Galveston council demands park board restore auditor access, votes to pursue Open Meetings Act complaints

On May 28 the Galveston City Council voted to send a formal communication to the Galveston Park Board demanding that the office of the city auditor be given read-only access to park board financial files and to authorize legal action over possible violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and Texas Public Information Act.

Council members said the action followed months of delayed document production and a shift by the park board from in‑person read‑only access to selectively uploaded, annotated digital files. "They are telling us that it's 2,400 plus documents, and they've given us 1,200 documents that we're currently going through," City Auditor Glenn said during the council workshop. City Attorney Don Glowaski told council he had added a deadline to the draft communication, asking that access be restored "by the close of business on 05/30/2025." The council approved the communication 6–1, with one dissenting vote.

Council members and outside counsel told the meeting they were concerned about two separate but related issues: (1) whether the park board's method of delivering documents — producing PDFs with annotations and uploading selected files to a folder rather than allowing unfettered read‑only access — was slowing or impeding the audit, and (2) whether recent park board actions taken after executive sessions had been sufficiently described in public meeting minutes or agenda items.

Robert Booth, an attorney who reviewed meeting materials for council, said his initial review "indicates there may be [an Open Meetings Act] violation." Booth recommended council set a clear deadline for the park board to either confirm it had not entered settlement agreements discussed in executive session or to disclose terms and bring any final proposed agreements back to a public meeting for deliberation and vote.

Auditor's access and document handling City Auditor Glenn described a change in how the park board delivered records. He told the council that audit staff previously had read‑only access to a server but that, for the current hot‑tax audit covering 2022 and 2024, the park board instead provided batches of PDFs in a folder and that the office had received roughly half of the total material requested.

Council members said that process requires more staff time at the park board and leaves open the question of whether the city auditor is receiving the full set of records requested. Some council members also raised concerns about the park board adding explanatory annotations to invoices and other documents before providing them to the auditor; the auditor said he had not yet completed review and could not determine whether annotations were misleading or helpful.

Alleged executive‑session settlement authority Council discussion also focused on motions the park board made after executive sessions that, according to council's outside counsel, did not identify the subjects of proposed settlement agreements, the financial terms, or indicate that final approval would be returned to an open meeting. Counsel for council said that, if a settlement were finalized without appropriate public disclosure and vote, that could constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act and might be subject to administrative complaint or litigation.

Council action and next steps At its regular meeting later the same day the council approved (6–1) a motion to send the communication to the park board, directing the mayor and other designated members to sign and directing the city secretary to effect delivery. The council also approved (6–1) a separate motion authorizing the city attorney to file administrative complaints with state agencies or to initiate litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking any and all relief available to the city; the council instructed counsel to file the action with "greatest dispatch." One council member voted against both measures.

Council members emphasized they preferred voluntary compliance: city attorneys said the park board's attorney had been emailed and council had asked for written confirmation that no settlement agreements had been executed and that, if any were finalized, they would be taken up in a public meeting. Officials said they had received a brief email on the morning of May 28 from park board counsel stating, "we have not executed any settlement agreements."

The council also directed that the city auditor be given restored read‑only access to the park board's financial folders so the auditor could resume on‑site review, and set the requested deadline for access as close of business on May 30, 2025.

Votes at a glance - Item 7b — Approve communication to Galveston Park Board directing adherence to the Texas Open Meetings Act and Texas Public Information Act and requesting timelier responses and restored access. Outcome: approved 6–1 (one no vote by Council Member Brown). - Item 7c — Authorize city attorney to take action against Galveston Park Board, including filing administrative complaints or initiating litigation. Outcome: approved 6–1 (one no vote by Council Member Brown).

What comes next City staff and council legal counsel said they would await any additional response from the park board but would proceed with filings if clarifying responses were not received in short order. Council also discussed but did not immediately pursue other investigatory tools; one item to initiate a council investigation was later deferred to a future agenda.

Ending Council members said they hoped the park board would provide the requested access and documentation promptly to avoid litigation and to allow the audit to proceed to completion.