From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Mike Page Gene Miller; "Buck Davenport"; billneill@garygreene.com; richard.debone@anadarko.com; "elimayhew"; Sutton, Alexander; Derr, Richard Julie Kime Conroe Courier Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:23:07 PM

It appears that our friends at the Courier are going to run a story about the RUD election on Wednesday in an attempt to stir the pot a bit, courtesy of Mr. Adrian Heath and his friends who are running in the election and many of whom (22) have registered to vote in the election using business addresses within the RUD; the Montgomery County Voter Registrar has registered these people officially, so the RUD has no legal basis to challenge their eligibility to vote in the election, even if wrongdoing is suspected; so far, no one, other than the two clearly eligible voters in the RUD, Mr. and Mrs. Laukien, have voted during early voting; it remains to be seen whether anyone else will vote on May 8; a letter was sent by the DA to all registered voters in the RUD cautioning them to seek legal advice about the residency requirements under Texas law for registering to vote; however, if these apparently unqualified people do vote, the remedy under Texas law is for any aggrieved candidate to file an election contest within 30 days to contest their right to vote; presumably, this would be done immediately after the election to enjoin the canvass of the election returns at the scheduled May 17 Board meeting. The Courier seems uninterested in this potential voter fraud, or in the benefits to the entire Woodlands community that the RUD has brought about over the last 20 years, courtesy of and at the sole expense of the business community in The Woodlands; instead, they are more interested in who complained to the DA and the fact that there has been only two or no voters in the RUD for almost ten years; they don't seem to understand or care that it is irrelevant how many voters there are if there are no opposition candidates; whether 0, 1 or 10,000 voters, if there are no opposition candidates, the election is called and then cancelled under the provisions of the Election Code in order to save taxpayer money---the voters are presumed as a matter of law to have voted for the unopposed candidates. I am afraid this may be purely personal and directed at me; this is the same tactic that the Courier followed in the recent uproar about the San Jacinto River Authority groundwater reduction program, which I worked on for more than five years; I have been general counsel and bond counsel to SJRA for almost 40 years; instead of looking at the merits of the proposal and whether there are any better alternatives, the Courier just attacks those associated with the proposal because they might make a buck working on it; I regret and apologize to you that it has come to this and that our local newspaper is more interested in personal and reputational destruction than in the merits of the program; I would remind you that our firm has a contract to provide general counsel and bond counsel services to the RUD which is terminable, without cause, on thirty days' notice to us; should you think it best to exercise this option, I will certainly undrstand; again, I apologize to you for the unwanted attention, but I have a low tolerance for voter fraud.

Michael G. Page Attorney at Law Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. 1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1400

Houston, Texas 77056 Phone: 713-623-4531 Fax: 713-623-6143 mpage@sphllp.com