By Eleni Himaras
reporter@ltview.com
A new non-binding policy outlining the duties of Lakeway Municipal Utility District directors was approved in a 3-2 split vote during regular session Wednesday, Feb. 11.

 The “statement’ calls for the board to speak with “one voice” after record votes. However, the new policy exposed deep divisions within the current board of directors.
“About six week ago, I had a sleepless night… I got to thinking about some disruptive issues we’ve faced with this board,” First Vice President Tom Priddy said of his decision to write a new policy on the duties and responsibilities of directors.
The new policy, written by Priddy and reviewed by President Tom Rogers, General Manager Richard Eason, and two attorneys, faced severe criticism from Second Vice President Kay Andrews and several members of the public in the audience. Those opposed to the non-binding statement said it restricted free speech and undermined the duties of individual directors.
Some of the most disputed items in the policy include:
n Directors, other than the President, will only have direct contact/communication with suppliers, vendors, consultants, advisors, etc., during Board meetings or as directed by the full Board;
n “Directors will communicate a non-unanimous vote by the Board to the public as ‘one voice:’”
n “Directors will represent the District in a positive manner to the media at all times;” and
n “Directors, other than the President, should restrict contact with staff, with the following guidelines: 1. Director contact with staff should be during Board meetings. 2. Director contact with staff outside Board meetings should be through the General Manager. 3. Directors can request existing information and reports from the General Manager. 4. Directors may not request the staff to develop new reports. Such requests must be from the Board.”
“The idea is to do what the board votes to approve… We are, after we make our vote, one voice,” Rogers said, adding that the intention of these items was to keep those who had lost in a vote from continually harping on already decided items.
Janey Miller, president of the Fern Bluff Municipal Utility District in Round Rock, attended the meeting and expressed sharp criticism of the new policy.
“If this was brought up in this form in my district, our residents would revolt in the streets,” she said. “This flies in the face of open meeting law, open record law, and open government law.”
Miller went on to emphasize that each director has the responsibility to maintain oversight of the district’s workings and maintain their own opinions.
“That’s why you have five board members rather than one,” she said.
Treasurer Allan Hitchcock analogized the way in which the Supreme Court may disagree but considers previous decisions law, no matter if they voted for them.
General Manager Richard Eason brought up an example of Andrews calling the LCRA to confirm rate comparisons he had presented to the board, saying it undermined his working relationships.
“You guys have delegated the responsibility of directing the district to me,” he said.
Lakeway MUD Secretary Jerry Hietpas opposed the policy because he felt it was subject to misinterpretation, noting there were occasions that a board member might need to discuss why they supported or opposed certain issues that had confronted the district, particularly if attempting to outline one’s record during future elections. He also noted that board members should have the freedom to express their opinions publicly, particularly if they feel it necessary outline their position with a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Andrews voted against the measure saying simply, “Because I don’t think it’s legal.”
Priddy, Rogers and Hitchcock all voted for the new measure, which does not carry any penalties for failure to comply, but is simply intended as a guideline.
“This is the statement of the board of directors’ duties. It’s a good statement, one we ought to have on file — maybe on a placard on the wall,” Priddy said before the vote.
In another split decision earlier in the meeting, the board voted 3-2 to give district staff their standard 2.5 percent merit pay raise on top of their recently approved standard 3.5 percent annual raise.
Eason requested that all staff members be present at the meeting for the vote. Hietpas and Andrews voted against the raise, saying that it was irresponsible in the current financial climate.
Priddy, Rogers and Hitchcock all voted in favor of continuing the established tradition of the merit pay raise.