City Attorney Hired Private Investigator to Investigate Private Citizen

Today I was emailed a billing record produced by the City of Richardson in response to a request for public information.  The reason will hopefully shock you.  It is an invoice from the law firm where Peter "Pete" G. Smith, the lawyer commonly known as the "Richardson city attorney".  The significance of the invoice is that it includes charges for services related to communications with a private investigator hired by unknown parties to investigate a private citizen.  




The bill shows Pete Smith charged the citizens of Richardson to communicate with the private investigator regarding the marital status of a private citizen.  A public information request by the citizen targeted in the city's investigation was met with the familiar denial, "There are no documents responsive to your request."  Who hired the private investigator? Who ordered the investigation? What was the purpose for the investigation and the intended use of the information gathered, to this day, remains a mystery.

A few years ago, people started questioning activities at city hall. One of the first I know of was William Gordon. He noticed there were a lot of closed meeting and questioned the practice. He then read the city charter. The city charter at the time said all meeting of the council will be public. It allowed for no closed meetings. He questioned the council and city administrators about it and they said they were doing everything ok. When he questioned again and made comments the charter did not allow closed meetings, he was told if he didn't like their answer, then sue them. So he did. During the middle of the suit, the council put forward charter amendments in 2007 that changed the charter and allowed for closed meetings. As a result of the city changing the charter, no penalty or action was taken by the court. 

As I said, Mr. Gordon was one of the first of the citizens to stand up and start asking serious questions of the council and city policy.

Another person was Nathan Morgan. Morgan’s revealing questions to the city council prompted a much more ominous reaction form the city.

Even the former Police Chief appears to have engaged questionable practices.  After PTA financial records compiled by the Treasurer were delivered, a cryptic note was composed.  The message to former City Manager, Bill Keffler, from former chief Larry Zacharias dated 9/19/2007 reads, "Our subject of interest returned all the books to Mark Twain Elementary today.  Looks like another dead end."  A tip led to a public information request to the Richardson Police Department that uncovered the private investigator doing the dirty work and that the RPD disclosed protected information.  Randy Virgil of Information Services Investigations is the name that appears on that public information request. See http://graphics.dc-tm.com/Zack-Keffler.pdf

Threats and retribution for opposing or speaking out on disturbing activities at city hall are nothing new in the City of Richardson.  Reports of Richardson Coalition intimidation tactics are so common people have come to regard the practice as old news.  Over the years, several anonymous inflammatory mailings have curiously been delivered to the mailboxes of civic leaders.  To nobody's surprise, there has yet to be reported such an attack on any Richardson Coalition favored individual.

As indicated in the billing records from our city attorney, the city attorney’s office engaged in an investigation and apparently was given an order to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Morgan, a private citizen and upstanding resident of Richardson.

On 12/17/2007, there is a line item in the billing which states “Receive and review information regarding Nathan Morgan’s marital history; telephone conversation with private investigator regarding the same”. See link - Nathan-Smith.pdf

On 12/18/2007, there is a line item in the billing record which states “Gordon – telephone conference with court regarding status of signing orders: number telephone conferences with courts in Harris, Dallas, Bexar and Travis counties regarding marriage licenses and divorce decrees for Nathan Morgan”. See link - Nathan-Smith.pdf

Morgan was not involved in any legal issues at the time. He was not running for any public office or a public board position. He was simply a respectable private citizen of Richardson.

If Morgan was not involved in any legal issues or applying for or holding any office, why would the city attorney perform an investigation of any type concerning him?

The city attorney is hired and fired by the city council. He works directly for the city council. He answers to the city council. Unless he decided to go rogue, and do his own thing, his action to investigate a private citizen must have come from orders issued by the city council.

The city council needs to answer why they would order such an investigation of a private citizen and why they approved the use of taxpayer funds for this purpose. If this kind of oppression from the city council is not already illegal, it should be.  There are two members of the council still serving the City of Richardson who were involved in these incidents.  They are Councilman Steve Mitchell and Councilman Bob Townsend. Pete Smith, the city attorney, is also still serving the city.

The citizens of Richardson through tax revenue pay a lot of money to the city attorney for typical reasons. The contract with the law firm Pete Smith services is automatically renewed every 12 months if no objection or notice is given at least 3 months prior to the date of renewal.  The contract has resulted in the same law firm occupying the role of Richardson city attorney for nearly 60 years.  

This same firm has a profoundly evident footprint in the North Texas region, as it has similar contracts with numerous municipalities and an unknown number of governmental agencies.  To suggest their entrenchment would not be used to assuage the legal system would be naïve.  It's the sort of thing a scalawag municipal government could find useful when faced with legal challenges.  And, by some accounts, it has.  There is no record of a competitive bid process for the city attorney contract.  Can there be any wonder why?

Using taxpayer revenues to single out a specific person and persecute his private life is so plainly wrong it does not need to be explained.

If this type of action was done once, it is probably likely to be done again, if it remains a secret. A full explanation needs to be provided by the city manager’s office, the police department, the city council and the city attorney on why they feel it is in the best interest of the citizens to use public money delving into the person life of a citizen, and, if it has been done before or since.

Imagine how you would feel if the city, the city manager, city attorney or the city council were to dig into your personal life. Would that be acceptable to you?

A letter has been sent to the city manager and all of the council members asking for an explanation. If one is received, it will be shared. If you feel this type of action by the city is acceptable, then just sit back and watch. On the other hand, if you feel this action of investigating a private citizen is questionable, send you own letter to the city manager and the city council.