April

 29,  2011  

City  Council   Board  of  Trustees  

P.O.  Box  779   123  Rosenberg,  8th  Floor  
823  Rosenberg   Galveston,  Texas  77553  
Galveston,  Texas  77553    
 
Dear  City  Council  Members  and  Board  of  Trustees,  
 
I  know  that  each  of  you  want  only  the  very  best  for  the  city  of  Galveston  and  its  port.    We  also  want  the  very  best  for  our  
community,  and  have  used  the  Public  Information  Act  to  review  records  at  the  port  to  address  serious  management  
problems.  
 
At  the  April  26,  2010  regular  board  meeting,  Mayor  Thomas  stated  that  she  believed  that  we  were  seeing  a  “lack  of  
oversight  throughout  the  Corporation”  and  made  a  motion  which  the  board  unanimously  approved  for  the  port  director  
to  provide  a  report  to  the  board  at  the  May  meeting  on  solutions  in  personnel  and  changes  in  policy.    Unfortunately,  this  
report  never  happened,    and  some  of  these  oversight  problems  still  exist.  
 
This  letter  is  to  voice  our  complaint  about  a  meeting  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  held  on  April  21,  2011  which  we  believe  
violated  the  city  charter  and  the  open  meetings  act  by  failing  to  adequately  post  the  topic  discussed.    
 
The  agenda  topic  was  posted  as  "E7 Discuss and Consider Public Information and Public Relations Policies and
Procedures, and Consider Report from Public Relations Manager on Status Thereof".  
 
Trustees  Manlove  and  Walsh  had  requested  that  Public  Relations  information  be  placed  on  the  next  agenda  due  to  
discussions  that  occurred  at  the  regular  meeting  in  March.    This  discussion  centered  on  newsletters,  pictures  and  getting  
the  news  out  to  the  public  by  the  public  relations  manager.    
 
Instead  of  covering  just  this  posted  topic,  port  staff  gave  a  presentation  covering  the  Public  Information  Act  and  open  
records.    As  the  topic  progressed,  the  focal  point  appeared  to  shift  to  the  “O’Rourkes”  and  the  problems  caused  by  their  
open  records  requests.      The  port  staff  had  props  and  the  camera  panned  over  to  boxes  of  documents  that  were  
obviously  prepared  for  this  staged  event.  
 
The  ”O’Rourkes”  make  no  apologies  for  using  the  Public  Information  Act  to  scrutinize  the  port.    Management  needs  to  
hold  down  its  expenses  and  new  debt.          
 
 Obviously  the  port  understands  the  importance  of  time  management  for  open  records  as  it  tracks  the  O’Rourke’s  time,  
but  does  not  understand  the  importance  of  time  management  for  its  own  employees.          
 
Even  though  DRDA  recommended  that  the  port  exempt  employees  record  their  hours  and  start  working  a  regular  
schedule,  the  port  managers  and  employees  still  do  not  track  their  own  time.    There  is  no  way  for  managers  to  evaluate  
job  performance,  the  number  of  partial  days  worked,  or  if  more  or  less  personnel  are  needed  to  perform  work  
assignments.      
 
Port  managers  can’t  tell  you  how  many  hours  exempt  employees  really  work,  but  can  tell  you  how  many  hours  the  
“O’Rourke’s”  reviewed  open  records  in  the  last  two  years.    Which  fact  do  you  think  is  more  relevant  in  the  scheme  of  
managing  the  port?  
 
We  would  appreciate  an  apology  from  the  port  for  failure  to  adequately  post  this  meeting.    The  misinformation  about  
the  “O’Rourkes”  in  their  absence  appeared  to  be  a  deliberate  attempt  to  shift  the  focus  from  the  posted  agenda  topic,  
and  to  diminish  their  reputations  to  the  board  and  community  in  their  absence.  

1  
 
Last  year,  after  reviewing  general  journal  reports  for  over  four  months  while  trying  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  general  
ledger,  we  hired  a  CPA  to  tell  the  port  that  the  reports  that  they  kept  providing  was  a  general  journal  and  not  a  general  
ledger,  and  that  the  port  must  have  a  general  ledger  report  to  reconcile  its  books.  
 
Some  of  the  98  hours  outlined  by  the  port  as  “review  time”  were  spent  during  this  general  ledger  fiasco,  and  the  other  
hours  were  spent  outlining  management  issues  during  the  management  and  policy  review  of  the  port.      
 
Was  the  port  financial  staff  really  so  poorly  trained  that  they  don’t  know  the  difference  between  a  general  ledger  and  a  
general  journal  report,  or  was  the  port  staff  giving  the  “O’Rourkes”  the  run  around?      
 
When  port  staff  attacks  our  motives  during  a  public  meeting  or  makes  false  statements,  we  must  complain,  but  we  offer  
absolutely  no  apologies  for  trying  to  clean  up  major  management  problems  identified  through  our  open  records  
requests.  
 
Port  staff  erroneously  claimed  that  “95%”  of  the  “O’Rourkes”  requests  were  related  to  the  port  director.  
 
The  port  also  erroneously  claimed  in  the  presentation  handout  that  it  had  fulfilled  Council  Member  Beeton’s  request  for  
information  in  one  (1)  day  when  she  stated  in  the  council  meeting  that  she  had  not  received  the  bid  information.  
 
The  port  needs  to  explain  why  staff  gave  skewed  data  to  the  board  when  it  stated  that  it  takes  only  .88  days  to  fulfill  
public  information  requests  when  the  port  knows  that  the  people  on  that  list  have  not  received  some  of  the  BMO  
requested  information  and  the  port  did  NOT  file  a  timely  AG  request  as  required  by  law.    All  of  the  ORourke’s  BMO  
requests  which  took  much  longer  to  process  were  removed,  and  these  months  would  have  lengthened  the  response  
time  considerably.  
 
 If  the  port  would  stop  demonizing  the  “O’Rourkes”,  clean  up  the  management  problems,  place  basic  information  like  
agendas,  minutes,  and  agenda  topic  materials  on  the  port  website,  TPIA  requests  would  be  drastically  reduced  if  not  
eliminated  by  the  “O’Rourkes”.  
 
The  current  outstanding  TPIA  request  is  the  BMO  bid  proposals  that  we  have  spent  four  (4)  months  trying  to  obtain,  and  
have  been  waiting  patiently  for  these  records  or  for  the  port  staff  to  seek  a  timely  AG  opinion  which  is  the  normal  
procedure  when  a  public  entity  doesn’t  want  to  release  public  records  held  by  a  third  party.  
 
If  the  port  staff  will  NOT  give  the  bid  proposals  or  timely  updates  to  its  own  Trustees  and  city  council,  especially  when  
BMO  is  just  a  third  party  advisor  to  the  board,  one  must  obviously  conclude  that  the  problems  with  open  records  are  
NOT  with  the  “O’Rourkes”  but  with  port  staff.        
 
If  you  have  any  questions,  please  do  not  hesitate  to  contact  us.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
Ted  O’Rourke                                                                              Charlotte  O’Rourke    
   
Enclosed:   4)    Emails/Letter  p.  1-­‐11  from  Port  Attorney  that  an  AG  
1)    April  26,  2010  Minutes   opinion  needed  to  be  sought  and  to  send  the  bid  
2)    March  28,  2011  Minutes   information  to  him  for  review  
3)    Public  Information  Act  Handout/April  21,  2011   5)    Jeff  Holt  response  to  Port  Attorney/Feb  1,  2011  
  received  on  4/11/2011  
  6)    CPA  Letter  about  general  ledger  and  port  problems  
  7)    2  of  the  many  open  records  emails  about  the  general  
  ledger  

2