La Marque council clashes over open‑records process; clerk’s evaluation delayed to December

A heated debate over the city’s handling of public-records requests dominated the La Marque City Council meeting, with Councilmember Lowry alleging widespread delays and selective releases and City Clerk Kiara Nance defending the office’s procedures and saying staff are conducting audits and training.

Lowry said the delay of records “is actually a crime” and accused the office of favoritism in charging fees and in what materials are released. “If I like you, I’m gonna give you your open record,” he said during the public session, urging outside audit and stronger enforcement.

Nance, who is responsible for records retention and public‑information processing, disputed the characterization. “Every open records request has the name of the person who worked that request at the bottom of it,” she said. She described recent audits of the records system, a planned training with Olsen & Olsen, and noted that many body‑worn‑camera requests are handled by the Police Records Division. “I do not look at body cam footage. That is not my job,” Nance said.

Other councilmembers framed the dispute as both a legal and operational problem. Mayor Pro Tem urged the council to study best practices used by other cities and to consider technical redaction tools; one councilmember recommended clearer guidance on requester rights on the city website. Several colleagues called the repeated attacks on staff “harassment.” Councilmember Nancy (District A) said the clerk has endured “a hostile environment” and urged the council to provide data and protect employees.

During the personnel-related portion of the discussion, Councilmember Lowry moved to terminate the city clerk; the motion failed for lack of a second. Later, Councilmember Yancey moved — with a friendly amendment limiting exceptions to criminal conviction or charter violation — that the council defer any additional evaluation of the city clerk until the annual review in December. The motion carried in a roll-call vote.

Council also discussed the costs and timelines that govern public‑information fees under the Texas Public Information Act, with staff noting the state provides a fee schedule and that some requests sent to the attorney general or connected with pending litigation or active investigations can remain confidential. Legal and operational constraints around body-camera footage were repeatedly cited as reasons some requests take longer or require redaction.

The council asked staff to provide clearer public guidance on the open-records process, to bring forward reports and training materials, and to consider whether current redaction capabilities could be expanded to reduce external provider reliance. The meeting record shows no disciplinary action was taken; the postponed evaluation is set for the clerk’s regular annual review unless a disqualifying event occurs.