Seagoville, Crandall and Combine graded on government transparency. None of the three earned an A.
A city can follow the law and still leave its residents largely in the dark.
Posting a legally required meeting notice does not necessarily tell taxpayers what their City Council is about to approve.
Broadcasting a council meeting does not help much if the supporting documents are missing.
Publishing an annual budget does not provide true spending transparency if residents cannot see current expenditures.
And, a City Council may legally discuss certain matters behind closed doors while still creating a situation in which residents know remarkably little about major projects being considered by their government.
That distinction, between legal compliance and meaningful transparency, is at the heart of the Shop in Seagoville Local Government Transparency Report Card.
Shop in Seagoville reviewed the public facing government records and online transparency practices of Seagoville, Crandall and Combine, with particular emphasis on the City Council.
The review examined council agendas and supporting packets, meeting minutes, livestreams and video archives, executive sessions, major development projects, city finances, public records procedures and residents’ ability to communicate directly with elected officials.
The result: none of the three cities earned an A.
The Transparency Report Card
| Category | Max | Seagoville | Crandall | Combine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Council agendas, packets and minutes | 20 | 18 | 17 | 17 |
| Meetings, video and public participation | 15 | 14 | 15 | 6 |
| Executive session transparency | 15 | 11 | 8 | 11 |
| Major projects and development disclosure | 15 | 13 | 8 | 10 |
| Financial transparency | 15 | 11 | 13 | 8 |
| Public records access | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| Elected officials, website and resident accessibility | 10 | 7 | 10 | 10 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 83 | 79 | 70 |
| GRADE | B | C+ | C- |
How the Cities Were Graded
The report card does not attempt to determine whether a city is honest, dishonest, well managed or poorly managed.
It asks a narrower question: how easily can an ordinary resident understand what his or her local government is doing?
- Council agendas, packets and minutes 20 pts
- Meetings, video and public participation 15 pts
- Executive session transparency 15 pts
- Major projects and development disclosure 15 pts
- Financial transparency 15 pts
- Public records access 10 pts
- Elected officials, website and resident accessibility 10 pts
The grading deliberately goes beyond minimum legal requirements.
Texas law permits cities to conduct closed meetings for certain matters, including qualifying economic development negotiations, legal consultations and real estate discussions.
That means a closed meeting is not automatically suspicious or improper.
But legal authority to withhold information does not automatically make a government transparent.
A transparency grade therefore asks how much information residents receive before the closed session, after the closed session, and when confidentiality is no longer necessary.
Seagoville earned the highest overall grade because it provides residents with a strong combination of council documents, meeting video, financial reports and public records access.
Its biggest weaknesses are outdated transaction level financial information and limited direct contact information for individual council members.
Seagoville’s council document system is among its strongest transparency tools.
Residents can find council agendas, full agenda packets and approved minutes through the city’s public meeting system.
An agenda might tell a resident that council will consider a resolution, contract or expenditure.
The agenda packet frequently provides the information necessary to understand what council members are actually being asked to approve, including staff reports, maps, financial information, agreements and proposed resolutions.
Seagoville performs well when it comes to allowing residents to observe government without physically attending City Hall.
The city provides live and archived meeting video and extends that access beyond the City Council to bodies including Planning and Zoning and the Seagoville Economic Development Corporation.
Minutes tell residents what action was officially recorded. Video allows them to hear the discussion, questions, disagreement and explanation leading to that action.
Seagoville did not receive a perfect score because closed session transparency remains difficult to evaluate solely from public records.
The public records reviewed for this report did not reveal the same sustained 2026 pattern of a major coded economic development project repeatedly appearing in executive session that was found in Crandall, though that does not establish that every closed session matter is fully explained to residents.
Seagoville has publicly provided detailed information regarding its proposed $7.15 million certificates of obligation connected to a proposed fire station project, including the proposed borrowing amount, anticipated purpose, estimated location, potential maturity period and estimated total principal and interest.
Residents may support or oppose the project, but they can see the size of the proposed obligation before the debt is issued.
This category contains Seagoville’s biggest contradiction.
The city maintains an extensive archive of annual financial reports and detailed budget information, but the page specifically titled Financial Transparency contains transaction level information that is badly outdated.
The most recent AP check and ACH registers posted there are from 2021, and payroll check totals displayed on the page end in 2017.
Seagoville has one of the better public records systems among the three cities.
Residents are given multiple ways to request information and are provided explanations regarding the Texas Public Information Act.
The city also distinguishes between general municipal records and police related records.
The city’s website identifies the mayor and council members and provides general City Hall contact information. However, direct individual contact information for each elected official is not as prominently displayed as it is in Crandall and Combine.
Seagoville currently provides the strongest overall transparency package of the three cities reviewed. Its council records, meeting videos and major debt disclosures are substantial. But a city cannot realistically claim top level financial transparency while expenditure records on its transparency page remain several years out of date.
Crandall presents the most complicated transparency picture. If this report graded cities only on website technology, agenda packets and meeting broadcasts, Crandall would likely receive an A.
But true transparency requires more than excellent document delivery.
Crandall lost substantial points because residents can easily see that important economic development discussions are occurring while learning comparatively little about what some of those projects actually are.
Crandall’s Agenda Center is excellent. Residents can access HTML agendas, downloadable agendas and detailed agenda packets.
The website also shows posting dates and, in some instances, preserves previous versions when an agenda has been amended.
Crandall loses several points because approved minutes are not always displayed as consistently or conveniently alongside recent meetings as the agendas and packets themselves.
Crandall received the highest score possible in this category. Council meetings can be watched live, and recordings of previous meetings are available.
The city also provides clear information concerning regular council meetings and opportunities for public participation.
This is where Crandall’s score falls sharply. Project Grand Slam has repeatedly appeared in government discussions over a period of months.
Council entered executive session concerning TIRZ No. 6 and Project Grand Slam on April 6, and the subject appeared again at an April 20 council meeting.
The Crandall Economic Development Corporation discussed Project Grand Slam in executive session in May, the City Council again listed TIRZ No. 6 and Project Grand Slam in June, and the project was again on the council’s executive session agenda in August.
After months of government attention, an ordinary resident examining those public records still receives very limited information about what Project Grand Slam actually is.
A Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone is not simply a private business matter. TIRZ decisions potentially involve future property tax revenue, public infrastructure and long term development policy.
Crandall deserves credit for identifying Project Grand Slam by name in its agendas instead of hiding everything behind a generic description such as economic development negotiations, but an unidentified coded project repeatedly connected with city economic development activity over months is not consistent with A level public disclosure.
Crandall performs very well financially. The city maintains current and historical budgets, annual financial reports and tax rate information.
Residents can examine multiple years of financial records without filing a request. The principal weakness is the absence of a prominently maintained, current transaction level expenditure system comparable to the strongest municipal transparency programs.
Crandall provides mechanisms for residents to request public information and makes forms and instructions available online.
The system works, although Seagoville’s records portal and explanatory information are somewhat more comprehensive for residents who have never filed a request.
Crandall gets full credit here. Individual official email addresses are displayed for the mayor and council members. Residents know who represents them and how to communicate directly with them.
Crandall demonstrates why government transparency cannot be judged solely by how attractive or technically sophisticated a city’s website is. The city may have the best meeting infrastructure of the three governments reviewed, but months of limited public information surrounding Project Grand Slam demonstrate a significant gap between excellent document access and substantive disclosure.
Combine’s final score should not be interpreted as evidence that the city routinely conceals information. In several areas, the small city actually performs remarkably well.
Its problem is that residents have fewer tools available to observe government remotely, examine supporting documents, and navigate financial information.
Combine regularly posts City Council agendas and approved minutes. Its archive includes council meetings as well as budget workshops, giving residents a useful historical record of city business, which deserves significant credit for a municipality of Combine’s size.
The primary weakness is supporting documentation. Combine does not consistently provide the kind of extensive pre meeting agenda packets available in Seagoville and Crandall.
Combine receives its lowest category score here. Shop in Seagoville did not find an official meeting livestream and comprehensive archived council video system comparable to those offered by Seagoville and Crandall.
Residents who cannot physically attend a meeting may eventually read the minutes, but minutes are not a substitute for observing the discussion, the questions asked or the concerns raised.
The public records reviewed did not reveal the same repeated coded project pattern identified in Crandall.
However, Combine does not receive a perfect score because executive session transparency must be evaluated over time and across multiple types of meetings, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Combine consistently provides residents with unusually detailed explanations surrounding every closed session.
Combine provides access to zoning, development information, public hearings and Planning and Zoning records.
But its lighter supporting document infrastructure can make it more difficult for residents to independently reconstruct complicated development decisions.
Residents should nevertheless be able to understand major decisions affecting land use, infrastructure and growth before those decisions become final.
Combine publishes current financial documents, including budget and tax rate information, and those documents do exist.
The city’s weakness is navigation. During this review, prominent links on Combine’s main Financial Transparency page for budget and tax information and financial reports led to broken pages.
A document that technically exists online, but is difficult to locate, provides less practical transparency than one placed where residents naturally expect to find it.
Combine provides residents with an online method of submitting public information requests. For a small city, the process is straightforward and accessible.
Combine earns full credit in this category. The city’s website provides direct official email addresses for the mayor and council members, along with information concerning how residents can address the City Council and request that an item be placed on an agenda.
Combine has a stronger basic public record foundation than its overall grade might suggest. Agendas and minutes are generally available, and elected officials are easy to contact. The city falls behind primarily because residents lack the meeting video access, detailed supporting packets, and polished financial document infrastructure available elsewhere.
What an A Level City Would Look Like
None of the three cities received an “A” because that grade should represent more than minimum compliance.
- Complete council agendas and supporting packets well before meetings
- Approved minutes promptly connected to each meeting
- Live and archived video of council and major boards
- Clearly identified recorded votes
- Detailed explanations of major projects as soon as information can legally be disclosed
- Clear reporting concerning action taken after executive sessions
- Multiple years of budgets and audited financial statements
- Current check registers and expenditure information
- Easy to use public records procedures
- Direct contact information for every elected official
- Working links and intuitive website navigation
Most importantly, a resident should not need to become an amateur investigator simply to understand what City Hall is doing.
Transparency Is More Than Following the Law
Texas law establishes minimum requirements for open government, and those requirements matter. But they should not be confused with the highest level of transparency.
A city may legally enter executive session. A city may legally withhold confidential economic development information. A city may satisfy public notice requirements by posting an agenda.
None of those facts automatically tells residents enough to meaningfully understand their government.
It means voluntarily making government understandable. It means explaining major decisions before they are made whenever possible. It means making documents easy to find instead of merely technically available.
And, it means recognizing that residents should not have to file an open records request every time they want to know what their elected officials are doing.
For now, Seagoville leads the ranking of the three cities with a B. Crandall follows with a C+, while Combine receives a C-.
All three cities have areas where they perform well. And all three have room to make local government considerably easier for their residents to see.
