May 11, 2003

Dear Mayor and Council

As you may know by now, District Judge Jeanne Meurer granted a temporary injunction against the Circle C Homeowners Association on Friday prohibiting the association from holding yet another illegal election for the board of directors. The Judge also prohibited interference with the rights of the members to inspect and copy the books and records, something which had become routine on the part of those who had heretofore claimed the authority to do so.

There is now a summary judgment motion set on the docket which seeks a declaration that two of the three board members have never been legitimately elected. Such a declaration would also include, if granted, that every contract and agreement entered into by the illegitimate ''board of directors'' on behalf of the CCHOA during its tenure is void and not binding upon the Association or any other party to any agreement so situated. That would of course include also the Annexation Services Agreement which allegedly requires the City to spend $2.3 million to extend Escarpment Blvd.

In her ruling, Judge Meurer specifically addressed the rights of CCHOA members to have access to such things as the e-mails which, according to Ken Rigsbee, numbered in ''the hundreds in support of the extension of Escarpment Blvd.'' to link up with State Highway 45 at the expense of the City of Austin. The records already at my disposal well illuminate the true nature of his prevarication.

Interesting word, prevarication. I looked it up:
Etymology: Latin praevaricatus, past participle of praevaricari to act in collusion, literally, to straddle, from prae- + varicare to straddle, from varus bowlegged
Date: circa 1631
: to deviate from the truth : EQUIVOCATE
synonym see LIE

I have already gotten advance word that some, if not all, of you are well aware of the disingenuous nature of Mr. Rigsbee's response to the Mayor's direct question posed to him about the legitimacy of the board during the March 20 council meeting. I assume that this question resulted from my previous declaration to you that this ''board'' did not represent the residents of Circle C, having been put in place to serve instead the interests of Gary Bradley and other developers. Mayor Garcia gave Mr. Rigsbee the opportunity to rebut my assertion. Incredibly, Mr. Rigsbee admitted that the CCHOA elections were ''all by acclamation'' and therefore not in conformity with the bylaws of the association. He then actually promised Mayor Garcia that he would be providing some documentation of his legitimacy and that of his friends on the board. If he has done so, this letter shall serve as my request, pursuant to the open records act, that I be provided copies of any and all such documentation. I also demand copies of all the e-mails received by the council regarding the Escarpment extension from March 6 to March 27, 2003.

I hereby demand (and fully expect) a formal response to this request within 10 days of this letter, as required by the open records act. I will readily admit that I do not expect to receive any such documents since I believe that the established CCHOA pattern of promising delivery and failing to do so will not be broken just because Mr. Rigsbee promised such delivery to the Mayor and City Countil while being recorded on the official Austin City Council record. I am certainly ready to be disabused of any such notion if it is proven to be wrong and look forward to receiving your prompt response regardless of its content.

Letter to City Council (part 2)

May 11, 2003

Either way, the hearing on the summary judgment motion will proceed on June 12 with the admission already being made by the ''board'' that the elections have not been in conformity with the bylaws. What this means to the city council is that a decision must be made now about the ongoing construction project to extend Escarpment Boulevard. Should the project be placed on hold or discontinued? If not, why not? There is no reason to spend millions of scarce dollars on a project that those is opposed by the majority of those whom it is alleged to be designed to serve.

As a result of resolute action by the homeowners of Circle C, the current, illegitimate CCHOA board of directors is on its way out. Carl Kernodle gave you actual petitions containing hundreds of actual signatures of Circle C residents during that same council meeting in which you acceded to the illegitimate demands of Mr. Rigsbee and the developers. Those signatures in opposition to the project are those of the residents of Circle C who came into contact with pollsters during the two weekends of spring break before the ''board members'' began their malicious campaign to discredit honest and legitimate efforts to determine whether or not the majority of residents here want the road extended. That effort will now continue without their interference.

In response to the fear of legal action expressed by the council and the City Manager during that unfortunate March 20 meeting I have already undertaken my own survey to determine whether or not the residents of Circle C have any desire to be deannexed from the City. Not surprisingly, I have not heard from a single person here who is in favor of such, much less is clamoring for it or filing suit. If it were so, suits would have already been filed.

The Annexation Services Agreement calls for both the extension of Escarpment as well as the construction of the fire station to have begun prior to March 31, 2003. Despite this all-important deadline, no work has begun on the fire station, although, according to the Council and its staff, without the fire station the road is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. According to the plans that I received from the Fire Department, it is also in the wrong place.

The reality of the situation is that the fire station is far from begun: it has not
even gone so far as to be become a set of architectural plans, much less has it been approved by staff. It will be months, if not years at this pace, before it is even put out for bid, and much longer before it is actually under construction. If you contest this, let me know and I will definitely bring the issue up for determination in the proper forum. I distinctly recall there being sufficient uncertainty about the issue during the March 6 council meeting that resolution by a judge may well be necessary.

During a time of scant resources any expenditure is subject to increased scrutiny. Those who have been denied funds they desperately need are apt to be especially critical of any perceived waste of money. It would seem prudent to at least address these issues before authorizing any further expenditures on a project which may not only be unnecessary, but actually opposed by those whom the council claims demand it.

I await your response and, until such time as I hear from you, remain,

Truly yours,

Bill Gammon