Church property tax exemption is a matter decided by the State of Texas, not Garland City Council

Garland citizens are asking if the proposed pregnancy care center at 920 West Avenue D now calling itself a church and awaiting action by the Garland city council tonight, November 19, will be automatically exempt from property taxes, if council approves the house-conversion application.

The answer is an emphatic "no".

The Garland city attorney's office says the action taken by the city's plan commission on October 28 and set for hearing by the city council tonight is about "land-use only",  not tax exemption.

The issue is also not about pro-life versus pro-choice. Many on both sides of the controversy identify themselves as pro-life.

Church tax-exemption status is administered by the State of Texas through Dallas County. Whether a property has tax-exempt status could be determined by 1) the IRS granting a 501(c)3 exemption to income taxes; 2) the State of Texas through the Secretary of State giving a nonprofit corporation certificate of formation and the Comptroller granting an exemption from franchise taxes/sales taxes/hotel taxes, and 3) the Dallas Central Appraisal District granting property tax exemption after an application.

The City of Garland has nothing whatsoever to do with granting tax exempt status.

Unlike the City of Garland, the State of Texas has very precise rules and procedures to define what is a church/religious institution and then to grant property tax exemption. A person can't just proclaim his or her home a "house of worship" and expect tax exemption to follow. They must follow the steps above.

Either as a church or as a religious nonprofit or a charitable nonprofit, the property at 920 West Avenue D could become exempt from property taxes, except for one big hurdle—in whose name the property is titled.

A spokesperson for the Dallas County Appraisal District said the only way the property on West Avenue D can be exempt from property taxes is for it to be titled in the name of the nonprofit pregnancy care center or the name of the church.

The property cannot be in the name of private individuals, DCAD says.

According to Dallas County records, the property at 920 West Avenue D is titled in the name of Brian Henson and Raven S. Henson.

In a letter to the Garland Plan Office regarding the zoning application that later was changed to declare the house a church, Cole Henson says the Hensons are leasing the property to the pregnancy care center/church. "Shiloh Pregnancy Care is a 501c3 faith-based non-profit (religious organization) and currently occupies the home at 920 W Ave D as a tenant of the property owner, Brian Cole Henson. Cole also resides on the property and is an ordained minister," Henson says in his letter, a public document released through the Freedom of Information Act.

"The lease must be from one nonprofit to another non-profit and not from a private individual to a nonprofit," the DCAD spokesperson said.

If the Hensons desire to claim tax exemption for the 920 West Avenue D property, they will need to transfer title to a nonprofit, the spokesperson said.

While many people have presumed so, the Hensons themselves have not said, to my awareness, whether they intend to seek tax exemption for their property at 920 West Avenue D.

Complicating matters further, a nonprofit that is tax exempt by IRS rules as well as state law that say the nonprofit must include in its bylaws, charter, or rules of conduct a statement that says if the nonprofit folds, all assets will be given to another nonprofit or the State of Texas or the U.S. federal government. Assets cannot revert back into an individual donor's name. However, the nonprofit might under certain conditions be able to sell the property back to the donors at the market rate, though the IRS frowns on such close transactions between interlocking entities.

For those interested, here are the rules for tax-exempt status posted on the DCAD website:

Religious Exemptions
An organization that qualifies as a religious organization is entitled to certain exemptions from taxation. To qualify, the organization must be organized and operated primarily for the purpose of engaging in religious worship or promoting the spiritual well being of individuals. The organization must be operated in such a way that no individual profits (other than salary) and the organization's bylaws, charter or other regulations must pledge its assets for use in performing the organization's religious functions. See the Texas Property Tax Code in Section 11.20 for more details (link available on this site). The application is available on this site or you may contact Customer Service at 214-631-0910.

Charitable Exemptions
An organization that qualifies as a charitable organization is entitled to certain exemptions from taxation. To qualify, the organization must be organized exclusively to perform religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, engage exclusively in performing one or more of many charitable functions. A charitable organization must be operated in a way that does not result in accrual of distributable profits, realization of private gain resulting from payment of compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salary or other compensation for services rendered, or realization of any other form of private gain, and some charitable organizations must be organized as a non-profit corporation as defined by the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act. See the Texas Property Tax Code in Section 11.18 for more details (link available on this site). The application is available on this site or you may contact Customer Service at 214-631-0910.

Here is the Texas State articles pertaining to tax exemption for charitable organization and churches:

AX CODE
TITLE 1. PROPERTY TAX CODE
SUBTITLE C. TAXABLE PROPERTY AND EXEMPTIONS
CHAPTER 11. TAXABLE PROPERTY AND EXEMPTIONS

SUBCHAPTER A. TAXABLE PROPERTY

Sec. 11.20. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. (a) An organization that qualifies as a religious organization as provided by Subsection (c) is entitled to an exemption from taxation of:

(1) the real property that is owned by the religious organization, is used primarily as a place of regular religious worship, and is reasonably necessary for engaging in religious worship;

(2) the tangible personal property that is owned by the religious organization and is reasonably necessary for engaging in worship at the place of worship specified in Subdivision (1);

(3) the real property that is owned by the religious organization and is reasonably necessary for use as a residence (but not more than one acre of land for each residence) if the property:

(A) is used exclusively as a residence for those individuals whose principal occupation is to serve in the clergy of the religious organization; and
(B) produces no revenue for the religious organization;

(4) the tangible personal property that is owned by the religious organization and is reasonably necessary for use of the residence specified by Subdivision (3);

(5) the real property owned by the religious organization consisting of:

(A) an incomplete improvement that is under active construction or other physical preparation and that is designed and intended to be used by the religious organization as a place of regular religious worship when complete; and
(B) the land on which the incomplete improvement is located that will be reasonably necessary for the religious organization's use of the improvement as a place of regular religious worship;

(6) the land that the religious organization owns for the purpose of expansion of the religious organization's place of regular religious worship or construction of a new place of regular religious worship if:

(A) the religious organization qualifies other property, including a portion of the same tract or parcel of land, owned by the organization for an exemption under Subdivision (1) or (5); and
(B) the land produces no revenue for the religious organization; and

(7) the real property owned by the religious organization that is leased to another person and used by that person for the operation of a school that qualifies as a school under Section 11.21(d).

(b) An organization that qualifies as a religious organization as provided by Subsection (c) of this section is entitled to an exemption from taxation of those endowment funds the organization owns that are used exclusively for the support of the religious organization and are invested exclusively in bonds, mortgages, or property purchased at a foreclosure sale for the purpose of satisfying or protecting the bonds or mortgages. However, foreclosure-sale property that is held by an endowment fund for longer than the two-year period immediately following purchase at the foreclosure sale is not exempt from taxation.
(c) To qualify as a religious organization for the purposes of this section, an organization (whether operated by an individual, as a corporation, or as an association) must:

(1) be organized and operated primarily for the purpose of engaging in religious worship or promoting the spiritual development or well-being of individuals;
(2) be operated in a way that does not result in accrual of distributable profits, realization of private gain resulting from payment of compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salary or other compensation for services rendered, or realization of any other form of private gain;
(3) use its assets in performing the organization's religious functions or the religious functions of another religious organization; and
(4) by charter, bylaw, or other regulation adopted by the organization to govern its affairs direct that on discontinuance of the organization by dissolution or otherwise the assets are to be transferred to this state, the United States, or a charitable, educational, religious, or other similar organization that is qualified as a charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.


(d) Use of property that qualifies for the exemption prescribed by Subsection (a)(1) or (2) or by Subsection (h)(1) for occasional secular purposes other than religious worship does not result in loss of the exemption if the primary use of the property is for religious worship and all income from the other use is devoted exclusively to the maintenance and development of the property as a place of religious worship.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "religious worship" means individual or group ceremony or meditation, education, and fellowship, the purpose of which is to manifest or develop reverence, homage, and commitment in behalf of a religious faith.
(f) A property may not be exempted under Subsection (a)(5) for more than three years.
(g) For purposes of Subsection (a)(5), an incomplete improvement is under physical preparation if the religious organization has engaged in architectural or engineering work, soil testing, land clearing activities, or site improvement work necessary for the construction of the improvement or has conducted an environmental or land use study relating to the construction of the improvement.
(h) Property owned by this state or a political subdivision of this state, including a leasehold or other possessory interest in the property, that is held or occupied by an organization that qualifies as a religious organization as provided by Subsection (c) is entitled to an exemption from taxation if the property:

(1) is used by the organization primarily as a place of regular religious worship and is reasonably necessary for engaging in religious worship; or
(2) meets the qualifications for an exemption under Subsection (a)(5).

(i) For purposes of the exemption provided by Subsection (h), the religious organization may apply for the exemption and take other action relating to the exemption as if the organization owned the property.
(j) A tract of land that is contiguous to the tract of land on which the religious organization's place of regular religious worship is located may not be exempted under Subsection (a)(6) for more than six years. A tract of land that is not contiguous to the tract of land on which the religious organization's place of regular religious worship is located may not be exempted under Subsection (a)(6) for more than three years. For purposes of this subsection, a tract of land is considered to be contiguous with another tract of land if the tracts are divided only by a road, railroad track, river, or stream.
(k) For purposes of Subsection (a)(6), an application or statement accompanying an application for the exemption stating that the land is owned for the purposes described by Subsection (a)(6) and signed by an authorized officer of the organization is sufficient to establish that the land is owned for those purposes.


Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2238, ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1980. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., 1st C.S., p. 129, ch. 13, Sec. 35, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 640, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 458, Sec. 1, eff. June 9, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1039, Sec. 9, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1411, Sec. 3, eff. June 20, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 138, Sec. 3, eff. May 18, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 123, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2004; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 288, Sec. 1.04, eff. June 18, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 288, Sec. 2.04, eff. Jan. 1, 2006; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1052, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 728 (H.B. 2018.), Sec. 23.001(80), eff. September 1, 2005.

Sec. 11.201. ADDITIONAL TAX ON SALE OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION PROPERTY. (a) If land is sold or otherwise transferred to another person in a year in which the land receives an exemption under Section 11.20(a)(6), an additional tax is imposed on the land equal to the tax that would have been imposed on the land had the land been taxed for each of the five years preceding the year in which the sale or transfer occurs in which the land received an exemption under that subsection, plus interest at an annual rate of seven percent calculated from the dates on which the taxes would have become due.


(b) A tax lien attaches to the land on the date the sale or transfer occurs to secure payment of the tax and interest imposed by this section and any penalties incurred. The lien exists in favor of all taxing units for which the tax is imposed.
(c) If only part of a parcel of land that is exempted under Section 11.20(a)(6) is sold or transferred, the tax applies only to that part of the parcel and equals the taxes that would have been imposed had that part been taxed.
(d) The assessor for each taxing unit shall prepare and deliver a bill for the additional taxes plus interest as soon as practicable after the sale or transfer occurs. The taxes and interest are due and become delinquent and incur penalties and interest as provided by law for ad valorem taxes imposed by the taxing unit if not paid before the next February 1 that is at least 20 days after the date the bill is delivered to the owner of the land.
(e) The sanctions provided by Subsection (a) do not apply if the sale or transfer occurs as a result of:

(1) a sale for right-of-way;
(2) a condemnation;
(3) a transfer of property to the state or a political subdivision of the state to be used for a public purpose; or
(4) a transfer of property to a religious organization that qualifies the property for an exemption under Section 11.20 for the tax year in which the transfer occurs.

Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1052, Sec. 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.

********

Sec. 11.18. CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. (a) An organization that qualifies as a charitable organization as provided by this section is entitled to an exemption from taxation of:

(1) the buildings and tangible personal property that:


(A) are owned by the charitable organization; and
(B) except as permitted by Subsection (b), are used exclusively by qualified charitable organizations; and

(2) the real property owned by the charitable organization consisting of:

(A) an incomplete improvement that:

(i) is under active construction or other physical preparation; and
(ii) is designed and intended to be used exclusively by qualified charitable organizations; and

(B) the land on which the incomplete improvement is located that will be reasonably necessary for the use of the improvement by qualified charitable organizations.

(b) Use of exempt property by persons who are not charitable organizations qualified as provided by this section does not result in the loss of an exemption authorized by this section if the use is incidental to use by qualified charitable organizations and limited to activities that benefit the beneficiaries of the charitable organizations that own or use the property.
(c) To qualify as a charitable organization for the purposes of this section, an organization, whether operated by an individual, or as a corporation, foundation, trust, or association, must meet the applicable requirements of Subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(d) A charitable organization must be organized exclusively to perform religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes and, except as permitted by Subsections (h) and (l), engage exclusively in performing one or more of the following charitable functions:

(1) providing medical care without regard to the beneficiaries' ability to pay, which in the case of a nonprofit hospital or hospital system means providing charity care and community benefits in accordance with Section 11.1801;

(2) providing support or relief to orphans, delinquent, dependent, or handicapped children in need of residential care, abused or battered spouses or children in need of temporary shelter, the impoverished, or victims of natural disaster without regard to the beneficiaries' ability to pay;

(3) providing support without regard to the beneficiaries' ability to pay to:

(A) elderly persons, including the provision of:

(i) recreational or social activities; and
(ii) facilities designed to address the special needs of elderly persons; or

(B) the handicapped, including training and employment:

(i) in the production of commodities; or
(ii) in the provision of services under 41 U.S.C. Sections 8501-8506;

(4) preserving a historical landmark or site;

(5) promoting or operating a museum, zoo, library, theater of the dramatic or performing arts, or symphony orchestra or choir;

(6) promoting or providing humane treatment of animals;

(7) acquiring, storing, transporting, selling, or distributing water for public use;

(8) answering fire alarms and extinguishing fires with no compensation or only nominal compensation to the members of the organization;

(9) promoting the athletic development of boys or girls under the age of 18 years;

(10) preserving or conserving wildlife;

(11) promoting educational development through loans or scholarships to students;

(12) providing halfway house services pursuant to a certification as a halfway house by the parole division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice;

(13) providing permanent housing and related social, health care, and educational facilities for persons who are 62 years of age or older without regard to the residents' ability to pay;

(14) promoting or operating an art gallery, museum, or collection, in a permanent location or on tour, that is open to the public;

(15) providing for the organized solicitation and collection for distributions through gifts, grants, and agreements to nonprofit charitable, education, religious, and youth organizations that provide direct human, health, and welfare services;

(16) performing biomedical or scientific research or biomedical or scientific education for the benefit of the public;

(17) operating a television station that produces or broadcasts educational, cultural, or other public interest programming and that receives grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under 47 U.S.C. Section 396, as amended;

(18) providing housing for low-income and moderate-income families, for unmarried individuals 62 years of age or older, for handicapped individuals, and for families displaced by urban renewal, through the use of trust assets that are irrevocably and, pursuant to a contract entered into before December 31, 1972, contractually dedicated on the sale or disposition of the housing to a charitable organization that performs charitable functions described by Subdivision (9);

(19) providing housing and related services to persons who are 62 years of age or older in a retirement community, if the retirement community provides independent living services, assisted living services, and nursing services to its residents on a single campus:

(A) without regard to the residents' ability to pay; or
(B) in which at least four percent of the retirement community's combined net resident revenue is provided in charitable care to its residents;

(20) providing housing on a cooperative basis to students of an institution of higher education if:

(A) the organization is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, by being listed as an exempt entity under Section 501(c)(3) of that code;
(B) membership in the organization is open to all students enrolled in the institution and is not limited to those chosen by current members of the organization;
(C) the organization is governed by its members; and

(D) the members of the organization share the responsibility for managing the housing;

(21) acquiring, holding, and transferring unimproved real property under an urban land bank demonstration program established under Chapter 379C, Local Government Code, as or on behalf of a land bank;

(22) acquiring, holding, and transferring unimproved real property under an urban land bank program established under Chapter 379E, Local Government Code, as or on behalf of a land bank;

(23) providing housing and related services to individuals who:

(A) are unaccompanied and homeless and have a disabling condition; and
(B) have been continuously homeless for a year or more or have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the preceding three years;

(24) operating a radio station that broadcasts educational, cultural, or other public interest programming, including classical music, and that in the preceding five years has received or been selected to receive one or more grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under 47 U.S.C. Section 396, as amended; or

(25) providing, without regard to the beneficiaries' ability to pay, tax return preparation services and assistance with other financial matters.

(e) A charitable organization must be operated in a way that does not result in accrual of distributable profits, realization of private gain resulting from payment of compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salary or other compensation for services rendered, or realization of any other form of private gain and, if the organization performs one or more of the charitable functions specified by Subsection (d) other than a function specified by Subdivision (1), (2), (8), (9), (12), (16), or (18), be organized as a nonprofit corporation as defined by the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act (Article 1396-1.01 et seq., Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
(f) A charitable organization must:

(1) use its assets in performing the organization's charitable functions or the charitable functions of another charitable organization; and
(2) by charter, bylaw, or other regulation adopted by the organization to govern its affairs direct that on discontinuance of the organization by dissolution or otherwise:

(A) the assets are to be transferred to this state, the United States, or an educational, religious, charitable, or other similar organization that is qualified as a charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or

(B) if required for the organization to qualify as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(12), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the assets are to be transferred directly to the organization's members, each of whom, by application for an acceptance of membership in the organization, has agreed to immediately transfer those assets to this state or to an educational, religious, charitable, or other similar organization that is qualified as a charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as designated in the bylaws, charter, or regulation adopted by the organization.

(g) A charitable organization that performs a charitable function specified by Subsection (d)(15) must:

(1) be affiliated with a state or national organization that authorizes, approves, or sanctions volunteer charitable fundraising organizations;
(2) qualify for exemption under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
(3) be governed by a volunteer board of directors; and
(4) distribute contributions to at least five other associations to be used for general charitable purposes, with all recipients meeting the following criteria:

(A) be governed by a volunteer board of directors;
(B) qualify for exemption under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
(C) receive a majority of annual revenue from private or corporate charitable gifts and government agencies; and
(D) provide services without regard to the ability of persons receiving the services to pay for the services.

(h) Performance of noncharitable functions by a charitable organization that owns or uses exempt property does not result in loss of an exemption authorized by this section if those other functions are incidental to the organization's charitable functions. The division of responsibilities between an organization that qualifies as a charitable organization under Subsection (c) and another organization will not disqualify the organizations or any property owned or used by either organization from receiving an exemption under this section if the collaboration furthers the provision of one or more of the charitable functions described in Subsection (d) and if the other organization:

(1) is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as an organization described by Section 501(c)(3) of that code;
(2) meets the criteria for a charitable organization under Subsections (e) and (f); and
(3) is under common control with the charitable organization described in this subsection.

(i) In this section, "building" includes the land that is reasonably necessary for use of, access to, and ornamentation of the building.
(j) The exemption of an organization preserving or conserving wildlife is limited to land and improvements and may not exceed 1,000 acres in any one county.
(k) In connection with a nursing home or retirement community, for purposes of Subsection (d):
(1) "Assisted living services" means responsible adult supervision of or assistance with routine living functions of an individual in instances where the individual's condition necessitates that supervision or assistance.

(2) "Charity care," "government-sponsored indigent health care," and "net resident revenue" are determined in the same manner for a retirement community or nursing home as for a hospital under Section 11.1801 (a)(2).

(3) "Nursing care services" includes services provided by nursing personnel, including patient observation, the promotion and maintenance of health, prevention of illness or disability, guidance and counseling to individuals and families, and referral of patients to physicians, other health care providers, or community resources if appropriate.

(4) "Retirement community" means a collection of various types of housing that are under common ownership and designed for habitation by individuals over the age of 62.

(5) "Single campus" means a facility designed to provide multiple levels of retirement housing that is geographically situated on a site at which all levels of housing are contiguous to each other on a single property.

(l) A charitable organization described by Subsection (d)(3) that provides support to elderly persons must engage primarily in performing charitable functions described by Subsection (d)(3), but may engage in other activities that support or are related to its charitable functions.

(m) A property may not be exempted under Subsection (a)(2) for more than three years.
(n) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), an incomplete improvement is under physical preparation if the charitable organization has:

(1) engaged in architectural or engineering work, soil testing, land clearing activities, or site improvement work necessary for the construction of the improvement; or

(2) conducted an environmental or land use study relating to the construction of the improvement.

(o) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), real property acquired, held, and transferred by an organization that performs the function described by Subsection (d)(21) or (22) is considered to be used exclusively by the qualified charitable organization to perform that function.
(p) The exemption authorized by Subsection (d)(23) applies only to property that:

(1) is owned by a charitable organization that has been in existence for at least 12 years;
(2) is used to provide housing and related services to individuals described by that subsection; and
(3) is located on or consists of a single campus in a municipality with a population of more than 750,000 and less than 850,000 or within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of such a municipality.

(p-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(1), the exemption authorized by Subsection (d)(23) applies to real property regardless of whether the real property is considered to constitute a building within the meaning of this section.
(q) Real property owned by a charitable organization and leased to an institution of higher education, as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, is exempt from taxation to the same extent as the property would be exempt if the property were owned by the institution.


Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2236, ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1980. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., 1st C.S., p. 127, ch. 13, Sec. 33, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2207, ch. 412, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 960, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 430, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 407, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 360, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 471, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 781, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 715, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1039, Sec. 7, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1411, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 138, Sec. 1, eff. May 18, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 266, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 924, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1443, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 18.001(a), eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 288, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 18, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 288, Sec. 2.01, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1034 (H.B. 1742) Sec. 13, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1341 (S.B.  1908), Sec. 34, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87 (S.B. 1969), Sec. 22.002, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1246 (S.B. 2442), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2010.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1246 (S.B. 2442), Sec. 2, eff. January 1, 2010.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1314 (H.B. 2628), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2010.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1314 (H.B. 2628), Sec. 2, eff. January 1, 2010.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 91 (S.B. 1303), Sec. 23.001, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 91 (S.B. 1303), Sec. 27.001(55), eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1163 (H.B. 2702), Sec. 113, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 849 (H.B. 294), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2014.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1123 (S.B. 1345), Sec. 1, eff. January 1, 2018.

Issue now is bigger than pregnancy-care center becoming a church: How hands-on are councilmembers to be in zoning cases such as this?

An example of the ways I worked to promote the pro-life position in this country.
At the time I managed the media operations of the Southern Baptist ethics agency that had the pro-life assignment.
Having our son, whose mother was an adopted individual, in the photo was meaningful.

Late on the morning of Thursday, October 3, Garland zoning applicant Brian Cole Henson of 920 West Avenue D walked into our kitchen, stood near the dishwasher where Kay and I had been talking, and boldly and proudly proclaimed that Councilwoman Deborah Morris had offered a "BRILLIANT" solution to the dispute involving the pregnancy-care center Henson wanted to establish at his home.

He went on to explain the option of declaring the structure a house of worship instead of taking the current route that the Garland plan commission had proposed of a limited PD (planned development district).

Shocked, Kay turned from the sink to clarify. She asked Cole whether he was, in fact, saying that Deborah had originated this plan.

Yes, indeed, he affirmed. Of course, he then acknowledged, he had quickly taken the ball and run with this germ of an idea.

Kay and I had been waiting on the edges of our seats, because we knew that morning, Cole and his wife, Raven, had been having a big pow-wow with an assortment of city officials, including representatives of the city attorney's office, the plan office, and Councilmember Morris, about the Hensons' zoning application. The meeting was to discuss the plan commission's decision directing that the Hensons' change of zoning request be to that of a PD (planned development district) so they could begin their Shiloh Pregnancy Care Center in one of Garland's oldest homes—the dwelling at 920 West Avenue D.

We had believed that Cole would return from the meeting and delineate how the plan office and assistant city attorney would craft the PD to enable them to operate the Shiloh Pregnancy Care at the home with numerous restrictions. We thought those restrictions would make the proposal more palatable to the surrounding neighbors that had balked at it initially.

Instead his remarks about the Hensons taking the option of declaring the home a church had left me puzzled, since just the day before Deborah had texted me:

"Did he (Cole) tell you their latest attempt? I spoke with them about SF-7 and churches. He now claims that their 'primary use' is as a house of worship, and that he is an ordained minister, something he's never mentioned til now.

"He's considering dropping the zoning request and just declaring that they're a church. And that the pregnancy center is purely a secondary (allowed) use."

My dumfounded response to Deborah was very clear: "No. He didn't mention that. He has never mentioned the church idea."

After Deborah sent me a thumbs up, I wrote, "That will only inflame the neighborhood."

Indeed, my words were prophetic! The controversy in residential downtown Garland now parallels the turmoil two years ago created when Deborah herself led a recall petition to oust her predecessor, former District 2 Councilmember Anita Goebel during Anita's last year in office. Deborah then went on to become Anita's successor on Garland city council.

Complicating my thoughts further that Thursday morning was the memory from the day before—of early Wednesday morning, October 2. As I had done for several weeks, I had picked up Cole as usual at 6:30 a.m. at 920 West Avenue D and driven him to the men's Bible study I have attended at Firewheel Golf Course's Branding Iron Restaurant for more than 3 years.

I had invited Cole to attend the Bible study with me to help acquaint him with some of the worshipers at First Presbyterian Church, whose campus is just two blocks away from the home. Most of the Bible-study attendees are from this church. I thought this would help familiarize him with the neighborhood.

During our conversation that Wednesday morning in my car, Cole had made no mention about the fact that he was considering switching gears and declaring the premises a church. Not the slightest hint.

Puzzled and surprised are the only words I can use to describe my feelings on hearing Cole's announcement in our kitchen on that Thursday morning, October 3. Deborah had been correct in her text message the day before (but after the car ride)!

The situation was indeed odd, because the reason Cole was in my house on that morning was to pick up for lunch two men from Florida who were here for the Hensons' fundraiser in Royse City for their pregnancy-care center in Garland. One was to be the speaker. The other was his traveling companion because the speaker had been involved in a single-engine plane accident four months earlier and needed help with his luggage and other normally routine matters.

About a week earlier the Hensons had approached Kay and me and said they didn't have the funds to house the speaker for their fundraiser and wondered if we would help. We offered our guest bedroom for one night, then found out it would be two men in two separate guest bedrooms staying three days and two nights.

We really liked the men who were guests in our home and had many enjoyable conversations—and prayer times—with them. They were well-educated, devout, urbane, traveled, great conversationalists, and excellent guests.

Innocently, we had believed we as citizens could help steer these new neighbors, Cole and Raven Henson, through what we knew were going to be rough waters in getting their pregnancy-care center up and running in downtown Garland.

What we didn't know until the release recently under the Texas Open Records Act (also known as the Freedom of Information Act), was that Deborah Morris and Cole Henson were dialoging behind the scenes in such a way that the councilwoman appears to be acting more like a coach, a mentor, an advocate, a coordinator, or a consultant for the Hensons in their determination to open a pregnancy-care center in a downtown area in Morris' district where a high number of nearby neighbors did not want it.

Is this what a councilperson, who ultimately will be in the position of having to vote on the matter, is supposed to do—attaching themselves so firmly to a project that he or she becomes almost totally identified with it?

That dialogue, which I have now read in full several times, leaves no doubt how the sudden and dramatic switch from the Hensons pushing for a zoning change to declaring their project a "church" occurred under the watchful eye of Councilwoman Morris. (see Henson email to Morris 9/30/19)

The councilmember and the Hensons were working in tandem as the case progressed.

In all my 10 years on the Garland Plan Commission and afterward I have never seen a situation where a councilmember or plan commissioner was so deeply involved in a case such as this.

In this email dated 9/30/19 from Cole
to Deborah, he identifies her as the
originator of the idea for the pregnancy
center to be a church, then attaches his
letter to the Plan Office stating that
he is withdrawing the zoning application
and proceeding to declare the house a church 

Charges are flying from Morris and her supporters, including many who do NOT live in Morris' District 2, that Eric Stuyvesant, an involved resident of District 2 who used the Texas Open Records Act to obtain the transcript of the Morris-Henson online text messages and emails, pulled comments "out of context" and wove together a pattern of deceit that did not occur.

The transcript read in full doesn't support their accusations against Eric. Though what has already been released is not all of it, the dialogue shows extensive conversation between Deborah and Cole Henson. Some 160 text and email, messages, ranging from a few words to several pages in length, dating from May 9 to October 4, 2019, are in the first release of documents between Deborah and Cole. The numbers increase sharply between September 11 and October 4, with September 25, 2019—2 days after the Plan Commission meeting in which the Hensons were sent back to staff to work on a narrow PD (planned development)—being a particularly busy day of 30 messages between the two of them.

We are now waiting for the next phase of the release of more documents, including, as I understand it, my own correspondence as well as with others and Morris about the 920 W. Avenue D and Hensons' matter. I am happy for any of my text and email conversations with the two on this matter to be released.

The historic home and the burgeoning church may represent a watershed moment for Garland in terms of defining what is acceptable and what is not for councilmembers.

Beyond just the Henson-Morris dynamic, the transcript raises serious questions about what the legal role of our councilmembers ought to be in dealing in routine matters as well as what serious matters are supposed to be managed only by trained and paid city staff.

Perhaps what Councilwoman Morris did was routine and ordinary and acceptable for our councilmembers. If that is the case, then the city attorney's office and city council need to say so, after thoroughly investigating the whole situation.

When I was on the Plan Commission for 10 years (under two different council representatives), we were schooled in knowing the limitations of how we were to deal with applicants. We were basically adjured to stay away from them. We were expected to recuse ourselves if we had even a "shadow of a doubt" that a conflict of interest existed. Commission member Stan Luckie and Plan Commission Chair Scott Roberts constantly recused themselves anytime any of their clients were before the commission. I followed their pattern.

When Douglas Athas was mayor of Garland, he constantly recused himself anytime an issue involved matters where he had a conflict of interest.

In one case, more than a decade ago, a plan commissioner thought it sufficient to recuse himself because one of his clients was involved in the case before the plan commission. That plan commissioner, once he recused himself, then was said to lobby with other plan commissioners on behalf of his client. I received one of those calls. Shortly afterward I received a phone call from city staff wanting to know if I had been lobbied by the individual. Other plan commissioners received the same phone calls.

Ultimately that commissioner pressured to resign due to what was said to be questionable conduct. This occurrence was never publicized, and the former commissioner eventually moved to another city.

Do those same rules not apply also to city councilmembers? Or have those rules been quietly revoked? Or have they never existed?

Our councilmembers are public officials, sworn to uphold the laws of Texas, the United States, and Garland. They need to be held to the highest standards of what is expected of our elected leaders.

The questions raised by what is in the dialogue need serious attention and need to be addressed in a professional public discussion about what is and what is not acceptable for our city leaders.

Kay and I first met Cole and Raven at a neighborhood party during the summer. The FOI transcripts show that this was about the time that the dialogue between Deborah and the Hensons began. When they described to us their plans for the dwelling at 920 West Avenue D, we initially expressed support for three reasons:

First, the dwelling, built in 1917, has been close to Kay's heart since childhood. A.R. and Bertha Davis, who built the house and were longtime residents, were close friends of Kay's parents; banker and leading citizen A.R. Davis was her dad's golfing buddy. Kay went trick-or-treating there. All the iris in Kay's mother's yard at 412 South 11th Street were transplants given her mother by Mrs. Davis. We were delighted to see a young couple with an infant move into the house, breathing new life into it after it had sat vacant for a while.

Secondly, we were pleased that the occupants wanted to preserve and revitalize the home (Cole is an architect) and not tear it down. Numerous palatial two-story Victorians once occupied several city blocks in the area, but one by one these structures (including the G.W. Crossman home, one of the most splendid of all Garland residences) had been felled. We were happy that the Davis home would see use and would not fall to the wrecking ball like others had.

But thirdly, and most importantly, Kay and I have a long-standing and personal commitment to pro-life. Kay is an individual that was adopted as an infant. Because of her personal history, we both know well how quickly a developing life inside a pregnant woman can be terminated by choice. We also know how desperately counseling and support and understanding are needed for a woman with an unplanned pregnancy (and for the father of the child). We saw a need for this service in Garland. The Hensons seemed to be committed and articulate spokespersons for the cause.

Kay's book is now considered a classic
on adoption and used widely in the
pro-life movement. 

Kay's book, "Gathering the Missing Pieces in an Adopted Life", is one of the earliest pro-life books written to help adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents with some of the most crucial issues involving decisions about whether to parent or abort a child or make an adoption plan for it. The newspaper series on which it was based was nominated for a Pulitzer Price. The book is now considered a classic in literature on the subject.

Beyond Kay's personal history with the topic and our undying gratitude for the fact that Kay had been given life when to not do so was an option, I had worked for the ethics agency for Southern Baptists and was on the team that promoted the sanctity of human life. During the years I held this job, our agency was responsible for shifting the nation's largest Protestant denomination from benign support of abortion to one of total pro-life. I managed the media campaign for that transition. We believe our efforts were responsible for helping save millions of unborn babies.

We also felt sorry for the Hensons because we believed that their real-estate agent had erred in not adding a contingency clause to their sales contract for the zoning change before finalizing the sale. (Later after I stood before plan commission and blamed their real-estate broker for creating the problem, Cole told me that a contingency clause would have made no difference; they were determined to purchase the home without taking such precautions and would have rejected any advice like that from their real estate broker.)

I doubted seriously that their proposed request for a zoning change for their home would fly in our neighborhood, because it would open Pandora's Box for the property if they moved or failed. In my testimony before the Plan Commission on September 23, I endorsed the use of the PD for the 920 West Avenue D property. This is because I had great confidence in people like attorney Brian England in the Garland City Attorneys office and Plan Commissioners such as Chris Ott and Steven Hallman as well as Chairman Scott Roberts to help write a very narrow PD (planned development district) that would comfort and calm our neighbors who saw the center as an unwelcome intrusion and that city council would approve. It also would enable the property to revert back to residential if the Hensons decided to move and sell.

As neighborhood opposition began to grow more vocal (also tracked in the Deborah-Cole dialogue), I also strongly suggested that the Hensons go door to door to personally visit with known opponents or those on the fence. I also believed they should issue targeted invitations to those they knew opposed the plan. I believed that if neighbors that opposed were able to see the floor plan of the house and/or visit the site, they might feel more favorably toward the proposed use under narrow restrictions. Kay even offered to bake a chocolate sheet cake to feed guests that might come for a look-see.

However, that suggestion did not lead to action. Cole said only supporters showed up for their open houses. After a strong disagreement on the front porch of one of our neighbors, the Hensons appeared to retreat into a circle of only their supporters—in the neighborhood and elsewhere.

At one point, when I picked up that the Hensons tended to view anyone who opposed them as a non-believer, I wrote Cole and said, ". . . See this as a community issue. Remember at every step that many of your opponents are believers who simply disagree with you about the location of your Pregnancy Resource Center."

Looking back, we realize now that the Hensons followed very few suggestions that we made. Freedom of Information records recently released under Texas law to a well-known and respected activist Garland citizen reveal an over-involvement between Deborah and the Hensons, including her unusual promise (for a politician to make to a constituent's unapproved controversial project) to provide the ultrasound medical equipment for the Shiloh Pregnancy Care Center. (She had already told me this in a text message, but a later text indicated the offer had been withdrawn.)

Cole and Raven, who had stayed behind in their vehicle that Thursday morning, and one of the two house guests left for lunch shortly thereafter, leaving Kay and me looking at each other in disbelief while standing in our living room.

At 2:34 p.m. on Thursday, October 3, the following text from Cole arrived on my phone:

"Proceeding as a Place of Worship is confirmed. Followed up with city staff to confirm that we will withdraw the zoning application request and major waiver request (including sign waiver).

"We will maintain the House Conversion submission and modify the plans accordingly to reflect this information for Building Permitting and Fire Marshall to review and approve.

"Therefore the Oct 14 meeting will only be a request for house conversion under the new parameters and property will remain SF-7 will (he meant "with") no visible deviation from a neighborhood home."

My puzzled feelings shifted to shock because of the speed with which this change had occurred. The Hensons clearly believed being a church was allowing them to escape the scrutiny of a zoning case or a PD and was a "done deal" with only technical hurdles remaining to be resolved with little public oversight. Deborah appeared to agree with them.

I grew concerned because I favor due process where citizens are given the opportunity to voice their opinions and are taken into account and democratic principles are applied. As soon as the church issue arose, Deborah started saying that city officials couldn't deny the Hensons church status—which meant nothing citizens said would have any impact. 

A strong supporter of the principle of separation of church and state, I also favor religious institutions NOT abusing their rights and NOT using their special status to violate local standards, statutes, laws, and ordinances such as building codes and zoning laws that have nothing to do with the U.S. constitutional right to freedom of religion. America's "great experiment" with freedom of religion is threatened any time religious groups use their freedom unwisely and misuse it to gain advantages that are not available to ordinary citizens.

How could we have moved so rapidly from a zoning-change request submitted by the Hensons to the Plan Commission's recommendation for a narrowly cast PD (planned development district), which I had publicly and strongly supported, now to this (being a church)?, I thought as I tried to reconcile in my mind the whirlwind of events.

A little later Cole returned with his luncheon guest for the two guests in our home to get ready for that evening's fundraiser in Royse City. After Cole left, one of the men diplomatically questioned Kay about whether the church idea really was "a done deal" so quickly. I made a few phone calls to city officials, then reported back that such an assumption was premature. The nationally recognized pro-life speaker said most often when he speaks to a group, the organization's status is already solidified: the applicants already have their property and own it in the name of their organization; that he rarely if ever addresses a group where the organization's plans are still in this kind of limbo.

When the nationally recognized pro-life speaker from Florida asked me how he should manage the unsettled situation in terms of his speech, I suggested that he emphasize the pro-life movement's national, state, and regional goals and viewpoint and the need for pregnancy-care in Garland but avoid endorsing the actual location of the Hensons' home at 920 West Avenue D as the site for the pregnancy-care center. He followed my advice.

I knew the matter still had to go back to the plan commission and then to city council. I wasn't sure how either body was going to react to this sudden and unexpected shift in directions—and also to the councilmember's unusual over-involvement in this case. And I knew the question on many of their minds would be, "How did this change occur?"

As a former Garland plan commissioner for 10 years, I felt the rebuff to what the commission had earlier proposed to the Hensons as a workable compromise would not look good or be received well. I also knew many neighbors would wonder why the situation had taken such a dramatic turn which Deborah and the Hensons were spinning as a "done deal" with very little citizen input allowed.

Were neighbors who were gravely concerned about having the Shiloh Pregnancy Care Center in our neighborhood suddenly just going to start smiling and welcome this new "church" into our mix with open arms? Many had already expressed disagreement with me that I had tried to find a compassionate compromise and middle path by suggesting and then strongly publicly supporting in front of the Plan Commission "a narrow PD" for the pregnancy-care center.

Would it be like Deborah said in a text to me at 3:08 p.m. on Thursday, October 3?

"If they'll keep their commitment to keep the exterior of the house indistinguishable from the rest of the neighborhood, eventually the anger will die down. As it is, they won't be much loved by many of their neighbors. What a shame."

The nationally known speaker from Florida told us that most of the pregnancy centers with which he works have large signs that are visible from far away and that easily attract women in pregnancy crisis. He said it is rare to have a pregnancy-care center in which the center's purpose cannot be widely proclaimed in huge signage. 

The deal Deborah worked out behind the scenes and described in detail in the Deborah-Henson messages calls for a small sign attached near the front door.

To me and many others, the strange turn of events of trying to sweep the issue out of public view was like the proverbial "family secret" that continues to gnaw away at the heart of a family until the matter is resolved. Unresolved family secrets have a way of destroying trust, building resentment, and undermining the good that many try to accomplish.

Our neighbors aren't going to be fooled by this switcheroo. I thought. Citizens deserve straightforward answers!

I suggested in a text to Cole that he needed to go ahead and publicly announce immediately on NextDoor their decision to declare 920 West Avenue D a "church", so no rumors would start circulating.

Cole responded, "Deborah would like to announce it at tomorrow night's meeting before we post publicly."

Next I wrote Deborah to make my suggestion:

"You need to go ahead and make the announcement on NextDoor. Word is already spreading," I said.

Deborah responded: "Who's spreading it? Please tell me it's not them."

I replied: "I am recommending to him (Cole) that he should go ahead and post on NextDoor. No sense keeping neighbors in the dark. At this point selected individuals are receiving text messages."

Deborah replied: "Louis, I strongly disagree. Tomorrow night I will come prepared with handouts and details to walk the neighborhood through this. Posting on NextDoor will just throw more grenades. This is a complex matter that requires context."

Deborah seemed adamant that she wanted to be in control of the announcement of the shift from what the Plan Commission had recommended to the "church", so I dropped the subject.

Then that night (Thursday) at the fundraising banquet, the testimonies by the Hensons were glowing. God was at work and had arranged everything perfectly for their vision that He had laid on their hearts. Their testimonies were emotion-laden. They were now a church. The deal was sealed. Everything was wonderful. Praise God!

Cole's testimony that night was even more ear-catching because he attributed everything to a revelation from God on Thursday morning (later amended with prodding from Raven to the previous Sunday night) with no reference whatsoever to Deborah Morris.

Then the Friday night, October 4, neighborhood meeting in a private home belonging to one of Deborah's appointees on the Garland bond study committee turned equally puzzling. After Deborah made the announcement about the Hensons' decision to declare the 920 West Avenue D property a "church", the Hensons stood beside Deborah to answer questions.

Question-marks were written all over the faces of numerous neighbors. It seemed tough for some to grasp why the switcheroo.

When my turn came, I asked the question burning in the back of my mind and in the minds of a number of other people: Whose idea was it that the pregnancy-care center become a church?

After a few moments of hesitation, Cole said it was his idea. Raven, of course, attributed it all to God. Cole quickly joined in the God-chorus. Not one word was said about Deborah's role in the decision.

As I attempted a follow-up question to clarify Cole's statements on Thursday morning at my house, the hostess shut me off by saying, "Louis, what's your point?" My point was that many members of the audience seemed very confused, and I believed the confusion could be resolved readily, based on the statement that Cole had made at my house the day before.

Why not let Deborah and Cole stand together in front of 30-some neighbors and explain how the shift from a zoning request to a planned development to a church actually occurred? Cole had been blunt with his words in my home, so why not in front of the larger audience? I wondered. Wouldn't it be better to have all the cards on the table, honestly and forthrightly, rather than leave neighbors wondering if they had been bamboozled?

Had I been allowed to question both Deborah and Cole together in public and let them tell their sides of the story in front of witnesses, the issue might have gone away quickly. Instead, Deborah's silence until three days later (and only after she called and asked me what my question referenced; I told her I was referring to Cole's statements on Thursday morning at my house) and Cole and Raven's God-talk in front of the neighbors angered some and left others feeling somehow cheated of the answer to a sincere question that had been bubbling for two days and is now THE heart of a major crisis in our city.

As it turns out the text and email messages and my personal experience show that Deborah Morris was over-involved in this case. Whatever her reason, I believe she vastly overstepped her boundaries as a public official. Garland is a City Manager-operated town. We have qualified employees who are supposed to do the things that Deborah has been doing in this case. City Council members are supposed to be the ones to make policy, not the ones to get involved in the minutia of running the city—especially guiding, counseling, and conferring often with an applicant of a small enterprise more like a mom-and-pop business than anything that should have consumed so much of her time and energy.

Was Deborah the one who first suggested the idea of the pregnancy-care center becoming a church? At this point, we may never know for sure, because she and the Hensons interacted so much and so often. She needed objective distance from this issue, but instead the volume and content of messages between Deborah and Cole indicate she became up to her neck in the details.

She needed to turn the matter over to the Plan Office, then step back and wait for qualified city employees to make recommendations, which she as a councilmember would act on later. Instead the revealed text messages indicate she invested entirely too much personal energy, time, and effort into something that has now turned into a colossal political mess.

One thing I do know: God is not the author of confusion, so God could not possibly have been the one who made this decision. Human hands were too involved. The recently released text and email messages between Deborah and Cole (when added to my personal correspondence with the two) are almost completely devoid of any reference to the will of God in this situation. At least in these conversations, God is simply not a factor behind the draped scenes.

God is probably embarrassed thoroughly by the whole mess and the way God's name has been inappropriately used during this ugly episode.

Regrettably, our city council now must decide on November 19 which way to go on this sad, sad, sad and shameful issue. And now to complicate matters further, council needs to decide what to do about a councilmember's excessive involvement in such a process.

******

Quick summary:

Had the Hensons and Councilwoman Morris chosen to stay the course with the PD (planned development), as the Plan Commission recommended:

1. The controversy likely would have subsided quickly and the "church route" would not be under the public microscope and would not have the appearance today of a knee-jerk, easy solution to avoid oversight.
2. The pregnancy center/church likely would not be facing the public-relations nightmare it now encounters. It would have avoided an almost "in-your-face" response to the Plan Commission's September 23 action that was designed to help and not hinder.
3. The severe restrictions on medical practices at the pregnancy-care center, placed on the "church" by the Plan Commission (and likely to be upheld by city council and possibly added to) likely would not have been necessary. The center likely could function as it was originally designed and announced.
4. The "church" likely would not have lost the trust of many.
5. Councilwoman Deborah Morris likely would not have been exposed personally to questions about her excessive involvement behind the scenes in this matter and her promised gift to the center of the ultrasound medical equipment.

New Texas state law on public officials' private messages allows citizens a behind-the-scenes peek in current controversy

After the Texas Legislature adopted the historic Open Meetings and Open Records Acts, in the wake of the Sharpstown Bank Scandal that brought down many Texas leaders, Harris County Commissions Court turned to Houston Chronicle reporter Kay Moore (my wife) to interpret the law for them. The arrow points to Kay in the audience.

Twice during the past six months the Garland city council has had extensive conversations about the Texas Legislature's Senate Bill 944 adopted during the most recent legislative session.

One councilmember even wrote his blog about it.

Every time the subject arose, it has left me scratching my head and asking, "Why the hubbub?"

Why was this particular Texas Legislative bill so important to our city council?

My curiosity was heightened when, during the second session in which council discussed the matter, the Garland city attorney commented that he could find no indication that any other municipal governmental body in Texas had spent as much time discussing the matter.

Since the bill seemed to be an update written to close certain loopholes created by new communication technologies not specifically referenced in the Texas Open Meetings and Open Records Acts of the early 1970s,  I decided to poll friends who are either newspaper editors, former newspaper editors, professors of journalism, or retired professors of journalism across Texas. Some of them were, as we were, very deeply involved with the Open Records and Open Meetings Acts when these historic and crucial laws were adopted by the Texas Legislature in the early 1970s. (More on that later.)

"Never heard of it," was the common response about the new bill. One person wondered what was going on in Garland that would prompt the discussion on council and then my inquiry.

A few took the time to look up and read the bill. Still, the response was, "What's the big deal?" They saw it as merely a mechanical update of existing Freedom of Information and Open Meetings laws—just underscoring what most of us already believed, that new forms of communication are included.

Some questioned, like I do, why Garland city council spent its time on this matter when it had more important things to do.

My favorite response came from an astute retired journalist who follows this blog regularly:

"Perhaps, the council members’ elevated interest reflects their recognition of how they’ve previously used digital connections to surpass or exclude citizen interaction, input AND oversight and to adeptly avoid media watchdogs on questionable deal-making and decisions. Use similar language in your Citizen Moore blog."

What the bill does is codify and bring up to date—because of all the new widespread technologies such as text messaging and Facebook messaging in recent years—essentially what the original Texas Open Meetings and Open Records Acts set in stone in the early 1970s. (This was long before at least two sitting Garland city council members were born and before the majority of those on council had ever moved to Garland.)

Setting off a statewide scandal that culminated in the Texas Legislature adopting the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts that revolutionized Texas politics, Frank Sharp, left, and his attorney, Jerry G. Hill, leave the federal courthouse in Houston after a deposition session in a stock fraud case. (Photo courtesy the Houston Chronicle)

The basic principle in those Acts was to declare that public officials must never meet as a quorum in secret or communicate with each other as a group in secret without following specific legal guidelines (closed executive sessions under strict guidelines including public notice). The act extended to public officials meeting with citizens under the cloak of darkness—the laws were aimed particularly at individuals who might be offering bribes or other forms of political payoffs.

The laws further gave citizens the right to see documents originated by, created by, or used by our leaders in their public duties.

All Senate Bill 944, which became effective on September 1 of this year, does is bring electronic communication—emails, text messages, posts on websites used by elected officials—securely under the umbrella of an Open Records request. And well it should!

Some of our city officials are complaining that the law makes too much work for them. No, it doesn't! It's their use of private devices for city business that makes more work for themselves. All they have to do is separate their personal from their public lives and stop using personal electronic equipment for city and  local political purposes. When they engage in city business or city political activities, they need to do so using their city-owned cell phones and city-owned email accounts. That way the records are indelibly archived for posterity—the city owns those records; these public officials don't have to worry with taking their time to make legal copies of what they've said or done and turn them into the city's archives.

It is a very, very simple matter.  The warning to our politicians is clear: Don't co-mingle your public and private lives. And don't do anything even questionable while in office—because, as the old saying goes, "Your sins will find you out".

At the end of the last session when our city council discussed the Senate Bill 944 matter, it ended with talk about everyone getting a city-owned cell phone. That was a wise decision. Not every one of the nine opted to do that, but each should.

Public officials must understand that they are being held to a higher accountability than are ordinary citizens. They are, after all, public officials using and administering public resources and funds.

Since the Dallas Morning News acts as if Garland hardly exists and since the city has no print daily newspaper, SB944 provides one more secure avenue for citizens to find out what is really going on behind the scenes in their city government.

Our politicians are not free to use private email accounts, private cell phones with private text messaging, or websites in certain cases to quietly manipulate public issues. Private communication with one's spouse or children or even neighbors is one thing. Communicating with citizens and other politicians about city-related issues is another matter altogether. If a matter involves public resources, influence, or power, it's the public's business to know—plain and simple—how it is being used. That is the very definition of governmental transparency.

Senate Bill 944 says public officials are to keep records of all such communication about public issues—albeit on private cell phones, private email accounts, etc.—and be able to make those readily available when called on (in an Open Records request and presumably a Grand Jury investigation, or even a criminal investigation.)

If I sound like I'm on soapbox strongly supporting unequivocally these laws, it's because I am.

Kay and I became involved with the Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act decades ago quite by historic accident. We were living in Louisville, KY, where Kay worked for United Press International and I was a graduate student in theology, when the Sharpstown Bank scandal erupted in 1971 in Houston. The bank was proved in court to have been involved in complicated stock-swap payoffs in secret meetings with public officials in Houston, Harris County, and Texas. Out of that nasty mess, which took down most of the Texas leadership in 1971-73, the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts were born.

We became involved with the two Acts when we moved to Houston in January 1972 after a whirlwind graduation tour through the Middle East and Europe. We both went to work at the Houston Chronicle on February 7, 1972. I was assigned to cover religion. Kay was assigned to cover the Harris County Commissioners Court and the Harris County civil courts.

Harris County Commissioners Court was then under the public microscope because of the Sharpstown Bank scandal and the implications for that governmental body. That naturally put Kay on guard, with our Chronicle editors constantly looking over her shoulders to make sure she was watching those politicians carefully. She even carried a copy of the new law in her purse and produced it on a few occasions when commissioners gathered in quorums in such places as break rooms or hallways where they weren't supposed to be together discussing official county business.

In one case, during a packed Commissioners Court session (pictured on this page), some commissioners publicly turned to Kay, a newspaper reporter sitting in the audience, to interpret the law for them. (That transcript is posted on this page also.) That was because the law was so new, the public was so angry about the scandal, and the new law flew in the faces of the way Texas politicians had been operating previously that the Houston politicos suddenly realized they needed to carefully watch their every step for fear of ending up in jail (as some of them eventually did).

Here is the actual 1975 transcript of Harris County Commissioners turning to Houston Chronicle reporter Kay Moore for clarification of the new Open Meetings law—an unusual step in that day for a governmental body.

Over in the Harris County Criminal Courts building the trials of those involved, including bank founder and owner Frank Sharp himself, were under way. Our friend, John Durham, was covering those trials. Imagine my surprise when the prosecution called the Rev. Charles L. Allen, pastor of First United Methodist Church of Houston (then the largest Methodist church in the world), to the witness stand and my supervisor called on me to get involved. Frank Sharp had been a member of that church. Charles defended himself steadfastly and nothing ever became of his testimony, but it was a fascinating lesson for me on how the tentacles of corruption can reach out and cast aspersions on apparently innocent people.

So at our house in the early 1970s, the Texas Open Meetings and  Open Records Acts were more than just "pillow talk"—we lived with those laws for days, weeks, months and years. Kay could almost awaken in the middle of the night and recite the Open Meetings Law by heart! I grew to know every nuance in the law, too.

Now comes the latest chapter: the controversy in our Garland neighborhood over plans by two newcomers to convert one of the local historic homes to a pregnancy care center and call it a church. The matter erupted further this week with a public revelation of a legitimate Open Records Request by a well-known Garland citizen for cell phone text messages and emails as well as other correspondence involving one Garland councilmember in whose district the proposed church/pregnancy care center is situated.

The text and email messages that have been released so far focus on what degree of involvement this one city councilmember has had in coaching the applicants—to what degree that councilmember has advised them, coordinated with them, and encouraged them to take the current mid-course u-turn as the case has progressed. The next batch of text and email messages procured by the same individual under the Open Records Act may be available next week and may prove even more interesting as this matter unfolds under the microscope.

Whatever becomes of the current issue over the pregnancy-care-center-calling-itself-a-church matter, one thing is certain: Garland can thank Senate Bill 944 for making it easier for citizens to gain access to what our politicians have been doing—and are doing—behind the scenes in this situation as well as many, many others.

Never again should any of our city, county, or even state officials feel they are "safe" to carry on the public's business behind the scenes without eventually the truth coming out. The current controversy is awakening Garland citizens to their rights to obtain accurate information through the Open Records Act on matters of public interest. It's really a very simple process! Call the Garland city attorney's office for directions.

Thank you, Texas Legislature, for this underrated but wise new piece of legislation! And thank you, Garland city attorney's office, for enforcing this and all other aspects of the Open Meetings and Open Records laws in Texas.

The public has an absolute right to know what all is involved in decision-making by our leaders. These laws are an avenue for providing that information to us.

******
For more information on the Sharpstown Bank Scandal which brought down much of the Texas leadership 1971-1973 and served as the springboard for the Texas Open Meetings and the Open Records Acts, use this link to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpstown_scandal