upon the

Ordinance in an executive session: This is a draft city ordinance. Well discuss it in Executive

Session and determine what direction council wants to move. If there is no support it will end

there. If council is willing to move it forward we plan on bringing it back for Public Hearing

and vote first meeting in December. Glasscock email to City Council member Lissa Smith,

Exh. A, p. 2 (emphasis added).6 As LaRosiliere later confirmed, that is how the City operates on

controversial ordinances.

36. Glasscock and LaRosiliere describe, in explicit terms, a meeting that is illegal and

even criminal. Yet Glasscock, LaRosiliere, and fellow council members confirm that is exactly

what transpired.7

After Illegal Deliberations, City Officials Repeatedly Confirm Their Illegal Actions

37. Mere minutes after the last closed-door meeting, Glasscock emailed the Ordinance

to an outside interest group for the first time to ask for their public support. Exh. A, p. 3.

6
After receiving this email, Smith apparently attended the meeting and participated in the illegal
discussion, which is a clear violation of both Texas civil and criminal law.
7
Even if they had had these discussions elsewhere, it would be equally illegal.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 10

 38. Glasscock asked the outside group (and others) to hide the Ordinance from the

public until the City absolutely had to disclose it, and he then began a systematic public relations

campaign to give an appearance of public support at the eventual public meeting, in hopes of

mitigating controversy. See, e.g., Exh. A, p. 4-6, 7; Exh. B, p. 8, 9, 11, 12. Glasscock urged an

outside group to collect letters in support of the sure-to-be-passed Ordinance so that its passage

would appear less controversial. Exh. A, p. 7; Exh. B, p. 9-10, 11. He asked key city employees

to do the same. Exh. B, p. 8. And the City began drafting talking points. Exh. B, p. 18. Before

any public deliberation, the City had implemented an extensive public relations strategy assuming

the Ordinance would pass and informing others it would.

39. Glasscock was also asked, point blank, which council members would support the

Ordinance. His response: in his review and discussions with council it appears all are

supportive. Exh. A, p. 4. Yet those discussions were, under the Act, required to take place in

public.

40. Likewise, Glasscock was asked whether there would only be one meeting, and what

the outcome would be. He informed the outside lobbying group there was no need to lobby

anyone: the City would pass the ordinance officially at a single meeting on Dec. 8. Exh. A, p.

4. It would hold no other meetings. Id. In other words, Glasscock confirmed that the City Council

had already agreed upon the Ordinance and would pass it on December 8 (when it passed) before

any public meeting was even announced.8 That is exactly what transpired.

41. Making things more explicit, Glasscock again advises exactly what would happen,

and what, in fact, had happened in the private meeting : Council at this time has indicated they

8
In fact, Glasscock was informing everyone to hide it from the public and simply leave it as a line-
item on the agenda, presumably in hopes the public would never notice.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 11

will only hold one public hearing on December 8th and plan to adopt the ordinance that night

. . . . Id.

City Council Likewise Confirms the Illegal Meetings and Illegal Consensus

42. Council member Ben Harris confidently announced to a State Representative that

Its gonna pass before any vote. Like others, he expressed confidence with good reason: he

knew the council had already agreed.

43. Indeed, days before the public meeting, another City Council member, Pat

Gallagher, likewise confirmed, in writing, that the City Council had already held discussions

about the ordinance and that all council members supported it. Exh. A, p. 13-14. According to

the City Council member, the Ordinance had passed: the City Council had already voted.9

44. A citizen wrote to her council member to ask about the Ordinance, sending him the

agenda, bolding and highlighting the proposed Ordinance and asking why it was necessary. He

responded: After discussion, the vote was 8-0. Exh. A, p. 13-14. Yet the City held its only

public meeting, where voting is legal, and where all council members announced support for the

ordinance, two days afterwards.

9
Under the Act, it is illegal to hold substantive or deliberative discussion about the ordinance
itself, as Glasscock and Mims orchestrated, in a closed meeting. It is also illegal for the City to
consult each council member for his or her position, or for the council members to comply with
such inquiries. Texas law refers to that as a walking quorum, and since it circumvents the entire
Act, the Act prohibits exactly what Glasscock describes. See generally Open Meetings Act
Handbook, Texas Attorney General (2016), p. 21 (including citations). No vote is even required
for a violation, although under the Act, a vote upon in an executive session, as the City Council
member described, is blatantly illegalit is criminal. Tex. Govt Code 551.144. It appears that
Glasscock and Mims facilitated the City Council in conducting illegal and criminal activities.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 12

 As Agreed Upon, the City Passes the Ordinance

45. The City, following its plan, held a single public meeting on Dec. 8 and

unsurprisingly, the City passed the ordinance that the City Council had already agreed upon. No

council member objected to the ordinance.

46. In fact, during much of the meeting, City speakers and the city council literally read

straight from the Citys pre-drafted talking points. (The talking points, of course, defended the

Ordinance and assumed the Ordinance had passed, despite no prior public deliberation.)

47. At the meeting, Texas Representative Matt Shaheen informed the public that City

officials and council members had met with him days before the meeting, in person, and lied to

his face. He had asked what, if any, ordinances or actions were forthcoming that might be

important to the public, yet City leadersknowing the Ordinance was planned, would pass, and

that a public relations campaign was underwaydenied that there were any upcoming matters of

public interest at all.10

48. Afterwards, council member Harris attempted to explain to the public why the

public was so uninformed: when we have these big issues we dont always we dont always

share the same information (or discussion) that council members had in private meetings.11 Plano

10
Fortunately for City leaders, dishonesty itself is not criminal.
11
Harris refers to legal perspective, however, Texas law explicitly prohibits governments from
convening executive session meetings to hold substantive deliberations. Under Texas law, city
officials, such as City Council, must refuse to attend meetings convened for that purpose or risk
violating Texas civil and criminal law. Tex. Govt Code 551.071 (banning attorneys and
governmental bodies from convening consulting with an attorney except for litigation or where an
attorney is ethically required to give legal advice). Moreover, government officials are banned
from even participating in a closed meeting called for an illegal purpose under penalty of criminal
law.
No Texas court (or the Attorney General) has ever permitted closed sessions for substantive
policy deliberation, even when an attorney is in the room; doing so would render the Act dead
letter and negate the Legislatures clear commands.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 13

City Council Meeting, Dec. 8, 2014 (opening by Mayor) (available at:

http://planotx.swagit.com/play/12082014-1248 in Item 3 (Part 2 of 2) at 9:02) (This is something

that came up in executive session . . . .).12

49. LaRosiliere likewise confirmed that the City had already deliberated in executive

session: We discussed it within our Executive [Session] because it was within the purview of

our, of our [sic]how we operate to talk about it in Executive. Plano City Council Meeting,

Dec. 8, 2014 (opening by Mayor) (available at: http://planotx.swagit.com/play/12082014-1248 in

Item 3 (Part 2 of 2) at 2:28).13

50. At the meeting, two council members noticed the hundreds of citizens and business

owners present, andfacing an imminent electionthey question whether Council should hold

consideration of the Ordinance over until after Christmas. But LaRosiliere fervently objected14,

and, circumventing parliamentary proceduretalking over a fellow council memberhe

Furthermore, the Act also bans governmental officials from meeting in numbers fewer than
a quorum (i.e., in anything other than an official meeting) to hold secret deliberations.
Governments and their officials are banned in numerous ways from holding exactly the type of
deliberations that City officials planned and then engaged in, under penalty of both civil and
criminal law.
12
The City Attorney explained that the City Attorney would reach out to citizens such as religious
business owners and then decide whether those business owners deserved a religious exemption.
It is unsurprising that the City Council anticipatedand deliberately sought to avoidnegative
reactions from both religious communities and small businesses.
13
Compare LaRosiliere statement at 2:10 (we operate in the light of day) with LaRosiliere
statement at 2:28 (We discussed it within our executive [session]), Exh. A (emails detailing
efforts by LaRosiliere and Glasscock to deliberately conceal information about the Ordinance from
the public and hold deliberations in secret meetings). LaRosiliere then reminded residents that the
City provided a public forum even though he believed it was unnecessary.
14
LaRosiliere later called out Council Member Ben Harris for even considering reneging on his
prior (illegal) agreement to pass the Ordinance that night. Harris initially proposed holding over
the final vote for one meeting, in light of many distraught citizens present, rather than immediately
passing the Ordinance as Harris had apparently already agreed to do. Seeing LaRosilieres
displeasure, however, Harris backed off. For the idea, though, LaRosiliere called him a p***y
(Ben that is). Exh. D, p. 8.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 14

proceeded with a speech to the council about how the City Council was already behind the newly-

announced Ordinance and how the City Council had discussed it already. LaRosiliere then urged

the councils immediate agreement once again, frustration in his tone, pleading: Council, weve

talked about this in executive.15 Plano City Council Meeting, Dec. 8, 2014 (available at:

http://planotx.swagit.com/play/12082014-1248 Item 3 (Part 2 of 2) at 20:55).

51. The City Council, including LaRosiliere, Harris, and Downs, made good on their

prior illegal consensus: they passed the Ordinance they had already privately agreed upon.

LaRosiliere and City Officials Thwart Productive Dialogue

52. As a result, most citizens only learned about the Ordinance afterwards. Citizens on

all sides of the substantive issues complained that they had been excluded from even knowing

about, let alone participating in, their government.

53. The City clearly violated the Open Meetings Act in order to avoid citizen input or

feedback about the Ordinance.

54. Plaintiffs Greg and Laura Hatch were, like many residents, stunned by the Citys

sudden actions without consideration or even a substantive discussion of the impact it might have

upon citizens and small businesses. The City never even addressed the need for the Ordinance in

a City where neighbors respect one another and treat each other kindly.16 The City considered the

action for months internally, but the Hatches, like virtually all Plano citizens, heard nothing of the

Ordinance until the day of the public vote. And at the meeting, they, like hundreds of other

15
In a separate email, LaRosiliere admits a third time: This is no different than how we have
operated in the past on ordinances. Exh. A, p. 11. According to LaRosiliere, the City routinely
conductsat least on important mattersillegal meetings.
16
From City documents, it appears that LaRosiliere and Glasscock may have promised (aided by
Downs, Harris, and others) that the City would pass such an ordinance as a political statement,
leaving them little alternativeexcept to ram it through.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 15

citizens, were further disappointed as they realized that the City appeared to have made the

decision long before any public announcement.

55. Transgender citizens complained that the City should take the ordinance in a

different direction. Like the Hatches, those citizens had every right to a fair, democratic, and open

government where they could participate on an equal basis. The City denied all of its citizens their

rights to open democratic government.

Plano City Leaders Then Insult Planos Citizens

56. Blindsided by an Ordinance the City had already internally deliberated upon,

citizens and small businesses (in particular) were dismayed; many citizens, business owners, and

religious leaders attended the Citys only public meeting.

57. Rather than have a substantive dialogue, City leaders had excluded transgender

persons, religious persons, and everyday citizens from their discussion, lied to state officials, read

from their pre-approved talking points, and instead encouraged and engaged in rancorous and

divisive off-color commentary about citizens and fellow council members alike. Indeed, the

meeting closed with LaRosiliere shouting at and mocking a Plano voter.

58. For example, Florence Shapiro, LaRosilieres apparent mentor, encouraged

LaRosiliere by describing Plano citizens as B***ts! who needed to be called such. Exh. D, p.

5.17 LaRosiliere affirmed her, and then responded by asking for Shapiros political insights about

running for (presumably higher) office. Id.

59. In other messages, the City asked the Chamber of Commerce (currently led by

Alfonso Al Valente, who oversees Jamee Jolly) for its input. Exh. B, p. 5. In response, Jolly

17
The City of Plano verified the author and recipient of these communications whenever it is
unclear from the page itself, including Shapiros communications in particular.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 16

raved about the Chambers progressive positions. Exh. B, p. 2. Jolly later informed the City

Council that citizens with Bibles make us look so backwards. Exh. B, p. 7.

60. More than two years later, neither Jolly nor Valente have publicly recanted or even

apologized for these off-color remarks by the Chamber about Planos citizens and small business

owners.

61. LaRosiliere and City leaders stifled public debate and discussion, sought to avoid

it, and afterwards, LaRosiliere labeled Plano citizensthe people whom he servesan

embarrass[ment], proclaiming that Plano citizens and voters are downright hateful and nasty[.]

Exh. D, p. 10.

LaRosiliere, Downs, Harris, and City Officials Encourage Attacks on Planos Businesses

62. City leaders made these comments and more like them, which, in turn, encouraged

ardent attacks from out-of-town activists on Planos small businesses, many of whom opposed the

ordinance. Some small businesses in Plano had their businesses websites defaced, their

businesses assaulted by out-of-town activists, and their employees (who have widely varying

views) verbally assaulted with all forms of vulgarity.

63. The Hatches, by contrast, believe that Plano is a friendly, neighborhood

community where residents treat one another kindly. The Hatches treat others with

kindness, and are disappointed at divisiveness and attacks encouraged against citizens of any

belief: religious, sexual, political, or otherwise. The Hatches believe that all citizens deserve

to be heard by their government and have a right to participate in their government. The

City denied those rights to citizens of all backgrounds. Texas law gives all citizens of Plano

an opportunity to observe their government in action.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 17

 64. This is true regardless of what one thinks about the Ordinance itself; transgender

citizens lost their rights no less than religious and non-religious ones. Whats more, LaRosiliere,

Harris, Downs, and city officials brought never-before-seen divisiveness and attacks upon Plano.

Left with no alternative, the Hatches seek relief. Planos leaders canand are legally required

todo better.

VII.
First Cause of Action
Violation of Texas Open Meetings Act

65. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though they are fully

set forth herein.

66. The City violated Texas Open Meetings Act. The Act requires that local

governments convene public meetings and hold substantive deliberations within the context of a

public meeting.

67. The City illegally convened executive session meetings for an illegal purpose: to

hold substantive deliberation about the Ordinance. That is a violation of the Act.

68. Then, the City held executive session meetings and carried out their illegal purpose:

holding substantive deliberations and discussions about the Ordinance. In executive session

meetings, City leaders surveyed City Council members for their substantive views and

deliberations about the Ordinance.

69. Furthermore, the City held an illegal vote/referendum upon the Ordinance in

executive session, in violation of the Actas a City Council member who attended the meeting

confirmed in writing.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 18

 VIII.
Second Cause of Action
Violation of Texas Open Meetings Act

70. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though they are fully

set forth herein.

71. The City (particularly Glasscock) violated the Act by surveying council members

for their policy position upon the Ordinance, establishing a walking quorum on the Ordinance.

For example, Glasscock repeatedly stated to Council in writing his intent to do so and then

afterwards, he confirmed that he had gathered a consensus (or walking quorum) in violation of

the Open Meetings Act.

72. Glasscock then relied upon his walking quorum repeatedly, initiating an

extensive public relations campaign, reaching out to City employees and third-party organizations.

He even advised an outside interest group that they should refrain from lobbyingbecause he

knew where the council stood.

73. However, the City (especially Glasscock and LaRosiliere) and its leadership are

legally banned from collecting or creating a walking quorum of council members on a public

ordinance under penalty of both Texas civil and criminal law.

IX.
Third Cause of Action
Violation of Texas Open Meetings Act: Failure to Create Legally Compliant Certified
Agenda

74. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though they are fully

set forth herein.

75. Texas law requires the City to maintain either a video recording of its executive

session meetings, or a Certified Agenda including details of any closed-session meeting. Tex.

Govt Code 551.103, 551.145.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 19

 76. The Texas Legislature requires cities to maintain detailed and accurate records so

that Courts, such as this one, may determine whether a government may prove that it complied

with the Open Meetings Act. Tex. Govt Code 551.145. Cities may maintain a video recording

or a detailed transcription of what transpired in a meeting.

77. Upon information and belief, the City failed to maintain an adequate Certified

Agenda under Texas law for the Court to determine the Citys actions and deliberations.

78. The City records public meetings, and even broadcasts on television meetings of

the City Council, various commissions, and a host of other city information and announcements.

The City has cameras and recorders in abundanceindeed, within the same area however, the

City created no video or audio recording of these illicit meetings.

79. Furthermore, the City convened executive session meetings knowing that

insufficient records would be kept. To date, the City lacks legally required detailed agenda records

that it can provide this Court for the Court to establish that the City met its burden of complying

with Texas civil and criminal law.

80. As a result, the City violated the Act, and its action is voidable in violation of Texas

law.

X.
Fourth Cause of Action
Violation of Texas Open Meetings Act: Failure to Post Adequate Notice of Consideration of
an Ordinance

81. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though they are fully

set forth herein.

82. According to City documents, the City convened two executive session meetings

on Nov. 10 and Nov. 24, 2014, to discuss and decide upon a new Ordinance. By that time, City

leaders had already prepared a new draft Ordinance and the purpose of that meeting was to present

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 20

it to the City Council. Exh. A. City documents show it was circulated for purposes of discussion

in those meetings, particularly the second one.

83. The City has publicly hailed its new Ordinance as a new Ordinance since then. The

City, however, provided public notices of its meetings which refer only to an ordinance already on

the books, and legal discussions about that ordinance. Instead, the Cityillegallydiscussed a

new Ordinance that has completely replaced the old one, rather than seeking legal counsel about

an old ordinance with different structure, scope, and substance.

84. In fact, these postings were deliberately dishonest: the City sought to avoid public

notice or inquiry about the new Ordinance, as Glasscock emphasized repeatedly in

correspondence. The City gave no public notice of any new Ordinance or different ordinance at

all until the public agenda for the only public vote was required by law. In fact, LaRosiliere even

announced publicly that that is simply how the City conducts public businesseven though it is

in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

85. The Citys two closed-session meetings about the new Ordinance are therefore void

as well as the new Ordinance, which was, by the Citys own admission, the fruit, purpose, and

substance of those two meetings.

XI.
Jury Trial

86. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury and tender the appropriate

fees with this Petition.

XII.
Conditions Precedent

87. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 21

 88. The four-year statute of limitations applies to a civil action under the Act. Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 16.051; Tex. Atty Gen. Open Meetings Handbook (2016), p. 63

(including citations).

XIII.
Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request and pray that the Court grant the following

relief:

1. A declaration that the conduct and actions of the City as described herein violate

the Hatches rights, the rights of Planos citizens, and Texas law.

2. A declaration that Ordinance No. 2014-12-7 is void.

3. Court costs.

4. An award of attorneys fees.

5. Any other and further relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

Conclusion

89. By its own admission, the City convened its City Council to decide upon important

matters of public interest in illegal closed-door meetings. These actions were not just illegal, but

likely criminal. City Manager Glasscock informed the City Council of his plan to do so, in writing,

and then confirmed afterwards, in writing, that he had successfully thwarted the Open Meetings

Act. The City concealed all deliberations and considerations from the public, and even concealed

it on their prior meeting agendas. LaRosiliere admitted that Council, weve talked about this in

executive [session]. Other council members likewise confirmed the illegal meetings and illegal

consensus. One even discussed the Citys prior vote and announced that the Ordinance had

already passed.

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 22

 90. The City of Plano and its officials violated the law they even openly flouted it.

Then they mocked the citizens and voters.

91. Afterwards, the City spent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of

taxpayer dollars to thwart citizens from ever even learning what the City had done. (The City

likely spent far more than the public is aware of.) To date, it is unclear exactly how many thousands

of taxpayer dollars the City has spent covering up the criminal actions of its City Council.

92. The Hatches now approach the Court with a heavy heart, sad about their City

government and the impact of LaRosiliere, Downs, Glasscock, Mims, and the City itself on their

kind neighborhood community. The City denied basic rights to democratic government to Planos

citizens. Planos taxpayers and citizens deserved better, and Plano can do better. The

Hatches respectfully ask this Court to remedy the Citys illegal actions.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Cleve W. Doty

CLEVE W. DOTY
Texas Bar No. 24069627
701 Legacy Dr. #1621
Plano, Texas 75023
Telephone: 817.933.8521
Email: cleve@clevedoty.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

GREG AND LAURA HATCH ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 23