Brown County Independent Newspaper

02/23/2026

12/05/2025

COUNCIL COULD FORCE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC 1913 DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS
Hidden in plain sight on Monday night’s Bangs City Council agenda is City Hall’s next move regarding the selective enforcement of a 2023 Building Ordinance on two downtown buildings owned by Eric Bishop, owner of Brown County Independent and former 10-year mayor of Bangs. The buildings at 102 and 104 South First Street were built in 1913..
“The City Administrator notified me by Regular Mail August 29, 2025 that there would be a public hearing about the buildings October 14, 2025 but no hearing was held,” Bishop said. “She then notified me by Certified Mail November 4, 2025 that there would be a public hearing about the buildings December 8, 2025.”.
Bishop said that he has been working with a Professional Engineer to assess the buildings since June but has not undertaken any significant construction until having a chance to hear the Council’s Orders, which he expects Monday night..
“For the moment, I’m giving the council at large the benefit of the doubt regarding why, of all the problems facing City Hall this is being pursued without as much as a word of deliberation on the record in council meetings,” he said. “Monday, I’ll give the Council crystal clear evidence they are being misled and in the process my civil and property rights have been trampled on.”.
Since this Dangerous and Substandard Building Ordinance was adopted in July 2023, Bishop said that he has dealt satisfactorily with two different Code Enforcement representatives of the city in 2023 and 2024 and was headed in the direction of restoration to the building’s original architecture this summer until receiving the first letter from the City Administrator around Labor Day..
“At that point it was clear we are not friendly neighbors,” he said.
“Hopefully we work something out on Monday night, but the writing is on the wall that the council could order me Monday night to tear the buildings down within 30 days or they will do it for me and send me a bill.”.
Bishop said that he is saddened that the situation has come to this..
“This is not about me and it is not about money. It’s about trying to preserve a little bit of our town’s history,” he said. “I didn’t buy the buildings to get rich but I didn’t buy them for the City to tear down. I had what I thought was a fine discussion with the City Administrator about the buildings back in February and was under the impression we would talk further.
"Then I started hearing and reading one thing or another about the buildings that in some cases was just plain false and in other cases just someone’s opinion. I guess Monday night will be us talking further.” .
The hearing is part of the regular Bangs City Council Meeting on Monday, December 8, 2025 at 6 p.m. at the Bangs City Hall although the agenda item does not identify the addresses of the buildings..
“It comes as no surprise to me that the vague language on the Council agenda would lead the average citizen to assume it’s about abandoned structures around town that are actually dangerous and falling down,” Bishop said. “It’s safe to assume they didn’t want much of an audience Monday night. It’s the opposite of transparency, whatever you want to call that. Anyone who cares about the history of our town should be there.”

02/15/2024

This is the third of a multi-part editorial series by Eric Bishop, owner of Brown County Independent and former 10-year mayor of Bangs .
Friday, February 16, 2024 at 5 p.m. is the filing deadline for the Bangs City Council election, and as of yesterday afternoon only one candidate, Slade Byars, has filed for a place of the May 4, 2024 ballot. And with three seats on the ballot, the upcoming election is a chance for a much-needed ouster of the current regime when Saturday, May 4, 2024 rolls around, but there has to be at least two more citizens step up and file for a place on the ballot before tomorrow at 5 p.m..
And while none of the incumbents that are up for re-election had filed as of yesterday afternoon, rest assured at least two of them will file by Friday if no one else gets in the race. The political gamesmanship of waiting until the last day or two to file likely has to do with gauging the competition – or whether or not there even is competition. Byars candidacy ensures there will be an actual election if the three incumbents all file. .
That’s good, but it won’t be good enough. .
Bangs needs at least three non-incumbent candidates on the ballot. That will make for open dialogue where the current council members will have to answer to their constituents about the recent betrayal of public trust – a breach that every one of them flagrantly committed in their reckless and malicious handling of the double-barrel firing of City Administrator Stephanie Jester on January 22, 2024 and January 29, 2024..
The entire council laughed in the face of the Texas Open Meeting law in denying Jester’s request at the January 22, 2024 meeting that the deliberation of matters relating to her employment be held in a public hearing. Instead, the council held an hours-long illegal closed meeting before voting 5-0 to terminate Jester, meanwhile refusing to provide her or anyone else in attendance a single detail of the reason for their sudden decision to fire her..
Then a week later on January 29, 2024 the council brings in one of the City Attorneys to try and clean up its mess. Instead of explanations - or even an apology – the council shot the citizens in attendance the proverbial bird. Make no mistake, their malicious deeds will not go unpunished. That can be addressed later. .
Right now, Bangs needs at least two willing candidates to file for the election before tomorrow (Friday, 2/16) at 5 p.m. If you’ve been considering it as several have indicated that you are, this is the time. Two new members would lead to the same old abuse of non-existent authority that is happening right now. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THREE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS who can stem the tide of the secret society..
The qualifications are simple.
- U.S. Citizen.
- 18 years of age or older as of the first day of the term.
- Not been determined by final judgment to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially incapacitated without the right to vote.
- Not been finally convicted of a felony from which the person has not been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities.
- Resided continuously in Texas for 12 months and in Bangs for six months immediately preceding the filing deadline of February 16, 2024.
- Be registered to vote as of February 16, 2024. .
The overall public sentiment is one of outrage, which is to be expected, but without choices we are left with the status quo. If you’re considering getting into the race, please don’t be intimidated. The role of a councilperson is designed to be no more difficult or time consuming than any other type of service such as youth league coach, Sunday School teacher, non-profit boards and on down the line..
Citizens have complained far and wide since the city council raised the charge for brush pickup from FREE to $50 in 2022 not long after the three council members that are up for re-election took office. 15 months later, and that ill-advised decision was reversed on Monday. Sound familiar? .
Don’t be surprised if the council votes to forgive student loan debt, close the Southern border and drop the price of gas to $1.00 a gallon between now and the election. The citizens that have seen what is going on are fed up and now many other have their eyes open, and will not be fooled by the timing of decisions such as the one to suddenly reverse the price from $50 to FREE right in the middle of the election. .
The citizens need to take back City Hall. IT IS NOW OR TWO MORE YEARS of taking whatever the secret society decides to give us. THREE NEW COURAGEOUS VOICES WHO ARE NOT AFRAID TO STAND UP TO THAT WILL EFFECT IMMEDIATE CHANGE..
BE THE CHANGE BANGS NEEDS.

02/02/2024

This is the second of a multi-part editorial series by Eric Bishop, owner of Brown County Independent and former 10-year mayor of Bangs .
Given the chance to shed some light on the darkness surrounding its handling of the firing of City Administrator Stephanie Jester a week earlier, the Bangs City Council did anything but that Monday night. .
With the writing already on the wall, a full-house crowd showed up for a Bangs City Council special meeting Monday night (1/29/2024) looking for answers. Two items were on the agenda:
• Executive session to consult with attorney about the termination of City Administrator (Jester) and associated matters, and
• Open session to discuss or take action about the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of the City Administrator (Jester), and associated matters. .
Just seconds after the meeting was called to order, the audience was ushered out so that the mayor and council could consult with their attorney about Jester’s termination, which everyone in the room knew had already occurred a week prior. .
After ignoring and denying Jester’s request and the Texas Open Meeting law at the Monday, January 22, 2024 meeting that the deliberation of matters relating to her employment be held in a public hearing, the council held an hours-long illegal closed meeting then voted 5-0 to terminate Jester, refusing to provide her or anyone else in attendance a single detail of the reason for their sudden decision to fire her..
That was last week. What would the council come up with this week? On its face, the Executive Session agenda item to consult with attorney about the City Administrator’s termination and associated matters seems ceremonial, as they’re talking to an attorney about something they already did. Unless something was amiss, why would there need to be a full-on consultation with an attorney? .
The Texas Open Meeting law, which every one of them flagrantly violated last Monday when they participated in an illegal closed meeting after Jester’s request that they meet in open, does provide an option for a closed meeting to consult with attorney although the exception is very narrow..
Sec. 551.071. CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY; CLOSED MEETING.
A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation with its attorney except:
(1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about:
(A) pending or contemplated litigation; or
(B) a settlement offer; or
(2) on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter..
What the exception does not allow is the mayor, council or staff deliberating among each other while in that secret meeting. It’s certainly possible they spent then entire 90 minutes taking turns with the attorney, however there were only one or two real questions for the attorney - Did the council err in its handling of the matter last Monday; and if so, how does the council correct the error? An hour and a half later, the answers appear to be – Yes, and you fire her again, and that’s what they did. Immediately after reconvening in open session and with no discussion the council acted to fire Jester – again – and adjourned. No reference to the elephant in the room, the why? An hour and a half with the attorney and not a word to answer that question. Not a word. No answers..
As far as criminal and civil violations of the Texas Open Meeting law when the council met in secret last Monday, the city attorney represents the city and not the individuals elected to govern it. That damage is done and can’t be fixed. That initial deliberation should have been in the presence of those that were at the meeting. That’s how open government works. On that night, those citizens represented every other citizen while the ones they elected and trusted betrayed them..
The criminal and civil ramifications of violating the Open Meetings law will be covered in subsequent installments of this series, as will further developments involving potential criminal or civil cases for the illegal secret meeting or the handling of Jester’s termination...
The May 4, 2024 election where City of Bangs voters will elect three council members will also be covered in a subsequent installment of this series. The deadline for candidates to file is February 16, 2024 at 5 p.m.

01/28/2024

This is a the first of a multi-part editorial series by Eric Bishop, owner of Brown County Independent and former 10-year mayor of Bangs .
Bangs needs a new City Council. .
Every last member needs to go. .
They betrayed us all Monday night, and in the process they have erased something that can never be re-written – PUBLIC TRUST. .
This goes for the ring leaders and those that merely went along for the ride and eventually gave in to the ring leaders wishes after an illegal hours-long meeting behind closed doors..
Citing non-existent council authority and rights as if they own City Hall whereas it has simply been entrusted to them, one council member overtalked and overruled the direction of the presiding officer which led to flagrant violations of the Texas Open Meeting law by the mayor and all 5 council members when they refused the request of City Administrator Stephanie Jester to have matters relating to her employment deliberated in a public hearing as opposed to in secret. That is her right as set forth in the Open Meeting law. And her decision to exercise that right as an officer or employee affects the rights of everyone else. To be clear, the Open Meeting law is neither a suggestion or an option – it is the law. And every single one of them broke that law..
From the moment Jester requested the meeting be held in the open, every citizen who has the authority and rights to breathe clean air has the authority and rights to know every single word that was said and by whom, yet that was flagrantly violated when they laughed at the law and went on with doing things how they want to do them. Make no mistake about it, they are all familiar with the law. Texas requires every elected official to complete training on that very law. In fact, the law was referenced, albeit incorrectly, when explaining why the council was going to go ahead and violate it at Monday’s meeting. .
“This is, according to what we’ve been told by our attorneys, that the council has the authority to discuss in closed without the city administrator items that need to be addressed between council that we cannot discuss outside of closed session,” said mayor pro tem Greggory Cassady. “Because we’ll be in a quorum so we as a council have the right to discuss some things before we discuss in open as she requested. Because we can’t talk outside these walls without getting in trouble. I mean we’re liable for legal action, correct?”.
And off they went into the Wild, Wild, West and doing it their way. The law itself is crystal clear, less than 70 words that have not changed in 30 years..
Sec. 551.074. PERSONNEL MATTERS; CLOSED MEETING.
(a) This chapter does not require a governmental body to conduct an open meeting:
(1) to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee; or
(2) to hear a complaint or charge against an officer or employee.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the officer or employee who is the subject of the deliberation or hearing requests a public hearing..
The damage that was done in their secret and illegal meeting can never be undone. Whatever grievances or allegations were spoken in that secluded chamber by the two rogue council members that eventually convinced the other three members that it was time to get rid of Jester after less than two months on the job will never face the test of transparency and truth that happens organically when open government laws are obeyed. When the secret meeting ended the council acted to fire Jester. No reasons were given publicly, including when the president of the Bangs Economic Development Corp (BEDC) which actually funds a portion of the City Administrator salary asked for an explanation..
The City is exposed legally for its handling of this. Jester has been permanently violated. All of us have been permanently violated, and whoever “we” is that is getting the horrible legal advice from “our” attorneys are also exposed. There are both criminal and civil ramifications of violating the Open Meetings law which will be covered in a subsequent installment of this series..
Some citizens were told to keep it off Facebook and promised an explanation at a Council and BEDC meeting that was scheduled for Friday (1/26 @ 6 p.m.), however that meeting was cancelled without explanation. .
A closer look at the details indicates the council is well aware that it broke the law and violated Jester’s rights and the public trust, since the Friday meeting between the council and EDC to deliberate on a decision that was already made has now been replaced with a Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6 p.m. council meeting to consult with legal counsel concerning the termination of the City Administrator, and associated matters, and then discussion and possible action regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of the City Administrator, and associated matters..
While the attorney could potentially guide them through the steps of preserving the validity of the intended action taken in the wake of Monday’s illegal meeting, as far as the council goes, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The flagrant Open Meeting law violations and the betrayal of public trust that led to this can’t be fixed. We need a new council..
And the underlying personal agendas and abuses of power that led to where we are now can only be fixed at the ballot box. The timing could not be better, as three of the five council seats are up for election in May. The deadline for candidates to file is February 16, 2024 at 5 p.m. That will also be covered in a subsequent installment of this series.