Mount Pleasant council tables proposed limits on public-information requests after heated public comment

Mount Pleasant — The City Council on Dec. 2 tabled an ordinance that would set local thresholds for charging requesters under the Texas Public Information Act, after residents and a records requester raised concerns the proposal could impede transparency during ongoing investigations.

Austin Beck, the attorney who assisted in drafting Ordinance 2025-24, told the council the measure implements allowable procedural limits under the TPIA (chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code). He said the draft would trigger cost-recovery after a requester accumulates 36 hours of staff time in a year or 15 hours in a month, and that the Attorney General caps reimbursable staff time at $15 per hour. "All it does is guarantee that this city gets reimbursed for all of the time spent after you hit a certain threshold," Beck said.

But several members of the public, including Kyle Moring, a former Walmart asset-protection investigator who said he is the complainant in a federal whistleblower case, warned the timing felt wrong. Moring said he had filed two ethics complaints with the council and described records he obtained through the TPIA that he called important to public-safety and taxation oversight. "The records you hold don't belong to city hall. They belong to the public," he told the council.

Another frequent public commenter urged the council not to adopt the ordinance while active records requests and ethics complaints remain unresolved, saying it could "price people out of proving corruption in the city." Several council members and staff responded that many of the ordinance's tools already exist under state law and that the local measure would only lower thresholds for when cost recovery kicks in.

City Secretary Candace described the practical workload for records requests: "On average in a week, I would say anywhere from 5 to, like, 10" requests, and she explained the departmental coordination required for more complex searches. Beck said the ordinance also formalizes the process for issuing cost estimates and pausing new requests until unpaid invoices are settled.

After discussion, Council Member (unnamed) moved to table the ordinance; the motion was seconded and the council voted to table the item to the next meeting. Proponents and critics said they expect more discussion; the ordinance will return to the council with opportunity for additional public input.

The council did not amend the underlying state statutory references; the discussion focused on operational thresholds, the vexatious-requester concept (which Beck said is not part of the draft or state statute) and safeguards for criminal or regulatory investigations, which Beck noted are not subject to the TPIA when law-enforcement agencies are involved.

Next steps: The ordinance is tabled and will be placed on the next meeting's agenda for further consideration and possible revision.