Hi Neighbors! I met with Shirley Ross, the MUD’s District Manager today. (I think I called her the “director” in a previous email; that was my mistake.) We met for a good hour and a half. She stayed past closing time to answer my questions. I’ll do my best to get the main points across. 1) THE MUD’s OBSTACLES We started with what the MUD is legislatively/legally entitled to do. This includes providing water, other services (like the parks) and so on. (Of course, there’s not a “provide mailboxes” clause!) In addition to legislative restrictions, the MUD faces regulatory restrictions (I think by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and one other state agency). Finally, the MUD overlaps many other government districts, including two counties, Austin’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, the state, other special districts (school and firefighting) etc., and the MUD needs to coordinate with these entities. Fair enough: the MUD wasn’t created to install mailboxes, there are regulations to consider, and it would involve coordination with other agencies. These are the obstacles, as I understand them. 2) OVERCOMING THE OBSTACLES: THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL As I understood Shirley, it the MUD wants to do something they check with their attorney. He reviews the law and answers yes, no, maybe, or I don’t know. If the answer is yes, no problem. If the answer is anything else, then... The MUD can direct their attorney to look for language in the law that could be interpreted (perhaps stretched) to give the MUD the legal authority to go ahead. If the attorney can find the language, great. If that interpretable language can’t be identified with enough confidence, the MUD can ask for an opinion from the state attorney general. But the MUD can’t do that directly—any such request has to come from a member of the Texas House or Senate. So the MUD’s attorney must create a brief/packet/argument for what they want to do, and the MUD’s lobbyist must find a state senator or representative who’s sympathetic, and get that person to ask the attorney general. Then we wait for an answer. 3) WHERE WE ARE NOW This is where we are as of today. The MUD’s lead attorney has received that brief from his junior attorneys who prepared it. But he hasn’t vetted it yet and the MUD has not identified the sympathetic member of the Texas Legislature. So we’re far from “waiting on the AG,” as some have suggested. The truth is the MUD has only gotten so far in the process. (Whether they should have started the process sooner, or moved faster, is open to debate. But it wouldn’t help anything at this point.) I think Shirley and the MUD are very well aware of the frustration with this issue. I printed out and shared with Shirley all of the comments from the petition. (I’ll post them here for you non-petion signers.) Shirley assured me repeatedly that they are in the process of getting the AG’s opinion. I asked her directly if she was delaying the process purposefully, at all, for any reason, and she flat out stated that that was not the case. 4) GOOD NEWS ON ANOTHER FRONT Shirley expressed a willingness to work with the MUD Board, HOAs and individual citizens to lobby USPS for new mailboxes. That is, she is open to using the weight of the MUD to help sway a decision maker at the USPS. A letter from the MUD, letters from the HOAs, the petition, and a hand delivery with a lot of people may get someone at the USPS to pay attention. (Maybe a letter from a state rep or two). 5) SO... So I think we should proceed on both fronts: make sure the MUD stays on top of the AG issue, and work with the MUD to lobby the USPS. (Other data points: there are 178 mailbox clusters in the MUD, it would be a “medium” project for the MUD in terms of cost but a “high” project for the MUD in terms of complexity, according to Shirley.) I’m super tired as I write this so I’m sure it’s not perfect. Corrections welcomed. What do y’all think? AND THANK YOU! THE “BUZZ” CREATED ON OUR GOOGLE GROUP HAS HELPED A LOT! Daniel