On Friday, May 29, Remnant Law sent a demand letter to the Salado Public Library District (SPLD) Board of Trustees addressing multiple violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), the First Amendment, the Texas Constitution, and the District’s own policies.
These include:
- Repeated failures to provide legally required meeting notice
- The issuance of an unlawful directive restricting a citizen’s ability to communicate with elected trustees
- Viewpoint discrimination on the District’s official Facebook page
- The improper removal of a citizen during a reconsideration appeal
This is not the first time the board’s actions have drawn legal scrutiny.
In December of last year, Remnant Law sent a demand letter to the board addressing the improper implementation of extensive new rules governing public comments at meetings. These rules, which appeared on the December 1 agenda, were adopted in secret, thereby violating TOMA.1
After receiving the demand letter, the board removed the public comment rules from subsequent agendas.
The problems did not end there.
The December 22, 2025 agenda contained additional TOMA violations.2 Upon hearing from a citizen, steps were taken to bring the District into compliance with the law.
Similar issues arose following the May 2025 election. When it became clear that a second election would be required to break a tie vote, library staff and trustees committed several violations of the Texas Election Code.3
Once again, a citizen had to inform the District of its legal obligations, prompting corrective action.
The board’s handling of public comment also raised concerns.
On three occasions between October 2025 and April 2026, the board president interjected her personal opinion in response to speakers’ public comments.4
State law specifies the time and manner in which trustees may respond to comments made by members of the public. The president’s conduct did not comply with those requirements.5
A citizen contacted the board regarding these concerns, but never received a reply.
Finally, at the May 28, 2026 board meeting, the library director committed no fewer than four violations of TOMA, library policy, and board bylaws in a single incident.6
* * *
What should we make of all this? If nothing else, it reveals a pattern of either ignorance of the law or disregard for it—both of which are troubling in a public body.
Salado Public Library staff and trustees work hard on behalf of the community, and we are grateful for their contributions. But in order to maintain the goodwill of the citizens (taxpayers) who fund the library, it is imperative that everyone responsible for its governance and operations play by the rules.
The Texas Open Meetings Act, codified in 1993, ensures that government business is conducted openly and with respect for citizens’ rights, both of which are essential to self-government.
We call on the SPLD trustees to recognize that their responsibility extends beyond the library itself to the stewardship of the public trust.
- According to Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551.007(c), the board may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public’s right to address the body. It is understood from §§ 551.001(4)(A) and 551.002 that a formal vote to adopt such rules must occur in a public meeting of a quorum of the board, which never happened. ↩︎
- (1) Item #2 was “Discuss/approve public forum policy,” but the policy that would be under discussion was not reproduced in the agenda. This was insufficient notice, since, if the board approved the new policy, it would be effective immediately, and speakers wouldn’t know whether they’re compliant with it. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.041 and legal precedent. (2) Item #3 said public forum speakers would be limited to 3 minutes or less. But this was a change from existing policy, which allowed 5 minutes per speaker. The board can’t preemptively change the time limit from 5 to 3 minutes before the board has even voted on it (item #2), which vote must take place by a quorum of the body in an open session. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.102. ↩︎
- For both of these, see Tex. Elec. Code § 2.002(b). (1) The second election was ordered before the automatic recount. The second election must be ordered not later than the fifth day after the recount. (2) The second election date was set to less than 20 days after the recount. The second election must occur 20-45 days after the recount. ↩︎
- (1) On October 27, 2025, she said to a citizen after his comment, “The only person here making personal attacks is you.” (2) On February 23, 2026, she said to a citizen after her comment, “Ma’am, as far as I know, we have not declared ourselves anything regarding banning books. That is a false statement.” (3) On April 27, 2026, she interrupted a citizen mid-comment and said, “This is your version of a story, and we’re not hearing the whole story.” ↩︎
- Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.042 only allows a response to inquiries “about a subject for which notice has not been given as required by this subchapter.” The response may be in the form of (a) a statement of specific factual information given in response to the inquiry or (b) a recitation of existing policy in response to the inquiry. All other discussion relating to the citizen’s comment must be deferred to a later meeting and conducted under a properly posted agenda item. ↩︎
- During consideration of an agenda item titled “Director’s report on Library operations and activities,” the library director ceded the floor to a recently graduated Belton High School student she had invited to speak, who proceeded to deliver a speech opposing “book bans.” (1) The speech was unrelated to the agenda item, thereby violating Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.041, which requires sufficient notice to inform the public of the subjects to be considered at a meeting. (2) The remarks, being polemical and delivered as a monologue, belonged in the Public Forum. However, the student did not sign up to speak, as required by library policy. (3) That policy limits public comment to three minutes; the student spoke for more than five. (4) SPLD bylaws (Art. II, Sec. 6) provide that “[m]eetings shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order [RRO],” yet what transpired was inconsistent with normal parliamentary procedure. (a) The chair did not recognize the speaker; instead, the director effectively exercised authority ordinarily reserved to the chair. (b) The student’s remarks were not germane to the question pending. A speaker recognized to address one matter is not generally entitled to introduce unrelated business. (c) The student’s presentation was never authorized by the board. Under RRO, nonmembers generally have no right to address the assembly absent permission from the body or an applicable rule. Here, the invitation appears to have originated solely with a staff member. ↩︎
Comments are closed.