A Bandera man’s toilet display stuffed with campaign signs for two sitting council members has flushed private tensions into public view, leading to a criminal mischief fine just weeks before Election Day.
On Sept. 30, Bandera resident David Dyer was fined $612 after Justice of the Peace Mike Towers found him guilty of Class C criminal mischief for a toilet display placed on local realtor and Bandera resident Gay Guilott’s front lawn.
The display was positioned facing the home of councilman Brett Hicks and featured crushed campaign signs for incumbents Hicks and Tony Battle, both seeking reelection to the Bandera City Council.
Dyer, whom Judge Towers ruled had “intentionally or knowingly damaged or destroyed tangible property … without the consent of the owner and causing substantial inconvenience,” said the stunt reflected “growing tensions” in the neighborhood.
Dyer, who lives near Hicks and Battle, runs a YouTube channel where he regularly criticizes the two council members. Some of his videos show Battle blowing grass and Hicks blacktopping city property — work Hicks said was approved by the Public Works Department, a claim echoed by Interim City Administrator Jill Dickerson.
“Tony and Brett have never gone around the city,” Dickerson said. “When they got new roofs, they had them inspected and applied for the proper permits. In reference to the blacktopping, Brett is responsible for the easement and had received permission from our Public Works Department to conduct that project.”
Hicks offered further clarification.
“I’m not sure where he is getting his information from,” Hicks said. “I receive permits through the city for all projects. The recent asphalt project occurred mostly due to the constant complaining of Dyer and Guilott as to where visitors were parking.”
Dyer also expressed frustration that Hicks’ original Facebook post regarding the toilet display implicated his significant other, Gay Guilott, who owns Guillott Realty, Inc.
“I did this on my own, okay?” Dyer said. “Gay had nothing to do with it.”
Hicks later amended the post, clarifying that Dyer was charged with criminal mischief while on Guilott’s property, where Dyer and Guilott both reside.
Dyer’s biggest allegation against Hicks is his belief that the Hicks family is attempting to “run the city.”
“They have three Hicks on the school board,” Dyer said. “And now they want to take over the city council.”
Hicks expressed confusion over that notion.
“My family has been here nearly a century,” Hicks said. “Our public service goes back years, and anyone that is on the school board or city council have been elected in. People vote for who their views are aligned to. The community trusted me two years ago to vote me into council, and I take being an elected official very seriously.”
Battle, who serves as mayor pro tem, said he has tried several times to make peace with Dyer and Guilott but continues to face harassment. He showed the Bandera Bulletin photos of dog feces and debris piled along his fence line — including toilets, traffic cones, tires, and a bright blue tarp he says violates city code.
“It seems that our public service and commitment to this community is being viewed in the wrong light,” Battle said. “We are elected officials by the public. We would encourage Dyer to provide that level of commitment by running for office.”
Dyer claimed Hicks and Battle had only recently approached Guilott’s property to discuss concerns. Hicks refuted that claim, providing the Bandera Bulletin with friendly text exchanges among the three dating back to April 2024.
“All of my interactions with Dyer and Guilott have been positive until recently,” Hicks said, adding that he has lived on his property all his life and has never had issues with any other neighbors. “I think this is all a bit silly and uncalled for, and I’m not sure if it’s just tensions rising from the upcoming election. Dyer mentioned that he was working with my opponents to strategize on how to ‘win the war’. I’m guessing he doesn’t agree with my faith or political views, being Christian and conservative, but we need to get a point in this community that we can respect each other’s beliefs.”
But Dyer states that he is not the only neighbor Battle and Hicks do not get along with, and that they have a reputation for being “bullies.”
“Tony and Brett need to get along with their neighbors,” Dyer said.
Guilott offered her own statement regarding Battle’s “blatant violation of city code.”
“He was verbally cited for and fined for not obtaining permits on his roof,” she said. “And he invades our privacy.”
Battle provided the
Bandera Bulletin the permit for his roof in response to Guilott’s statement, signed by city officials.
Although Battle and his family believe they are being unfairly harassed, Battle said he simply wants to live in peace and continue serving the community, despite an incident in which his son was nearly struck by Dyer’s vehicle.
“I have a photo of Dyer recording my then 12-year-old son on my property,” Battle said. “It’s a bit strange. When Dyer almost hit my son with his vehicle, he admitted to Sergeant Teer that he had been upset. I just hope we can move past all this.”
The statement from the report dated Sept. 28, written by Sergeant Teer, reads: “Dyer at that point admitted that he may have been a little upset and taken his anger out on his driving, but that he did not see Battle’s child.”
About a year before the toilet display dispute, Guilott and Dyer said they asked Battle to reposition his outdoor security cameras so they wouldn’t face their property. They said Battle agreed at the time.
“That Facebook post Brett have Tony’s cameras photos,” Dyer said. “It proves Tony didn’t move the cameras away like he said he would.”
The Bandera City Marshal’s Sept. 28 report provided Sergeant Teer’s determination of Battle’s cameras.
“The placement of a camera on one’s property is not criminally illegal if it records footage onto a neighboring property unless it records directly into an area that is considered private or would capture invasive material,” Teer’s statement read. “It does cover backyards as private property if it cannot be seen by the general public. However, Guilott’s residence is not completely surrounded by a privacy fence and the area of footage is plainly visible by the general public from the street, therefore, not criminally liable for any offense.”
Regarding the signs that were used in Dyer’s toilet display, Dyer states that they were left on his property.
“I found them on my front doorstep,” he said.
One thing the three can agree on is that the back-and-forth has been exhausting.
“I am not sure why this is happening, but I hope this will stop,” Hicks said.
Early voting began Monday, Oct. 20, and runs through Friday, Oct. 31.
.png)
