Cripple Gray Ranch

10/22/2024

BASTROP CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD MEETING UPDATE – Thursday, 10/24/2024

The Bastrop Central Appraisal District has posted the agenda for the upcoming board meeting on Thursday, October 24, 2024, at 4:00 pm, at the district office. As a board member, I requested that two important items be added to the agenda:

1 - A report from the Chief Appraiser on how the productivity value for beekeeping is being set.

2 - A report on certain agency rules in the Ag Guidelines Manual that seem to contradict the law.

Unfortunately, neither of these items were included on the agenda, meaning they cannot be discussed at the meeting. Both issues appear to be in direct conflict with the law that we are sworn to uphold. The refusal to even allow discussion, or obtain clarification from the Chief Appraiser, raises serious concerns. It seems as though Chairman David Redd is actively preventing the board from reviewing and potentially bringing these policies into compliance with the law.

I will continue to raise these concerns as I am able. I still hope that some board members may be committed to ensuring that the appraisal district operates within the boundaries of the law and will NOT try to conceal these potentially illegal policies from the public.

I encourage everyone to attend the meeting and make their voices heard on these and other important issues affecting our community.

10/09/2024

UPDATE ON BASTROP CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT POLICIES

As a member of the Board of Directors, I’ve been working to get the Board to address some Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) policies that may be unlawful. I believe these issues should be openly discussed in a public meeting.

Unfortunately, individual board members no longer have the authority to place items directly on the agenda. That decision now rests solely with the Chief Appraiser or the Chairman of the Board of Directors. To address this, I’ve formally requested that the Chairman put two important items on the agenda for the next meeting:

A REPORT FROM THE CHIEF APPRAISER ON HOW THE PRODUCTIVITY VALUE FOR BEEKEEPING IS BEING SET.

A REPORT ON AGENCY RULES IN THE AG GUIDELINES MANUAL THAT APPEAR TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW.

These matters deserve a thorough review by the board and discussion in front of the public to ensure BCAD policies comply with the law. Since emails involving governmental business are public information, I’m including a link to the email I sent requesting these items be added to the agenda.

Stay tuned for updates as I work to bring these concerns to light and ensure accountability within the district.

Shared with Dropbox

10/04/2024

I finally got around to calculating the performance ratings from the Minnesota Polocrosse Club tournament. Here's how MY performance ratings turned out:

Player Old rating New rating
Antonio Suarez 0 2
Becky Dekkers 7 6
David Finch 6 7
Eli Dekkers 8 8
Eli Doelz 9 8
Ely Wickander 8 7
Eunice Doelz 5 4
Gwen Halverson 2 4
Hannah Peterson 5 7
Jenna Lindquist 4 4
Kendall Johnson 5 6
Kendra Oliphant 4 6
Kole Najarian 0 5
Kristi Johnson 7 6
Kristy Gusick 8 8
Leyla Smead 2 3
Luke Johnson 3 3
Madeleine Dekkers 10 9
Marc Suarez 4 3
Matt Dekkers 8 7
Payson Hach 2 4
Rachel Peterson 4 5
Sarah McKeown 7 7
Steve McKeown 4 3

10/02/2024

Shared with Dropbox

09/10/2024

I made a DVD in 2006 of my Polocrosse Horse Training Experience that I conducted, and I sold those DVD's for years. A few months ago I published the DVD files, so anyone could watch the DVD for free, but they had to download all the DVD files to their computer to watch them. Now, I've finally converted the original DVD to a single file and I've uploaded it to Youtube, so now anyone can watch it just by clicking on it on Youtube. The video is 2 hours long and shows us breaking the horses, competing on the horses in 3 tournaments, and auctioning them off at the last tournament. When this was a DVD, it had chapters where you could go to any portion you wanted to watch. I tried to recreate the chapters capability by making linked time-stamps in the description area of the video.

Here's the link to the video on Youtube:

This is the video made documenting Paul Johnson's Polocrosse Horse Training Experience conducted in 2006. The participants, Dori (Wiseman) Johnson, Sarah (F...

09/04/2024

I finally got around to calculating the performance ratings from the Pony Club Champs at the Kentucky Horse Park. There were 18 players. Here's how their performance ratings came out:

Player Old rating New rating
Bailey Treadwell 8 7
Brauch Treadwell 11 10
Charlotte Saraceni 3 3
Ella Sabine Bean Hatcher 7 6
Evanna Parker 2 3
Hallie Davis 3 4
Hallie Rush 0 3
Hannah Peterson 5 4
Hugo Arnold 3 3
Kaci Stevenson 2 4
Kurtis Monahan 3 4
Leanna Parker 2 4
Mena Arnold 2 3
Molly Krotz 3 3
Molly Mangefrida 3 3
Olivia Barfield 2 3
Rachel Peterson 4 4
Rowyn Shreffler 1 3

09/01/2024

The quest for transparency and accountability in the Bastrop Central Appraisal District.

If you're interested in this topic, please join the Facebook Group, "Texas Open-space Appraisals." That's where I have been posting everything about my dealings with BCAD, and I will continue to post all of my messages to that site, even if I don't get time to cross-post them to a bunch of other groups.

Quick background: BCAD created a land classification of beekeeping. For every land classification they have, they are required to calculate a productivity value. They are required to set the productivity value by using lease rates. There are no lease rates for beekeeping. I was recently elected to the board of directors at BCAD. I asked our lawyer, Kirk Swinney, if the way we calculated our beekeeping productivity value was legal since the law says we must use lease rates. I posted my letter to Mr. Swinney. He refused to answer my question. I posted his refusal to say if the BCAD's policy is legal. The chairman of the board, David Redd, responded to Mr. Swinney's refusal to answer. I posted Mr. Redd's response. I responded to both of them, and that is the email that I will be posting now.

Dear Kirk Swinney, and copied to David Redd,

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the Board's current practice regarding communication with legal counsel. I appreciate the emphasis on ensuring that all board actions are conducted in an open and transparent manner, consistent with our collective responsibilities.

I would like to clarify that the current policy, as it has been practiced, allows individual board members and even appraisal district employees to seek legal opinions regarding the legality of actions. Here are a few specific examples that demonstrate this:

• Agenda and Board Packet Review: The Chairman, David Redd, and the Board of Directors Attorney, Kirk Swinney, typically review the agenda and related documents ahead of time to ensure compliance with legal standards.

• Forwarding Requests to Counsel: I have seen instances where requests were forwarded directly to legal counsel for a response, such as when Ms. Cullens recommended reviewing the manual with counsel before bringing the matter back to the Board for action.

• Legal Review of Disputes: There have been situations where disputes were reviewed by the Board's legal counsel, with the conclusion communicated as the official stance of the Board, such as when a dispute was closed based on counsel's opinion that no violation had occurred.

• Legal Advice on Agenda Items: The agenda items are often posted as advised by the ARB’s attorney, showing that individual inquiries about legality are addressed by legal counsel regularly.

These examples illustrate that obtaining legal opinions from counsel for specific issues has been the common practice, supporting the operational integrity of the Board.

If there is a belief that this policy should be changed, then I agree that it would be appropriate to bring it before the Board for discussion and potential revision. However, I do not believe that delaying the response to my current inquiry based on a non-existent technicality is justified, especially when the issue at hand concerns the possible illegal activity of the Board. Such matters demand immediate attention and cannot be postponed.

Given the seriousness of the concerns I’ve raised, I respectfully request an immediate legal opinion response to address the potential illegal activity by the Board. This matter cannot be delayed for discussion at a later date, as it requires prompt attention to ensure we are operating within the bounds of the law. I believe it is in the best interest of the Board and our community to resolve this issue now, so that we have the legal opinion when we consider further debate.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving the legal opinion at the earliest opportunity.

Sincerely,

Here's a link to the actual email if anyone is interested in seeing it:

Shared with Dropbox

09/01/2024

Below is the email I received from our Board Chairman, David Redd, regarding my request for legal advice from our counsel, Mr. Kirk Swinney. I’d like to address several points raised in his email. I just pasted each portion of his email with my observations about each portion:

David Redd’s Email:
In the past, I do not recall a time when an individual board member reached out to our legal counsel with individual questions. Board members have often asked questions to legal during an open session or when discussing legal issues - example that we saw this past meeting with contracts.

My Observation:
It’s important to clarify that the current policy already allows individual board members—and even individual employees—to seek legal advice from our attorney, and this is the policy that has been in place even before Mr. Swinney was hired. This practice is in place to ensure that we can operate within the bounds of the law and maintain transparency in our district's operations. It is not uncommon, and it is a vital part of our governance process. Ensuring that all board members have access to legal advice is crucial for fulfilling our responsibilities effectively.

David Redd’s Email:
I agree with Mr. Swinney that it would be best to have a Board policy on such. At the next regularly scheduled board meeting, Mr. Johnson or I can bring this to the Board as a recommendation for a future agenda item. The Board can then decide if they are interested in discussing and potentially making a policy concerning such. Until such is decided by the Board, I believe it is best, as Mr. Swinney described, not to respond to individual board member requests outside of board meetings.

My Observation:
The current policy already permits individual board members and employees to seek legal advice from our counsel. There is no need for a new policy unless someone wants to change this existing practice. If there is any intent to change this policy, it should be brought forward by those who wish to restrict access to legal advice—not by those of us who support maintaining it. Mr. Swinney should respond to my inquiry now, as required by the current policy, and not refuse to do so based on the possibility that someone might propose a future policy change. The legal advice I am seeking is essential for transparency and legal compliance, and it cannot be delayed based on hypothetical scenarios.

David Redd’s Email:
Mr. Johnson, I will remind you that Mr. Swinney's obligations are to the Board, not individual board members. Likewise, the Chief Appraiser's obligations are to the Board and not individual board members. I could easily explain the difference in advising the board chairman on documents for an agenda item and meeting versus what you are requesting, but we both know that you understand the difference, so I will not waste your time nor mine.

My Observation:
While Mr. Swinney’s primary obligation is to the board as a whole, the current policy allows individual board members to seek legal advice on matters that impact the board’s governance and legal compliance. This access is critical for ensuring that each board member can fulfill their duties responsibly. The distinction between advising the board chairman on withholding documents and providing legal advice on the legality of board policies is not as clear-cut as suggested. Both actions have significant implications for the board’s ability to function transparently and lawfully. Mr. Swinney should provide the legal advice I’ve requested under the existing policy, which obligates him to do so.

David Redd’s Email:
Mr. Johnson, I look forward to hearing your recommendation to add this as a future agenda item when we have our next regularly scheduled meeting.

My Observation:
There is no need for me to bring this up as a future agenda item because the current policy already allows individual board members to seek legal advice. If there is a desire to change this policy, that initiative should come from those who wish to limit access to legal counsel. I strongly believe that the existing policy is crucial for maintaining transparency and legal compliance, and I do not support any efforts to alter it. Mr. Swinney should not delay his response based on a speculative policy change that has not been proposed or approved by the board.

David Redd’s Email:
At this time, additional discussion on this topic will not be necessary. Please save your views, opinions, and comments for the full Board to hear and discuss.

My Observation:
While I respect the chairman’s desire to keep discussions within the full board, it’s essential that the public is also made aware of these issues. Preventing individual board members from seeking legal advice runs counter to the principles of transparency and accountability. The current policy that allows individual board members and employees to seek legal advice is critical for ensuring that our district’s practices are lawful. Mr. Swinney needs to respond to my inquiry under this current policy, which remains in effect, and I will continue to advocate for this policy to remain unchanged.

Conclusion:
The current policy that allows individual board members and employees to seek legal advice is critical for maintaining transparency and ensuring that our district’s practices are lawful. Any attempt to change this policy should be brought forward by those who wish to restrict it, and I will strongly oppose any such changes. Until then, the policy stands, and Mr. Swinney is obligated to respond to my inquiry as per the current rules. I encourage everyone to stay informed and engaged as we work towards greater accountability in our district’s operations.

I quoted his whole email, piece by piece above, but here is a link to his actual email:

Shared with Dropbox

08/30/2024

The Bastrop Central Appraisal District's (BCAD) attorney, Kirk Swinney, responded to my request for a legal opinion if calculating the productivity for beekeeping without using lease rates was in compliance with the Texas Property Tax Code (TPTC) which requires that calculation to be made using lease rates and there are no leases for beekeeping.

Basically, he refused to answer my request for his legal opinion if BCAD's current practice is lawful. He didn't have any good reason for refusing to answer, but I want to address each of the five reasons he gave for not answering.

1 - Mr. Swinney claims that providing legal advice to me on this matter would breach his ethical duties due to my pending lawsuits against the district. However, my inquiry is specifically about the legality of a board policy, which is separate from any litigation. It’s essential that the board’s practices comply with the law, and as a board member, I should be able to seek legal guidance on such issues. Ensuring that our policies are legal is in the best interest of the district and the public we serve.

2 - Mr. Swinney suggests that he should not respond to individual board members without the consent of the entire board. Yet, he has previously provided legal advice to individual board members, including advising the board chairman on withholding documents from other board members. If the policy is to only provide legal opinions to the entire board, that policy should be applied consistently. Until such a policy is established, individual board members have the right to seek legal advice on matters concerning board practices.

3 - Mr. Swinney mentions that responding to my request would take up a significant amount of his time. However, as our legal counsel, he is compensated for the time spent advising the board on legal matters. Ensuring that our district’s policies comply with the law is a critical part of his role, and it is something the district should prioritize. Legal compliance shouldn’t be considered an unnecessary burden but rather a fundamental responsibility.

4 - Mr. Swinney offers to recommend someone who could provide a cheaper legal opinion. While cost-efficiency is important, the primary concern should be the quality and reliability of legal advice. We already contracted with Mr. Swinney to provide this specific legal advice to the board. Recommending that we ask someone else instead, so he doesn't have to fulfill the legal obligations he was contracted for, raises concerns about whether he is fulfilling his contractual duties. Cutting corners by outsourcing legal advice that he was specifically hired to provide could be seen as a violation of his contract with the district.

5 - Mr. Swinney suggests that this issue should be placed on the agenda for a future board meeting before he can respond. However, the current policy allows individual board members and employees to seek legal opinions. Delaying this issue until the next meeting is unnecessary and counterproductive, especially when the board’s existing policy already permits such inquiries. It’s crucial that we address potential legal issues in a timely manner to avoid further complications.

It’s concerning that Mr. Swinney refuses to provide legal advice on a matter that directly relates to board policies and legal compliance, especially after I provided him with documentation at the last board meeting. Part of this documentation was a governmental document that falsely claimed beekeeping productivity values were calculated using lease rates, including a fabricated chart of fictitious lease rates. This raises the question: Is Mr. Swinney refusing to respond because he’s trying to protect the chief appraiser, who may have tampered with this governmental document to justify an unlawful beekeeping productivity valuation?

By refusing to address this issue, Mr. Swinney's inaction could be seen as effectively giving legal approval to the chief appraiser's fabrication of a fictitious governmental document. This also prevents the board from taking necessary steps to stop this illegal practice. As board members, we have a duty to ensure transparency and accountability, and this refusal to engage on such a critical issue is deeply troubling. The public deserves to know if our legal counsel is supporting or overlooking potentially illegal actions within the district.

I have been advocating for transparency in BCAD's practices, and Mr. Swinney’s refusal to provide legal advice on this issue is directly preventing the transparency we are striving for. As board members, we have a duty to ensure that our actions are open, honest, and within the bounds of the law. The public deserves to know if our legal counsel is supporting or overlooking potentially illegal actions within the district, and it’s troubling that his refusal to engage is hindering the transparency and accountability that we owe to the community.

Here's a link to the email he sent me:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4tahkqx449spab/20240826%201336%20%20Email%2C%20from%20Kirk%20Swinney.pdf?dl=0

08/29/2024

Transparency in Government: A Call for Accountability

As someone who has always believed that governmental entities should operate with full transparency, it’s troubling to now be an elected member of a body— the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD)— that seems to have gone out of its way for years to avoid transparency in its dealings with the public. It’s time to shed light on the policies that BCAD has been trying to keep hidden.

To further my goal of transparency, I will be sharing a series of emails that I have either sent or received. These communications will detail my concerns and reveal the actions that have been taken to obscure these issues from both the board and the public.

I'll be sharing these updates across several platforms, including my personal page, my ranch's page (Cripple Gray Ranch), my Facebook group (Texas Open-space Appraisals), and on Nextdoor. While I plan to post frequently, I may not always have time to cross-post to multiple groups. If you're interested in following along or catching up on past posts, consider joining the Texas Open-space Appraisals Facebook group. Please feel free to share any posts that you think others might benefit from.

The first post in this series will feature an email I sent to BCAD’s attorney, Kirk Swinney. I questioned whether BCAD’s policy of calculating the productivity value for beekeeping—without using lease rates—complies with the Texas Property Tax Code (TPTC).

The TPTC mandates that appraisal districts must set productivity values for each land classification using lease rates to determine the income to the landowner. Since beekeeping does not involve leases paid to landowners, I simply asked if it’s legal for BCAD to calculate productivity values without using these lease rates.

Here's a link to that email:

Shared with Dropbox

08/23/2024

Report on the Bastrop Central Appraisal District Board Meeting – August 22, 2024

Subject: Beekeeping as a Land Classification

First and foremost, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the concerned citizens who attended the meeting in support of our cause. Your presence was powerful, with about 30 attendees and 10 speakers making their voices heard. For those who couldn’t attend but supported us in spirit, your commitment is equally appreciated.

Background and Context
At the last board meeting, I requested the agenda include "consideration and possible action on land classifications." My primary goal was to address the improper creation of beekeeping as a separate land classification. I intended to demonstrate that beekeeping is an agricultural use, not a distinct land classification. The creation of this classification was flawed from the start, and compounded by the appraisal district's subsequent actions.

Key Points I Wanted to Address

Improper Creation of Beekeeping as a Land Classification:
Beekeeping is an agricultural use, not a separate land classification.
The district was required to set a productivity value for this classification, which should have been based on lease rates. However, no such leases exist for beekeeping, and they failed to use lease rates as mandated by law.

Fabrication of Supporting Documentation:
To justify their productivity valuation, the district fabricated a chart showing fictitious lease rates for previous years, falsely claiming it was the basis for their calculations.

Unfortunately, due to the narrow wording of my agenda request, I was only permitted to discuss the creation of the beekeeping land classification. I was prohibited from addressing the unlawful calculation of its productivity value, the legal requirement to use lease rates, and the fabrication of the supporting documentation.

Legal and Procedural Arguments Presented
Despite these restrictions, I presented a court case establishing that different agricultural uses should not be classified separately (which would lead to different productivity valuations). The classification should be based on the land's existing use, regardless of the specific agricultural activities taking place. Additionally, I cited advice from the comptroller's manual, advising against creating new land classifications for minor agricultural uses and instead using the broader classification of the land involved.

The Board’s Decision
Despite the evidence and arguments presented, the board voted against my motion to remove beekeeping as a land classification. This decision underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring that the appraisal district complies with the law.

Next Steps

During the meeting, I proposed several agenda items for the next meeting, including:

1 - Setting the Productivity Value for Beekeeping: Specifically, to discuss not basing the calculation on lease rates that do not exist.

2 - Full Explanations for Open-Space Denials: Requiring detailed explanations for each denial reason as the law requires.

3 - Open-Space Appraisal and Homestead Exemption: Discussing the possibility of allowing both on the same property.

4 - Degree of Intensity for Beekeeping: Revisiting this standard to ensure it is fair and legal.

5 - Agency Rules in Agricultural Guidelines: Addressing rules that impose burdens, conditions, or restrictions beyond statutory provisions.

Regrettably, not a single board member supported these requests for discussion.

Moving Forward
This is far from the end of our efforts to hold the appraisal district accountable. I will continue to request that the board discusses policies that do not comply with the law. Additionally, I will be more precise in my wording to avoid any limitations in future discussions (although if I had been more specific in my request, the other board members may not have agreed to discuss it). I am also exploring other avenues to compel the district to adhere to legal standards.

The next board meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2024, at 3:00 PM at the Bastrop Central Appraisal District, 212 Jackson St, Bastrop. I'll post another announcement after they post the agenda, about 3 days before the meeting.

08/20/2024

Notice Regarding the Upcoming Bastrop Central Appraisal District Board of Directors Meeting

This is an update concerning the upcoming Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) Board of Directors meeting, scheduled for August 22, 2024, at 3:30 PM, at the Bastrop County Courthouse, 804 Pecan St, Bastrop, in the lower level meeting room.

At the last meeting, the Board unanimously voted to include the following item on the agenda for the August 22, 2024, meeting:

"Consideration and possible action on the review of BCAD's Agricultural Land Classifications."

In preparation for this discussion, I submitted several documents to the Chief Appraiser, Faun Cullens, detailing concerns about the legality of BCAD’s creation of a separate land classification for beekeeping. The documents I provided included:

- The statutory authority governing the creation of land classifications.
- Guidance from the Comptroller advising against creating separate land classifications for minor land uses.
- Case law confirming that different agricultural uses on the same land should not have separate classifications or productivity values.
- Legal requirements for setting productivity values based on lease rates specific to the land classification.
- Evidence indicating that no lease rates existed for beekeeping, contrary to what was previously represented by the Chief Appraiser.

However, the agenda was posted on August 15, 2024, and this item was listed as Item XIII (with a minor misspelling). Along with the agenda, the Chief Appraiser, Faun Cullens, sent an email to board members, which included the following note:

"As a result of the agenda and board packet review by the Chairman, David Redd, and the Board of Directors' Attorney, Kirk Swinney, the documents related to the agenda are attached for your review. It is noted that Board member Paul Johnson submitted documents to be included in the board packet for agenda item 13, Review of Bastrop CAD Agricultural Land Classifications. The submitted document contained more information on the valuation methodology of agriculture than land classification. Since the document is not specific to the Review of Bastrop CAD Agricultural Land Classifications, it was determined the document should not be included in the board packet."

This decision to withhold the documents is concerning, as it appears that critical legal information regarding the creation of the beekeeping classification and the process for setting productivity values is being excluded from the Board’s review. While it was stated that this decision was made following a review by the Chairman and the district's attorney, I believe there is no legal basis for withholding documents that are directly relevant to the Board's discussion.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the implications of the Chief Appraiser’s actions. If it is proven that the productivity values were set using fictitious lease rates, this could constitute a violation of Texas Penal Code sections 37.09 (Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence) and 37.10 (Tampering With Governmental Record).

This decision to withhold the documents is concerning, as it suggests that critical legal information regarding the creation of the beekeeping classification and the process for setting productivity values is being excluded from the Board’s review. While it has been stated that this decision was made following a review by the Chairman and the district's attorney, there appears to be no legal justification for withholding documents that directly impact the Board's ability to make an informed decision.

Citizens should be aware of this situation, as it raises serious questions about transparency and accountability within the BCAD. If you share these concerns, I encourage you to attend the Board meeting on August 22, 2024, and consider making a public comment. Your presence and voice can help ensure that the Board is held accountable and that all relevant information is considered in their decision-making process.