Author: Joe

What WOWSC Members Should Know about TCEQ Violations

If you’ve read the recent letter from the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) Board, you might have walked away thinking our water system is on the brink of collapse. Words like “violations” and “mandated upgrades” can sound scary, especially when they’re presented without context. Our current Board leadership is particularly good at alarmist exaggerations.

Windermere’s Track Record

The Texas Compliance & Enforcement Search Portal is a public tool that lets anyone look up regulatory records for utilities across the state.

To check on Windermere Oaks, you would simply enter “Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation” into the search bar. The portal will then display any compliance or enforcement actions recorded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), including notices of violation, enforcement orders, or penalties. This makes it easy for members to see the official history of violations and confirm whether issues are minor (like paperwork errors) or more serious.

What You Will See

Here is graphic of what you will see. In sum, 1 complaint about low water pressure in 2020. Resolved. One notice of violation in 2022. Another notice of violation in 2024.

When people hear the word “violation,” it’s easy to imagine the worst — unsafe water, health risks, or a system in crisis. But not all violations carry the same weight. In fact, TCEQ Category B Violations sit right in the middle of the severity scale.

Category B violations are intermediate issues. They’re more serious than simple paperwork mistakes, but they don’t rise to the level of immediate health threats. Think of them as warning lights on your car dashboard: they don’t mean the engine is about to explode, but they do mean something needs attention. Common examples are a utility failing to maintain required treatment equipment; Improper operation of wastewater facilities; or repeated monitoring or reporting failures.

These are operational or compliance gaps — important to fix, but not the kind of problems that make your water unsafe overnight.

When TCEQ identifies a Category B violation, the utility usually receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) as you will see in the graphic. This is essentially a formal reminder: “Here’s what went wrong, and here’s the timeframe to correct it.” Utilities are expected to respond quickly, document their fixes, and prevent the issue from recurring.

For consumers, Category B violations are worth noting but not panicking over. They don’t usually pose an immediate health risk, but if ignored, they can snowball into bigger compliance problems. The real danger comes when utilities fail to correct them, allowing small issues to become systemic.

The main takeaway — these were RESOLVED!!!

Why the Alarmist Tone?

SO WHY IS THE BOARD SO ALARMIST AND MISLEADING!!!!

The Board’s letter paints a dire picture, but the facts don’t match the drama. Yes, every utility has maintenance needs. Yes, upgrades cost money. But implying that our community is drowning in dangerous violations simply isn’t accurate.

It’s important to distinguish between real risks and regulatory housekeeping. Otherwise, members are left worrying unnecessarily.

Transparency is good. Accountability is good. But alarmism helps no one especially when we are considering a major sale of our local water utility, knowing that a for-profit company, backed by private equity investors, is going to squeeze our system and us ratepayers at every possible opportunity.

As members, we deserve clear information — not exaggerated claims. The record shows our water system has been safe, with only minor administrative hiccups in the last ten years.

So the next time you see “TCEQ violation” in a headline or letter from our Narcissistic Board, remember: context matters.

Is the Windermere Oaks Water Board Narcissistic?

The water Board is enraged that members would dare ask questions about the sale of the neighborhood water company in a No-Bid, no appraisal, no advertisement manner. (By the way, all of these are attributes which the same people — the ConCouple — lodged against the 2015-16 Board, starting the decade-long legal feud they propagate.)

But back to the main topic. The Board came out Sunday and yesterday with letters to the membership about the people asking the questions, without addressing the questions.

So I decided to run the Board’s letter through an AI analysis, asking whether it demonstrates narcissistic traits, especially since it is so enraged.

Here’s what the AI analysis said. Enjoy!:

Key Narcissistic Traits in the Letter

1. Self-Promotion & Grandiosity

  • The Board repeatedly emphasizes that only they have brought “transparency, accountability, and professionalism” to the utility.
  • Statements like “This Board is the first to confront these issues head-on” elevate their role as uniquely heroic, positioning themselves as saviors of the community.
  • The phrase “The facts and evidence speak for themselves” implies infallibility and discourages dissent.

2. Blame-Shifting & Villainizing Others

  • The former president is portrayed as deceptive, irresponsible, and the root of all problems.
  • Past leadership is described as “inconsistent,” “diverting money,” “financial mismanagement,” and “undisclosed violations.”
  • This repeated scapegoating creates a narrative where the current Board is flawless and all failures belong to predecessors.

3. Control of Narrative

  • The letter frames dissenting voices as “misleading statements” or illegitimate tactics.
  • By labeling alternative perspectives as false or harmful, the Board positions itself as the sole source of truth.
  • The insistence on “100% transparency” while simultaneously dismissing member concerns about CSWR reviews suggests selective transparency.

4. Dismissal of Criticism

  • Concerns about CSWR’s reputation are minimized by comparing them to negative reviews of hospitals, banks, and airlines—implying critics are unreasonable.
  • This rhetorical move invalidates member worries rather than engaging with them substantively.

5. Moral Superiority

  • The Board frames its actions as not just practical but morally correct: “Why would any board hide information like TCEQ violations… one must ponder that question.”
  • This rhetorical question implies that only dishonest or corrupt leaders would act differently, reinforcing their moral high ground.

6. Appeals to Loyalty & Validation

  • The closing thanks members who expressed “strong, positive support,” reinforcing an in-group dynamic where agreement equals virtue.
  • This creates pressure for members to align with the Board’s narrative to be seen as supportive and community-minded.

Overall Assessment

The letter shows narcissistic tendencies:

  • High self-praise and scapegoating of predecessors
  • Dismissal of dissent and moral superiority framing
  • Validation-seeking through appeals to supportive members

But it also contains legitimate organizational communication aimed at persuasion and transparency. The narcissistic qualities emerge mainly in tone and framing.

Why I’m Voting NO on the Sale of WOWSC (Part 2)

I’m voting NO because the Board failed to seek independent valuation or competitive offers—violating basic business ethics and best practices. (And my NO vote could be changed if a better process and better contract is adopted by the Board in the future!)

The Board’s decision to move forward with the sale of our water system to Central States Water Resources (CSWR) lacks the most basic due diligence.

As confirmed at the October 25 town hall meeting by CSWR representatives, no independent appraisal was conducted by the Board of Directors. Only CSWR representatives made an internal evaluation.

Would you sell your house based only on the buyer’s appraisal of your home’s value?

It’s a violation of fundamental business ethics.

“We do have private investors or private equity money… they do have certain requirements that have to stay in the agreement that we don’t have a lot of flexibility on.”
— Sean Nichols, CSWR VP, Transcript at 00:32:25

“We’ll send you a draft. We have a standard purchase agreement. Probably 80% of the parties just sign it without any changes.”
— Sean Nichols, Transcript at 00:32:25

This confirms that the Board accepted CSWR’s terms without seeking competing offers or independent valuation. That’s unacceptable.

Just because 80 percent of other parties jump off a bridge does not mean that Windermere needs to do so also.

What Ethical Business Practice Requires

Don’t take my word for this horrible development in Windermere.

According to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), ethical valuation requires:

  • Objectivity and impartiality: Sellers must not rely solely on the buyer’s valuation ValuAdder.
  • Avoiding conflicts of interest: A buyer’s appraisal is inherently biased toward their interests oneappraisalgroup.com.
  • Transparency and accountability: Sellers should disclose how valuations were obtained and ensure they are independently verified oneappraisalgroup.com.

Best Practices in Business Sales

Any competent seller—whether in real estate, utilities, or corporate assets—should:

  • Obtain an independent appraisal to determine fair market value oneappraisalgroup.com ValuAdder.
  • Solicit multiple offers to ensure the best deal for stakeholders.
  • Disclose alternatives to members before asking for a vote.

In our case, two other water companies already operate nearby and could express interest if invited to the bidding table:

  • Corix Utilities, which serves Ridge Harbor and already has an emergency interconnect with WOWSC.
  • Aqua Texas, which operates in Barton Creek Lakeside.

These companies could benefit us by better economies of scale, lower rates, or more favorable terms. Both companies are looking to expand in this region and would probably like to add to their systems.

But the Board didn’t even ask them. Or if they did, they have not disclosed that to Members.

This Vote Deserves Better

We, the members, deserve a transparent process that compares multiple offers and includes an independent valuation. Until that happens, I’m voting NO.

Vote “NO” on Board’s Sale of WOWSC Until a Better Contract is in Place

1. What is the upcoming vote about?

Members will vote on December 13 regarding the sale of Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) to Central States Water Resources (CSWR), a private water and wastewater utility operator.

2. Why are some members opposed to the acquisition?

Opposition centers on the lack of contractual protections for WOWSC members. Specifically, the current agreement does not include binding reimbursement provisions for infrastructure upgrades that may be required before CSWR assumes control—an event still two years away.

But all future decisions about water quality and costs will be left to CSWR’s private equity masters in New York City. Improvement schedules will take back seat to their making profits in Windermere Oaks.

3. What infrastructure upgrades are at issue?

CSWR has acknowledged that upgrades such as:

  • Clarifier retrofit
  • Effluent water improvements
  • Fencing around facilities
    may be necessary before the transition. However, there is no formal mechanism in place to ensure CSWR reimburses WOWSC or its members for these costs if they occur before the final take-over two years from now.

4. Is CSWR willing to reimburse for these upgrades?

CSWR representatives admitted at the Townhall Meeting on Saturday Oct. 23, that reimbursement clauses are not standard in their boilerplate contracts. While they said riders could be added, no such riders are currently part of the agreement under discussion with the Board. Please see the last 20 minutes of the presentation here to verify: CSWR TownHall Presentation

5. What are the financial risks to members?

Without reimbursement provisions:

  • Members may bear the full cost of upgrades that will ultimately benefit CSWR and future residents.
  • Special assessments could be levied on members to cover these expenses, as confirmed by WOWSC President Patti Flunker at the beginning of the meeting.
  • However, if a contractual rider is put in place, the Board could use that promise of procurement by CSWR as a loan guarantee for banks to fund the improvement.

6. What’s the concern about the clarifier?

The clarifier is a critical piece of infrastructure. It cleans water from the lake before it begins processing. It is only about 13,000 gallons in size, and was installed more than 30 years ago. It can not keep up with cleaning water turbidity when the lake gets low, like it was from 2021-25. We are fortunate not to have had to pay for trucking water in during that time.

CSWR could further delay retrofiting the clarifier if they purchase it without some sort of agreement. Future delays could lead to a water emergency. Retrofitting the old storage tank to become a clarifier is a cost-efficient option and should be a non-negotiable condition of any sale.

7. Is the fencing requirement urgent or justified?

Not necessarily. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) fencing requirement was effectively postponed in 2022 through a letter co-authored by the POA President and the author of this FAQ. The urgency around fencing may be overstated and could lead to unnecessary costs and visual blight.

8. What alternative is proposed to fencing?

Effluent quality upgrades could eliminate the need for fencing altogether. These upgrades would improve water safety and aesthetics without imposing the visual and financial burden of a fence. Again, the Board should look into the cost of upgrade and implementing a contract-rider for CSWR to reimburse ratepayers, or a bank, for improvements.

Again, like the clarifier, if CSWR acquires WOWSC without these agreements in place, they will be able to either walk-back their verbal commitments or not do them at all.

9. What happens if the acquisition goes through without changes?

  • CSWR would take control in two years.
  • They would not be obligated to implement promised improvements immediately.
  • Members could lose control over future decisions and bear costs for infrastructure that CSWR inherits.
  • Members could suffer from sub-standard water.

10. Why is this vote considered so critical?

This may be the last opportunity for members to influence the terms of the transition. Once the utility is sold, WOWSC members lose their voice in governance. The current Board must act carefully to protect financial interests, community aesthetics, and long-term autonomy.

11. What action is being requested of members?

  • Review the concerns outlined in this FAQ and related communications.
  • Consider voting NO on December 13 unless the agreement is amended to include reimbursement protections and infrastructure commitments. The Board should make these transparent to members.
  • Share this information with neighbors and encourage informed participation.

12. How can I get involved or support this effort?

The author is preparing a formal letter to the Board and is seeking co-signers. If you’d like to review or support the letter, please reach out directly.

Factually, The Con Man Can’t Keep his Con Straight

As previously noted, the Con Man relies on the gullibility and ignorance of an audience so beguiled by his emphatic style that they suspend critical thinking and follow his lead, aka drink his Kool-Aid.

For new readers: this Con Man has held the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation hostage to a non-stop, unhinged false-light narrative of unreality for at least the decade I’ve lived here . It’s truly something to behold and I tip my hat to him — not only for his energy and dedication, but for offering a vivid glimpse into sustained delusion. It’s a living field study on the Art of the Con!

I’ve shared plenty of examples before, but I recently ran across another gem that illustrates the con.

Back in April 2025, the neighborhood Con Man posted on NextDoor that:

“Let’s rewind to June 2022: [Jim] Madigan cut a deal with then-president Joe Gimenez to ask the PUC to amend our CCN [service area], attempting to give his development access to our already overburdened water system.”

Okay, so, none of that unfolded as he claims.

In June 2022, the WOWSC Board of Directors approved of the company entering into a Non-Standard Service Agreement with Madigan. This contract states the applicant must cover all development costs required for the WOWSC to extend service outside the existing service area. Madigan would pay, as needed, for piping, engineering study, legal issues, CCN application, pumps — everything. Watch the video the Con Man has posted on his own site, here, if you are skeptical.

So fact check number one: the Con Man is wrong.

Madigan did not “cut a deal” with me personally, or the WOWSC, at least not anything out of the ordinary for a situation previously contemplated. He submitted a formal application to the water company. If needed, that might inlcude expansion of the CCN. If so, Madigan would pay for that as well.

Now notice the Con Man’s phrasing: “cut a deal.” That language is intentional. It’s meant to inflame the outrage. To keep his con alive, he has to continuously inject drama and conspiracy into every conversation. There’s zero proof of secret deals being cut left and right, just his ongoing stream of speculative fiction, frequently enflamed by his Con Spouse, no less. Stay tuned for a future post on that one!

Another correction to his claim, WOWSC did not need to apply to the Public Utility Commission to amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN). The proposed service area was less than 1/4-mile beyond the existing CCN boundary. Technically no CCN amendment was required. In June 2022, the moment he references, the topic was just the service agreement.

Now for the kicker. He writes:

“And yet…the CCN application wasn’t even filed with the PUC until November 2023 — a full year and a half later (Why the wait?)”

Well, I was no longer on the Board at that point. The Membership had elected Jeff Walker to replace me in April 2023, a development I am now sincerely grateful for. (Rene Ffrench also defeated former Secretary-Treasurer Mike Nelson.)

By November 2023, the month cited by the ConMan as the date of filing for the CCN, the Board consisted of Rich Schaefer (President), Jeff Walker (Vice President), Rene Ffrench (Secretary-Treasurer), Dorothy Taylor and Jeff Anderson. I had zero involvement with that submission. (Please see a correction about the Board officers, below.*)

And yes, the Con Man’s question, “Why the wait?,”is a fair one. Unfortunately, by late 2023 the Board had become mired in dysfunction folllowing Walker and Ffrench’s election. Transparency went out the window. Secretary-Treasurer Ffrench failed in maintaining basic governance principles with regard to developing minutes or complying with Public Information Act requests. Look at the records from the time. The Board would not even list “Approval of Minutes” on agendas — there were none to review or approve. Visit wowsc.org yourself.

(At the time of writing this post, there were no minutes. Now, on November 19, 2025, there are minutes available for 2023, but note that they are Draft. They were never approved by a majority of the Board in 2023. And at least some, if not all, the referencing video links are not functioning, so no one would be able to verify the minutes against actual Board events.)

It’s worth noting that Ffrench and the Con Man were longtime pals. They previously partnered on hangar ownership deals at the airport and even co-founded TOMA Integrity LLC, the shell company they used to sue WOWSC in 2018. Thus, you’ll find no Con Man criticism of Ffrench on NextDoor—not a whisper about his neglect. If I’m wrong on that, show me the receipts and I’ll happily set the record straight.

But I digress.

The Con Man’s narratives on NextDoor are a tangled mess of half-truths, finger-pointing, and false-light make-believe. Why anyone in Windermere Oaks still buys the con is beyond me. It like watching a cult in action. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

There’s more.

in the NextDoor post the Con Man cult leader claims we were

“attempting to give his development access to our already overburdened water system.”

Two things you should know.

First, there was no “‘giving.” Madigan was contractually bound to pay for everything needed to extend service across the county road to his 4-house development. We informed members in a July 6 letter about that (and other matters). I have the letter, but good luck finding that communication on the current website, which was revised after the current 2025 Board took over. Showing such great maturity, the current Board has put all member communications prior to May 2023 down the Memory Hole. I have them in my records though. I anticipated their behavior.

The Con Man’s use of ‘giving’ plays well with his Kool-Aid Club. You’ll hear them use that very word in their public comments. It’s a manipulation of enflamement. It works with his crew.

Second, for the Con Man to suggest that our system was “overburdened” by a single home (with maybe three (3) more to come) is simply absurd, bonkers, bat-you-know-what crazy. And totally misleading. If that were truly the case, now or then, none of the ongoing residential development we see daily in Windermere Oaks would be happening. And yet it is.

My point again is simply that all the Con Man ever does is try to transport you to his alternate universe. He spins narrative engineered to short-circuit your doubt about a bunch of details he never presents in a complete factual way, if he is even able to. Once you’ve suspended disbelief, his con is complete.

Enjoy that Kool-Aid… if you must!

  • Correction: At the first meeting of the newly-elected Board on April 15, 2023, Jeff Walker was not elected by the Board to be the Vice President. He was nominated to be the President but by 3-2 vote he lost. Dorothy Taylor then was elected as Vice President. So it was Schaefer, President; Dorothy Taylor, VP; Rene Ffrench, Secretary-Treasurer. Walker and Anderson were simply Directors without officer responsibilities.

Nextdoor post April 2025

Thanks (Again) to our Former Manager, George Burriss for Saving Windermere Oaks

The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) alerted members to the “Safely Secured” pumping barge after the recent July 4-6 flooding event. We should again thank our former manager George Burriss for this feat of engineering for our neighborhood.

As a matter of WOWSC history, in October 2018 raging floodwaters broke the pumping barge off its mooring and carried it downstream. Then WOWSC President David Bertino worked hard with George to recover the barge and bring it back to Windermere, where they began a restoration project.

Part of the project involved improving the mooring lines that secures the barge to the shore. George used encased anchors used in the oil industry such that the barge would have an industrial grade answer to future tests of mother nature.

The first of mother natures’ tests to another example of George’s superb engineering occurred in February 2021, when winter storm Uri wreaked havoc on most of Texas. George had worked with WOWSC Boards in 2017-2019 to investigate and put aside the funding for the propane generator that was eventually purchased and installed in 2020.

Then, when the winter storm shut down electricity in most parts of Texas, Windermere Oaks was one of the only communities to have running water throughout the storm. The generator enabled the pumps and other processes to continue working despite widespread energy outages everywhere else, including in Windermere Oaks. Because other water systems did not have generators, neighbors in nearby communities reported they had melted snow in their bathtubs to use as their water supply. Not so in Windermere Oaks.

Now WOWSC has endured — successfully — another test of mother nature. And George’s skill and knowledge again pulled through for us. Thank you George!

Sadly, George was forced to leave Windermere Oaks in January 2024 due to the harassment of Board members Jeff Walker and Rene Ffrench, and a group of misguided members. At least that was my contention in a previous post, here.

Recently, Walker sent me an email refuting that notion, basically saying that George refused to supply an updated statement of work to Rene and Walker, and that (some) members were “calling for his head.”

However, at the time Walker mentions, in the fall of 2023, there were five board members (Schaefer, Taylor, and Anderson). Walker indicates that only he and Ffrench asked George for the statement of work. The other Board members did not.

Thus Walker and Ffrench were acting in a rogue manner outside their authority, harassing George.

Now if the matter of asking George for an updated statement of work did occur as a full board matter, meaning that it was noticed, discussed and voted on at a Board meeting, a person would be hard pressed to find record of such lawful proceeding.

Ffrench, despite being Secretary-Treasurer at the time, did not compose or submit minutes to the Board. Go to the current website and check. The consideration of minutes was not even on the agendas in late 2023 because there were none to consider.

Even now, July 11, 2025, the few minutes that are there are “Drafts” of special meetings that Walker and Ffrench held for themselves and a few members at Townhalls, with no legal validity. The Boards in 2023 and 2024 were incredibly inefficient at producing minutes, leaving it instead to video records of meetings. That is not a valid way to conduct transparent governance for a public matter (water and waste water mangement). It is good that the current Board seems more intent on producing minutes.

The point simply is that when Walker and Ffrench took over the Board by force in 2023, they bullied their way into de facto control, forcing George out by harassment and then producing nothing in the way of transparency for members to see that they had forced him out, unilaterally, without the consent of other Board members.

George’s departure from our community is a low-point in the history of Windermere Oaks. For those who don’t know about George, consider the resolution of the 2019 Board congratulating him for all his achievements to that point, below. The current Board should make another resolution to the same effect, recognizing the additional Uri and July 4 Flood feats.

For reference of the time when WOWSC had a functioning board, with minutes, and a president’s report, and the benefit of the engineering and management expertise of George Burriss, please review the 2022 President’s report here.

WOWSC Member Alert July 5

Walker Rebuttal

2019 Resolution Honoring George Burriss

Windermere Oaks Residents Deserve Better than a GED Analysis about Water Company Developments

The neighborhood ConMan has been up to his usual demeaning and misleading antics for months now. (Read the AI summary of this post below.)

Truly, doesn’t he have anything better to do? If I had as much free time as he does, I would respond to every bit of misinformation and fabrication he spouts. I don’t, so I don’t.

But truly I think Windermere Oaks residents should ask themselves, “Does the ConMan’s eighth-grade slam-book treatments of serious topics benefit Windermere Oaks home values when prospective buyers check NextDoor or his other lying sites, when considering buying here?”

Consider his recent NextDoor post (see below), slamming the past Board (of Jeff Walker, Brian Garceau, and Scott Miller) for implementing an order of the Public Utility Commission. And of course, he slammed my defense of their decision.

The truth is that words matter.

In the instance cited by the ConMan, as well as a previous instance he doesn’t cite, the Public Utility Commission itself was responsible for the so-called double billing of WOWSC customers. And I’m glad that the current Board has sorted the mess out with the PUC.

At issue is the word “connections.”

In one instance, in November 2024, when the PUC was figuring out how much to charge WOWSC customers for the monthly services of the temporary manager (Anser), none other than the PUC Chairman Thomas Gleeson “clarif[ied] that compensation for Anser be set at $12 per month per water connection and $12 per month per sewer connection. Staff’s petition proposed compensation of $12 per connection. I presume Staff intended that this fee be assessed on both water and sewer connections, but we should clarify this in our order appointing the temporary manager.” See page 3 in this document:

PUC Chair Gleeson Clarifies "Per Connection" (7023 downloads )

Remember, that was November 14, 2024.

But compare that against the PUC’s previous definition of “connection”, in their March 21, 2024 order, “The Commission approves a monthly surcharge of $39.21 per connection to recover the $478,184.04 in rate-case expenses Windermere incurred in this proceeding through January 31, 2023. Beginning with the next billing cycle after the date of this Order, Windermere may collect the monthly surcharge for 45 months or until $478,184.04 is collected, whichever occurs first.” (emphasis added) See Page 32 in this document:

March 2024 Order re $39.21 per connection (6844 downloads )

In that instance, the math equation (of 287 connections x 45 months x $39.21 > $478,184) would indicate the PUC intended “per customer” not “per connection.”

There is a difference. Most customers have a water connection and a sewer connection, thus 2 connections. There were about 287 customers at the time of the March 2024 order and thus there are about 560 or so estimated total connections.

Thus when in November 2024 the WOWSC Board saw PUC Chair Gleeson’s clarification about rates per connection, they applied the same clarification to the base rates per the March 2024 Order.

They were complying with the order as written. That is what they were supposed to have done.

And contrary to the ConMan’s assertion that I “pushed” the “whole mess,” I was not involved in any manner, except to comment on the November 14, 2024, order and its impact on rates, on this blog, here.

It took the PUC a second stab at clarifying, on May 16, 2025, that the Order from March 2024 should have read “customer,” not connection. Of course, they did not own up to the Commission’s misinterpretations and conflicting terms of use, but at least they set the record straight.

May 16, 2025 Order re Clarifying "Connection" (6877 downloads )

My point here isn’t to get into the math, or the ongoing inconsistencies of the PUC Commissioners and their Staff, or those impacts on the neighborhood’s customers.

The real point is that that Con-Man, to continue his 8th-grade ‘corruption’ ‘malfeasance’ narrative of the last 10 years, reads this series of events through the lens of someone with the analytical equivalent of a high school diploma gained through a General Educational Development test.

This blog continues to document and counter his sophomoric, pretentious, juvenile efforts.

But at some point you gotta ask, “Is the ConMan helping or hurting your home’s resale value?”

Ask any realtor about Windermere Oaks’ reputation, courtesy of the ConMan and his ongoing confidence game. The Realtors will disclose what they have to tell prospective buyers. It ain’t good.

ConMan’s May 20, 2025 NextDoor Post

AI Summary of this Post

Windermere Oaks residents deserve better than misleading narratives about their water company. A local critic, dubbed in this post as the “ConMan,” has repeatedly misrepresented serious issues, harming the community’s reputation. His latest attack on the previous board ignores the fact that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) was responsible for wording inconsistencies related to billings, not past board members. The confusion stemmed from the PUC’s shifting definition of “connections” versus “customers,” leading to unintended double billing in three months earlier this year.

The board followed the PUC’s orders as written, only for the commission to later clarify its mistake. Despite this, ConMan continues to frame the situation as corruption or incompetence rather than a regulatory misstep.

His persistent, vocal misinformation raises concerns about Windermere Oaks’ home values, as prospective buyers encounter his exaggerated claims online. Residents should consider whether his actions are helping or hurting our community.

Comments to the Public Utility Commission regarding Rates that Have Bankrupted the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation

The Public Utility Commission of Texas somehow found that the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation did not demonstrate that its rate increase in 2020, for the legal fees needed to defend the corporation and eight directors from lawsuits, were “just and reasonable.”

In other words, everyone has a right to a legal defense except, apparently, the WOWSC and its volunteer directors. We, apparently, should have found some other way to pay for them other than using the revenues of the corporation. (We eventually did win a $678,000 payment from the insurance company in 2023, but that win could not be considered as part of the PUC’s case. Go figure.)

Anyway, obviously I disagree with the PUC’s position.

But so too did the Administrative Law Judges Wiseman and Siano, whose ruling was overturned by the Commissioners. You can read their lengthy treatment here, but the main thing is that attorney fees spent in the DEFENSE of a corporation were satisfactory to them as the burden of proof necessary for the rate increase, as well as the Board’s desire to reduce those rates once the legal fees had been paid.

The Commissioners did not find that to be a compelling burden of proof to them. Which demonstrates the subjectivity they apparently have given themselves.

No matter that such subjectivity flies in the face of Texas Business Code Chapter 8 which explicitly requires that corporations pay the defense of directors unless they are found guilty of crimes or ultra vires acts. You can read about Chapter 8 in this document, taken directly from our prevailing brief in an underlying lawsuit. In Windermere’s case, all accusations of criminality and ultra vires acts (those beyond the power of the corporation) were dismissed by the Judge.

The PUC apparently has its own sense of what is legal, and they are in disagreement with the Texas Legislature. The PUC is making its own laws.

As such I have been going to the PUC meetings since December 2024 and making public comment. The videos below are my comments.

Download Comments
Download Comments
Download Comments
Download Comments
Download Comments

Download Comments October 23, 2025

Download Comments November 14, 2025

Download Comments November 20, 2025

The Con Continues at the Public Utility Commission – part 1

The so-called Ratepayer Representatives, Josie Fuller and Patti Flunker, have been busy again at the Public Utility Commission impugning and demeaning current and past Members of the Board of Directors for the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation.

In so doing, they extend the Big Con of the Con Man himself, which should not be a surprise since Ms. Flunker is the Con Man’s spouse, joining him in the never-ending trafficking in the ruination of reputations and falsifications about our community’s water company.

Their Con continues with a November 12 filing where Ms. Flunker asked the PUC to impose even more oversight on WOWSC and also to refer the company for State Auditor Review and to the Texas Attorney General.

“Their” entire letter is here but we know from the Con Man himself that it was hastily cobbled together by his spouse, Patti, and signed by all their neighborhood marks, the bamboozled. Ms. Fuller signed the Letter as an author, but the Con Man gives cred only to his ConSpouse.

Thus the Con continues at the Public Utility Commission.

To warn the Public Utility Commission about the Con, I submitted two letters which respond to two specific paragraphs in the ConSpouse’s letter.

Letter 1 — The LCRA Showcase Project

My first letter addresses the ConSpouse asking the PUC to ask the State Auditor to investigate the corporation’s use of a grant from the Lower Colorado River Authority in 2020 and 2021. She contended the money was not used for a clarifier, as was stated by the company. She’s right, and wrong. The money was not used for the clarifier project, but it was never, ever stated by the company that it would be. No one ever stated that the money would be used for a clarifier. Never ever. And there is clear public record of that fact, as my letter pointed out.

The LCRA grant application was, from the beginning in 2019, for conservation measures. The former water company manager used the LCRA grant, with matching money from WOWSC, to put equipment in place so as to use untreated water in backwashing processes. The projects have saved hundreds of thousand of gallons of water to-date, and will continue to do so, ad infinitum. It also has saved tens of thousands of dollars.

Too much information, I’m sure, but all that conservation effort was spelled out in the application and subsequently vetted by the LCRA itself through reports sent them by the WOWSC manager.

I pointed out to the PUC that the WOWSC project was so successful that the LCRA’s own manager complimented the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation manager on achieving “showcase” results in conservation. He independently verified the WOWSC results. Watch the pertinent part of the video here https://youtu.be/R1RvGEYnlp8?si=ffqdOXhGuC6zuL6W&t=2282

Back to the point: The LCRA grant was fully litigated in the Ratepayer Representatives appeal of the 2020 rate increase (PUC Docket 50788). All the documents were shared in response to requests by PUC Staff and the Ratepayer Representatives. My letter to the PUC describes all those instances.

And my letter to the PUC showed all the instances when the WOWSC Board in 2020, 2021 and 2021, in public meetings, discussed those results. The minutes aptly show those instances. (This was back when the Board produced timely minutes instead of as now simply posting videos that it claims suffices as minutes. Ah, the good ole days…)

So it’s important to ask four questions about the ConSpouse’s representation to the Public Utility Commission:

1. Were the Ratepayer Representatives ever actually paying attention to those filings during their own 50788 rate appeal?

2. Were the Ratepayer Representatives, who attended public meetings of the WOWSC during those years, paying attention?

3. Are the Ratepayer Representatives ginning up false accusations now because the answer to questions 1 and 2 is “No”?

4. Assuming the answer to 1 and 2 is “Yes,” are the Ratepayer Representatives now bearing false witness against current and former WOWSC Board members so as to instigate official investigation ?

Evaluating the ConSpouse’s misrepresentation to the PUC

My contention is that 4 is the correct answer.

The ConSpouse is more interested in continuing the Big Con, misrepresenting and mischaracterizing events so as to create smoke where there is no fire, impugning and demeaning people, and insulting the intelligence of their bamboozled marks, which now includes the PUC.

That is the essence of a Confidence Game: look at the hand that is moving, not the one that is picking your pocket. The ConMan and ConSpouse are good at their never-ending con.

Letter 2 — The WOWSC’s Sale of Land in 2024

My second recent letter to the PUC also took issue with the ConSpouse’s representation of events regarding the WOWSC’s sale of 6 acres of land.

The abbreviated version of my letter is this: the ConSpouse says no one knows about certain details of the sale and that the Board is being hostile toward members.

My letter points out how the ConSpouse could have stayed on the Board past her one meeting in March 2024 and constructively collaborated with the company as part of the Real Estate Committee.

Instead she had quit at the end of the one and only meeting where she had been officialy appointed to the Board in March 2024.

Then in June 2024 she unilaterally resurrected the Committee without Board authorization and scuttled a deal that was in the works for one million dollars.

That’s $1,000,000 lost due to the ConSpouse.

That’s not my take on the matter. A current Board member, most likely Jeff Walker, sent a letter to the ConMan and one of his ConBuddies with a string of emails about the situation. The ConMan included the letter on his own website, which is where I got it.

And I included that in my Letter to the Public Utility Commission.

Of course I could go on and on here, and I will have more to say about the ConSpouse letter to the Commission.

The point is simply that the Big Con knows no boundaries and there will never be an end to it.

The Con Man, the ConSpouse and his ConBuddies have too much fun demeaning people and keeping the bamboozled fuzzed up with their confusions and false witness.

ConMan’s NextDoor Post about Spouse Writing Letter to PUC