What has been amazing to me throughout the legal pursuits of the plaintiffs and their neighborhood allies pursuing Dana Martin is the ongoing blame game of cause and effect.
What comes first, the ridiculous lawsuits or the legal fees that the neighborhood corporation and its volunteer board directors had to spend to defend against the ridiculous lawsuits?
The neighborhood ConMan loves to cite the ‘civil conviction’ of Dana in Burnet County court in 2022, for breach of fiduciary duty by paying $70,000 less than their Monday-morning-quarterbacking of the $225,000 she did pay to the water company for four acres of airport land in 2015. But was the juice worth the squeeze?
To him it was, because he is able to forever point to that as “victory,” his glorious crown of accusing everyone of everything, of which only one count was determined by jury. See his NextDoor post below.
But to the neighborhood water company, that “victory” secured only $35,000.
That’s it.
Another $35,000 was awarded to the ConMan’s marks, Bruce Sorgen, Rene Ffrench and Dick Dial who paid approximately $400,000+ in legal fees to achieve their ‘victory’ against Dana. That $400,000 is only what we know of from court testimony by their lawyer, but that bill was likely much higher to them because the case carried past that moment in time.
Along the way, the ConMan and his marks caused the corporation to pay about $500,000 to defend its interests, and it cost the corporation’s insurance company another $700,000+ to defend its volunteer directors.
I could go on and on about the costs to this neighborhood, but that seems to be where the ConMan wants to divide and conquer, over his account of the ‘civil conviction.’
But let’s examine these costs from another perspective.
Why was it that the corporation’s defense, and the cost of protecting innocent volunteers, was so expensive? I think few people really grasp the legal frivolity of the plaintiffs’ attorney. Meaning that every bit of her legal maneuvering (or “motion practice”) cost them money to defend the corporation and its volunteer board.
So, to help everyone get their mind’s attention on this issue, I ask you to look at the ConMan’s proud display of my deposition by the plaintiff’s attorney Kappy Allen. Enjoy the hate-rage of his edits and commentary. Watch the video that he posts so proudly on his website. Watch other deposition videos there. I encourage you to do so.
But at the same time, please also consider how their attorney, Kappy Allen, drove up the costs in my deposition, but also all the others, because of the way that she pursued her questioning. She is off camera, the voice of your cost.
My deposition video could serve as a sample of the 10 or so she conducted in her particular “style.”
How Deposition Questions Are Supposed to Work
Lawyers are supposed to abide by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rule 30, and the American Bar Association’s Civil Discovery Standards which describe how deposition questions should be structured. Depositions are intended to gather facts. In general:
Questions should be clear and single‑issue
Questions should not be argumentative
Questions should not assume facts not in evidence
Questions should not call for speculation
Lay witnesses should not be asked for legal conclusions
Attorneys should not badger or shame the witness
Editorializing (“this is simple,” “really?”) is discouraged
These standards exist to ensure that depositions gather facts rather than force opinions. But instead of conducting her business in a manner prescribed by those constraints, Ms. Allen’s questioning demonstrates patterns that differ from those norms.
Don’t take my word for it. Throughout the deposition, you will hear attorneys for the water company say “Object to form” because Ms. Allen was violating those rules throughout the deposition. Here are the ways that she did that:
1. Argumentative Framing embed her commentary:
“Wouldn’t that be the diligent thing to do?”
“You might get better educated if you did that.”
“Really? Really?”
2. Compound Questions. Several questions contained multiple assertions and conclusions at once, making them difficult to answer accurately.
3. Assumptions Not in Evidence. Some questions included statements about motives or future findings (“I promise we will find…”) that were not established facts.
4. Calls for Speculation. Questions repeatedly asked me to guess about:
What other board members thought
What attorneys did or did not do
Whether anyone had reasons to doubt an appraisal
How would I have knowledge of those matters? I could not assert fact toward any of those but there she was asking the ridiculous costly questions throughout.
5. Legal Conclusions. When the attorney asks for legal determinations, not factual observations. For instance, Ms. Allen asked whether the transaction was: “Fair,” “Reasonable,” “In the best interest of the water supply company”
6. Repetitive Pressure. The transcript shows multiple instances of the same question being asked again after the witness answered.
You can read the entire transcript of my deposition here, and fact-check the questions Ms. Allen asked against the transcript.
To save you the time of analyzing those questions against the State and Federal Rules, as well as the Bar Association rules, you can check out the AI generated analysis below, sampling some of Ms. Allen’s questions and weighing them against the rules.
You will see below examples from my deposition. Ms. Allen applied her (costly) ‘style’ not just to my deposition, mind you, but to all the other depositions which Ms. Allen and her clients demanded. At this point, six years after the depositions, I recall that they deposed me, Mike Nelson, Dorothy Taylor, Pat Mulligan, Bob Mebane, Mike Nelson again as corporate spokesperson, Bill Earnest, and Mike Madigan, and Dana Martin, twice if I recall correctly. That’s 11 depositions. Undoubtedly, $250,000 or more in total hourly costs to all parties.
Now, please understand that you paid for those, in my opinion, ridiculous sets of questions because Windermere corporate attorneys had to be present during the depositions.You paid for them. And until the Federal Court stepped in to force the insurance company to pay for the directors’ attorneys, you were paying for those as well.
The questions below were just from my deposition but they demonstrate the frivolity deployed by the plaintiffs through Ms. Allen.
Ms. Allen’s Questions
Why it was Improper
Rules Violated
“Wouldn’t that be the diligent thing to do?”
Argumentative; implies negligence
TRCP 199.5(d): No argumentative questions
“You might get better educated if you did that, wouldn’t you?”
Insulting, editorializing, badgering
TRCP 199.5(d); ABA Standard 13
“Really? Really?”
Badgering; pressuring witness
TRCP 199.5(d)
“This is so simple.” / “This is very simple.”
Editorializing; shaming witness
TRCP 199.5(d)
“Just say it. Are you or are you not?”
Coercive; demands a conclusion
TRCP 199.5(d)
“You either know or you don’t know. It’s yes or no.”
Improperly forces binary answers
FRCP 30(c)(2)
“Who went back to Bolton with the Hornsby appraisal and said, ‘Bolton, what the heck?’”
Argumentative phrasing
TRCP 199.5(d)
“Hornsby was furnished by the title company that’s paying for the defense for Friendship in this lawsuit, right?
Assumes facts not in evidence
TRCP 199.5(c)
“I promise we will find your lawyer participated in selecting Bolton.” (paraphrasing)
Assumes future facts; editorializing
TRCP 199.5(d)
“Dana Martin and Friendship Homes walked away from the closing table with almost $500,000 of value that belonged to the members of the water supply company… do you remember that?”
Embeds disputed facts inside question
TRCP 199.5(c)
“You would expect he communicated with the appraiser, wouldn’t you?” (paraphrase)
Calls for speculation
TRCP 199.5(d); ABA Standard 13
“Do you know of any reason anyone would think the Bolton appraisable is not reliable?”
Calls for speculation about others’ beliefs
TRCP 199.5(d)
“If you’re going to discount it, then don’t you think you should have a reason?”
Argumentative; demands legal reasoning
TRCP 199.5(d)
“Was it reasonable and in good faith to place any reliance on the Hornsby appraisal… ?”
Asks lay witness for legal conclusions
TRCP 199.5(c); ABA Standard 14
“…have you ever made a determination as to whether it is fair and in the best interest of the water supply company to allow Dana Martin to have $700,000 of water supply company property in exchange for $200,000?“
Legal conclusion; argumentative
TRCP 199.5(c)
“Did you determine the transaction was in the best interest of the water supply company?” paraphrase
Legal conclusion
TRCP 199.5(c)
“Have you made a determination that the transaction was fair or in the best interest…?” paraphrase
Legal conclusion; compound question
TRCP 199.5(c); FRCP 30(c)(2)
“What do you want to argue about that?”
Argumentative; confrontational
TRCP 199.5(d)
“I will break it right down if you really make me.”
Editorializing; adversarial tone
TRCP 199.5(d)
“We will get to the bottom of that, I promise.”
Speaking question; advocacy
TRCP 199.5(d)
“I’m going to bet you we are going to find…”
Predictive; assumes facts not in evidence
TRCP 199.5(c)
“Look. This is so simple.”
Editorializing; shaming
TRCP 199.5(d)
“Do you want to stay with that?”
Badgering; pressuring witness
TRCP 199.5(d)
So when an objective neighborhood observer wants to assess the video which the ConMan is so proud of, ask yourself whether it was worth the cost to you and the neighborhood to have Ms. Allen conduct herself in this manner. In my opinion, Ms. Allen knew better but was being performative for her gullible plaintiffs, Sorgen, Dial and Ffrench, the ones who were willing to shell out good money for the glee of pursuing someone they disliked.
Finally, I hope that the astute reader will understand that today is August 22, 2026. The deposition discussed here occurred in November 2019. All the directors named above were removed by the Judge from the trial in 2021 and only the $70,000 judgment was rendered in 2022. Yet, here we are discussing matters that the ConMan posts on NextDoor in 2026 because he has nothing better to do with his life.
My earlier post below was incorrect in that www.wowsc.net is working and hosts the site. I have removed my post from NextDoor. But the fact remains that wowsc.com and wowsc.net are not available to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation except at significant cost, because the domain lapsed.
Therefore the post below is true in that regard, but at least www.wowsc.net is working
EARLIER POST:
The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation’s websites are no longer accessible to members.
Both primary domains (www.wowsc.com and www.wowsc.org) appear to have expired at GoDaddy and were not renewed by the corporation. As a result, GoDaddy has now listed the domains for resale. See the images below, of what the servers return when the names are entered in a browser.
According to GoDaddy’s current listing, wowsc.com can be purchased back for $1,595, or “leased to own” for $104 per month. By contrast, a routine renewal of a domain already owned by an organization typically costs around $20 per year.
No explanation has been provided to members about how this lapse occurred.
Because the websites are down, minutes, agendas, notices, and historical documents are no longer retrievable, leaving members without access to basic governance information. It is doubtful this transition was planned, and without access to records, there is no way for members to verify what happened or when.
If the corporation now hires someone to restore the website, rebuild content, or recover lost materials, the cost will almost certainly exceed the price of a standard renewal. This is a disappointing failure of routine administrative management and transparency — responsibilities that are fundamental for any member‑owned water supply corporation.
It is likely the first time in the history of this community’s water company that its domain names have expired and been lost to the open market. No matter how the ConMan might respond to this, that is absolutely true.
If responsibility for this lapse is shifted to Central States Water Resources, the company that is slated to purchase our water company, that raises its own concerns. A basic failure to maintain the corporation’s public‑facing information does not speak well to the future of the company or its commitment to member communication.
Members deserve clarity about how this occurred, what steps will be taken to restore access to records, and how similar failures will be prevented going forward.
Recent posts on NextDoor have repeated several inaccurate claims about my involvement in Windermere Oaks matters and about Fair Water Texas.
Normally, I do not engage with online commentary — most of us have better things to do than monitor and continually respond to ginned up neighborhood disputes — but the volume and persistence of misinformation have created confusion for people who understandably assume frequent posting equals accuracy and care for the community. It does not. Care for the community should not equate to creating continuous divisions in us vs. them struggles.
Sadly though, over the years, a small group of individuals has used NextDoor, YouTube, emails, and websites to criticize neighbors, especially those who volunteer to serve on Boards. Many of us — Jeff Walker, Brian Garceau, Dana Martin, Bill Earnest, and others — have at some point been the target of these narratives or are in the process of being targeted, defamed, and impugned — Julie Naumann, Mark Carpenter. The pattern is familiar: personal attacks, repeated false claims, and selective presentation of facts.
I try not to take these attacks personally, nor do I spend much time responding to them. But when misinformation affects the community’s understanding of important issues — such as the WOWSC rate case or the current Aqua Texas proceeding — it becomes necessary to correct the record. What follows is a factual response to several claims made in recent posts, supported by the actual findings of the Administrative Law Judges, the Public Utility Commission, and the documented history of litigation involving WOWSC.
1. What Judges in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Actually Found in the WOWSC Rate Case of 2020-2024.
The Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) spent three years reviewing testimony, documents, hearings, and legal filings in the rate appeal of Windermere Oaks rate protestors against the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation Board of Directors, of which I was the Board President in 2020, and from 2019-2023 in all. The findings of Judges Siano and Wiseman in 2023 are continually misrepresented by the ConMan, as he has chosen instead to focus on the Public Utility Commissioners’ decision to overturn precedents in that case. Here’s what the Judges found after years of involvement and hundreds of filings:
It was reasonable for the WOWSC Board to include outside legal expenses in base rates that the Board set in January 2020.
However, the WOWSC Board failed to offset its revenue requirement with other revenues (late fees, standby fees) that were part of its overall income.
Because of that accounting error, the ALJs recommended granting a portion of the ratepayer appeal by resetting the rates to what the Board should have set if it included those income streams. It was basically about $50,000 if I recall correctly. It was a very small offset and left most of the 2020 Board’s rate increase intact.
The ALJs recommended awarding WOWSC’s rate‑case expenses as reasonable.
The Judges noted what the Board said, that they would reduce the rates that included litigation costs when appropriate, because the Board members were volunteers and ratepayers themselves in the non-profit corporation that is WOWSC.
Here is a direct quote from the Proposal for Decision written by Judges Siano and Wiseman:
“The ALJs find that it was reasonable for Windermere to include the outside legal expenses in base rates, but that it failed to properly offset the revenue requirement with other revenues.”
This is nothing like the ConMan’s continuing false claims that the PUC declared the rate increase “unjust, unreasonable, and not in the public interest.” (For those unfamiliar with my use of the term ConMan, you could read here, here, and here)
The Commissioners on the Public Utility Commission of Texas reviewed Siano’s and Wiseman’s Proposal for Decision and partially rejected the ALJs’ reasoning — but not in the way the ConMan suggests in his continuing false light narratives. Here is what the Commission actually found:
A. WOWSC failed to carry its burden of proof.
Not because the board acted improperly — but because the board did not provide enough evidence of the revenue requirement and rate design used to set the appealed rates. (This will be discussed further below relating to the Texas Rural Water Association’s involvement in that rate-setting process.)
B. The appealed rates were not in the public interest.
Specifically because WOWSC did not demonstrate how it calculated the rates it set for 2020 — not because the board acted maliciously or irrationally.
C. Only $3,000 in legal expenses should have been included in base rates for 2020 and beyond.
The Commission held that extraordinary litigation costs — the ones that were caused by plaintiffs Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench in cases noted below — should have been recovered through a temporary surcharge, not permanent base rates.
(In my opinion, they got this wrong — the 2020 Board explicitly stated on the record in public meeting that rates would be lowered once litigation ended. The rates were not “permanent.” As mentioned, the ALJs acknowledged the Board’s statement, noting how rate-paying volunteer Board directors, like myself, had every incentive to reduce rates of the non-profit corporation. At the time the Board upped the base rates, a surcharge mechanism was not part of the WOWSC Bylaws.)
D. WOWSC should recover its 2019 legal debt through a 12‑month surcharge.
(This was probably the most disastrous ruling in PUC history. How is it good public policy to set a public utility on a path toward insolvency when warned about that likelihood? The Commission in 2023 ignored the Board’s warning about the disastrous effects this would have on WOWSC, especially after the 9% roaring inflation set off by Covid in 2020. The Commissioners ignored WOWSC real-time business environment analysis that the company would become financially insolvent after only 10 months using the rates calculated by PUC Staff, led by Staff Attorney Merritt Lander. It actually only took 6 months. It was no wonder to me that bureaucrats unfamiliar with the real effects of business inflation would ignore reality. If there is anyone who “sank” the WOWSC, it was Commissioner Cobos and PUC Staff Attorney Merritt Lander.)
E. WOWSC must refund over‑recovery to ratepayers.
The Commissioners also decided that, because the revenue requirement should have been lower according to Merritt Lander and her crew, WOWSC customers who’d paid the 2020 base rates should receive refunds from the WOWSC.
(I partially agree with that decision. Refunds were in order because the WOWSC, in 2023, received a check of $679,000 from the Allied World Insurance company. WOWSC had taken Allied World to court for breach of contract of their insurance policy. It was a huge win for this neighborhood. That money was for the legal fees WOWSC incurred for the volunteer Board directors who were sued by Sorgen, Ffrench and Dial. Board members are owed funding for a legal defense under Texas Business Code Chapter 8 when sued in service to their business. The 8 volunteer directors, including myself, were covered by this insurance policy, but all agreed that, if found individually guilty of a criminal activity, we would repay the company for our legal fees. That is standard operating procedure for Board members of all corporations and other entities across Texas and even the United States. None was ever found guilty of criminal activity and only one was found in district court to have breached fiduciary duty, a civil violation of law.
However, I will say that the Public Utility Commission demonstrated their animosty toward the volunteer by NOT considering the impact of the fees on rates. They were asked to do so by the Ratepayer Representatives and they were unopposed by the WOWSC in late 2023. This was after I was on the Board. It is hard to read the Commission’s inaction in any other way. The fix was in at the PUC — punish WOWSC!)
F. WOWSC may recover its rate‑case expenses.
The Commission adopted the ALJs’ recommendation to allow recovery of $478,184.04 in rate‑case expenses. Those were the fees paid to attorneys at the Lloyd Gosselink law firm representing the WOWSC in the rate case that had been brought by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller, the so-called ratepayer representatives.
Let’s focus on that $478,184.04. The ConMan says those were “$1 million” in his NextDoor post. Factually wrong on his part.
After more than four years of having this record, you would normally assume that he would know the real number. But like everything he does, the ConMan just inflates the number for drama — to demean and impugn. That is just one more example of why he is the ConMan of Windermere, but I encourage you to read other posts going back to 2023 about the ConGame that continues to this day.
Anyway, nothing in the Judges’ decision or the Commission’s order supports his narrative that I, Joe Gimenez, “sank” WOWSC or “presided over” some rogue rate increase.
The Commissioners’ decision was a technical ruling about evidence and methodology — not a condemnation of the board’s integrity.
(Besides the paragraph above about the disastrous PUC Staff rates and the Commissioners’ adoption of them, there is another argument about who “sunk” the WOWSC. The Commissioners and Staff were only reacting to the case brought by the Ratepayer Representatives Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller. Their decision to pursue the rate appeal caused customers to incur the $480,000 in rate case legal expenses charged by Lloyd Gosselink. They persuaded Merrit Lander and the Commission to set the unrealistic rates that has forced the company into insolvency. Insolvency means the inability to pay bills, which have been reasons given by at least one law firm and one operating company for quitting their service to WOWSC. Indeed, the company’s own audit of 2024 showed that is lost $271,716 in large part to the rates applied by the Commission in 2024 and sought by Patti Flunker and Joise Fuller. That insolvency forced the corporation Board, of Jeff Walker, Scott Miller and Brian Garceau, to sell six-acres owned by WOWSC for $1.25 million in 2025. They had to, in part, because of payment defaults to Co-Bank, a bank which in 2021 had lent WOWSC about $600,000 at a 3.25 percent rate for a 20-year term. Securing that loan was another great achievement by the Board of 2019-2013. Yet, the disastrous rates urged by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller and then set by the Commission caused WOWSC to default on its payments in 2024. Without that cash infusion from the sale of the land, the company would be bankrupt.
One final note: during one of the hearings even one of the judges, Siano I believe, remarked on the fact that the rate case legal expenses were, at that time, already twice the amount of the legal fees which the Board had sought to recover in rates. They went on to be about 4 times the amount. The TRWA discussed the rate case expenses in their letter to the Commission.)
3. Why WOWSC’s Legal Expenses Exploded in 2020 and Were Necessary (The Record, Not the Con‑Man’s Con)
The ALJs documented that WOWSC legal expenses jumped from under $3,000 per year to $166,000 in 2019 because of litigation initiated by the small group of people named above, including the ConMan and ConSpouse, beginning in 2017. This is fact described in the PFD of Judges Siano and Wiseman reflecting documents in the rate appeal. The Judge’s PFD laid out the causes for the WOWSC’s rate increase as follows:
Multiple law firms were needed to defend the corporation itself and the volunteer Board directors.
The TOMA lawsuit brought by Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench operating as TOMA LLC in 2017-2018 and continuing through 2020 had absorbed significant financial resources from the company.
The Double F Hangar lawsuit brought in 2019 by Dick Dial, Bruce Sorgen and Rene Ffrench required legal fees.
The WOWSC’s filing in Travis County District Court to protect the corporation’s ability to retain privileged relations with its law firm against the ConMan’s unlawful requests for information related to privileged matters.
Legal counsel for 46 Public Information Act requests in 2019.
Insurance denial by Allied World (As mentioned, the 2020 Board recovered $679,000 from Allied World in 2023, precisely because they had breached their contract by denying the WOWSC in 2020. Allied World had originally claimed that unlawful criminal acts allowed it to deny coverage. None were found, and they breached their contract because claims against breaches of fiduciary duty were explicitly covered. So even when the ConMan says that the WOWSC Board used base rates to pay for their own legal expenses, he is right, but also wrong in that, later, the Board recovered those legal expenses from Allied World through legal action. The ConMan never mentions that huge victory by the 2020 Board. Being honest about that major victory is not beneficial to the ConMan’s Con so it is always omitted. Omission is a lie. )
4. TRWA’s Rate Analysis and the Board’s Decision
In all candor and retrospective, the WOWSC Board under my leadership made an honest mistake in January 2020. We relied on the free advice and wiggy spreadsheet of the Texas Rural Water Association (TRWA), at the former insistence of Patti Flunker. WOWSC first used this spreadsheet in 2017-18, at the express recommendation of Patti Flunker, who at that time worked for TRWA as a paralegal. She advised WOWSC Boards at many public WOWSC meetings that the WOWSC should use the TRWA rate-setting process/analysis. It did so in 2018 for a rate increase at the time. In 2018, the Con-Spouse did not protest the increased rates to the Public Utility Commission.
Then, in 2020, the Board used the same TRWA spreadsheet. I wish we had not. There are much better advisory companies, like NewGen Strategies, which probably would have done a better job. At the time we did not have the money to pay them because of the above-mentioned TOMA and Ffrench/Dial/Sorgen lawsuits. Nonetheless, TRWA’s spreadsheet analysis showed and recommended that the 2020 WOWSC Board adopt the following:
Revenue requirement: $576,192
Legal expenses: $171,337
Combined water and sewer monthly base rate to customers: $174.59
The 2020 WOWSC board actually rejected that TRWA analysis. It was too HIGH! Instead, we adopted a lower combined base rate of $156.80 per month.
The Commission later recalculated what the board should have set, effectively rejecting the TRWA analysis and recommendation. That recalculation by the PUC did not and should not be interpreted to mean that the board acted improperly. It means the Commission applied a different statutory interpretation of how it should have happened in their ivory tower view of how our Board should have conducted business.
(Their rejection also meant that the TRWA’s analysis was wrong. I’ve heard that the TRWA discontinued provision of that service to its members in roughly 2021, but that is unconfirmed.)
5. Fair Water Texas Did Not “Insert Itself” — It Intervened Formally and Successfully
In his confusing and contrived NextDoor Post, the ConMan then goes on to describe my involvement, doing business as Fair Water Texas, in the current 2026 Aqua Texas rate case affecting water customers in Barton Creek Lakeside as well as thousands of water customers across Texas. By representing Aqua Texas customers across Texas, Fair Water Texas became a named intervenor in Aqua Texas’ attempt to raise rates. Operating as FWT, we:
filed testimony,
cross‑examined Aqua witnesses,
submitted legal briefing,
challenged Aqua’s rate base,
challenged Aqua’s Return On Equity,
challenged Aqua’s operating expenses,
challenged Aqua’s consolidation proposal,
and helped secure millions in reductions.
The ConMan uses the word “inserting” in a pejorative sense, his usual demeaning and impugning style. Mature people understand that FWT is participating in the process— exactly as Texas law allows and encourages ratepayers to do. FWT was and still is involved in this process.
It should not be lost on readers that the ConMan is demeaning my involvement in exactly the same process which his ConSpouse used in Windermere Oaks. Her enduring work in wrecking WOWSC finances also costs ratepayers $39.21 per month, to pay off the $484,000 owed to Lloyd Gosselink.
6. About the “$2.6 million in attorneys’ fees” the ConMan cites
As usual, the ConMan conflates issues to attempt to throw shade on me and all past Board members of Windermere Oaks by comparing apples-to-oranges and taking matters out of context with reality.
First, he misstates $484,000 as $1 million, then he uses that to try to find linkage to the $2.6 million which Aqua Texas has spent todate on its rate‑case expenses. Those $2.6 million in fees were incurred by Aqua Texas in their rate appeal. They have no relation to WOWSC or Fair Water Texas. That number is mentioned by the ConMan only to demean and impugn Fair Water Texas.
Then, please understand that Aqua Texas’s has 75,000 customers and AT is a statewide Class A utility. Their case has been in existence since May 2025, about 14 months at the time of this writing. The Windermere Oaks rate appeal by Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller, the current Board members, lasted almost 48 months.
In all rate cases, legal fees are allowable expenses that are passed on to customers. In the Aqua Texas case, the ALJs recommended allowing recovery of $5,014,440.40 in rate‑case expenses across Aqua and related SIC proceedings — subject to Commission review. Those are 10x the approximate $500,000 incurred in the three years of WOWSC defense against Patti Flunker and Josie Fuller for WOWSC’s approximate 290customers (when I was on the Board). It’s the same legal process at the Public Utility Commission, whether you are a Class A like Aqua Texas or a non-profit like WOWSC. The PUC process is costly! As previously mentioned, the TRWA noted the outsized expense for a small utility.
Trying to tie Aqua’s legal budget to me personally or Fair Water Texas is just, well, unserious. That is a very accurate word describing most of the ConMan’s NextDoor posts. Yet, that is the Con-Man’s method of operation and standard procedure. He hopes for suckers in Windermere, and now Barton Creek Lakeside, to drink his con Kool-Aid and to become unserious with him.
7. The Aqua Texas PFD Shows Exactly How Fair Water Texas and Other Intervenors Helped Ratepayers across Texas
The ConMan claims he isn’t “exactly sure how” legal fees help ratepayers.
He should ask that question to his ConSpouse, who, as the author of numerous past legal filings against the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation, might be able to instruct him. In addition to aforementioned rate case, she has availed herself of every legal maneuver possible in the PUC process and at district court to litigate against the WOWSC and the Windermere Oaks Property Owners Association.
Like any good con, the ConMan ingratiates himself with unsuspecting neighbors who share antipathy to legal fees. If he were honest about this, he would have serious grievances with his ConSpouse.
Nonetheless, back in real-ville, the state of Texas recognizes that legal fees are necessary for public utilities to navigate in a regulatory environment for monopolies when they seek higher rates. Just like it did for Windermere.
In the Aqua Texas case, in the July 21 Proposal for Decision, the Administrative Law Judges describe a process that has worked in favor of rate payers:
Aqua asked for a $615.9 million rate base. Intervenors helped cut it to $594,944,649.05.
Aqua asked for a 10.60% Return On Equity. Intervenors helped reduce it to 9.18%.
Aqua asked for broad expense recovery. Intervenors helped remove millions in questionable legal, contract, and regulatory costs.
Aqua asked for full consolidation without scrutiny. Intervenors forced a detailed analysis of customer impacts and rate‑design fairness.
These outcomes, if eventually adopted by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, will save ratepayers money every single month going forward.
Fair Water Texas is proud to have played a role in those reductions. But don’t believe me, the ALJs themselves credited intervenors for these reductions.
And Fair Water Texas will continue to advocate for responsible analysis and behavior by Public Utility Staff and the Commissioners, something that was absent in Windermere’s case.
Bottom Line
Several of the ConMan’s NextDoor posts misrepresent:
What the ALJs found in the WOWSC case.
What the Commission decided in the WOWSC case.
What caused WOWSC’s legal expenses
What Fair Water Texas actually did in the Aqua case and how it is not connected to those expenses.
The record shows:
WOWSC’s legal costs came from lawsuits filed by the ConMan’s own group of cronies.
The ALJs found the WOWSC board of 2019-2023 acted reasonably.
The Commission recalculated the rates based on statutory interpretation.
Fair Water Texas has already delivered real wins in the Aqua case.
When the ConMan posts to NextDoor, you should distrust everything he says.
A document was recently circulated among Windermere Oaks community members addressing concerns about the conduct, transparency, and decision‑making of the ConMan and ConSpouse. The letter, sent anonymously in June 2026 by one or several residents, outlines a series of grievances related to:
inconsistent standards of transparency
selective criticism of past and current boards
handling of WOWSC and POA matters
conduct on social media
questions about board eligibility
concerns surrounding the CCN filings, litigation, and operational decisions
broader issues of fairness, accountability, and community impact
The document reflects the views of the residents who authored it and was shared publicly within the neighborhood. SpicewoodNews.com is posting this notice solely as a historical record of community communications during this period of ongoing governance disputes.
Residents who wish to read the full letter may download it here or see the pages below.
On December 7 the entire Board of Directors signed onto a letter which an AI analysis found to have a high degree of rhetorical patterns that align with narcissistic tendencies. Where’s the neighborliness?
Here’s what the AI analysis said after looking at the December 7 communication:
Key Narcissistic Characteristics in the December 7 Letter
1. Discrediting Opponents
The letter repeatedly labels dissenting voices (“Friends of Windermere” and Joe Gimenez) as spreading “blatant disinformation” and “purposeful lies.”
This framing positions the Board as the sole source of truth, while portraying critics as malicious or deceptive.
Narcissistic communication often relies on polarization: “we are right, they are wrong.”
2. Claiming Exclusive Authority
The Board emphasizes that only their mailings are legitimate: “the only mailings the WOWSC Board has sent…”
This asserts control over the narrative and delegitimizes any alternative communication channels.
Narcissistic leaders often insist they alone are the valid authority.
3. Projection & Hypocrisy Accusations
The letter accuses Joe Gimenez of hypocrisy for past discussions with Lake Travis Estates.
Projection is a common narcissistic tactic: accusing others of the very behaviors the speaker may be criticized for.
4. Catastrophizing & Fear Appeals
Infrastructure is described as “deeply alarming” with vivid imagery (e.g., “an old microwave… used as a makeshift weather cover”).
The narrative suggests dire consequences if members don’t support the Board’s preferred sale.
Narcissistic rhetoric often uses fear and urgency to push compliance.
5. Dismissal of Opposition
The letter states: “These statements are not mistakes, they are deliberate lies designed to mislead you.”
This denies the possibility of good-faith disagreement, framing opponents as intentionally harmful.
Narcissistic communication tends to invalidate dissent rather than engage with it.
6. Self-Image as Protector
The Board positions itself as the guardian of truth: “Our goal is the opposite — to provide you with facts so you can make a decision based on reality.”
This portrays them as benevolent protectors against chaos, a hallmark of narcissistic self-presentation.
Overall Patterns
Control of narrative: Only the Board’s communications are legitimate.
Vilification of critics: Opponents are framed as liars and manipulators.
Fear-based persuasion: Infrastructure failures and financial burdens are emphasized to compel agreement.
Self-aggrandizement: The Board casts itself as rational, factual, and protective.
Balanced Note
While these rhetorical strategies align with narcissistic traits, they can also appear in crisis communications where leaders feel under attack and want to rally support. The difference lies in whether the communication style is situational (defensive in a high-stakes vote) or habitual (a consistent pattern of discrediting, controlling, and self-aggrandizing).
The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) board has repeatedly promoted the idea that if we sell the neighborhood non-profit corporation to a for-profit private equity-backed venture, each property owner could expect a refund check in the range of $3,000–$4,600 per property.
At first glance, this sounds great, but it is misleading.
According to records highlighted by Friends of Windermere, the equity buy-in fees that determine refund eligibility vary dramatically depending on when a property was built and connected:
Prior to October 1, 2001: Equity Buy-In = $0 (no refund at all)
October 1, 2001 – July 31, 2005: Equity Buy-In = $1,000
August 1, 2005 – (exact date under review): Equity Buy-In = $4,000
Current rate: Equity Buy-In = $4,600
(The exact dates are being researched and this post will be updated accordingly)
This means that as many as half of Windermere residents and hangar owners could receive far less than the advertised payout. Those whose homes or hangars were built before 2001 would not qualify for any refund, despite being told otherwise.
The Unanswered Question: Where Would the Extra Money Go?
If not every member is entitled to the full $3,000–$4,600, then what happens to the remainder of the sale proceeds? The board has not explained how funds will be distributed or where excess money will be directed. Without transparency, residents are left wondering whether unallocated funds will be absorbed into WOWSC operations, redirected to projects, or otherwise withheld from the community.
This lack of clarity raises serious concerns about fairness and accountability. The board should provide a detailed breakdown of how much each member will receive, property by property, and explain exactly where any surplus funds will go.
Why This Matters
For many families and hangar owners, the difference between a promised $4,600 and an actual payout of $0 or $1,000 is significant. Beyond the financial impact, the issue strikes at the heart of trust between the WOWSC board and the community. When promises are made, they must be backed by facts
Call to Action
The residents of Windermere Oaks deserve straight answers. The WOWSC board should:
Publish a clear schedule of refunds showing exactly what each property owner will receive.
Explain the disposition of excess funds not distributed to members.
Stop using inflated refund promises as a selling point without acknowledging the reality of who qualifies.
Vote “NO” to hit pause on this sale. The Board should answer these questions before transferring the gem of a water company out of the hands of neighborhood control. If they are not able to answer these questions, and negotiate a great deal, the Board should step aside for another Board to do so.
Until these questions are answered, the advertised payout of $3,000–$4,600 per property remains misleading. Transparency is not optional—it is the board’s responsibility to the community it serves.
Sources: Friends of Windermere analysis of WOWSC board communications friendsofwindermere.com
The Central States Water Resources Company attempting to buy the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation is backed by private equity interests in New York. They said so at the Town Hall in October.
Private equity firms exist for one reason: to extract money to benefit them. They will be extracting money from this region, paying only a pittance of what WOWSC is really worth.
Private equity firms are increasingly being called out as bad actors in communities across the country, particularly as they go about entering unincorporated areas, like Spicewood, and building data centers, bitcoin mining, and manufacturing.
Part of Windermere’s sale to CSWR would transfer 40 acres east of Exeter to the private equity locusts. They are likely, over time, to transform that land, to a regional water and wastewater processing facility that could service Ridge Harbor, Thomas Ranch and anything that develops west of the donkey farm. There are 250 acres for sale over there. At one time those were going to be 100-200 homes on 1-acre plots. The developer Amir Hirani gave up on that plan when the home market changed in late 2022 and now is selling — to anyone, including private equity locusts.
There is nothing preventing Big-tech firms from buying that land and building data centers or bitcoin mining. They would love to buy processed water from a regional water supplier and CSWR will be happy to sell it to them. Here is what CSWR or any buyer of WOWSC could do with that land, to build the infrastructure needed to supply those firms with water:
If you need more background on how private equity firms are ruining other communities, please look at videos posted below. It’s happening all over. It can happen here. Our WOWSC Board is supporting the potential decimation of your home values if it happens.
All the Board would have to do is put a restriction on what can be done with that land as a condition of sale. They haven’t, but they should. And that is a reason to vote “NO” until they do.
These videos document how profit‑driven investment often leaves long‑term costs for local residents.
Videos about Private Equity, Data Centers, Bitcoin Miners and Water
Across these industries, the playbook is the same:
Acquire local assets using outside capital.
Build infrastructure quickly and with disregard for community concerns.
Leave communities with environmental damage, lost jobs, or weakened infrastructure.
For Spicewood, where our water supply is already threatened by evermore “straws” in Lake Travis, the risks are clear. If firms like Central States Water Resources (CSWR) enter the picture, we could face large-scale, quick build-out with little input, affecting our home values.
Bottom line: Private equity’s track record shows a consistent disregard for community well‑being. Windermere Oaks must learn from these examples and guard against similar exploitation here at home.
VOTE NO TO PAUSE THE SALE TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FURTHER!
As a member of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC), I recently filed two formal complaints with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). These filings are about protecting the integrity of how our water company is managed and ensuring compliance with state law.
The First Complaint: Record Retention Failures
WOWSC has a duty to maintain corporate records in accordance with its own policies and state requirements. When records are not properly retained, members lose transparency into decisions that affect rates, governance, and the future of our utility. My first filing highlights instances where WOWSC failed to follow its Record Retention Policy, raising concerns about accountability and compliance. You can download the filing here.
The Second Complaint: Improper Disclosure of Customer Information
Texas Utilities Code §182.052 prohibits utilities from disclosing customer personal information, including email addresses. Despite this clear law, WOWSC communications have been sent from personal email accounts rather than through the corporation’s secure, contracted system. This practice risks exposing member data outside authorized channels and undermines trust in official communications. My complaint asks the Commission to require WOWSC to use only secure, auditable systems for member outreach. You can download the filing here.
Why This Matters
These issues go to the heart of how a public utility should operate:
Transparency: Members deserve confidence that records are preserved and accessible.
Security: Customer information must be safeguarded, not exported to personal accounts.
Integrity: Official communications should come from corporate-controlled systems, not private inboxes.
When these standards are ignored, the risk is eroding member trust and weakening oversight of a system that provides essential services to our community.
My Request to the PUC
Through these filings, I am asking the Commission to:
Enforce compliance with record retention policies.
Prohibit the use of personal email accounts for member communications.
Require WOWSC to certify that customer information is stored and used only within secure systems.
Investigate whether customer data has been improperly disclosed.
Looking Ahead
Our water system is facing serious challenges, from infrastructure needs to regulatory oversight. Integrity in administration is the foundation for solving those challenges. By filing these complaints, my goal is simple: to ensure WOWSC operates with transparency, accountability, and respect for the law—so that members can trust the decisions being made on their behalf.
Several Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) members have reported that they have not received their ballots for the upcoming vote. The meeting is December 13 but you must mail your ballot in so that is received no later than the 11th or 12th!!!
This is a serious concern, as participation in this election directly impacts the future of our water system.
What To Do If You Haven’t Received Your Ballot
Call WOWSC immediately and request that a ballot be sent to you. (512) 568-6148
Publicly Document that you did not receive a ballot. Make a public record of the fact that you did not receive a ballot. Share it with neighbors, post it on community forums, and send a written note to the Board.
You must mail the ballot as soon as possible. Allow for mail delivery time!
Make noise. Transparency matters. The more members speak up, the harder it will be for these issues to be ignored. If the WOWSC did not do its job of mailing ballots correctly, then it should be documented. Other water companies might want to buy WOWSC.
Deadline Reminder
Ballots must be received on or before December 12. After that date, it will be too late to participate — unless you come to the DECEMBER 13 meeting and file in-person.
This is not just about one vote—it’s about ensuring fair process and accountability in how our member‑owned water company operates. If you haven’t received your ballot, act now and encourage others to do the same.
The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corp (WOWSC) Board of Directors is pushing a deal that would hand over our community’s water system—and 40 acres of valuable land—to a company backed by private equity.
This is a dangerous gamble with your home’s value and the rural feeling of this entire region.
We all bought into Windermere Oaks because it offered the rare gift of country living—quiet roads, open skies, and a rural character that set it apart from the sprawl.
In the Board’s current deal Central States Water Resources, there is nothing preventing them from clearing all that land and erecting a regional water plant into the heart of that landscape.
That would shatter the very reason people chose to live here, replacing pastoral views with industrial infrastructure and eroding both the sense of place and property values. There is nothing in the current deal preventing CSWR from doing so. They want to make money, pure and simple, and they are establishing a foothold to do so.
What’s at Stake
40 Acres of Land: The property east of Exeter as we drive in to our homes is stretch that makes Windermere feel like we are living out in the country. If sold, it could be replaced by a monstrous regional water and wastewater facility, an eyesore for residents every time we drive into our neighborhood, with cyclone fences and razor wire.
Loss of Local Control: Selling to a private equity-backed company means decisions about our water supply will be made by investors whose primary concern is profit—not the well-being of our community.
Unrestricted Water Sales: Nothing would prevent this company from selling water to industrial users like bitcoin mining operations or data centers. There is significant land available west of the airport and donkey farm that is for sale, all without restrictions. Imagine massive facilities west of the airport and donkey farm, consuming huge amounts of water and generating relentless noise. Please investigate what communities in Granbury and Rockwall are experiencing with data centers and bitcoin miners — noise and water consumption.
Private Equity: Locusts on Communities
Private equity firms have been criticized across the country for behaving like locusts—descending on communities, extracting value, and leaving behind long-term damage. They are not accountable to residents, only to their investors. When profit margins tighten, community needs are the first to be sacrificed.
They prioritize short-term gains over long-term interests of neighbors.
They often raise rates while cutting corners on service.
They treat essential resources like water as just another commodity.
Do we really want our water—our most vital resource—controlled by outsiders with no stake in our community’s future?
A Better Path Forward
Instead of selling this land to private equity, the Board of Directors should sell it to the Property Owners Association (POA). That way, control of the land remains in the hands of the community, preserving the rural character of Windermere Oaks and ensuring that decisions about its use reflect the values of the people who actually live here. The POA could lease the land at reasonable price to Central States Water Resources.
Voting NO Now Just means a Pause
Let’s talk about this major issue as a community. There’s no reason we can’t come up with a solution to protect Windermere Oaks.
Call to Action
WOWSC members: Vote NO on the proposed sale. Protect our land, our water, and our community from the potention outcome consumed by private equity interests. Once we lose control, we will never get it back.
