Paper trail exposes a process problem

Gateway’s records request revealed gaps in Moore County’s response and new questions about conflicting zoning rules

#Opinion • 5:00 p.m. July 31, 2026

Gateway Companies asked Moore County for the records behind its Main Street housing dispute.

What came back looked less like one county response than three separate pockets emptied onto the same table.

Planning and Zoning Chairman Dexter Golden’s first response totaled four pages. One was blank. The other three contained text-message screenshots.

Scott Fruehauf’s response ran 21 pages, including a long text exchange with Golden.

Jimmy Hammond’s response totaled three pages. One was blank. The other two contained screenshots from exchanges with Golden.

Page counts alone prove little. One official may have sent more messages than another. Records may have been stored on different phones or accounts.

But side by side, the contents mattered.

Messages involving Golden appeared in the responses from Fruehauf and Hammond but were missing from Golden’s first response.

That did not prove Golden hid anything. It did show the county’s first response was not the last word.

A supplement filled some of the gaps

Gateway received a supplemental response Wednesday, July 29.

County Attorney Bill Rieder said it included a text message to Gateway representative Troy Woodis that he thought had been sent with the first response. Rieder said he had overlooked the message and apologized.

Rieder also said Golden learned from Fruehauf’s response that the two men had traded texts about the Gateway project.

According to Rieder, Golden searched his phone but could not find those messages. Golden then asked Fruehauf for copies and added them to his response.

The supplement filled some of the gaps. It did not explain why Golden could not find the messages on his phone or whether all records covered by the request had been produced.

Rieder’s explanation also did not address separate Golden-Hammond exchanges that appeared in Hammond’s response but not in Golden’s.

The messages made the gaps matter

Some texts matched almost word for word.

Golden’s first response included a message saying, “Read highlight part and density,” followed by a suggestion that the material be sent to Gateway’s attorney. The same exchange appeared in Hammond’s response.

Golden also wrote that he, “Marty and bill,” had calculated that the property could hold 20 units.

Hammond’s response included the same message, followed by his reply: “I think 20 is right.”

One screenshot showed Golden sending Hammond an Observer social media post about Chancellor J.B. Cox denying Gateway’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The ruling denied Gateway an early judgment but left the lawsuit in place.

Hammond first replied, “Nice,” though the message was marked as not delivered.

About an hour later, he wrote: “One step closer to a win.”

Another exchange came May 7 after Woodis spoke during a Planning and Zoning meeting.

Golden wrote that the apartments’ maximum household income would be $48,000. He said that would exclude county workers and police officers Woodis had named as possible residents.

Hammond replied, “Wow, that guy is an idiot.” His reply appeared just below Golden’s account of Woodis’ remarks.

The records do not explain why those exchanges were missing from Golden’s first response. They do show that the responses differed.

That is enough to ask a fair question. It is not enough to prove a charge.

Fruehauf’s response opened an even wider window into the talks behind the June decision.

The messages showed Fruehauf and Golden sharing photos of zoning rules, working through density, and debating whether Gateway’s design met the county’s definition of a townhome.

On June 2, Fruehauf questioned why officials were debating townhomes when the earlier zoning action had focused on apartments.

“Why are we even debating whether they should be doing townhomes?” Fruehauf wrote. “The legal zoning approval was for apartments so if these are apartments why does what we did last year apply to this application.”

Fruehauf suggested telling Gateway that its preliminary site plan was incomplete and that the company could return after meeting the county’s checklist. He also suggested telling Gateway that infrastructure concerns made approval unlikely.

Golden replied: “Ronnie backed out on us tonight and said that we have the water even tho we are at 75 percent capacity.” Ronnie is Metro Moore County Utility Department Manager Ronnie Cunningham.

The exchange does not explain what Golden meant by “backed out on us,” what Cunningham had been expected to say, or what came before the remark.

The message was missing from Golden’s first response. It was later added through copies obtained from Fruehauf.

The zoning trail told its own story

The property had crossed paths with people tied to Planning and Zoning before Gateway arrived.

Landowner Stanley Fanning confirmed that current Planning and Zoning member Jeff Ross had once offered to buy it.

Fanning also confirmed that Ryan Dickert, who was serving on Planning and Zoning at the time, later introduced him to another developer interested in building townhouses.

Neither deal went through. Neither effort was shown to be improper. But that history made a clear record more important – not less.

Gateway agreed in January 2025 to buy the 5.13-acre tract for affordable housing.

The utility department confirmed water and sewer capacity, while Duck River Electric confirmed electrical capacity. Mayor Sloan Stewart said apartments were allowed under the zoning in place at the time.

Stewart later gave Gateway a zoning letter for its state housing application.

The Metro Council then took up changes involving where apartments could be built, lot sizes, and density limits.

Gateway bought an updated zoning book from the county in August 2025.

The company returned in May 2026 with a townhome plan. Planning and Zoning denied its preliminary site plan June 2.

At the July 21 Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, Gateway attorney Madison Haynes presented the zoning book the company bought, signed-and-sealed ordinances kept by the county clerk, and zoning rules Rieder had sent Gateway in two February emails.

Gateway said it relied on those records when it designed the project.

The company said those records did not contain the language later used to limit the property to 21 townhouses.

Rieder agreed that the rules he sent Gateway matched the county zoning book.

He called the conflict a clerical error. He said Metro Council minutes showed that the council meant to double the land required for multifamily housing.

Rieder said the BZA should look at the meeting minutes and the council’s earlier debate when an ordinance is unclear.

That is the county’s best argument. But while minutes may help explain what a council meant, they cannot make conflicting official documents disappear.

Gateway bought the county’s zoning book. It asked the county attorney which rules applied. It says it built its plan around the records and answers the county provided.

Metro Council member Peggy Sue Blackburn took part in the original votes. She told the BZA that she understood the council’s debate to be about apartment complexes – not townhouses.

BZA Chairman Keith Moses said he could not find the six-acre minimum in the Metro Council or Planning and Zoning minutes he reviewed.

He also questioned how the county could call one part of an ordinance wrong while enforcing another part as correct.

Those are not small clerical questions. They go to the heart of whether a person or company can trust the rules supplied by its own government.

The BZA voted 3-1 that Gateway’s design met Moore County’s definition of townhouses. That settled one issue, but not how many units could be built.

The board then split 2-2 on whether to overturn Planning and Zoning’s denial of the preliminary site plan.

With member Josh Cook absent, the board tabled the appeal for a special-called meeting.

Moses called the conflicting documents a “quagmire.”

Blackburn put the blame more directly on the county. “Handing them the wrong information is our mistake,” she said. “It’s not their mistake.”

Gateway won one question. The harder one remained open.

The BZA vote proved no bad motive or misconduct. It exposed something more basic.

Gateway says it received one set of rules. Planning and Zoning later used another. Rieder called the conflict a clerical error.

That is not a simple dispute over one project. It is what happens when zoning books, signed ordinances, and meeting minutes do not speak with one voice.

The records response showed the same weakness.

The first responses did not contain the same messages. The county later added one message that had been missed. It also added copies of Golden’s exchanges with Fruehauf after Golden could not find them on his phone.

Put the two disputes together, and the larger problem comes into view:

Important public business in Moore County now must be reconstructed – one text thread, ordinance, and meeting minute at a time.

Mandell says the problem runs deeper

Gateway President Josh Mandell said the records backed up the company’s concerns about how county officials handled the project.

“We come away with three inescapable conclusions from this FOIA process. First, some public officials are not being transparent. Some have given too much time and attention to the Gateway matter, to then say that they have no record of any communications on the Gateway matter. That defies common sense.

“Secondly, we have established that Dexter has something to hide, as he refused to turn over the very records that other commissioners did provide. Again, we are not dropping this issue.

“Finally, in the FOIA disclosures, we see some Moore County officials taking a judge, jury and executioner approach, when they are supposed to serve as an independent, deliberative body. Forget Gateway for a moment; this above-the-law mindset should send a chilling message to Moore County citizens.”

Those are Mandell’s conclusions.

The records raise questions about whether the county’s first response was complete and consistent. They do not, by themselves, prove that Golden hid records or had something to hide.

The supplement cannot be ignored. It shows the county admitted that one message had been missed. It also shows that Golden later added the Fruehauf texts after getting copies from Fruehauf.

It does not explain why Golden could not find them on his phone, why they were missing at first, or whether every official followed the same search process.

The Observer asked Rieder on Wednesday, July 29, for the county’s response to Mandell’s claims and the differences among the records.

Rieder said a reply would come Thursday or Friday. No reply had been received as of publication Friday afternoon.

This column will be updated if the county responds.

Different officials still need one process

Tennessee law does not require one person to keep every county record. Records often stay with the office or official that keeps them. But different officials still need one process.

Under the Tennessee Public Records Act, government bodies must have a written policy for receiving and answering requests. The policy also must name a coordinator to route requests to the right record holders and help make sure the law is followed.

The problem is not that Golden, Fruehauf, and Hammond kept their own messages. The problem is that their first responses differed, one message was missed, and part of Golden’s response had to be reconstructed with copies from another official.

Still, Moore County does not have to invent a fix. UT’s County Technical Assistance Service and the Tennessee Office of Open Records Counsel already offer training on records management, electronic messages, and open-government law.

The county can review its policy, train officials who use text or email for public business, and create one clear process for gathering records from several people. That protects both the person asking for records and the official who holds them.

Without a sound process, an honest mistake can look like a cover-up.

A message can be missed. A thread can appear in one person’s response but not another’s. Records can be found only after one official asks another for copies.

Then everyone is left to guess.

That is not fair to Gateway. It is not fair to Golden. And it is no way to run public business.

Take Gateway out of it

The easy answer is to treat this as one more round in a bitter housing dispute.

That misses the larger point.

The next records request could involve a county contract, a tax increase, or public money. The next zoning dispute could involve a family building on inherited land or a business planning to grow.

They should not have to wonder which rule is real. They should not have to compare several responses to decide whether the county has turned over all its records.

Moore County should use one clear process when a request covers several officials.

The county also should keep one trusted set of zoning rules – properly passed, kept current, and given to the people who must follow them.

Officials should receive the same records instructions. Conflicting zoning rules should be fixed in public.

Gateway’s first records responses told different stories. The supplement filled part of the gap.

The county’s zoning records also told different stories.

Neither proves bad intent. Both leave too much room for doubt.

Public business should leave one paper trail. County rules should speak with one voice. The public should not be left to reconstruct either.