Spending Campaign Cash 2007: Senator Brimer

Bay Area Houston blog - Friday, July 20, 2007
Spending Campaign Cash 2007: Senator Brimer

Senator Brimer (R-Ft Worth) has been in the news for spending his donors money on a condo owned by his wife at Westgate Condominiums 1122 Colorado St, Austin Texas. The Ethics Commission's rules are very clear:

§ 253.038. Payments Made to Purchase Real Property Prohibited

(a) A candidate or officeholder or a specific-purpose committee for supporting, opposing, or assisting the candidate or officeholder may not knowingly make or authorize a payment from a political contribution to purchase real property or to pay the interest on or principal of a note for the purchase of real property.

Over the last 6 years he has paid over $176,000 to "J B Realty", "JKB Realty", and "Janna Brimer Realty" for rent. These are names of a realty company owned by his wife, Janna. In his July 2007 report, something has changed.

For Jan and Feb he paid JKB Realty over $2900 a month for condo rent. JKB Realty has the mailing address of 1600 W. 7th St Fort Worth Tx 76102, the same address for Senator Brimers Ft Worth office. But for Mar-Jun he spent just over $700 a month to Westgate Condo Assoc for "Condo dues". This is the same condo where his wife owns property.

He has also paid Ed Shack over $6000 for campaign legal services in the past 6 months. Go figure.

Earlier post: Spending campaign cash: Senator Brimer
Bay Area Houston - Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Senator Brimer is one of a very few who use their campaign contributions to pay his spouse rent for a condo. Over the last 6 years he has paid over $176,000 to "J B Realty", "JKB Realty", and "Janna Brimer Realty" for rent. These are names of a realty company owned by his wife, Janna.

Under the Texas Ethics Commission, it is against the law to use your campaign contributions to pay your spouse for real property purchases, but according to the Fort Worth Star Telegram he has found a gaping wide loophole and is exploiting it with his contributions:

Brimer appears to be in a unique situation: He made special property separation arrangements in a pre-nuptial agreement with his wife, Janna Brimer. They publicly disclosed a 1996 "partition" agreement making the Westgate condo and any future proceeds from it her exclusive property.

Brimer appears to be in a unique situation: He made special property separation arrangements in a pre-nuptial agreement with his wife, Janna Brimer. They publicly disclosed a 1996 "partition" agreement making the Westgate condo and any future proceeds from it her exclusive property.

Brimer's lawyer, Ed Shack, acknowledged that there is nothing to block politicians who leave office from benefiting from what was once separate property. But he noted in a letter to Brimer last week that the law gives legislators special legal protection when they use Ethics Commission opinions as guidance in transactions.

That is the same Ed Shack who is representing State Representative Davis, Speaker Craddick, and many more elected officials. Shack is making good money defending those who take money from their contributors to purchase items for themselves.

Other than the $176,000 paid to his wife, Brimer has paid over $12,000 to GMAC for a vehicle lease, nearly $6000.00 for Christmas gifts, a Christmas mailing for $9300, and $4400 for membership in the Fort Worth Club. He also took a $9500 expense for donating a 1976 Cadillac to Huguley Crystal Heart Gala, for a fundraiser.

DFW REGIONAL CONCERNED CITIZENS TO BEGIN REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL GOVT. CODE CHAPTER176 AND ASSESMENT OF PUBLISHED ETHICS POLICIES

By Faith Chatham
DFW REGIONAL CONCERNED CITIZENS believes that ethics and transparency in government is vital for public confidence.

We especially applaud governments who have clearly defined ethics rules and endeavor to achieve full complaince by officials, staff and advisors of their organization and full disclosure by vendors and those seeking to do business with their governmental entity.

We are noticing an uneven application of some key Texas Local Governments ethics rules between governments and political subdivisions in this 16 country region. For several months we have been engaging informally in discussions with various city, county and regional officials about public disclosure and ethics.

We hope that all governmental entities will come into full compliance with Texas Local Government Code 176.

Some governments wrote their ethics rules prior to the 78th and 80th Legislative Session of the Texas Legislature when Chapter 176 was established and amended. We recommend that all governments and political subdivision review the exisiting wording in their ethics codes and bring them into conformity with Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code. In the Side Bar of this site, we have links to the Texas Ethics Boards discussion of Chapter 176 and the disclosure forms, the two house bills which enacted the rules, and the Attorney General's opinion on the application of Chapter 176. We hope these resources will help governments assess these rules and evaluate whether they are in compliance with the regulations.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Chapter 176 applies a broader definition of conflict of interest than the 10% financial interest rule in Chapter 171. Chapter 176 requires decision makers and potential vendors to disclose relationship. Elected officals and their advisors who serve on boards, even if unpaid, must disclose relationships with potential bidders or vendors. The disclosure forms are to be submitted within 7 days of the discovery of a potential bid or intention to pursue business with the government or political subdivision.... These disclosure forms are to be made available to the public. If the governmental entity maintains a website, they are to be posted on the website for the public to examine. The law establishing Chapter 176 clearly states that the intent of the law is to inform the public of the relationships between governmental decision makers and those who contract with or seek to do business with the governmental entity.

We have begun an informal survey of the ethics rules posted on governmental websites in the 16 county NCTCOG region. We are discovering that some bodies approach ethics with a "broad stroke" while others clearly define and spell out the rules. There appears to be a wide gap between those who attempt to educate and enforce ethics rules, especially compliance with Chapter 176, and those who seem to pay less attention to complying with these laws.

We will begin an informal assessment of the ethics rules as posted on governmental websites. We will assess them for content and clarity of the ethics codes in their published policy and for evidence of compliance with Chapter 176 on their websites.
We will publish the degree of compliance and clarity of the published codes on our website. When notified of changes, we will gladly go back and reassess those entities and and publish updates to our assessment.

We do not claim to be experts in ethics or lawyers. We are a citizens group and will view the codes and compliance as citizens. Our goal is to be able to show appreciation to those governments which are leaders in applying high ethical standards to the people's business, and to enable other governments to know that there are examples of excellence in our region. Hopefully, those with identified deficiencies will find other nearby neighbors who they can use as models to inspire and assist them in achieving greater transparency and compliance.

In addition to examining website for ethics, we will also look for ways the government makes it easier for citizens to participate in the process and to be informed in a timely manner of important issues.

Citizen's observations of Thursday June 14 RTC meeting and presentations by NTTA and CINTRA

Lauri Wiss of Dallas submitted these comments to the NCTCOG RTC by e-mail following her attendence at the May 14th RTC "Workshop on SH121"

I attended the June 14 RTC Public Meeting.
I heard no mention of either the NTAA nor Cintra bid presentation regading repaying the taxpayers of the DFW region for money already expended for the SH 121 right of way.

I also heard no mention if the NTCOG or RTC will need to repay those funds to other entities.
I was shocked ethics and conflict of interests were not addressed in a knowledgeable way. · It seemed amazing that legal opinion is needed less than 4 days before a major decision is made for the region.

· Being a member of the NASCO or NTAA Board to me means a member should recluse themselves in the vote.

· I do not believe a vote should be taken prior to all 40 members filling out the necessary ethic and conflict of interest forms and putting them on the internet.

· The City Councils and the public have the right to know what Boards and Commissions a member holds office in or serves on the Board of Directors, what businesses they and their family own, as well as stocks relating to contracts let out for bid.

I was also amazed at the deceit in the numbers in the Cintra slide presentation.

· The answers to the questions asked and answered by both Cintra and Price Waterhouse should have been reflected in the slide presentation.

· Phony numbers are not something to rely on.
· If the numbers presented at this late date cannot be counted on, why should any future numbers be trusted?

· In the Cintra presentation, interoperability (a pass through) was presented as income.

· Federal taxes were presented in the slideshow as income, and the mysterious 20-30 billion dollar "future development" is not a tangible return, especially when Mr. Munos DID NOT AGREE to commit to future projects.
The PriceWaterHouseCooper speaker when asked about it by a Board member said "it is a wash" between the two bidders.
· Most importantly, the multiplier rate stated ($ 1:3) was not backed up with facts.
· This is especially true as most multiplier effects depend on the money remaining in the local economy .
· With the money simply collected then sent to other US states and overseas, the multiplier effect lessens because loan funds are not as available.

· The number of jobs provided was not broken out on whether the jobs would be spread over the lifetime of the contract or in the immediate future.


The NTAA presentation was short on substance. There was nothing that was said that seemed firm enough to make a decision on. I recognize that they did not have a lot of time to prepare, but their statement "that we will not seek federal funds today" reminded me of the Dart pledge

· I am concerned about the raising of tolls on other roadways and possible lessening of maintenance to build SH 121.

· I am concerned on whether the NTAA is using the highest construction standards, not the lowest.

· I liked the NTAA bid better because local accountability will be possible, there will be federal laws followed, and the books will be audited every three months.

I have the following questions:

· Will the NTAA bid lower the rate of toll increases or
will the the same .145 to 58 be in place?

· Why would a business move to Dallas or Tarrant County if businesses and employees will have to devote a significant portion of transportation dollars to toll costs?
Is there a commitment in the contract that a certain percentage of the money remain in the banks locally for loans?

Board members and conflict of interest ethics violations

Several members of the NCTCOG RTC are probably in violation of Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code which reads:

(4) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a corporation or other business entity with
respect to which a local government officer of the local
governmental entity:
(A) serves as an officer or director; or
(B) holds an ownership interest of 10 percent or
more;
(5) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with an employee or contractor of the local
governmental entity who makes recommendations to a local government
officer of the local governmental entity with respect to the
expenditure of money;
(6) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a person who:
(A) is a local government officer; and
(B) appoints or employs a local government
officer of the local governmental entity that is the subject of the
questionnaire; and
(7) describe any other affiliation or business
relationship that might cause a conflict of interest.
(d) A person described by Subsection (a) shall file an
updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate records
administrator not later than:
(1) September 1 of each year in which an activity
described by Subsection (a) is pending; and
(2) the seventh business day after the date of an event
that would make a statement in the questionnaire incomplete or
inaccurate.

Refer to the Chapter 176 Local Government Code

The By Laws of the RTC cites adherence to Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code which has a more narrow interpretion of Conflict of Interest.

At the June 14 RTC Meeting of the NCTCOG, a member inquired about possible conflicts of interest by RTC members specifically in relation to the upcoming vote on awarding the lucrative SH121 contract at the Monday, June 18th RTC meeting. A specific question was asked about members of the RTC who are TxDOT officials refraining from voting. A NCTCOG official replied that it would be left to the members, including NTTA Board Member Dallas Mayor Lauri Miller to decide whether they have a conflict of interest.

In a February phone call to NCTCOG Executive Director Mike Eastland, he stated that "We (the NCTCOG) do not usually attempt to enforce ethics conflict of interest rules on members of committees who are appointed by member governments." When questioned about a specific member with alliances which created at the very least, the impression of a conflict of interest, Eastland replied: "You'll have to go to the District Attorney in the county where the member lives to file a complaint of ethics violations." Concern was expressed to Mr. Eastland that the NCTCOG did not attempt to monitor ethical conduct of members serving on their boards and commissions in regard to actions in relation to their service on NCTCOG Boards and Commissions.

Application of ethics rules by Councils of Governments varies:
in March 2007, the Executive Director of the East Texas Council of Governments said: "We take very seriously the actions of members of boards and commissions as well as staff in service to the COG. Our attorney explains very clearly to all our members that they are to avoid conflicts of interest and the perception of conflicts of interest." He said that they "monitor and try to avoid possible violations," rather than referring them to the home county of the members. This statement was made in a telephone call within days of NCTCOG Executive Director Mike Eastland's explanation that at the NCTCOG they leave it to each member to determine if they have a conflict of interest.

At the RTC June Public Meeting in Arlington, concern was expressed that three members of the RTC serve on the Board of Directors of NASCO CORRIDOR, an organization with a mission statement to influence local, regional, state and federal governments to enact laws and fund improvements and construction of multi state tranportation corridors to priotize the shipment of international cargo over passenger transportation solutions. NCTCOG Transportation Director Mike Morris stated he saw no conflict of interest in three NASCO CORRIDOR Board Members (Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, RTC Chairwoman Denton County Commissioner Cynthia White and RTC member Denton Mayor Pro-tem Tex Kamp) serving on the Regional Transportation Committee, where they set policies for this region and vote awarding contracts for construction projects.

Thursday June 14 at the RTC meeting was the first time since these queries earlier in the Spring to Executive Director Mike Eastland, that RTC members have openly discusses possible conflicts of interest of RTC members. Those members who voiced the subject are to be commended. Commissioner Maurine Dickey of Dallas asked how the NCTCOG RTC bylaws address conflict of interest. Staff replied that they 'were not sure' but would research it and post the bylaws on the RTC website before the Monday meeting.

Examining the bylaws today revealed that the bylaws address adnerence to Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code. It is recommended that the NCTCOG instruct its members and vendors that they must also adhere to Chapter 176, which addresses Members of Board of Directors as having conflicts of interest in addition to those who own 10% financial interest in a business or investment.

Keller City Commission ousts Planning and Zoning member

By ADRIENNE NETTLES - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Wed, Jun. 06, 2007
KELLER -- A biting comment about the quality of a proposed subdivision has cost a Planning and Zoning Commission member her seat.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to remove Frances Marek because of comments she made in January that other commission members viewed as inappropriate.

Marek got out of her seat after the vote to protest the council's decision, telling the members that what they had done was illegal.

"You're supposed to take this before the [city] ethics commission," she said. "It's amazing you can all just sit there and do this."

But Mayor Pat McGrail said during a break in the meeting that the council did nothing illegally.

"The city ordinance calls for the fact that the council has the right to remove with or without cause," McGrail said. "These are the kind of comments we in the city of Keller cannot condone or support."

During a Jan. 8 public hearing, Marek, 75, questioned the quality of the proposed patio homes that a developer had planned for a 14-acre project near her home after she visited a local development that she was told was similar.

Speaking as a private citizen, she told the commission that the proposed Heritage Heights looked like a tossup between slum tenement housing in New York or "the government slum houses that they gave to African-Americans."

"It's not good," she said after the statement. "It's not good. It doesn't look good."

The developer, Johnson Diversified Enterprises, was requesting that the site on the east side of Old Town Keller, the city's downtown district, be rezoned from single-family residential to planned development.

Marek's Park Addition home on College Street is east of the proposed site.

The council and the commission eventually denied approval for Heritage Heights, city officials said.

After the council appointed Marek to the commission May 1, all six of her commission colleagues wrote McGrail with concerns. The members asked that Marek's appointment be revisited.

"We are committed to the integrity of this board and its public hearings," the members wrote. "Our newest commissioner has previously made statements in public forum on matters before this commission. In light of those statements, we are seriously concerned about her ability to serve on the Planning & Zoning Commission in a fair and unbiased manner."

Marek said in interviews that her comments weren't racist but were in reference to the segregated public housing built decades ago.

"I didn't make up anything that wasn't true," Marek said.

Read more

HOW IT HAPPENED

By city ordinance, Planning and Zoning Commission members are appointed with a majority vote of the City Council and serve two years. Members can be removed with a three-fourths majority vote of the council, with or without cause.

Jan. 8: Keller resident Frances Marek speaks out against the patio home development Heritage Heights, comparing it to slum tenement houses in New York or "the government slum houses that they gave to African-Americans."

May 1: The City Council appoints Marek to Place 2 on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Marek takes her oath of office.

May 12: Voters elect Pat McGrail as mayor and Ray Brown as Place 1 councilman.

May 14: Six members of the Planning and Zoning Commission write McGrail asking that Marek's appointment be revisited.

June 5: The City Council considers a resolution to remove Marek from the commission and approves it unanimously.