Not so fast ...


To paraphrase Mark Twain, ''Reports of my departure have been greatly exaggerated.''

I am still very much here and will continue to monitor what happens in the association. Unlike you, I will not hide behind anonymity, but will continue to be personally involved and will take individual action against wrongdoing whenever the need arises.

Hopefully that will not be necessary. The members of the CCHOA are now free to decide their own future, and can decide to live here unfettered by the plans of developers and their lackeys who have controlled this neighborhood since its inception.

I await the January meeting with great anticipation of participation by all members of this community. I have not gone anywhere. I will be watching closely to see if anyone tries to interfere with the democratic process and I will be doing it here, as one of you. Look around. I'll be there.

How's this for wrongdoing?

William B. Gammon, 250th District court, No. 92-06027

William B. Gammon of Austin, Bar No. 07611280, was placed on six months' probation and publicly reprimanded based on complaints in two cases. The probated suspension began Sept. 16, 1992, and ended March 15. In the first case, Richard and Linda Grayson hired Gammon to represent their corporation as a creditor in the bankruptcy of another corporation known as P.R.I.M.E., which leased property the Graysons owned on Lake Travis. As part of his employment contract, Gammon became the exclusive listing agent for the property in exchange
for 3 percent of the sale price. Gammon, however, did not fully disclose the possible conflicts of interest that could arise from such an arrangement, according to the judgment. He also failed to keep the Graysons informed on the bankruptcy and the Graysons' status as a creditor, and failed to comply promptly with the Graysons' request that he return their files. In the second case, Kathleen Arrington has hired Gammon to represent her in a divorce, paying him a $50,000 retainer and agreeing to pay a contingency fee if the case were
litigated. Approximately 10 months later, Arrington sent several written requests to Gammon, asking for an accounting of the money she had paid him. Gammon did not promptly comply with those requests, the judgment states.