APPEAL TO THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF A BOARD MEMBER
TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
My name is David Flores, and I am filing this appeal with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under Texas Water Code § 49.052(g) and 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 293.35 to request my reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Williamson-Travis Counties Municipal Utility District No. 1. I respectfully ask the Commission to review the Board's resolution passed on August 26, 2026, and determine that my removal failed to meet the basic requirements of the law and was unwarranted given the circumstances.
I. BACKGROUND AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Texas Water Code § 49.052(g) provides, in relevant part:
"A board by unanimous vote of its remaining members may remove a board member only if that board member has missed one-half or more of the regular meetings scheduled during the prior 12 months. Any board member so removed may file a written appeal with the commission within 30 days after receiving written notice of the board action. The commission may reinstate a removed director if the commission finds that the removal was unwarranted under the circumstances, including the reasons for absences, the time and place of the meetings missed, the business conducted at the meetings missed, and any other facts or circumstances the commission may deem relevant."
On August 26, 2026, the remaining four directors of the District's Board voted to remove Appellant, alleging he missed more than one-half of the regular meetings scheduled during the prior 12 months [Attachment A1]. The 5 regular meeting absences described in the resolution are not in dispute (ignoring clerical errors in the resolution). As demonstrated below, the removal relies on an improper reduction of the total number of scheduled meetings. The Board manipulated the math to justify my removal by misinterpreting the statute to exclude regular meetings that were scheduled but later canceled or moved. Because of this, the District lacked the statutory authority to act in the first place.
Furthermore, the surrounding circumstances, including ongoing litigation, political motives, and legitimate work absences, demonstrate that the removal was unwarranted.
II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
A. As a matter of basic math and plain language, "Regular Meetings Scheduled" was improperly calculated.
The Resolution alleges that there were only 8 "Regular" Board meetings scheduled during the prior 12 months and that Appellant missed 5 of them. This calculation fundamentally misinterprets Texas Water Code Section 49.052(g), which explicitly bases removal on the number of regular meetings "scheduled."
When interpreting a statute, we must assume that every word was included for a reason. The law specifically says "regular meetings scheduled," not "held." The term “scheduled” could not possibly distinguish or limit “regular meetings held” because an unscheduled regular meeting is not allowed under the Texas Open Meetings Act. Any attempt to limit the meaning to “meetings held” immediately renders “scheduled” as a superfluous word, which contravenes the legislature’s assumption that “entire statute is intended to be effective” Tex. Gov't Code § 311.021(2). Therefore, meetings that were placed on the calendar, even if they were later moved, canceled, or improperly relabeled, must count toward the total number of scheduled meetings.
Predictable meeting times are essential for government transparency and public participation. The District has an established, adopted policy to hold one regular meeting per month on the third Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. [Attachments B1-B3], creating a strict baseline of exactly 12 scheduled regular meetings in any 12-month period. If the Board fails to follow its own calendar due to administrative missteps, unilateral cancellations, or convenience rescheduling, it cannot use its own lack of discipline to shrink the total number of scheduled meetings. Interpreting the statute to permit a Board to weaponize a reduced denominator is not “a just and reasonable result.”
The Board's own actions and records prove that it continues to uphold this policy and that the meetings they attempted to exclude from their calculation were, in fact, officially scheduled. A review of those specific meetings shows:
December 17, 2025 (5:30 pm): This is a regular meeting date under the policy. The District’s public Google Calendar indicated a Regular Meeting for this day [Attachment C1]. At the November 19, 2025 meeting, the Board passed a motion to "Reschedule Board’s meeting on 17 December 2025 to 10 December 2025" [Attachment C2]. A board cannot reschedule a meeting that was never scheduled in the first place.
January 21, 2026 (5:30 pm): This is a regular meeting date under the policy. The minutes from a December meeting explicitly stated "next meeting date is 21 January 2026" [Attachment D1]. The District’s Google Calendar showed a Regular Meeting on this date [Attachment D2]. File metadata even shows a drafted agenda for this date was created on January 14 [Attachment D3]. This meeting was clearly scheduled.
May 20, 2026 (5:30 pm): This is a regular meeting date under the policy. The April 15 agenda stated "next meeting date is 20 May 2026" [Attachment E1]. The Board then passed a motion to "Approve rescheduling the May meeting to May 12, 2026" [Attachment E2]. Again, the explicit act of rescheduling proves the meeting was originally scheduled.
August 19, 2026 (5:30 pm): This is a regular meeting date under the policy. The July 15 meeting agenda stated "next meeting date is 19 August 2026" [Attachment F1]. The public calendar showed it [Attachment F2]. A meeting was indeed held at the usual date and time, but was converted into a "Special Meeting" without Board action and for reasons unknown to the Appellant. Re-labeling a scheduled regular meeting does not erase the fact that it was scheduled.
Conclusion: The Commission should look to the District’s adopted policy to hold 12 meetings per year as the baseline. The Board's affirmative steps—publishing dates on agendas and minutes, adding them to calendars, and passing motions to change—prove this policy remains active. Finally, the Board’s stated intent to “reschedule” meetings should be dispositive as to whether it believed that a meeting was “scheduled.” When the total number of scheduled meetings is properly recognized as 12, the Appellant's 5 regular meeting absences constitute less than 50%. Because 5 is not "one-half or more" of 12, the removal facially fails to meet the mathematical threshold required by Texas Water Code § 49.052(g).
B. Ongoing Litigation and Retaliatory Motive
The removal is blatantly retaliatory. The District and the four remaining directors who voted for the Resolution are currently engaged in active litigation against Appellant in both official and individual capacities (Case Nos. 03-26-00219-CV and 03-26-00127-CV pending in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, TX) [Attachments G1-G5]. It is critical to point out that the plaintiffs in both cases align exactly with the four votes needed to remove me as a defendant. This removal is a transparent attempt to gain a tactical advantage and silence an opposing litigant on the Board. The Board members who voted in favor of removal, as counterparties in a lawsuit against me, had a conflict of interest and should have recused themselves.
The Board cited a "lack of communication" when passing the resolution, but this was exacerbated by the litigation itself. It is not expected practice for opposing parties in active litigation to communicate informally. The four plaintiffs on the Board made no effort to create a professional firewall between their lawsuit and their governance duties.
C. Improper Exclusion from the February 2026 Meeting
During a Board meeting in February 2026, the Board President improperly excluded me. I stepped off the dais to speak with someone outside the meeting room for approximately five minutes. During his brief absence, the board made a motion and voted that I would not be allowed to return to the meeting. This action directly violated Section 4.5(b) of the District's Rules of Order, which states:
"A Director may only be removed from the meeting after a vote is taken of the Board as to whether the Director has violated these Rules of Order. If the vote is in favor of the Director, the Director shall be at liberty to attend the remainder of the meeting and participate accordingly."
The decision was arbitrary and capricious. No plausible rule was violated. The behavior was not disruptive, as other board members routinely step away for similar durations to use the restroom or get coffee. Furthermore, assuming that leaving the dais was somehow disruptive, the rules explicitly require a warning before ejectment (Rules of Order 4.5(a)) [Attachment B1]. No warning was ever provided.
To avoid further confrontation and disruption of District business, I respectfully took a seat in the public gallery. This incident further demonstrates the hostility of the Board majority and the unwarranted nature of the disciplinary actions taken against me [Attachment H1].
D. Political Motivation Ahead of Election
The timing of the Resolution is clearly intended to interfere with an upcoming election. I am actively running for re-election. With only two scheduled meetings remaining before the election, the remaining directors have weaponized Section 49.052(g) to remove a democratic opponent and disenfranchise the voters of the District.
E. No Detriment to District Business
The statute explicitly requires the Commission to consider "the business conducted at the meetings missed." The Board has never failed to reach a quorum at any published meeting during the preceding 12 months. My absences did not impede the District's ability to conduct its business, pass resolutions, or serve the public. Based on a thorough review, I certify that there were no motions during my absences that failed to secure a second or even failed to pass.
F. Legitimate Work Schedule
The statute also requires the Commission to consider "the reasons for absences." I am employed as a bus driver for Capital Metro. In this line of work, it is customary and mandatory for employees to work assigned shifts at varying hours to provide essential public transportation services to the community. My absences were not due to a dereliction of duty, but rather the unavoidable conflicts of my employment serving the public.
It is notable that the District made absolutely no attempt to investigate whether these absences were caused by legitimate work conflicts before removing me. The resolution’s statement of intent to "cooperate with the TCEQ" does not excuse the District's failure to make a reasonable inquiry regarding my absences before taking action.
III. TIMELINESS
Texas Water Code § 49.052(g) requires this appeal “within 30 days after receiving written notice of the board action.” I was present on the dais for the vote. To the extent that the Board must provide written notice, I refuse to waive the requirement. However, the timeliness of the appeal is obvious from the date of the District’s decision.
IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
My removal from the Board of Directors of Williamson-Travis Counties Municipal Utility District No. 1 was legally deficient on its face and substantively unwarranted. The Board abandoned the plain meaning of the statutory language "regular meetings scheduled" to engineer my removal. They weaponized their power for retaliatory and political purposes, demonstrating a clear pattern of unwarranted hostility against me. Furthermore, the District made no effort to investigate whether Appellant had legitimate work conflicts before passing the resolution.
WHEREFORE, Appellant David Flores respectfully requests that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality review this appeal, find that the Board's action facially failed to meet the statutory requirements of Texas Water Code § 49.052(g), find that the removal was unwarranted under the circumstances, reinstate Appellant to the Board of Directors of the District, and grant any other relief to which Appellant may be justly entitled to deter future unjustified removals.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David Flores
09/24/2026
List of Attachments and Errata
A1 (4 pages): Resolution Removing Director. Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here. (Published under “District Documents”)
Errors: I dispute the “All present” characterization of the Ayes of the resolution. I did not vote aye for my own dismissal. No meeting was held on December 19, 2025. A Special Meeting was held December 29, 2025. There was no meeting on May 15, 2026. A special meeting was held May 12, 2026.
B1 (13 pages): Amended Rules of Order (8/17/2022), showing meeting policy on page 4. Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here. (Published under “District Documents”)
B2 (4 pages): Screenshot of District Website (https://wtcmud1.org/board-meetings/) captured 8/25/2026
B3 (1 page): Minutes page of 19 March 2025 Board meeting, setting regular meeting time to 5:30 pm (page 7). Downloaded on 9/24/2026 from here
C1 (1 page): Screenshot of District Website (https://wtcmud1.org/events-calendar/) showing December 2025 Google Calendar, captured 9/2/2026.
C2 (1 page): Minutes page of 19 November 2025 Board meeting showing motion to “reschedule” on page 6. Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
D1 (1 page): Minutes page of 29 December 2025 Special meeting stating “next meeting date is 21 January 2026” (page 2). Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
D2 (1 page): Screenshot of District Website (https://wtcmud1.org/events-calendar/) showing January 2026 Google Calendar, captured 8/25/2026.
D3 (9 pages): Agenda for canceled January 21, 2026 Regular board meeting. Received from another resident. To my knowledge, it was acquired by PIR.
E1 (1 page): Agenda page for 15 April 2026 Regular Board meeting, stating “next meeting date is 20 May 2026” (page 2). Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
E2 (1 page): Minutes page of 15 April 2026 Regular Board meeting, showing motion to “approve rescheduling” meeting (page 7). Download 9/24/2026 from here
F1 (1 page): Agenda page for 15 July 2026 Regular Board meeting, stating “next meeting date is 19 August 2026” (page 3). Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
F2 (1 page): Screenshot of District Website (https://wtcmud1.org/events-calendar/) showing August 2026 Google Calendar, captured 8/25/2026.
G1 (3 pages): Docket sheet for TX Appeals Court Case 03-26-00127-CV listing parties to case (including David Flores and board members who voted on resolution to dismiss). Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
G2 (4 pages): Docket sheet for TX Appeals Court Case 03-26-00219-CV listing parties to case (including David Flores and board members who voted on resolution to dismiss). Downloaded 9/24/2026 from here
G3 (1 page): Original Citation for David Flores in 480th District Court, Williamson County, TX, dated 6/10/2025.
G4 (1 page): Return of Service as to David Flores for citation in 480th District Court, Williamson County, TX dated 6/12/2025.
G5 (1 page): Timeline of litigation against David Flores by WTC MUD 1 and other board members in their individual capacities. Prepared by counsel for David Flores
H1: (Video Only) Video of my ejection contrary to Rules of Order (not disruptive, lack of warning). I am seated at the right-most seat of the directors. My exit from the boardroom occurs shortly after 1:24:35. The motion to eject is at 1:25:20: here
I: Minutes for all meetings in the previous 12 months, as required by 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 293.35. Minutes for May 12, 2026 and August 19, 2026 meetings are not published at this time.