Why David Flores’s Removal Looks Like an Election-Time Stunt

From the Editor
1

WTCMUD1 Director David Flores was removed by the board majority at the August 21 2026 meeting, under Texas Water Code §49.052(g), claiming that he missed at least half of the regular meetings scheduled during the preceding twelve months. Flores disputes that calculation and is appealing to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). He argues that the district reclassified a regular meeting as “special” and excluded other scheduled meetings that were later canceled or changed. Under his calculation, he missed five of eleven meetings—45.4 percent—below the statutory threshold. The district’s posted resolution also says “AYES: All present” and records no opposing vote even though Flores was present and voted no.

Flores has been candid that work undertaken to pay legal bills arising from the lawsuit sometimes interfered with his attendance. That admission reflects humility, not indifference. It must also be viewed in the context of a board that, in his experience, excluded him from meaningful participation and prevented him from accomplishing the work voters elected him to do. Attendance becomes largely ceremonial when a predetermined majority can and does consistently overpower and marginalize a dissenting director.

The board’s practical complaint is almost circular: Flores’s absences sometimes prevented a quorum and forced the other directors to rearrange their schedules, so they removed him for failing to make it easier and more convenient for them to assemble that quorum and defeat him. Yet removal leaves the board shorthanded until the vacancy is filled and does not itself solve the alleged problem. It also does not disqualify Flores from running again. Voters remain free to return him to office, meaning the resolution’s most immediate effect is to burden his candidacy with the damaging election-season label “removed from office.”

This follows the board’s 2024 treatment of Linda Fabre with striking precision. The board adopted its censure resolution against Fabre on October 16—twenty days before the November 5 election—and posted it on October 21, the first day of early voting. In both cases, the board used official governmental action to stigmatize a political opponent when it could inflict the greatest electoral harm. The disputed calculations, inaccurate vote record, pending TCEQ appeal, failure to cure the stated quorum concern, and repeated election timing leave no credible nonpolitical explanation: the removal was an election-time maneuver intended to poison Flores’s candidacy before voters could decide for themselves.

1 Like
2

Can we just vote out everyone including current and former Board members and start over fresh? The political infighting is absolutely why I don’t get more involved.

1 Like
6

There are elections every two years. You should run for a position and get new people to run as well. I think a problem is that people that run don’t have a true understanding of the authority given to MUDs under the water code, and make assumptions or believe hear say.

2 Likes
7

Yes, the lack of understanding or care by the current board around the legal limits of their authority is stunning. They know that with three votes they can blow past almost any guardrail, and do so without a second thought. The most conspicuous is that they violate Texas Open Meeting Act by making decisions outside public meetings more than not, and then don’t even bother to rubberstamp the decision at a public meeting.

1 Like
8

I attended the WTCMUD-1 meeting in which the board voted to remove Director Flores. You are correct that the timing was unfortunate; however, it was at that point the number of absences to trigger removal had been met.

Fortunately, Mr. Flores can pursue an appeals process through TCEQ. If the MUD board has removed him in error, he will be reinstated by TCEQ. If not, then the board acted rightfully within their legal authority to hold Flores accountable for non-attendance by removing him, regardless of timing or optics.

Mr. Flores is not prevented from running to be re-elected. If residents want to keep a board member who doesn’t (or is unable to) attend monthly board meetings, they have that choice.

The next board election is two months out, on Tuesday, Nov. 4. Be sure to make your voice heard.

9

I disagree with the characterization of either one of these events as stunts.

  1. David brought his removal upon himself by absenting himself from meetings; this meeting happened to be the first time they could act on it, and he had to know they would act on it the second they could. Trying to play games with the semantics over “regular” or “special” meeting is just that: semantics. He’s missed a huge portion of the meetings this year, and the people who voted for him did not receive the benefit of his representation and advocacy.
  2. Linda’s censure was self-inflicted, and was prompted by 6 months of bad behavior that is laid out in the censure. The triggering event was her being caught outside another Director’s house taking photos/videos of the campaign signs in his front yard. Because it was election season. Linda treats municipal politics like a full contact sport where anything goes. That’s the attitude she brings to her office; she will send David to climb over fences, take photos of your back yard, she will threaten to destroy a contractor with PIR requests, make unilateral decisions on behalf of the Board and then lie about it; the list goes on and on. She did file a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission about the censure. Of course she did. Of course she used her photos of the other Director’s yard signs as evidence. Yes, those photos she gathered BEFORE she had a complaint to file. They declined to act, which rather undercuts the suggestion that the censure was an election-time “stunt.”
10

I read the actual 2024 censure packet, and I’m curious about some discrepancies.

It says an unidentified passenger—not Linda—appeared to photograph or record Avila’s house from a passing car. It never mentions campaign signs. Was this really the incident that triggered the censure? If campaign signs were what they photographed, what specifically made that concerning?

The backyard photo of Hanoi’s deed-violating chicken coops is attributed only to “someone” reaching over a neighbor’s fence. The packet does not say David took it or that Linda sent him. I live on the same side of the street as Hanoi, with an industrial park behind our homes. Someone lawfully present there could potentially hold a camera above the six-foot fence without entering a resident’s property. I would be interested to see the photo and determine what, if anything, it reveals about where it was taken. It also seems possible that a photograph taken from a neighbor’s property could have been taken with permission.

The most concerning allegation to me is that Linda told security not to attend a public meeting and then failed to disclose that, when their absence was questioned. The documentary evidence for that allegation is persuasive.

Still, that pales in comparison with the far more consequential decisions the current board majority makes in private and then refuses to disclose.

1 Like
11

Yes, that was really the incident that triggered the censure. If it were truly necessary, I could pull up contemporaneous text messages to prove it. Although I hope my service and record on the Board speaks for itself. And the concern is - again - more or less continual surveillance of fellow Directors’ homes for the purposes of amassing an arsenal of “evidence” to be used at her own discretion for any perceived transgression. The first time I ever met her, Ms. Fabre told me that she had photos of the front of Director Avila’s house showing children’s bikes and toys on the side, and that she would use the photo if he ever enforced deed restrictions on anyone else for the same reason.

It was Linda’s vehicle. Occam’s razor tells us who the unidentified passenger was based on my knowledge and experience of having served on the board for the previous 18 months and knowing the habits of fellow Directors. Occam’s razor also tells us who took the photo of the back of Director Avila’s house. However, it was a censure of Ms. Fabre, not anyone else, and only items that could factually be proven were laid out.

None of this is an endorsement or absolution of the current board and their awful decisions. It looks like we actually have a chance to elect 3 fresh faces in November and put some of the conflict behind us.

12

Kelley,

I’ve said this to many people: you were the best board member I’ve seen in this district, and your ethics are above reproach.

The fact that Linda could not work effectively with you on the board is something I put a lot of weight on. I’m endorsing her in spite of that, but I want to give the unvarnished truth on this forum. I think voters should weigh it too.

I absolutely believe Linda drove past Hanoi’s house and that someone in the vehicle photographed it at her direction.

I’m curious about the campaign-sign issue. Was there a potential deed-restriction violation by Hanoi that the censure document avoided mentioning?

From an outsider’s perspective, much of the censure reads like “rules for thee, but not for me.” It looks as though the board was upset that Linda would not overlook conduct she viewed as hypocritical. Some of the complaints also seem to boil down to: “We thought we had an informal agreement with Linda, but she backed out and made things harder for us.”

The reason I still support Linda is that the Army appears to have taught her how to work within rule-based constraints. In the military there are procedures for everything, and you cannot simply bypass them with three votes the way a MUD board sometimes can. Whenever Linda has argued that the board is exceeding its authority, I’ve dug into the details and found her legal or accounting analysis persuasive.

She understands how to use the powers the rules actually provide and get results within the legal framework of the MUD, rather than simply overpowering those rules with three votes.

1 Like
13

Tom, I really appreciate that recognition, truly. But, respectfully, you’re evaluating Linda primarily from the quality of the arguments she’s making when she’s opposing the exercise of power. I served with her while she was exercising power, and my conclusion is that she is not fit to hold it. A vote for her (or really any of the four returning candidates) is a vote for four more years of chaos and conflict in the district. It’s time to end the war. But I do appreciate this discourse.

14

The first censure was because she voted for something she didn’t agree with. I place the fault on the board for this. Stare decisis has never applied to deliberative bodies. The second censure was a struggle session. I agree that I would not have allowed any ambiguity on matters of personal opinion when communicating with District contractors. But her instructions to the officer (“…if you want to take the night off”) were not ultra vires but simply an invitation to exercise his own contractual liberties. (Speaking of ultra vires acts, ask me about the current Board sometime.)

Unfortunately, voting for the three newcomers on the ballot will not lead to change. The current faction has two seats already, and one of the newcomers has declared herself in their pocket. That would just be appeasement. We need Churchill, not Chamberlain.

2 Likes
15

You’ll notice David attended pretty much all meetings for the first 2 years of his term. It wasn’t until the last 9-12 months he started to miss meetings. Why you ask? What happened? What happened is the district brought a lawsuit against him and myself. In order to defend ourselves we had to hire a lawyer. That’s right, lawyers are expensive. Remember we are not just paying for the defense for David but for both of us. We have both had to do our part to make this extra expense that is unwarranted. David tried every attempt to make the meetings. And the proof is in his TCEQ appeal. Because of the nature of his job with city services and staffing shortages there were many times where David’s request for time off to attend meetings was denied by management. For Beth to say that there was no communication about him not attending meetings is irrelevant. No matter what communication he gave I promise you it would not have not been acknowledged by any board director. Add in that there were meetings and changes to existing scheduled meetings with zero or late communication to David. They excluded him on purpose. David even brought this issue up to the lawyer for the district. Additionally the comment made by Beth about other directors having to come to meetings on their vacation from out of town because they weren’t sure David would show up is more lies. They had enough directors for a quorum.

This move for David was always the plan from the day he got elected. They hate David with a passion and they will do anything to try and destroy him. We have been tortured by this board for the last 8 years and enough is enough. Even when David was not on the board they targeted us. I shouldn’t have to live in fear of what this board will try to do to us if the evil directors get re-elected. They will go to extreme lengths to try to destroy him and bring down his family.

So yes Tom, I 1000 percent agree with you that this is a political stunt. They have nothing and they know it. They’re scared.

2 Likes
16

I originally intended to let these comments pass, as I prefer to keep our public discussions focused on constructive district business rather than personal disputes.

First, I acknowledge Kelley’s service on the board, particularly her attention to the safety issue regarding the tree house at Sun Chase Park. That was an important catch for our community’s safety. Kelley and I worked well together until April 2024, when a serious issue regarding board transparency came to light.

However, characterizing her ethics as above reproach is simply inaccurate based on the public record.

As members of the Deed Restriction Committee, Kelley and Hanoi made the decision to withhold from the full board that Hanoi was in violation of deed restrictions for keeping chickens in his backyard—all while actively enforcing deed restrictions against other residents.

When a resident raised concerns about this double standard, she was told she could not report the violation because she didn’t live in that specific section. She asked me to submit the report on her behalf under the policy that allows any director to report district-wide violations. I followed the established policy written by Kelley and Hanoi, which required a photograph. The photo was taken legally from the industrial area behind the property without entering any personal yards; in fact, the structure is visible on public satellite imagery.

Regarding claims about my driving on Blazing Star: I frequently drove down that street during campaign season in 2024, just as I do now, because I have active supporters living there. I did not direct anyone to take photos of homes or individuals. A passenger in my vehicle independently took a photo of a campaign sign placed in a yard.

Tom—you are correct that my service in the U.S. Air Force and state government taught me the importance of following rules and applying them consistently and equally to everyone. That commitment to equal application is precisely why I spoke up when this conflict of interest was uncovered.

Following that disclosure, Hanoi moved to initiate legal action against me at nearly every subsequent meeting—which is fully documented in the public board minutes. When those motions failed, the censure was introduced as a direct response to my exposing this double standard.

Kelley Masters shares responsibility for the current state of our MUD board. By protecting a colleague from the very rules enforced on residents, she compromised the equal application of our district policies and contributed directly to the dysfunction we see today.

Our community deserves leadership that operates in the open, spends your tax dollars responsibly, and applies the rules fairly to everyone—without exceptions for board members. That is why David Flores, Tom Vacek, and I are running together to bring integrity, transparency, and true fiscal accountability back to our MUD.

Learn more about our vision for the District at VOTE3.org, and see the public records for yourself at MUDucation.org. We would be honored to earn your vote this November.

2 Likes