Citizens Beware
BEWARE! You may be denied your legal right to speak should John Kirkland decide he doesn’t like you or doesn’t want your opinion voiced in public. John Kirkland clearly abused his power in public at the April 22 Council meeting.
I signed up to speak during the public comment section of the meeting. Watch the video for the false argument John Kirkland used to deny me my right to speak. Kirkland actually went so far as to claim that because the mayor’s seat is still vacant, my speaking would be illegal and violate the Texas Open Meetings Act. Kirkland used twisted and convoluted language and logic, falsely citing non-existent laws to make his case.
Kirkland’s information is false. Kirkland was wrong. Yet, I was not allowed to speak, denied my civil rights, and your right to the information I was about to present.
On April 8, I had asked the Council, prior to their granting a $600K incentive to a developer, to declare whether they had received any contributions from the developer. This was met with silence. Both John Kirkland and Kevin Plunkett took money, and a lot of it, from this developer or his relatives. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for a second reading last night.
Below are the comments I was going to make.
In the interest of transparency and Open Government and in accordance with Section 3.13 of the City Charter as well as Section 4.8(B) of the Rules and Procedures for the City Council, I am requesting that the following Items be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Items for individual discussion and Consideration.
Item 10D – On this item, I am not objecting to the merits of the project, only the lack of transparency. This elected Council, prior to approving a $600K incentive to a developer, was asked to declare whether any had accepted funds from the developer or any associated entities. Public documents show that both Mayor Pro-tem Kirkland and Councilmember Plunkett have received several thousand dollars from the developer and associated entities. Whether a recusal is in order or not, transparency should apply.
Item 10J – As you are amending a budget that was adopted through an open process and discussion, any amendments to the FY 2025 budgets should be outlined, discussed and acted upon in an open forum rather that from an accelerated Consent Agenda.
Lastly, as I can find no reference to any recission, the Mayor Pro-Tem is clearly violating Resolution No. R-2024-48 which states that Proclamations shall be read by the City Secretary and signed by the City Manager. Such violation could be construed as electioneering. Thank you.