Blog

Closeup image of chalkboard with text DO WHAT IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT IS EASY and compass.

<h3>Why the KISD Board Must Waive Privilege: Transparency Is a Fiduciary Duty, Not a Liability</h3>By Andrew D. Sternke, J.D. Executive Director, Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF) In recent months, the Keller ISD Board of Trustees has been involved in controversy over alleged secret discussions and legal expenditures tied to plans to split the district. As community members, parents, and taxpayers demand answers, some trustees have argued that attorney-client privilege and fiduciary responsibilities prevent the release of legal documents and invoices related to these discussions.Let me be clear: that argument is legally inaccurate and ethically troubling. The Board has the legal authority to waive privilege in this matter and has a moral and fiduciary obligation to do so. What Is Legal Privilege And Who Really Owns It?In Texas, attorney-client privilege is governed by Texas Rule of Evidence 503. This rule protects confidential communications between clients and their legal counsel to facilitate legal advice.However, in the context of public entities like Keller ISD, the "client" is not an individual trustee. The Board holds the legal privilege as a collective governmental body, as clarified by Open Records Decision No. ORD‑676 (2002) from the Texas Attorney General. No single board member has the power to assert or waive privilege on their own. Only the Board, through a formal vote, can decide to waive privilege.Additionally, Texas Rule of Evidence 511 clarifies that privilege can be voluntarily waived, either explicitly (by vote) or implicitly (through disclosure).In other words, trustees who claim they are individually bound by privilege are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the public. The Board, as the legal entity, holds the privilege and can waive it through a public vote, which is consistent with Texas law. Fiduciary Duty Requires Openness, Not ObstructionSome trustees have pointed to their fiduciary duty as a reason to maintain secrecy. However, that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what fiduciary duty means in public service.Under Texas law, trustees have a duty of loyalty, care, and obedience to the law and the public. They do not serve their own interests, political alliances, or outside legal strategies. They serve the taxpayers and students of Keller ISD.When legal services are paid for with public dollars, especially concerning controversial topics like district secession, fiduciary duty demands oversight, not opacity. Voters have the right to know:<ul><li>What legal advice was sought and why?</li><li>Who authorized it?</li><li>How much of their tax money was spent?</li></ul>As the Texas Supreme Court affirmed in Paxton v. City of Dallas, 509 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. 2017), attorney-client privilege is especially important in government. Still, the environmental body retains full authority to waive it when appropriate. The Court emphasized that public entities must balance legal confidentiality with the principles of open government. The Path to Waive Privilege: Step-by-StepThe KISD Board of Trustees can waive attorney-client privilege fully within the bounds of Texas law. Here’s an example:1. Post the Item on the Meeting AgendaInclude a properly worded agenda item such as:“Discussion and possible action to waive attorney-client privilege and release all legal communications, memos, and invoices related to district split discussions occurring between May 2024 and the present.”2. Review Privileged Documents in Executive Session (Optional)Under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), the Board may review these materials confidentially before taking action.3. Vote in Open SessionThe waiver must be approved by a majority of the Board in a public vote. This action is lawful and aligns with Texas Government Code § 552.107(1), which allows, but does not require, exempting privileged materials from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.4. Direct Counsel to Disclose MaterialsThe Board may instruct its legal counsel to release specific communications, emails, invoices, or memoranda, particularly those tied to the use of public funds. According to Texas Government Code § 552.022(a)(16), attorney billing records are generally public unless a valid claim of privilege is actively maintained. The Law Encourages TransparencyThe Texas Attorney General’s Office has consistently upheld that the attorney-client privilege in government is discretionary, not mandatory. In ORD‑676 (2002), the AG concluded that a governmental body may voluntarily waive privilege to release otherwise exempt documents, supporting the principles of open government.The Texas Public Information Act reinforces that precedent, favoring transparency and limiting exceptions to disclosure. Privilege can be claimed, but just as importantly, it can be waived when the public interest demands it. The Public Interest Demands ActionThis isn’t about politics. It’s about public transparency and accountability. Keller ISD stakeholders deserve honest answers:<ul><li>Who initiated plans to split the district?</li><li>What advice did the Board receive?</li><li>How much taxpayer money was spent, without public approval or awareness?</li><li>Was the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) violated?</li></ul>If nothing improper occurred, transparency will clear the air. If there was misconduct, transparency is the first step toward accountability. Continuing to hide behind privilege only deepens public mistrust. Real Leadership Means Choosing the Public Over PoliticsThis is a defining moment for the KISD Board. Trustees must choose whether to protect the people or themselves.By voting to waive privilege and disclose these documents, the Board would demonstrate a commitment to honest governance, fiduciary integrity, and lawful transparency, the very principles they swore to uphold.The truth should never be treated as a liability in public education and public service. Disclaimer:The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding specific legal matters or rights, readers should consult with a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.

Why the KISD Board Must Waive Privilege: Transparency Is a Fiduciary Duty, Not a Liability

Handcuffs, gavel on book on a wooden background.

<h3>Keller ISD Trustees Must Be Held Criminally Accountable for Texas Open Meetings Act Violations</h3>By Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF) The public trust has been broken in Keller Independent School District, not by accident, but through several elected school board members' deliberate pattern of deception and secrecy. Based on the mounting evidence revealed in legal filings and investigative reporting, TPEDF is calling on the Tarrant County District Attorneys Office to criminally prosecute Keller ISD trustees Charles Randklev, John Birt, Heather Washington, and former Trustee Micah Young for their blatant violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). What Did They Do?According to a new lawsuit filed in Tarrant County on July 31, 2025, these trustees engaged in secret planning sessions as early as May 2024, months before any public acknowledgment, aiming to split Keller ISD into separate entities. Their actions included:- Holding private meetings outside of public view to strategize on the split.- Discussing official business via personal emails, secured message apps, and off-site meetings that were never posted or announced to the public.- Coordinating closed-door sessions involving financial consultants and legal advisors while falsely claiming that such discussions didn’t begin until December 19, 2024.- Making key decisions as a quorum, the legal threshold for board deliberations, without public notice, which is a criminal offense under TOMA.These actions didn’t just violate board policy; they are breaking the law. What Is the Texas Open Meetings Act?The Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) exists to protect democracy at the local level. It ensures that when government officials, including school board members, make decisions about our tax dollars, schools, and children, they do so transparently, with proper notice, and in open public meetings.TOMA prohibits trustees from meeting in private (or serially in small groups, aka a “walking quorum”) to discuss public matters that are supposed to be addressed in public. These laws are not optional. Violating TOMA is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas and can result in fines, removal from office, and jail time. Why It MattersRandklev, Birt, Washington, and Young's actions weren’t just procedural missteps; they were part of a calculated, covert effort to bypass public input on the most radical proposal in Keller ISD history: a complete district split.This wasn’t about improving education. It was about political maneuvering behind closed doors, using taxpayer money to push a hidden agenda. It’s reported that over $264,000 in taxpayer funds were funneled to legal and consulting firms, some wholly involved in crafting this secret plan.This kind of behavior is precisely what TOMA was written to prevent. The Case for Criminal ProsecutionTPEDF stands firm in our belief that civil accountability via lawsuits is not enough. If these trustees are not held criminally responsible for their actions, it sends a dangerous message: that elected officials can manipulate public power in the dark without consequence.We urge the Tarrant County District Attorneys Office to:- Open a criminal investigation into all four trustees involved in the secret planning and quorum-based discussions.- Pursue charges under Texas Government Code Chapter 551, which prohibits secret deliberations and imposes criminal penalties for violations.This will send a clear message that the people of Tarrant County and all Texans expect transparency, accountability, and lawful conduct from their elected leaders. Public Education Deserves BetterAt a time when public schools are under attack from political extremists, the last thing we need is rogue trustees behaving like backroom power brokers. Keller ISD students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers deserve leaders who work in the light of day, not in secret.The Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF) will continue to monitor this case closely and support all legal efforts to ensure justice is served for the community and the integrity of Texas public education. Join Us. Defend Public Education. Demand Accountability and Transparency.

Keller ISD Trustees Must Be Held Criminally Accountable for Texas Open Meetings Act Violations

Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEAugust 2, 2025Contact: press@tpedf.orgWebsite: <a href="http://www.tpedf.org" data-mce-href="http://www.tpedf.org">www.tpedf.org</a> <h3>TPEDF Denounces Defamation by The Dallas Express and Threat of Violence Against Volunteer Legal Director</h3>Colleyville, TX — The Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF) is publicly denouncing a defamatory article published by The Dallas Express on August 1, 2025. The article made demonstrably false and malicious claims about the organization and its volunteer senior legal director, Rachel Elizabeth Wall.The article falsely labeled TPEDF as a “radical-left PAC,” grossly mischaracterized its nonprofit legal advocacy work, and accused Ms. Wall of financial harm and harassment claims that are entirely without factual basis. This reckless publication constitutes a direct act of defamation that has now escalated into a matter of public endangerment.Since the article’s release, TPEDF has identified a violent social media threat directed at Ms. Wall, which references her by name and calls for her to be lynched. The comment, clearly incited by the article’s inflammatory language, is both chilling and unacceptable.“This is not just defamation, it’s character assassination that has put a member of our legal team in real danger,” said Andrew D. Sternke, Executive Director of TPEDF. “When media outlets publish lies and vilify public advocates to advance political agendas, they incite violence. That’s exactly what has happened here.”Rachel Wall is a licensed Texas attorney and respected legal advocate who has worked tirelessly to hold public institutions accountable through lawful and transparent means. For her to now face targeted threats of violence underscores the real-world consequences of weaponized disinformation.“We condemn this attack, and call it what it is, dangerous, defamatory, and malicious,” Sternke continued. “Those who believe they can silence us through lies or intimidation are mistaken. TPEDF will continue to stand firmly defending public education and democratic values.”TPEDF calls on responsible members of the press, elected leaders, and the broader public to condemn threats of violence and hold media outlets accountable when their publications spread disinformation and put lives at risk. About TPEDFThe Texas Public Education Defense Fund is a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) legal advocacy organization committed to defending public education, advancing equity, and holding public officials accountable under the law. To learn more, visit <a href="http://www.tpedf.org" data-mce-href="http://www.tpedf.org">www.tpedf.org</a>

TPEDF Denounces Defamation by The Dallas Express and Threat of Violence Against Volunteer Legal Director

Newsletter Blog News Website Update Announcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJuly 21, 2025Contact:Texas Public Education Defense Fundpress@tpedf.org | www.tpedf.org<figure id="figure-hmpksdrtjvmddkrkhy"><img id="hmpksdrtjvmddkrkhy" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/485852674/photo/equality-balance-discrimination-equal-moral-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=UVxmwPVLO2IEw6c5PzokPT9VNpjno3JU7SRTnQzafgg=" alt="Equality Balance Discrimination Equal Moral Concept" title="Equality Balance Discrimination Equal Moral Concept" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/485852674/photo/equality-balance-discrimination-equal-moral-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=UVxmwPVLO2IEw6c5PzokPT9VNpjno3JU7SRTnQzafgg=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>TPEDF Files Level One Grievance Against GCISD Over Budget Decisions Impacting Title I Campuses</h3>Colleyville, TX — On July 21, 2025, the Texas Public Education Defense Fund (TPEDF) submitted a formal Community Level One Grievance with Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District (GCISD), objecting to recent decisions made by the GCISD Board of Trustees during its June 16, 2025, budget adoption.The grievance challenges the District’s official position formally adopted with the budget, which includes: - Continuing to increase out-of-district student transfers, a policy that threatens the district’s eligibility for federal Title I funding allocated for economically disadvantaged students;- Eliminating vital intervention positions at Title I campuses that were previously funded through federal Title grants; and- Reassigning and altering the roles of Gifted and Talented (GT) Specialists exclusively at Title I campuses. These actions were taken despite a June 23, 2025, letter submitted to the GCISD Board signed by more than 140 concerned district families urging the Board to reverse the cuts to GT positions at Title I schools. The letter, representing a broad cross-section of the GCISD community, was effectively ignored. The Board proceeded without meaningful response or consideration of the community’s concerns, prompting this formal grievance filing.“These decisions disproportionately impact GCISD's most vulnerable student populations,” said Andrew Sternke, Executive Director of TPEDF. “It is unacceptable for the district to continue expanding policies that undermine support for economically disadvantaged children, all while stripping away targeted interventions and programs at the campuses that need them most.”TPEDF's grievance asserts that these budgetary actions demonstrate a troubling pattern of inequity and neglect, potentially violating the district's own equity policy and federal compliance policies. The organization urges GCISD to reconsider these harmful decisions and restore support to Title I campuses.If GCISD does not address these concerns through its grievance process, TPEDF is prepared to take further action, including formal complaints to the Texas Education Agency and U.S. Department of Education, and, if necessary, litigation. About TPEDF:The Texas Public Education Defense Fund is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization committed to defending public education, ensuring equitable funding, and holding school districts accountable to the communities they serve.

TPEDF Files Level One Grievance Against GCISD Over Budget Decisions Impacting Title I Campuses

<h3>Our Texas Families and Our Public Schools are at Risk</h3>When President Trump signed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” into law on July 4, Texas families and communities will immediately feel the consequences. While some lawmakers claim this legislation will “streamline” federal spending, the reality is that it guts vital support systems for millions of working families by slashing Medicaid funding, cutting SNAP food assistance, and rolling back Affordable Care Act protections.This is not just a health care or economic issue; it’s an education issue, too. And our schools, students, and communities will pay the price.<h3>Texas Already Leads the Nation in Uninsured Kids</h3>Texas already has the highest rate of uninsured children in the country, and nearly one in five Texas kids has no health insurance at all. For many working families, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are critical lifelines that help keep kids healthy and in the classroom.Under this new bill, millions of Americans stand to lose Medicaid coverage due to harsh cuts and strict work requirements. Here in Texas, that means thousands of children will arrive at school without access to basic medical care, vaccinations, or mental health support. Chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, and learning disabilities will go untreated, making it harder for students to attend school regularly, focus in class, and succeed.<h3>SNAP Cuts Hit Hungry Kids Hardest</h3>The “Big Beautiful Bill” doesn’t stop at health care; it also cuts funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In Texas, more than 3 million people rely on SNAP to put food on the table, including thousands of students who depend on school breakfast and lunch programs to meet their basic needs.When families lose SNAP benefits, schools see an immediate impact: more hungry students show up to class without having eaten, affecting concentration, behavior, and overall academic performance. Hunger doesn’t stop when the bell rings; it follows kids into every lesson, every test, and every opportunity they might otherwise have to succeed.<figure id="figure-ar6n17xmnmcqdsr8a"><img id="ar6n17xmnmcqdsr8a" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2161159016/photo/an-elementary-school-student-with-a-disaster-backpack-and-poor-health-sitting-on-the-stairs.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=lfhcjSdAHv4fMKw_GLF_Yg5-_b4PXXC1kfFlbE2pOkw=" alt="An elementary school student with a disaster backpack and poor health. Sitting on the stairs." title="An elementary school student with a disaster backpack and poor health. Sitting on the stairs." class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure><h3>Schools Depend on Medicaid and Nutrition Programs</h3>Many Texans don’t realize that public schools rely on Medicaid reimbursements and federal meal programs to provide essential services and nutrition. Schools use Medicaid funds to deliver speech therapy, mental health counseling, and special education support. SNAP works hand in hand with school meal programs to ensure that kids have the fuel they need to learn.When those funds disappear, schools are forced to make impossible choices—they must cover these costs themselves and provide services that help the students who need them most.<h3>The Ripple Effect on Texas Schools</h3>When students lack health insurance or don’t get enough to eat at home, they miss more school days and struggle to keep up in class. Teachers spend more time managing untreated health conditions than focusing on learning. Communities see higher dropout rates, a less prepared workforce, and a greater burden on local resources.For Texas, a state that already underfunds its public schools by thousands of dollars per student compared to the national average, these cuts pose another threat to our students and families. As our Executive Director, Andrew Sternke, reminds us:<blockquote>Empathy and caring for vulnerable students and families are nonpartisan issues, and this new bill will negatively impact our public schools and students’ academics.</blockquote><h3>Where We Stand</h3>At the Texas Public Education Defense Fund, we believe Texans must advocate for our kids and our schools. We must demand that our state and federal leaders protect Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential supports for the students and families who need them most. This is more than budgets and policy, it’s about who we are and what we value as a community.TPEDF remains committed to advocating, educating, and, when necessary, litigating to protect our public schools and the communities they serve. Together, we can ensure every Texas child has the chance to learn, grow, and thrive.

How the “Big Beautiful Bill” Puts Texas Families and Our Public Schools at Risk

Judgement gavel  American flag and policy text

<h2>When Transparency Is Treated as Optional: Why Jackson Walker LLP’s Withholding of Keller ISD Legal Invoices Undermines Texas Law</h2>By Andrew D. Sternke, J.D. Executive Director, Texas Public Education Defense Fund In Texas, the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are spent is not just a principle; it’s the law. The Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) and the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) were enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in government operations, particularly where public money and local decision-making intersect.Unfortunately, recent developments involving Jackson Walker LLP and attorney Tim Davis in their representation of Keller Independent School District (Keller ISD)&nbsp; Board of Trustees raise serious concerns about the erosion of these protections. Based on reports and Public Information Act requests submitted by community members, Jackson Walker LLP withholds key details of legal invoices paid for by Keller ISD taxpayers under the questionable blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege.As the Executive Director of the Texas Public Education Defense Fund, I believe this misuse of legal privilege and public resources warrants close scrutiny. If attorneys can shield entire invoices from disclosure simply by labeling them “confidential,” the very foundation of open government is at risk.Let’s examine the legal, ethical, and policy failures involved and respond to the justifications that will inevitably be offered. The Law Is Clear: Legal Billing Records Are PublicThe Texas Public Information Act is unambiguous. Section 552.022 (a) (3) of the Texas Government Code provides:&nbsp;“The following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure unless expressly confidential under other law:(3) information in an account, voucher, or contract relating to the receipt or expenditure of public funds by a governmental body.”This statutory mandate applies squarely to legal invoices, and it has been reinforced repeatedly by Texas courts and the Texas Attorney General.In City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000), the Texas Supreme Court held that while limited redactions may be appropriate, legal billing records, particularly the general descriptions of services rendered, hours worked, and amounts billed are public.Similarly, in Abbott v. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006), the court emphasized that only truly privileged information, such as legal advice or litigation strategy, can be withheld. The burden is on the governmental body to justify specific redactions, not withhold entire invoices.If Jackson Walker LLP and Keller ISD refuse to produce invoices in full or are broadly redacting routine billing entries without producing a privilege log or individualized justification, they are operating outside of what Texas law permits. Rebutting the Justifications for WithholdingAttorneys defending this practice may point to the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship or the sensitivity of legal strategy. These are important principles but they are not absolute, especially in the context of public governance.1. “The invoices are protected by attorney-client privilege.”Only specific communications that contain confidential legal advice are protected. Basic billing entries like “phone call with board member,” “reviewed policy,” or “drafted memo” are not privileged unless they reveal substantive legal opinions.The Texas Attorney General’s Open Records Decision ORD-676 (2002) affirms that descriptions of legal tasks must generally be disclosed. Courts and the Attorney General's Office consistently reject broad claims of privilege without a detailed explanation.2. “Disclosure would compromise litigation strategy.”This argument falls flat unless the invoice contains specific information about case strategy. Courts in Texas have ruled that factual descriptions of services are not exempt merely because they relate to ongoing litigation. This was made clear in National American Ins. Co. v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 925 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996).3. “Client confidentiality prevents disclosure.”The client in this case is a public school district board, funded by taxpayers and subject to statutory transparency requirements. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.05 (c) (8) explicitly allow disclosure when required by law. The TPIA is such a law. Confidentiality cannot be used to override statutory mandates.4. “The request is too broad or burdensome.”Even if broad, the TPIA provides a mechanism to seek clarification or charge for retrieval under Section 552.222. It does not permit outright refusal to disclose responsive records. The governmental body must, by law, make a good-faith effort to separate exempt from non-exempt information and produce what it lawfully can. Undermining the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Beyond the TPIA, this conduct raises additional concerns under the Texas Open Meetings Act. If the Keller ISD School Board is using legal services for internal governance actions such as silencing dissent, controlling board member behavior, or shaping district politics, those activities must be conducted transparently. TOMA requires:<ul><li>Proper public posting of meeting agendas (§ 551.041),</li><li>Open deliberations on public business and expenditures (§ 551.002), and</li><li>Accurate records of closed sessions, limited only to permissible exceptions (§ 551.103).</li></ul> When invoices for legal services are concealed, the public cannot evaluate whether the school board is using legal counsel for appropriate district business or for political or retaliatory purposes. This frustrates TOMA’s entire purpose. Ethical Duties of Legal Counsel in the Public SectorAttorneys practicing in the public sector are held to high ethical standards. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 8.04 (a) (3) prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation. If an attorney asserts privilege over public records without proper legal basis, or enables a public client to subvert transparency laws, that attorney risks violating professional conduct rules.Additionally, public-sector attorneys have a heightened duty to facilitate transparency, not obstruct it. Hiding taxpayer-funded invoices behind a wall of overbroad privilege not only violates public trust, but it may also cross ethical and legal boundaries. The Public’s Right to KnowAt its core, this controversy is about accountability. Public school districts are stewards of community trust and taxpayer money. When attorneys advise school boards, they are by extension, serving the public interest.If invoices for legal services can be fully withheld or selectively redacted to avoid scrutiny, then what stops school districts from using public funds to engage in covert political retaliation, silencing of dissent, or wasteful legal pursuits? Transparency laws exist to prevent exactly this.Texas law does not grant attorneys or school districts the power to override transparency with vague appeals to privilege. The public has a right to see how, why, and for what purpose their money is spent, especially when legal services are involved. Final ThoughtsThe withholding of legal invoices by Jackson Walker LLP and Tim Davis in their representation of Keller ISD appears to be not just poor public policy, but legally unsound. The Texas Public Information Act and Open Meetings Act exist to ensure accountability and transparency. Ignoring them or selectively applying them to avoid scrutiny is an affront to the principles of open government.We call on Keller ISD and its counsel to comply fully with the law, disclose the requested records as required, and restore public trust in the governance of our public schools.The taxpayers deserve no less. ReferencesTex. Gov’t Code §§ 552.001–552.353 (Texas Public Information Act)Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551.001–551.146 (Texas Open Meetings Act)City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000)Abbott v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health &amp; Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006)National American Ins. Co. v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 925 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996)Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-676 (2002), ORD-683 (2009)Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.05, 8.04 Disclaimer:The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding specific legal matters or rights, readers should consult with a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.

News

Why the KISD Board Must Waive Privilege: Transparency Is ...

Keller ISD Trustees Must Be Held Criminally Accountable f...

TPEDF Denounces Defamation by The Dallas Express and Thre...

TPEDF Files Level One Grievance Against GCISD Over Budget...

How the “Big Beautiful Bill” Puts Texas Families and Our ...

When Transparency Is Treated as Optional: Why Jackson Wal...