6/14/2022 4:57 PM

Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis Count
D-1-GN-22-002721 D-1-GN-22-0027y21
N0_ Ruben Tamez

CHRISTOPHER W. LEVY, } IN TI-E DISTRICT COURT

on behalf of himself and all }
others similarly situated }
}
V 261ST, DISTRICT COURT
}
} JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
CITY OF LAKEWAY, }
JULIE J. OAKLEY, }
THOMAS G. KILGORE, }
LOUIS MASTRANGELO, }
SANJEEV KUMAR and }
GRETCI-EN VANCE } OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

CHRISTOPHER W. LEVY, Plaintifl' (subject to said party's request for certification of

this lawsuit as a Class Action, as outlined below), complains of the CITY OF LAKEWAY,
TEXAS ("Lakeway" or the "City"), and its purported City Manager, JULIE J. OAKLEY (the

"City Manager"), along with its present Mayor, THOMAS G. KILGORE, and certain other

current members of the City Council —

being LOUIS MASTRANGELO, SANJEEV KUMAR

and GRETCHEN VANCE, as Defendants.

I. Declaratory Judgment(s) Sought

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class Members, seeks entry of a Declaratory

Judgment (or several Declaratory Judgments) that the Defendants have, each and every one,

acting separately and in concert with other Defendants, violated (by ignoring, evading,

deceiving, attempting to eliminate, and accepting Defendant Oakley's "sham" compliance with)

a certain requirement of the Lakeway City Charter (the "Charter"); and that there was a

conspiracy with and among the most recent two Lakeway Mayors and other members and former

I
members of the Lakeway City Council (collectively the "Officeholders") who held their offices

during the relevant time period to violate, evade, conceal, or to allow an ongoing violation of,

the subject Charter provision.

As a result of those actions, Plainfifi seeks entry of a judgment containing a declaration

or declarations by the Court:

(1) That the purported hiring by the City of Lakeway of Julie J.

Oakley to serve as City Manager was impropefly and illegally accomplished
through the specific intent and actions of apparently every one of the above-

mentioned City Manager, Mayors and Councilmembers, which intent and actions
were apparently intended and planned to ignore, evade, or allow continuation of

violation of the Charter provision requiring the City Manager to become a

Lakeway resident "within a reasonable period of time" afier being appointed to

and hired into that position;

(2) That Oakley has never been or became a resident of Lakeway (as
that term is legally defined and applied in Texas laws and in Texas courts);

(3) That the Defendants —

including the City, the purported City

Manager and the Elected Officials either planned themselves how to initiate or
continue Oakley's appointment and employment as City Manager despite the fact

that she has never complied with the Residency Requirement, or were aware of

the coordinated efforts of the Defendants and Elected Officials to do that and

failed to take any effort whatsoever to stop, oppose or expose that unlawful

effort;

(4) That the document entitled "Employment Agreement Between The

City of Lakeway and Julie Oakley for the Position of City Manager" (the

"Employment Agreement"), signed on January 24, 2020, by Mayor Cox, on

behalf of the City (following the unanimous approval and authorization of the

2
 City Council), and also sigled on that sanle day by Oakley, is void (or voidable)
and unenforceable by any party, due to its failure to require Oakley to become

a resident of the City within a reasonable period of time, and due to Oakley's

failure to become a resident of the City Within a reasonable period of time

following her appointment as City Manager, as required by the Charter; and

(5) That the purported City Manager and the present Mayor and
other Councilmembers violated the Charter and they encouraged, assisted and

approved the Charter violation and the evasion of the Residency Requirement in

the Charter, as described above, so that each Defendant currently holding office

forfeited their respective elected and appointed positions in the Lakeway

municipal government, pursuant to the Charter provision (Section 3.08)

mandating that sanction.

In support of the above-described claims and the resulting causes of action, the Plaintifi
would respectfully show the Court the following:

II. Discovery
Plaintifl' intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 (Discovery Control Plan -
By
Order), as specified in Rule 190.4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

III. Pa_rties

A. PLAINTIFF( S)
I. Individual

CHRISTOPHER W. LEVY (hereinafier "Plaintifi") is an individual who resides

in his family's homestead in the City of Lakeway, in Travis County, Texas. Pursuant to Section

30.014, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the following information is provided: The

last three numbers of the Plaintiff's driver's license number are "XXXXX460"; and the last three

numbers of the Plaintifl' s social security number are "XXX-XX—X573".

 2. Class Action

The above-named Plaintifi' files this suit as a representative of All Residents (or,

alternatively, A11 Voters, or A11 Taxpayers, or all of the above) within the City of Lakeway as a

Class Action, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 42, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
and subject to the factors and considerations discussed below.

(a) This lawsuit satisfies the Prerequisites to a Class Action, as required by

TRCP 42(a), as follows:

(1) The population of the City of Lakeway, Texas, was counted by the

United States Census Bureau, at 19,189 residents in the 2020 Census. That

number of persons as a class is so numerous that joinder of all members into this

lawsuit is impracticable.

(2) The questions of law and fact raised in this lawsuit are common to

all members of the class.

(3) The claims of the representative Plaintifi' named above are typical

of and identical to the claims or potential claims of all members of the class who
care whether their local elected and appointed officials comply with existing

applicable law in conducting business on behalf of all residents of the City.

(4) The representative Plaintifl' is merely a citizen who, along with

others in the community, is/are interested and concerned about the failure of the
elected and appointed officials of the City of Lakeway to recognize and obey their

obligation and duty to follow applicable existing laws, carry out their legal duties

pursuant to their sworn oaths of office, comply with the clearly stated will of the

voters, and tell the truth and demonstrate leadership and integrity in public forums

and in legally shielded "executive sessions" that preceded all public and recorded

votes by the two Mayors and the various Councilmembers to appoint and hire

Oakley to serve as City Manager, despite her never meeting the Residency

4
 Requirement in any manner other than a ridiculous and transparent sham and
series of attempts at deception. In pursuing the claims of this lawsuit, the

representative Plaintifi will fairly and adequately protect the identical interests of
the class members offended by the lack of concern by Defendants for the

Residency Requirement, the intentional skirting of the Charter mandate and the
landslide vote of Lakeway voters supporting the Residency Requirement during

the same time period that Defendants were avoiding, skirting and Violating it, and
the elected Mayors (2) and Councilmembers (approximately a dozen) were acting
in an active conspiracy with Defendant Oakley to facilitate violation of the

Residency Requirement. The commitment of the representative Plaintiff to right

the above-stated wrongs within the rotten core of Lakeway's local government
culture is unmatched in quality and intensity of effort and cannot be credibly

challenged for motive by the conspirators and Defendants.

(b) This lawsuit is maintainable as a Class Action, under the requirements of

TRCP 42(b), because of the satisfaction of the prerequisites of subsection (a)

above and in addition:

(I) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual

members of the class would create a risk of

(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications With respect to

individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct

for the party opposing the class, or

(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the

class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other

members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to

protect their interests; or

5
 (2) the party or parties opposing or expected to oppose the class has

acted or refilsed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

class as a whole; or

(3) the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class

predominate over any questions afiecting only individual members, and a class action is

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

controversy. The matters pertinent to these issues include:

(A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the

prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy

already commenced by or against members of the class;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation the

claims in the particular forum (i.e., the District Courts of Travis

County, Texas);

(D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a

class action.

(c) Plaintiff seeks a determination by the Court at an early practicable time

(i.e., immediately following answer(s) being filed on behalf of the Defendant parties named

below) of whether the Court will certify this lawsuit as a Class Action, and if so, Plaintiff seeks

entry of an Order, under TRCP 42(b) and 42(c) that this lawsuit is certified as a Class Action,

with definition of the class and definition of the class claims or issues, and appointment of class

counsel under TRCP 42(g).

B. DEFENDANTS
l. The CITY OF LAKEWAY, TEXAS (hereinafier "City" or "Lakeway") isa
Home-Rule Municipality, under Section 9.001 et seq. and Section 26.001 et seq., Texas Local

6
Government Code, and may be lawfillly served with process, according to Sec. 17.024(b), Texas

Civil Practices & Remedies Code, by citation delivered to the City Secretary, JO ANN
TOUCHSTONE, at the Lakeway City Hall, 1102 Lohnnns Crossing Road, Lakeway, Texas

(78734).
2. JULIE J. OAKLEY (hereinafter "Oakley" or "City Manager") is an individual

who -resides in Bumet County, Texas, at 116 Combs Alley, Spicewood, Texas (78669), and may

be served with process by citation personally served at that location.

3. THOMAS G. KILGORE ("Kilgore" or the "Mayor") —

the present Mayor of the

City of Lakeway (but, due to the rmnagement structure chosen by Lakeway in its Charter,

actually has approximately the same legal duties, authority and responsibilities of every

Councilmember, but as Mayor is designated to preside over meetings of the City Council and

has certain additional ceremonial duties as the City's designated individual representative) —

is

an individual who resides in the City of Lakeway, Travis County, Texas, at 925 Electra,

Lakeway, Texas (78734), and may be served with process by citation personally served at that
location.

4. GRETCHEN VANCE ("Vance" or the "Mayor Pro Tern") —

the present Mayor

Pro Tem of the City of Lakeway (but, due to the management structure chosen by Lakeway in its

Charter, actually has approximately the same legal duties, authority and responsibilities of every

Councilmember, but as Mayor Pro Tem is desigiated to perform the above described additional

responsibilities of the Mayor if the Mayor is absent or unable to perforrn those additional

fimctions) —

is an individual who resides in the City of Lakeway, Travis County, Texas, at 205 El

Rio Drive, Lakeway, Texas (78734), and may be served with process by citation personally

served at that location.

5. LOUIS J. MASTRANGELO ("Mastrangelo") —

a present LakewayCouncil-
member —

is an individual who resides in the City of Lakeway, Travis County, Texas, at 934

7
Vanguard Street, Lakeway, Texas (78734), and may be served with process by citation

personally served at that location.

6. KUMAR SANJEEV ("'Sanjeev") —

a present Lakeway Councilmember —

is an

individual who resides in the City of Lakeway, Travis County, Texas, at 313 Camino Arbolago,

Lakeway, Texas (78734), and may be served with process by citation personally served at that
location.

7. [ NOTE Present Lakeway Councilmember KEITH TRECKER, who won election

to his present position on the Lakeway City Council in the election conducted on May l, 2021,

and Councilmembers KELLY BRYNTESON and JENNIFER SZIMANSKI, who won election
to their present positions on the Lakeway City Council in the election conducted on May 2,

2022, are n_ot included as Defendants in this action, and Plaintifi' is not seeking a declaration that

any of those individuals forfeited their position as an elected ofiicial serving the City of

Lakeway, because it does not appear that any of those individuals had any knowledge of or

participated in any way in the unlawfill activities of the City of Lakeway or its City Council or
its City Manager that form the basis of this lawsuit]
lll. Claim for Relief Sought

Pursuant to Rule 47, Texas Rules for Civil Procedure, Plaintiff would show the Court and
the Defendants named above the following:

(a) Plaintiff intends to show the Court by credible evidence that Defendants created a

plan to Violate, and then violated, and continue today to Violate the Second Requirement of

Section 4.01 of the City Charter, which reads, "The City Manager, when chosen, need not be a

resident of the City, but is expected t0 reside within the City within a reasonable period of time

after accepting appointment." (emphasis added)

(b) Plaintiff through this lawsuit will seek entry of a Declaratory Judgment (or, more

accurately, a series of Declaratory Judgments) regarding the above-stated rmtters, pursuant to

Section 37.004(a), Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, which states: "A person
interested under a deed, will, written contract, 0r other writings constituting a contract or

whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance,

contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising
under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of
rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder." (emphasis added) Accordingly, except for
the statutory attorney's fees claim described below, Plaintifi seeks through this action only

non-monetary relief.

(c) Plaintiff seeks to have the Court declare that the hiring of Oakley as City Manager

was and remains in Violation of the Charter's Second Requirement (Residency); the Employment

Agreement was void ab initio (fiom its inception), or voidable; the Manager, Mayors and

Councilmembers acted in an unlawfiil conspiracy to violate, ignore, evade, scam, or change the

Residency Requirement; Oakley has never been or became a Lakeway resident, notwithstanding
her deceptive, dishonest and illegal efforts (including registering to vote fiom her "sham"

Lakeway apartment address) to try to shore up her continued claim that she is now a resident of

Lakeway, even though she actually rennins a resident of Spicewood, Bumet County, Texas; and
that all who were knowledgeable of supportive of, and contributed to the violation of the

Residency Requirement have forfeited their elective and appointive ofl'lces held in Lakeway city

government under that penalty specified in the Charter.

(d) Plaintifi seeks recovery of Plaintiff's reasonable and necessary attomey's fees

required for the successfiil prosecution of the legal claims and cause(s) of action stated herein, as

are found equitable and just by the Court, pursuant to Section 37.009, Texas Civil Practices and

Remedies Code.

IV- Venue

Each of the events, acts and practices alleged herein occurred in or were performed or

committed in Travis County, except when indicated otherwise. The local law —
the lakeway

City Charter —

that is the subject of this lawsuit governs the municipality of the City of Lakeway,

9
Texas, that is entirely located within Travis County, Texas. The contract that is the subject of

this lawsuit —

the Employment Agreement purporting to hire Defendant Oakley in the position of

City Manager of the City of Lakeway was negotiated and executed in Travis County, and it is
also performable in Travis County. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas, pursuant to

Sections 15.001, 15.002 and 15.035, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
V. Jurisdiction

The purpose of this lawsuit is to establish, through entry of a declaratory judgment (or a

series of declaratory judgments), subject to all terms and provisions of the Texas Uniform

Declaratory Judgments Act (Sections 37.001 et seq., Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code),
that a blatant and intentional Violation (hereinafier the "Violation") of the City Charter of the

City of Lakeway occurred, and that the Violation was the result of an unlawfill conspiracy

among and involving numerous individuals holding the ofiices of Mayor and Councilmember,

all of whom had taken oaths of oflice pledging to uphold the laws (including the specific one

that they violated and conspired to violate, as described below) through actions contemplated,

proposed, approved and taken by the named individuals, acting in their elected or appointed

offices of public trust, to make the Violation occur, and then they conspired to make the

Violation successful.

VI. Background Information and Facts

1. Laws Governing Operation of City of Lakeway. Since the approval by its voters
in 1990 of its present City Charter (hereinafter the "Charter"), and subsequent amendments duly

approved by its voters in following years, the City of Lakeway has existed and operated as a

Home-Rule Municipality, under applicable provisions of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Local

Government Code, the Lakeway City Charter, and various Lakeway City Ordinances assembled

into the Lakeway Code of Ordinances.

2. Organization and Operation of City.

(A) The City of Lakeway is designated by the State of Texas as a Home-Rule

10
Municipality [see Sections 1.005(2) and 5.004, Texas Local Government Code], following the

adoption by its voters in 1990 of its City Charter (the "Charter").

(B) The City of Lakeway elected to operate under the City Manager form of

government [see Chapter 26, Texas Local Government Code].

(C) The business functions of the City of Lakeway are organized and operated

nmch like any comparably-sized private business enterprise. The Lakeway City Manager
fimctions as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the city government, hired and authorized to

do so by the Lakeway City Council, which functions by law as the city's Board of Directors,
elected by the Lakeway voters (its shareholders) to function in that capacity on behalf of the

public interests overseen by the city government.

(D) According to the "City Manager's Ofiice" page of the Official Website of
the City of Lakeway:
"In accordance with the Lakeway City Charter, the City of Lakeway operates as a
council-manager form of government. The mayor and six councilmembers are
elected oflicials and serve as the legislative body of the city. The city manager is
responsible for the proper administration of all City affairs. The city manager
and assistant city manager work closely with the City Council and the department
directors to provide the highest level ofservicefor the residents and businesses of
Lakeway. Julie Oakley is the City Manager for the City of Lakeway. She
oversees all departments and staff members. The City Manager reports directly
to the City Council and administers the day-to-day affairs of the city,
implementing policies established by Council and ensuring the city operates in a
fiscally responsible manner."
[https://www.lakeway-tx.gov/664/City-Managers-Office, last viewed 06/13/2022]

3. Lakeway Charter Requirements For City Manager.

(A) There are two requirements of employment for the position of

lakeway's City Manager, as stated in the Charter:

"Section 4.01 CITY MANAGER
"(a) Appointment and Qualifications:
[First Requirement] "The City Council, by a majority vote of all the members of
the City Council, shall appoint a City Manager. The method of selection shall be
left to the discretion of the City Council as long as the other provisions of this

11
 "
Charter with respect to city employment are satisfied. (emphasis added)
[Second Requirement] "The City Manager, when chosen, need not be a resident
of the City, but is expected to reside within
"
the City within a reasonable period
of time after accepting appointment. (emphasis added)

It is the above quoted Second Requirement (hereinafter called the "Residency Requirement") that

is the primary nutter to be examined and addressed through this lawsuit.

4. State Law Regarding Qualifications for City Manager

A. Chapter 25 (City Manager Form of Government in General-Law

Municipality), Texas Local Government Code, includes this provision:
Sec. 25.027 (Qualifications of City Manager)
(a) The governing body of the municipalitgz shall appoint the city
manager solely on the basis of the person 's administrative ability.
(b) The city manager is not required to meet any residency
qualifications.

B. Chapter 26 (Form of Government in Home-Rule Municipality) does not

contain any comparable or parallel provision or language like the "qualifications" section above.

C. The City of Lakeway was, in its earlier years, a General-Law Municipality.

That status changed in I990, when its voters approved the present City Charter that changed the

city's governing form fiom General-Law Municipality to Home-Rule Municipality; accordingly,

Sec. 25.027 has not applied to the City of Lakeway for over 30 years, and the Residency

Requirement in the Charter is not overridden by the above-quoted Chapter 25 provision.

5. Oakley's Professional History and Qualifications to hold the position of City

Manager

A. Prior Employment and Educational History. "A native of Midland, Julie

received her degree in Accounting and Information Systems from the University of Texas
of the Permian Basin. Before coming to the City of Lakeway and earlier in her career,
Julie was employed by public accounting firms specializing in audit and tax, as County
Auditor for Midland County, as Finance Manager for Dallas County Schools, as
Financial and Legislative Analyst for the Texas Association of Counties and as Senior
Financial Analyst for Travis County."
[https.'//www.lakeway-tx.gov/664/City-Managers-Office, last viewed 06/13/2022]

12
 B. Accomplishments at the City of Lakeway

(1) "Julie began her career with the City of Lakeway in 2010 as
Finance Director and then took over the role of Assistant City Manager. In late 2019, she
was named Interim City Manager and soon offered the City Manager position. She is a
Certified Public Accountant and member of the Texas Society of Certified Public
Accountants. Julie was appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry and Governor Greg
Abbott to the Texas Municipal Retirement System Board of Trustees and served in that
"
capacity from 2010 to 2020.
[https://www.lakeway-tx.gov/664/City-Managers-Wfice, last viewed 06/13/2022]

(2) "During her time so far with the City of Lakeway, Julie
implemented the regional household hazardous waste center and developed partnerships
between various local government entities in Western Travis County. She developed the
first Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Lakeway. She also oversaw the
development of the city's first Thoroughfare Plan, and a new Comprehensive Plan
approved in 2020. Additionally, during her tenure as Finance Director, the bond rating
increased, along with the city receiving stellar financial audits."
([https://www.lakeway-tx.gov/664/City-Managers-Oflice, last viewed 06/13/2022]

C. Acting City Manager. On August 19, 2019, Steve Jones resigned as City

Manager of Lakeway. [8/19/2019 CC Minutes at Item 2] Council voted and accepted his

resignation. Id. Councilmember Mastrangelo moved to appoint Julie Oakley as Acting City

Manager and it was passed unanimously. Id. Councilmember Kumar moved to have council

direct the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem take any action necessary to find an interim or

permanent City Manager to replace Steve Jones and the motion passed unanimously. Id.

D. Interim City Manager. On September 9, 2019, a Special Session was held

and in executive session a discussion was held regarding appointing an Interim City Manager.

[9/9/2019 CC Minutes at Item 8] The results of that executive session were reported in the

Minutes as follows:

13
 "The Council reconvened in open session and Councilmember Higginbotham
moved to approve the appointment of Julie Oakley as Interim City Manager.
Councilmember Vance seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Pro
Tem Higginbotham moved to approve a ten percent stipend to the Interim City
Manager for the duration of her tenure as Acting City Manager and Interim City
Manager. Councilmember Kumar seconded and the motion passed unanimously."
Id.

E. Cig Manager.
(1) Permanent Position Offered. On November 18, 2019, City Council

convened into an Executive Session to deliberate the appointment and duties of the City Manager

position. [11/18/2019 CC Minutes at Item 26] Following the Executive Session, the City Council

unanimously approved a motion made to ofi'er Julie Oakley the position of City Manager and

authorize Mayor Cox to negotiate and execute an employment agreement inside the parameters

set forth in Executive Session. Id.

(2) Employment Agreement Authorized. On January 21, 2020, afier

convening into and reconvening fiom Executive Session, "Councilmember Kumar moved to

allow Mayor Cox to enter into contract offering Julie Oakley the City Manager position as per

the contract shared with the city council. Mayor Pro Tem Higginbotham seconded and the motion

passed unanimously." [1/21/2020 CC Minutes at item 32] [NOTE2 When Plaintifi' recently

obtained a copy of the Employment Agreement, in response to a Public Information Request, it

was noted that the effective date of the Employment Agreement approved by the City Council

had been back-dated to November 18, 2019.]

(3) Employment Agreement Signed. On January 24, 2020, a document

entitled Employment Agreement Between The City of Lakeway and Julie Oakley for the Position

of City Manager (the "Employment Agreement") was signed by Mayor Sandy Cox on behalf of
the City, and it was also signed by Oakley.

14
 6. Residency Requirement Not Relevant to Oakley's Prior City Employment, Then

Ignored When She Ascended to Become City Manager.

A. While being employed by the City of Lakeway for approximately a decade

as Finance Director and Assistant City Manager, it was a fact well-known by all of her colleagues
in Lakeway city government —

to her predecessor as City Manager, to Mayor Cox and Mayor

Kilgore, and to all members of the City Council —

during all relevant times that Julie Oakley was

married to Judge James N. Oakley ("Judge Oakley"), the County Judge of Burnet County, and

that the Oakley family (including Julie, James, and a combined family of five children) resided at

II6 Combs Alley, in the town of Spicewood, in Burnet County (the "Oakley Residence"),

satisfying the statutory requirement that Judge Oakley be a resident of Burnet County while

holding the position of County Judge of Burnet County. For those years, there was no question
that every one of Lakeway's leaders and elected officials knew that Julie Oakley did 1g live in

the City of Lakeway, and that fact was understandably of no concern to anyone, because as

Finance Director and Assistant City Manager, there was no legal requirement that Julie Oakley

reside in the City of Lakeway.

B. It is assumed by Plaintiff that Oakley did not ever hide or mislead anyone

regarding where she resided, and it is also assumed by Plaintifl' that Oakley did not mislead or

attempt to mislead anyone employed by the City of Lakeway or either of the Mayors or any of the
Councilmembers who served in their positions while Oakley served as Assistant City Manager,

Acting City Manager or Interim City Manager about the fact that Julie Oakley had not resided in
the City of Lakeway, notwithstanding the fact that the Charter contains that Residency

Requirement for whoever serves as the City Manager.

C. Prior to the resignation of Steve Jones as City Manager, there was,

according to all available evidence, sigfificant discussion by and between Oakley and the two

Mayors and the various Councilmembers who held their offices during the employment

transactions described herein (including Mayor Kilgore and Councilmembers who were sworn

15
into their respective offices afier the November 2020 city election) about the outstanding

qualifications, skills and job perforrmnce demonstrated by Oakley during her decade of

employment with the City of Lakeway as Finance Director and Assistant City Manager. There
can be no question whatsoever that the First Requirement (of two) in Section 4.01 of the City

Charter for the position of City Manager was well-explored by those responsible for hiring the

new City Manager following the 2019 resigiation of Steve Jones fiom that position.

D. From the inforrmtion available so far to Plaintiff, at the three City Council

meetings where "hiring decisions" were rmde (to employ Oakley as Acting City Manager, as

Interim City Manager, and to make her hire permanent as the City Manager), no discussion

occurred —

at least in any public City Council session —

regarding the Second Requirement in

Section 4.01 of the City Charter for the City Manager (the "Residency Requirement").

7. Action By City Council to Eliminate Charter Residency Requirement.

A. Commencement of Charter Review & Proposed Modification. At the same

meeting as the Council approved the employment contract with Julie Oakley [on January 21,

2020, see above paragraph 5(E)(2)], the Council appointed a committee to review the City

Charter. Id. at Item 6. Also See Resolution N0. 2020-01-21-01 creating the 2020 Charter Review

Committee. That action was taken as contemplated in the original Charter, as follows:

"Section 1 1.15 CHARTER REVIEW

"Six months after the adoption of the Charter and not later than every four years
thereafter, the Council shall appoint a Charter Review Committee comprised of
seven residents of the City. The Mayor and each Councilmember shall each
appoint one member. The Committee shall be appointed for a twelve-month term
and such term may be extended by the Council. The Committee shall inquire into
the operations of the City government as related to the Charter and review said
Charter to determine if revisions are necessary. Public hearings may be held and
the Committee shall have the power to compel the attendance of City officers or
employees and may require the submission of the City records necessary to review.
The Charter Review Committee shall make a written report of its findings and
recommendations to the Council of any proposed amendments."

B. Special Election Set for Proposed Charter Revisions. On July 6, 2020, City

16
Council voted, based on the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee, to call a special

election to amend the Charter, and the proposed revisions included "Proposition D" to remove

fiom the Charter the residency requirement for City Manager. [7/6/2020 CC Minutes at Item 6]

Councilmember Kumar moved to approve the ballot propositions discussed and ageed upon, and

the motion passed unanimously. Id. Also See "Proposed Ballot Propositions City of Lakeway
"
Charter Amendment Election November 2020.

C. Voters Approve Most Charter Revisions, But Reiect Proposal to Eliminate

Residency Requirement for City Manager. On November 3, 2020, an election was held for the

amendments to the Charter. Proposition D —

which would have eliminated the Residency

Requirement for Lakeway's City Manager

—

was rejected by Lakeway voters, with 35.9% voting

for Proposition D and 64.1% voting against. See "All But Two Lakeway Ballot Propositions

Pass, Community Impact 11/04/2020. Also See "City of Lakeway Resolution No. 2020-11-18-01
"
at Proposition D.

8. Post-Referendum Actions by City Council Regarding Oakley Continuing to Serve

as City Manager.
A. Residency Requirement

(1) (a) Prior to the November 2020 referendum there was no report
—

through the City's publicity activities or in any news source that could located by Plaintifl' —

of
even one word being uttered in a public meeting or forum about the existing requirement that the

City Manager reside in Lakeway within a "reasonable time" after being named to that position

(the "Residency Requirement")

—

no mention of it in the Minutes of City Council discussions

about appointing Oakley to assume the positions of Acting City Manager, Interim City Manager

and her final appointment as City Manager; no statement by the City Council about Oakley's

appointments being "subject to" the Charter residency requirement; no commitment by Oakley to

satisfy that aspect of her appointment requirement; and no process or timetable ever discussed in

the appointment process or in the Employment Agreement for Oakley to comply with the

17
Residency Requirement; and not a single acknowledgment by any elected or appointed City
official of the existence of a need for Oakley to (ever) comply with the Residency Requirement.

(b) The only (indirect) reference to the Charter residency

requirement for the City Manager in the Employment Agreement finalized between the City of

Lakeway and Oakley was this language in its Section 3.05 (Compensation):

"City agrees to pay the City Manager an annual housing allowance of $ 1 5, 000. 00,
payable in 12 equal monthly installments. This housing allowance shall begin on
the first pay period following the execution by the City Manager of a lease on
residential property within the City limits, or upon closing on residential property
within the City limits. If the requirement that the City Manager must reside within
the City limits is revoked or eliminated, the City will cease paying the housing
allowance."

(2) It is believed by Plaintifl' that Oakley subsequently entered into a

lease on a residential property, being an apartment in the Berkshire Lakeway Apartments located

at 5313 Serene Hills Drive, Lakeway, Texas (the "Apartment Residence"). It is further believed

by Plaintifi' that Oakley never actually resided in that Apartment Residence (within the

meanings of that term found in the Texas Election Code and in the Texas Local Government

Code) prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and that the Apartment Residence described above served
as nothing more than a subterfiige —

a sham residence —

intended to mislead and satisfy any

interested party into believing that Oakley had actually moved her residence fiom the Oakley

Residence that she shared with Judge Oakley and their combined five children fiom the time of

the Oakleys' marriage through the present.

(3) If the Lakeway voters had approved Proposition D on November 3,

2020, to remove the residency requirement for the City Manager, the Violation by Oakley of that

30-year-old Charter provision —

that arguably began on September 9, 2019 (when Oakley was

selected by the City Council to serve as Interim City Manager), supported by the votes of that

Mayor (Sandy Cox) and the other members of the City Council then holding office, and

continued support by the votes of the next and present Mayor (Kilgore) and the members of the

18
City Council holding office during his term —

would likely have vanished under the cover of legal

9'
"mootness. But afier the referendum failed to un-Violate what appears to be the City Council's

Improper Hiring of Oakley as City Manager —

improper because all of the people involved —

Mayors, Councilmembers and the City Manager herself —

either didn't notice or deliberately

ignored and intentionally lefi unenforced that second qualification provision in the Charter

paragraph governing and restricting the hiring a new City Manager (the Residency Requirement),

or (even worse!) it appears that all involved parties concocted a plan (that failed) for how to

make the problem presented by the Residency Requirement vanish through the

referendum; however, in that regard, Plaintiff poses to the Court these proper, lawfill and

extremely relevant inquiries to be considered in its deliberations about whether the City Manager

and Mayors and Councilmembers are guilty of violating the Charter:

(A) Was any aspect of the above described strategies (i.e., ignore the

Residency Requirement in selecting Oakley to serve as City Manager and then

eliminate it through a referendum) a proper, truthful, acceptable, ethical and legal

way for City of Lakeway and its officials to address the Residency Requirement in
the Charter when making the decision to hire Oakley as City Manager?
(B) Were those strategies (ignore the Residency Requirement in selecting

Oakley to serve as City Manager and then eliminate it through a referendum) an

intentional Charter violation with an intended goal (that failed) to evade or defeat

the Residency Requirement?

(C) Under the "violation of Charter or ordinances by an official forfeits

that person's office" clause of the Charter, are any of those Lakeway officials

involved in the nefarious misdeeds alleged in this petition still legally holding or

qualified to continue to hold their positions, or have all of those persons forfeited
their positions (without the necessity of a separate removal proceeding) under the

relevant Charter provision language quoted above?

19
 (4) Meanwhile, Oakley continued to serve as Lakeway City Manager —

notwithstanding the clear (if not forgotten and definitely not revoked) Residency Requirement.

Oakley continued to draw, prospectively and retroactively, the enhanced salary increases, plus

"Stipend" compensation, plus housing allowance and "local travel" allowance and other benefits
that the City Council approved for her; and there was still no public mention, by anyone involved

in the process whereby Oakley became the City Manager about her moving her residence (with or

without her spouse and/or with or without their five children) to Lakeway to comply with the

Residency Requirement in the Charter.

B. "Stipend" Payment to City Manager

(1) What is a "stipend" payment and under what circumstances would

it be paid by the City of Lakeway to its new City Manager? For the uninformed, the word

"stipend" can mean one of many possible types of payments. As explained by financial writer

Robin Reshwan in her article entitled "Money: A Guide to Stipends" (U.S. News —

July 27,
2020):
"A stipend is a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray
'
expenses, according to Merriam Webster.

"Indeedcom states that stipends are usually given when the job focuses on
training that primarily benefits the recipient rather than the employer.
Historically, stipends have been used in academia and some religious or nonprofit
organizations as customary ways to help out student researchers, teachers and
clergy with living and other basic expenses when working for little or no money.
You may also be familiar with the business travel stipend as a per diem to cover
meals or other daily expenses on business trips.

"Although stipends continue to be offered for living and travel expenses, their
application has expanded. A more creative range of stipends are used as 'fringe
benefits" or to offiset costs for an employee, intern, trainee, researcher or graduate
student. These perks are on the rise with employers looking to improve culture and
motivate workers during uncertain times.

"There are many ways an employer can use a stipend as a perk, benefit, incentive,
recruiting or retention tool. Stipends can be used to cover the costs of commuting,
meals, home office costs, insurance, wellness, living expenses, travel, cellphone or

20
 internet services, and training and professional development, according to
"
Haggier, a stipend management platform.

(2) The September 9, 2019, meeting of the City Council, occurred

during a period of significant "turnover" in the top ranks of Lakeway stafl' positions. But it was

also sigfificant for the apparent introduction into Lakeway's finances of a new method of

workforce incentivization and employee compensation —

delivery of "Stipend" payments to the

City Manager (in addition to her salary, housing expense payment, a "local travel" monthly car

allowance, reimbursement for attendance at professional conferences and maintenance of her

CPA license).

(3) lt was in Executive Session at that meeting that the City Council

discussed, and then afier reconvening to Open Session voted, appointing Acting City Manager

Julie Oakley to the position of Interim City Manager. "Councilmember Vance seconded and the
motion passed unanimously. Mayor Pro Tem Higginbotham moved to approve a ten percent

stipend to the Interim City Manager for the duration of tenure as Acting City Manager and
Interim City Manager. Councilmember Kumar seconded and the motion passed unanimously."

[9/9/2019 CC Minutes at Item 8]

(4) On April l9, 2021 (approximately six months following the

rejection by Lakeway voters of "Proposition D" to remove the Residency Requirement by

amendment fiom the Charter, and approximately three months following execution of the

Employment Ageement), the City Council approved a $10,000.00 "Stipend" payment to Oakley:

"Councilmember Kumar moved to approve a 2 percent raise and one time stipend of $10, 000. 00

to the City Manager. Councilmember Howell seconded and the motion passed unanimously"

[4/19/2021 CC Minutes at Item 18]

9. Oakley Registers to Vote in Lakeway.

A. State Law Regarding Residency and Voting: For purposes of voting, the

Texas Election Code defines "Residence" as follows:

21
 "Sec. 1.015. RESIDENCE. (a) In this code, 'residence' means domicile, that is,
one 's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after
any temporary absence. (emphasis added)
(b) A person may not establish residence for the purpose of influencing the
outcome of a certain election.
(c) A person does not lose the person 's residence by leaving the person 's home to
go to another place for temporary purposes only.
(d) A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has
come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that
place the person 's home. (emphasis added)
(e) A person who is an inmate in a penal institution or who is an involuntary
inmate in a hospital or eleemosynary institution does not, while an inmate, acquire
residence at the place where the institution is located.
0) A person may not establish a residence at any place the person has not
inhabited A person may not designate a previous residence as a home and fixed
place of habitation unless the person inhabits the place at the time of designation
and intends to remain." (emphasis added)

B. On May l, 2021, Oakley changed her voter registration fiom the Oakley
Residence in Burnet County to the Apartment Residence in Lakeway referenced above. That

action (change of voting address) occurred over 15 months following execution by the City's

then-Mayor Cox and Oakley of the Employment Agreement, and over 17 months following the

Effective Date of the Employment Agreement (alter the City Council had unanimously voted

afier execution of the Employment Agreement to make its terms retroactive to November 19,

2019, when the City Council voted unanimously to make Oakey the Interim City Manager), and

less than two weeks after the City Council approved the one-time Stipend payment of $10,000.00

to Oakley.

C. Plaintiff's research indicates that Oakley has never actually voted in any
election where she would have been eligible to vote subsequent to her moving her

registration from Burnet County to her purported home in Travis County (the Apartment
Residence in Lakeway).

22
 D. [ NOTE, however, that the Burnet County voting records Show that Oakley
voted on February 22, 2020 —
one month after she signed the Employment Agreement —

using her actual address at the Oakley Residence in Burnet County. ]

10. Oakley's CPA License Address.

A. Oakley had since first earning her CPA license in 2009 listed her address
with the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy (TSBPA) as 116 Combs Alley, Spicewood

(Burnet County), Texas (78669), which is the Oakley Residence.

B. TSBPA Rule 501.93 requires each individual licensee or firm to notify the

Board of a change of mailing address or telephone number within 3O days of the effective date of
the change.

C. On or before February 28, 2022, Oakley renewed and extended for a period

of one year her CPA license with the TSBPA, continuing to list her address as 116 Combs Alley,

Spicewood (Burnet County), Texas (78669).

D. ln summary, Oakley has listed her address for her CPA license with the

TSBPA for every year she has held that license —

before and alter her being hired by the City of

Lakeway to serve as its City Manager —

at 116 Combs Alley, Spicewood (Burnet County), Texas

(78669), which is, in fact, the homestead and residence that she has actually occupied and shared

during those years with her husband, Burnet County Judge James N. Oakley, along with their five

children. Oakley has never notified the TSBPA of any change of her address to the Apartment
Address.

l l. Contractual payment of "local" travel expense.

A. Section 3.05 of the Employment Agreement states the following:

"City agrees City Manager an automobile allowance in the sum of

to pay the
$6, 000.00 per year, payable in 12 equal monthly installments. This payment is in
lieu of a mileage reimbursement for use of her personal vehicle associated with
business travel within 30 miles of the City. For travel on City business in her
personal vehicle that is more than 30 miles from the City, the City Manager will be
reimbursed on a per mile basis in accordance with the City 's travel policy."

23
 B. [ NOTE: Interestingly, that sum ($6,000.00 annually, or $500.00 monthly)

would pay for a daily commute for Oakley between the Oakley Residence and the Apartment

Residence, a drive that is measured on mapguestcom as being 19.4 miles.

CALCULATION: 19.4 miles X 2x daily x 22 avg. work

days/month X $0.575 IRS mileage rate for 2020 = $490.82 per
month

Therefore, the automobile allowance paid by Lakeway for the City Manager's "local travel"

would almost exactly cover (at a 98% accuracy rate monthly) the calculated cost of Oakley's

daily/weekday commute segments between the Oakley Residence and the Apartment Residence. ]

C. On each weekday for which surveillance was procured by Plaintifl' fiom a

private investigation service, Oakley drove her daily commute between the Oakley Residence and

the Apartment Residence in an Oakley-owned vehicle bearing Texas "vanity" license plates

labeling it as a vehicle of the Burnet County Judge James N. Oakley (husband of the City

Manager), and for the "local" travel segments of that daily commute (fiom the Apartment

Residence to Lakeway City Hall and back to the Apartment Residence) Oakley drove a different

Oakley-owned Volvo vehicle. That second vehicle retrained parked outside the Apartment

Residence every night observed, while Oakley drove the "County Judge"-tagged vehicle "home"

nightly to the Oakley Residence.

D. Of the several weekdays observed, Oakley never spent any night at the

Apartment Residence; in fact, Oakley was never observed, between her car-swaps described
above, spending over a few minutes inside the building where the Apartment Residence is

located.

E. Oakley's segmented weekday Spicewood—to-Lakeway commutes and

twice-daily car-switchings were lawfi1lly observed on randomly-selected weekdays by, and

accurately documented by, trained and experienced private investigators employed by a licensed

private investigation agency contracted by Plaintiff's attorney to perform such service, as shown

and described in the referenced Exhibits.

24
 12. The Employment Agreement is a Void or Voidable Act under the Doctrine of

Ultra Vires.

A. The legal doctrine of Ultra Vires

As explained in a widely-read 1930 law treatise by Wisconsin attorney Frank A. Mack:

"The Latin term 'ultra vires,' in its proper sense, "denotes some act or
transaction on the part of a corporation which, although not unlawful or
contrary to public policy if done or executed by an individual, is yet beyond
the legitimate powers of the corporation as they are defined by the statutes
under which it is formed, or which are applicable to it, or by its charter or
incorporation papers." As to the exact nature of an ultra vires act, the decisions
are conflicting. Some courts regard an ultra Vires act as they would an illegal act,
while others regard it as a mere nullity. Still others regard it as perfectly valid and
binding unless the sovereign state sees fit to interfere. An act is said to be ultra
vires when it is not within the scope of the powers of the corporation to perform it
under any circumstances or for any purpose. An act is also sometimes said to be
ultra Vires with reference to the rights of certain parties, when the corporation is
not authorized to perform it without their consent, or with reference to some
specific purpose, when it is not authorimd to perform it for that purpose, although
fiilly within the scope of the general powers of the corporation, with the consent of
the parties interested or for some other purpose. "The Law on Ultra Vires Acts and
Contracts of Private Corporations," 14 Marq. L. Rev. 212 (1930)

B. As described in paragraph VI(3) above, the Second Requirement in Section

4.01 of Iakeway City Charter for the hiring of a City Manager is:
"The City Manager, when chosen, need not be a resident of the City, but is
expected to reside within the City within a reasonable period of time after
accepting appointment." (emphasis added)

C. The Employment Agreement making no mention whatsoever of the

—

Residence Requirement and containing no requirement that Oakley comply with the Residency

Requirement —
was an ultra Vires action by the City Council, purportedly acting under authority

granted to it by the City Charter to hire a City Manager but actually not complying With the terms
of that granted authority, thereby rendering the Employment Agreement either void ab initio or

voidable, depending, explains the Mack law treatise (see above), on the specific circumstances

and which authority is followed in the absence of a statutory or contractual determination.

25
 13. Forfeiture of Ofl'lce by Mayor and Councilmembers

Another Charter provision most definitely applicable to the present situation outlined in

this petition, and that is the applicability of the "Forfeiture of Office" provision to the actions of
the present Mayor (Kilgore) and all present Councilmembers Who have participated in the

conspiracy to subvert, ignore or nullify the Residence Requirement, and who have not acted to

cause the removal of Oakley as holding the appointed position of City Manager in violation of,
or ignoring that Oakley holds the position While not being in compliance, or avoiding having the

City enforce Oakley's compliance with the Residency Requirement or remove her from office.
Section 3.08 (Forfeiture of Office) of the Charter states:

Any elected official will forfeit office for any of the following reasons.' (a)
Failing to maintain any qualification of this Charter. (b) Violating any
provision of this Charter. (c) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
(d) Fails to attend one-half of the regularly scheduled Council meetings during
any consecutive six-month period. (emphasis added)

This "forfeiture of office" provision applies only now to Mayor Kilgore and the present

Councilmembers named as Defendants (Vance, Mastrangelo and Kunnr), because Mayor Cox

and the Councilmembers whose terms previously ended without reelection do not hold any office

that could be forfeited under the above-quoted Charter provision.

VH. Causes of Action and Claims seeking Relief

l. Plaintiff (individually and as representative of the class when this lawsuit has been

certified as a Class Action) seeks entry of a Declaratory Judgment, pursuant to Section 37.004,

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which states:

"Sec. 37.004. SUBJECT MATTER 0F RELIEF. (a) A person interested

under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or
whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal
ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of
construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract,
or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations
"
thereunder.

2. The specific issues on which Plaintiff will seek entry by the Court of a Declaratory

26
Judgment are whether the following actions and activities by the City of Lakeway (acting through
its Mayors and Councilmembers) and its purported City Manager were in compliance with and

support of the Residency Requirement of the Charter, or whether they were instead performed
with the intention of subverting or violating the Residency Requirement of the Charter:

A. Was the selection, appointment and hiring by the City of Lakeway —

by and

through action by the Mayors and Councilmembers in office at their

respective and relevant times —

of Oakley to serve as Interim City Manager

and then as City Manager, subject to the Residency Requirement stated in

Section 4.01 of the City Charter, including the Residency Requirement.

B Did Oakley and the City of Lakeway comply with the Residency

Requirement in Section 4.01 of the Charter, which required that Oakley

become a Lakeway resident "within a reasonable period of time after

accepting appointment." [Oakley was appointed by the Mayor and City

Council to serve as Interim City Manager on September 9, 2019; and

Oakley was appointed by the Mayor and City Council to serve as City

Manager on January 21, 2020.]

C Was that "reasonable period" of time afier accepting appointment to

become the City Manager a period of no more than six months (or, in the

alternative, no more than twelve months) following Oakley's appointment

date(s)?
D
I Was the Employment Agreement dated January 24, 2020, between the City

of Lakeway and Oakley void ab initio (or voidable) and unenforceable by

any party after that date under the doctrine of ultra vires, because the

contract purported to "employ" Oakley for the position of City Manager

without requiring her to comply with the Residency Requirement, and was

that apparent exhibition of hiring authority by the Mayor and City Council

27
 an improper and illegal act by those parties on behalf of the City, since the

City's elected officials omitted to enforce or ignored the Residency

Requirement (and, in fact, plotted and acted to negate, ignore or eliminate

the Residency Requirement).

E Was the offer by the Mayor(s) and Councilmembers to Oakley, or the

agreement between the Mayor(s) and Councilmembers, on behalf of the

City, and Oakley that she was appointed to or hired into the position of

City Manager without being required (ever) to comply with the Residency

Requirement a Violation of Section 4.01 of the City Charter and also a

Violation of all of those parties' sworn oaths of office to "uphold the City

Charter"?

F Was the conspiracy between Oakley, the Mayors and the Councilmembers

to avoid, subvert or ignore the Residency Requirement for the appointment

or hiring of Oakley by causing removal of the Residency Requirement

fiom the Charter through the Charter Referendum Election a violation of

the City Charter and of the City officials' sworn oaths to uphold the City
Charter?

G Following the reaffirmation by Lakeway voters of keeping the Residency

Requirement in the Charter (by a landslide nearly 2-to-1 vote margin),

were the actions by Oakley to establish, and the acceptance and support by

the Mayors and Councilmembers to accept, Oakley's "sham" residence as

suflicient to satisfy the Residency Requirement a violation (and mockery)

of the Charter and of their sworn oaths to uphold the Charter?

H Was approval by the Mayors and Councilmembers of payments of

Lakeway fimds to Oakley (in addition to her job salary) to pay rent on

Oakley's sham residence, and for a car allowance that apparently covered

28
 the expense of Oakley's secret daily commute to and fiom her actual

residence in Burnet County to the Apartment Residence (which attempt at

deception was undermined by Oakley's repeated use of the highly-Visible

"Burnet County Judge"-tagged vehicle a lawfi11 action by those City

officials and a lawfiil and proper expenditure of public fiJnds fiom the

Lakeway general fimds?

3. If the Court finds in the issues listed above that the Defendants acted improperly

and unlawfiilly in Violating or subverting the Residency Requirement, or that the Defendants

entered into and effectuated a civil conspiracy for the Residency Requirement to be violated,

subverted or negated in connection with the selection and hiring of Oakley as Lakeway's City

Manager, then Plaintiff also seeks entry of a Declaratory Judgment that the actions of the present

Mayor (Kilgore) and the present Councilmembers in filrtherance of the prohibited activities

aimed at violating or evading, or approving a violation of evasion of the Residency Requirement,

then the Plaintiff' seeks entry of a Declaratory Judgment confirming the forfeiture by Mayor

Kilgore and the existing Councilmembers of their elected positions, pursuant to Charter Section

3.08 (Forfeiture of Oflice).

4. Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for

recovery of Plaintiffs reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred in investigating and

litigating this lawsuit. If the Court certifies this lawsuit as a Class Action, Plaintifi additionally

seeks recovery fiom Defendants for the sums of money required to properly notify the Class

Members about the litigation of the class matters raised and to pay the attorney's fees of the Class

Counsel appointed by the Court to represent the interests of the Members of the Class.

5. Plaintiff seeks entry ofjudgment for all taxable court costs incurred in this case.

VIII. Prayer For Relief

For the reasons stated above, and afier citations are duly served on the Defendants, and the

Court has ruled on Plaintiffs request for certification by the Court of this lawsuit as a Class

29
Action (subject to the conditions and requirements of T.R.C.P. 42), and following carefi11

consideration by the Court of the claims and causes of action raised in this lawsuit, and the

Court's determination of any contested factual matters, and the Court's review of the applicable

laws (found in the Texas Local Government Code, the Texas Elections Code, the Texas Civil

Practice & Remedies Code, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Lakeway), and the

careful consideration by the Court of the arguments of legal counsel representing the interests and

rights of the parties to this lawsuit, Plainfifi requests entry of a declaratory judgment (or a series

of declaratory judgments) determining all rmtters described in the above section and properly

raised under Section 37.004, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Plaintiff' also seeks entry

of judgment for recovery of Plaintifi"s reasonable and necessary attomey's fees, and for all

taxable court costs incurred by Plaintifi'. Plaintiff fithher seeks all additional and further relief to

which Plaintiff may be justly due, in law or equity, regarding the matters raised in this lawsuit

and in the above and foregoing Plaintifl" s Original Petition.

Respectfully submitted,
KIM D. BROWN, ATTORNEY, PLLC
P.O. Box 200027
Austin, Texas 78720-0027
(512) 263-7450 telephone
(512) 373-8604 fax
mailbox@brownlawyer.com
Attorney for Plaintifi'

By; Kww D. Browm/

KIMD. BROWN
State Bar No. 03149900

ATTACHMENTS / ENCLOSURES:
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT
ROSTER OF EXHIBITS

KDB/LEVY-LAKEWAYWLEADINGS\
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 061422
—

30