NCAD is at again

[roadkill]

A little update. The CCPD should by now be done with my inquiry/complaint. I was supposed to be contacted by the officers LT as to what happened with their policy at NCAD. I have not heard anything as of yet so next week I will contact IA to make sure that I receive a follow up regarding their actions. In the mean time NCADs lawyer got married and was gone on a honeymoon so he was delayed in responding to my notice of violation I sent NCAD. I received his follow up today and wasn't to happy about it. I requested minutes from the ARB board meeting discussing open carry and posting of their meetings. From the audio of that meeting it is clear that Mr Canales intends to restrict all guns from the building and they understand the law in regards to posting the meetings. Tonight I requested the audio for NCAD's board meeting discussing open carry. I believe that Mr Canales fully understands the law yet is trying to skirt the law and restrict LTC holders from carrying inside the building. I will be sending the AG my info I have researched (minutes of meetings)and all correspondence so that they can add it to their files as several complaints are still outstanding.

Here's the letter. It appears they will be discriminating against LTC holders. I am responding back asking how they will prevent LTC holders from carrying while speaking to an appraiser informally. IMO NCAD has two options if they seek to restrict LTC holders from talking to an appraiser. 1. They can stop all informal meetings which will be a burden on them and the citizens and 2. Discriminate and risk being in violation of the law in which I believe they would be.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

So if my appraisal review meeting is an 'open meeting', that means I can bring journalists (i.e., Corpus Christi Caller Times) and a TV news film crew (KRISTV, or KIII or KZTV10) to my review meeting and the ARB has to both accommodate them space-wise AND let them record the meeting?

My other question would be 'just exactly what is the definition of an "open meeting" under Texas law'?

[Papa_Tiger]

My other question would be 'just exactly what is the definition of an "open meeting" under Texas law'?

For that, you get to delve into Texas Government Code section 551:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... GV.551.htm

[G.A. Heath]

If any meetings with the appraisal review board is an open meeting I wonder if they are meeting all the requirements such as record keeping and if all previous 'open meetings' have been conducted under these guidelines.

[roadkill]

If any meetings with the appraisal review board is an open meeting I wonder if they are meeting all the requirements such as record keeping and if all previous 'open meetings' have been conducted under these guidelines.

I requested the minutes of some from last year. They are kept in audio form. You'll get a cd of it when you request it.

[G.A. Heath]

If any meetings with the appraisal review board is an open meeting I wonder if they are meeting all the requirements such as record keeping and if all previous 'open meetings' have been conducted under these guidelines.

I requested the minutes of some from last year. They are kept in audio form. You'll get a cd of it when you request it.

Interesting.

[roadkill]

I received a copy of the letter sent by the attorney from Paxton's office to Judge Neal and Tom Wheat (NCAD attorney) advising that they will be investigating the incident. Not sure what if anything will come of it especially since the Nueces County Appraisal District isn't under the county (Judge Neal) in regards to reporting to. And now more waiting I suppose. Should be an open/shut case but justice moves slowly

[Papa_Tiger]

More ammo for 2 years from now, provided the courts haven't done anything about it by then.

[roadkill]

I don't guess they were too serious or in much of a hurry to remove those signs.
This pic was taken today about 6 weeks after that letter I received stating the signs were coming down. I guess some more letters and phone calls will have to be made. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. Really would be nice if the AG would step up and start enforcing the fines for signs law.

[Jusme]

I don't guess they were too serious or in much of a hurry to remove those signs.
This pic was taken today about 6 weeks after that letter I received stating the signs were coming down. I guess some more letters and phone calls will have to be made. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. Really would be nice if the AG would step up and start enforcing the fines for signs law.

Can anyone tell me, what other legislation, is expected to be, not only enforced, but determined to be in violation, by opinion only, of the AG office? As well as simplybeing able to avoid any type of prosecution, by temporarily complying, and then re-violating, with no repercussions? This was my point in my posts regarding HB 560. The Legislature simply tried appeasing LTC holders, without having to actually pass enforceable legislation.

[ScottDLS]

They don't have to comply, NCAD is at its heart, an educational institution serving to educate you on your property value for tax purposes. It is a felony to carry there. Also they are an amusement park, hospital, and a church, as well as deriving 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Now everyone shut up and pay your taxes (unarmed)!

[flechero]

This pic was taken today about 6 weeks after that letter I received stating the signs were coming down.

Can you carry that letter as your authority to carry there since they stated the signs should not be there?

[roadkill]

This pic was taken today about 6 weeks after that letter I received stating the signs were coming down.

Can you carry that letter as your authority to carry there since they stated the signs should not be there?

I don't need that letter as my authority to carry there but should I choose to push the issue if the CCPD officer wants to prevent me from carrying where allowed by law and arrests me that letter would be a very valuable piece of evidence for me. It's a very valuable letter for the AG to use to levy fines. I sent them a copy of today's pic. Just wish they would step up and start the fine process.

[roadkill]

Still but not nearly as much as before. I took a trip down there last Thursday because their website said that no ARB meeting would be taking place. On the front door was an amended agenda from the one on the website and indeed an ARB was scheduled that day. I didnt even bother entering the building. Yesterday I had time so I went back down there. The CCPD working security checked my LTC and let me go about my business and stated there were no signs posting that prevented my carry. I don't feel he fully understood the law in regards to signs but he allowed entry so we are making definite progress there. I am trying to get something in writing from CCPD in regards to my complaint with Internal Affairs. The investigation is over but the officer that handles the information hasn't tried to get in contact with me. So I enter the building and head straight to the third floor where I am greeted with both 30.06 and 30.07 signs still up and uncovered. I took pics but no point in posting them, we've all seen them and with the photobucket stance on 3rd party hosting it wouldn't appear anyways. I email a quick update and pics of the agenda showing no meeting on the day I took pics and sent them to the person that I have been in contact with at the AG office investigating the signs. I asked if should serve another notice of violation and was told that he would folllow up with me and that the NCAD case is at the top of his list. So it appears we might be getting somewhere with this, just taking lots of documentation and persistence on my part.

Flash back to two meetings ago and the minutes I requested. The NCAD abandoned the idea of portable signs that was mentioned in their reply to my notice of violation. In the meeting Ronnie Canales said that they would put a wall covering over the signs when a meeting is not in place. Did not happen yesterday. And a funny side note the lady's behind the glass wall at the window saw me take the pic. I was standing near the elevator out of their view looking at the pics and overheard them mention me coming in and taking a pic and then leaving.

I also requested all emails from Ronnie and all board memeber to each other and others that dealt with "security" and covering a time frame of July 2015 to present. I received a certified letter from the NCAD attorney today outlining the estimated costs (11 hours at $15/hr for $165 total). Do these sound like a fair estimate for my request? I know the hourly dollar amount is what the law states but the estimate only gave hours to perform it and no other break down explanation. After the research is done they can give me an estimate on the cost of copies at $0.10 each. Is there any further clarification on the costs I should ask for or demand? I'm not in IT but thought they should be able to perform a search on their server for keywords such as "security, guns, knives, weapons, safety, etc) and get the appropriate emails found faster than 11 hours. Not sure how the emails are setup for the board members and if that is where more time would be needed. Any thoughts?

[roadkill]

Finally got back in touch with CCPD regarding my IA case I started. The officer I spoke with knows and understands my complaint was two fold but kept wanting to kick it back to NCAD. I'm not sure if I'll ever get anything in writing from CCPD with what happened but here's the rundown as it was verbally told to me. The offduty officer was acting lawfully in asking me to disarm to go up stairs. The appraisal district can ask me to disarm in order to talk to them and they can direct the offduty officer to keep guns out of the building. CCPD has consulted with their legal advisors and they are of the conclusion that they can do this. The appraisal district attorney is also of the same opinion. The CCPD did not contact the state AG for a legal opinion on the matter. As far as they are concerned the officer acted lawfully and the case is over. Opinions?