DFWRCC urges Denton County Voters to support Hugh Coleman

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008

Hugh Coleman (R) who is challenging Cynthia White (R) for Denton County Commissioner Pct 1 in the Republican Primary. In the General Election either White or Coleman will face Democratic candidate Phyllis Wolper, who is unopposed in the Democratic Primary.

Cynthia White, with Wendy Davis, led the NCTCOG RTC in developing a 2030 plan for the region calling for 675 additional miles of tolled roads or additional tolled HOV lanes in the DFW region by the year 2030. At the RTC's vote for awarding the contract for SH121 to either Cintra or NTTA, Cynthia Whilte and Wendy Davis both gave very long, pleading speeches, with tears in their eyes almost to the point of sobbing, begging members to vote for Cintra "because if we do not accept the Cintra bid, no investors will ever come to the Dallas Fort Worth area ever again."

Ms. White is a member of the Board of Directors of NASCO CORRIDOR GROUP which lobbied to get legislation passed to enable construction of the Trans Texas Corridor.


I asked Hugh Coleman specifically about his position on toll roads. He said: "I absolutely opposes tolling existing roads -- like SH121. We, the taxpayers, have already paid for it and should not be taxed again."

"Toll roads should be only as a last resort." He favors the old model --- where roads were constructed as toll roads only when other resources were not available for construction cost -- similar to the I-30 (Dallas Fort Worth Turnpike). The old model is frequently described as 'building the best road you can for the least money, maintaining it as efficiently as you can, keeping the tolls as low as possible and retiring the debt as fast as you can. When enough users had paid tolls to retire the debt, the road becomes non-tolled public road.'

Hugh Coleman does not favor tolling a road to raise revenue to use on other projects. Ms. White, a member of NASCO CORRIDOR GROUP, and former President of the NCTCOG Regional Transportation Commission, favors tolling existing highways, utilizing private partners who profit from investing their capital in the public infrastructure projects, and utilizing revenue from one project to create a revenue stream to fund other transportation projects. Under Ms. White's leadership the RTC has approved a toll rate structure which charges users higher tolls than are necessary to maintain the roads and retire the debts.

In the Republican Primary, DFW Regional Concerned Citizens urges Denton County Republican Voters to support Hugh Coleman.

See Denton Record-Chronicle Article.

Denton commissioner Cynthia White fined for late financial filings

County official missed 3 deadlines but neither raised nor spent funds

By MONTY MILLER JR. - Denton Record-Chronicle - Wed., August 1, 2007

DENTON – County Commissioner Cynthia White was fined $600 for missing three deadlines to file required campaign finance documents, after a Denton County resident filed a complaint against her last month.

The Texas Ethics Commission assessed the fine last week.

"I have been very busy the last year and a half," Ms. White said. "I'll try not to let it happen again."

Dianne Edmondson, Denton County Republican Party chairwoman, said elected officials make mistakes like everyone else, but Ms. White should be more careful in the future.

"I think it must happen fairly often, although it shouldn't happen," she said.

Oak Point resident John Rademacher filed a complaint against Ms. White in late May.

Mr. Rademacher could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Ms. White, a Republican who is up for re-election next year, filed the missing documents with the Denton County Elections Administration in late May. The documents covered the period between Jan. 15, 2006, and Jan. 15, 2007, and showed that Ms. White had not accepted any contributions or spent any campaign money during that time.

"I didn't have any activity during that period, but I understand that I should have filed them," she said.

Texas law states that elected officials must file campaign finance reports twice a year, whether they raise money or not.

Ms. White said she paid the fine last week.

Tim Sorrels of the Texas Ethics Commission said he could not comment on the case.

Ms. White, of Aubrey, was first elected to the Commissioners Court in 2000.

She said she is running for re-election in 2008 and is raising funds for the campaign.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

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.

NASCO - NORTH AMERICA’S SUPERCORRIDOR COALITION, INC and its role in changing Texas and US Transportation Law

By Faith Chatham= crossposted on Texas Kaos, Daily Kos and Burnt Orange Report
Governor Rick Perry has used campaign contributions from his Texans for Rick Perry committee to fly to Istanbul, Turkey, today to address the secret Bilderberg Conference, “a meeting of about 130 international leaders in business, media and politics.” Read more:
Meanwhile, in Fort Worth, international leaders met at the Worthington Hotel in a NASCO conference hosted by TxDOT, Tarrant County, The City of Fort Worth and NASCO. Several leaders of the NCTCOG RTC are board members of NASCO.

For more than 12 years North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) and its members have stood at the forefront of driving public and private sectors to unite to address strategically critical national and international trade, transportation, security and environmental issues.
Our focus is on maximizing the efficiency of our existing transportation infrastructure to support international trade. We recognize the extraordinary implications for our nation’s long-term economic prosperity of our transport system’s ability to sustain that growth.
NASCO, a non-profit group initially founded in 1994 as the I-35 Corridor Coalition, represents member cities, counties, states, provinces and private sector members devoted to maximizing the efficiency and operations of the existing U.S. Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO SuperCorridor) and the intermodal inland ports NASCO has inspired to sprout along them. Never
have our efforts been more needed or been more urgent.

They site projected growth as justification:

As U.S. Federal Highway Administrators and state road association leaders clearly understand, the U.S., in general, and our Corridor through its heartland in particular, face daunting challenges in adapting to absorb the coming tsunami of burgeoning cargo freight tonnage. U.S. studies forecast national freight tonnage to increase nearly 70 percent by 2020. General cargo tonnage is projected to more than double, with some key freight gateways expected to see a tripling in freight volumes between 1998 and 2020.

Despite evidence that America now exports more raw material than finished goods and imports most finished goods, they write:

As the demand for freight transportation grows, so will its overall contribution to the nation’s economy and its challenges to highway capacity, congestion and the local environments. In 1970, international trade represented just 12 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2000, trade surged to 25% of U.S. GDP. U.S. economists, however, expect trade to leap to 35% or more of U.S. GDP by 2020.

They acknowledge their role:

From almost immediately after the Jan. 1, 1994 entry into effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NASCO has sought out and backed Corridor-related initiatives to enhance border security, safety and the operational efficiency of the existing transportation infrastructure.

This is something that they nailed!

NAFTA’s reduction of import tariffs and trade barriers in North America powerfully stimulated trade that strengthened the economies of its partner nations.

However, this statement is rather controversial:

Rather than the great fears of NAFTA job losses of 1994, today, in the U.S. and in NASCO Corridor states, net job creation and net employment have grown to and stayed at or near historical highs. Since NAFTA took effect, total U.S. employment grew to 136 million, up from 112 million then, with U.S. unemployment dropping to today’s 4.5 percent of the work force (a five-year low), from 6.6 percent then out of work, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics for the period.

They fail to mention that the growth is in low paying jobs and the loss is in skilled high paying jobs!

NASCO uses the term "SuperCorridor" to demonstrate we are more than just a highway
coalition. NASCO works to develop key relationships along the EXISTING corridors we
represent to maximize economic development opportunities for all affected by the flows.
NASCO’s reach helps coordinate the development of technology integration projects, inland ports, environmental initiatives, university research, and the sharing of "best practices" across North America. NASCO’s forte is in spurring coordination of efforts by local, state and federal agencies and the private sector to integrate and secure a multimodal transportation system along the existing NASCO Corridor.As of late, there have been many media references to a "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway.”

They have been really skilled at identifying "stakeholders", "change agents" and "opinion leaders" among local city and county elected officials and incorporating them into their organization. They also have encourged cities and universities to join and share in the financing of their lobby efforts.

Little consideration is given to the direct conflict of interest of the elected official serving on the NASCO board. Although he can no longer render "fair and impartial consideration to issues coming before the body he is county commission or city councils he /she is elected to, because as an officer or board member in NASCO, he has a stake in forwarding the goals and objectives of NASCO, he usually squeeks through because he is serving on the board of an organization which is supported financially by his city or county government!

While NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have referred for years to I-35 and key branches as 'the NAFTA Superhighway,' the reference solely acknowledged and recognized I-35’s major role in carrying a remarkable portion of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. In actual fact, there are no plans to build “a new NAFTA Superhighway.” It already exists today as I-35 and branches.

They aren't referring to the citizen-taxpayer when they refer to "our people":

A decade ago, NAFTA captured the headlines of international trade. But today international trade is global trade. It requires even bolder and more aggressive efforts by our organization and our leaders to meet the challenges and to extract maximum economic benefit for our people from exploding global trade.

Here they list the players who are lined up to benefit from these massive infastructure private public partnerships:

For more than a decade, NASCO has encouraged the boldest thinking on adoption of trade processing systems, logistics systems and information technology. Eighty percent of NASCO members have 10 years of active service.

To me, this is the classic statement in their entire website:

The subject of trade and transportation is much too important to leave to the uninformed.

Seems like they are saying that taxpayers and citizens who object to their schemes are just too dumb to understand their big picture!

They continue:

Here are the REAL facts:
In the 21st century, the U.S economy increasingly runs on trade and our trade runs on
transportation. Trade and the transportation facilities that sustain it are tied together. Future economic growth and job creation in the U.S. require a constant effort to enhance our business climate, environment and transportation infrastructure to sustain our world-class leadership in world trade. NASCO’s aim is to continuously, diligently upgrade the efficiency and security of our transportation systems to sharply increase the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure on the Corridor to drive down the cost of doing business and enhance our ability to do international trade in the central U.S. Our future quality of life and prosperity depend upon ever-greater efficiencies and competitiveness enhancements in the heartland of North America.
In reality, greater moves toward oversight, inspection, regulation and enforcement of each of the three countries' national laws are leading to a strengthening of national sovereignty in each of the three countries.

Talk about stuff that could come out of the tail end of a far from constipated elephant! Do they really expect people to buy that???

They are clear about some of their objectives:

* NASCO advocates for balancing increased border security and trade and
transportation efficiency.
* NASCO exists to facilitate solutions to trade and transportation challenges and to
stimulate economic development, job creation and prosperity.
* NASCO is a nonprofit advocacy group, not a government agency. NASCO does not
set transportation policy, build highways or set up customs facilities.
* NASCO is not building or encouraging the creation of ‘a NAFTA Superhighway.’
I-35 and key crossing interstates already exist and have been described as ‘a
NAFTA Superhighway’ due to the loads they bear since the 1994 passage of
NAFTA. They require attention to support future growth and trade.
* NASCO does not encourage the elimination of international borders.
* NASCO does not focus on or have any intent to effect Federal immigration policy

Read more

Federal Legislation Overview:

For over ten years, NASCO has been developing a strong coalition of cities, counties, states, Canadian provinces, and private sector companies to lobby for federal funding and promote a "SuperCorridor" to address the transportation, trade and security needs of the three NAFTA nations.

We have succeeded in bringing hundreds of millions of dollars to the NASCO I-35 Corridor, resulting in High Priority Corridor status for I-35 in 1995 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In addition, we successfully lobbied for the creation of two new categories under the Transportation Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) – the National Corridor Planning & Development Program and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program.

They state:

The NASCO "SuperCorridor Caucus" was formed on Capitol Hill to promote corridor development and to help secure NASCO legislative initiatives in both the authorization and appropriation processes.

We continue to be recognized as the strongest International Trade Corridor Coalition on Capitol Hill, and we are the only Corridor Coalition with true international representation from the three NAFTA nations.

They actively:

Support for Multi-state International Corridor Development Program

North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc. supports the Multi-state International Corridor Development Program in S. 1072

NASCO supports Sec. 1825, the Multi-state International Corridor Development Program, new language initiated by NASCO, authorized in 2004’s Senate passed version of S. 1072, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004” and asks the House to consider supporting this language in their bill or to accept the language in conference.

They explain:

This program would develop international trade corridors to facilitate the movement of freight from international ports of entry and inland ports through and to the interior of the United States. NASCO supports the Senate language regarding selection criteria for corridors including:

Must have Significant levels or increases in truck and traffic volume relating to international freight movement [NASCO truck traffic has increased 42.6 percent from 1996 to 2001 ]


Connection to at least 1 International Terminus or inland port [NASCO has an international terminus in Laredo/Nuevo Laredo; Manitoba; and Windsor, Ontario and serves 3 inland ports including Detroit; Laredo and Pembina, N.D.]

Corridor must traverse at least three states;[NASCO traverses 11 states including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois ] and

Identified by Section 115 (c) of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032) [NASCO is High Priority Corridor #23]

Funding

NASCO supports the Senate proposed program because it would provide a solution to the over subscribed “Cor Bor” program by creating a separate, dedicated program for a small number of true international trade corridors that meet the proposed criteria. It would provide the opportunity for significant and targeted infrastructure improvements along these most important trade corridors resulting in tremendous economic benefits for communities along these corridors and for the nation as a whole.
However, the Senate passed language did not authorize funding for this program and without it this program cannot realize its potential. Therefore, NASCO respectfully requests that the provision be granted sufficient funding. In a 1996 study done for NASCO, it was estimated that the corridor needed $2 billion per year in infrastructure improvements over an 18-year period. NASCO supports as high a funding level as possible for the Multi-state International Corridor Development Program to operate as intended.

Read more

Conference in Fort Worth May 30-June 1, 2007 Hosted by NASCO, Tarrant County, City of Fort Worth and TxDot.

Board members of NASCO include NCTCOG RTC Chairwoman, Cynthia White of Denton County, City of Denton Mayor Pro Tem PETE KAMP, Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, (NCTCOG Executive Board Member and leading member of the RTC), TxDOT Deputy Director Steven E. Simmons (who implements and manages TxDOT policies and programs), Dallas attorney Rider Scott, (who has also served as co-counsel to the Texas Attorney General on certain local highway condemnation projects under special arrangement), Blake Hastings (Executive Director for Free Trade Alliance San Antonio, a non-profit organization dedicated to making San Antonio a center of trade in the Americas), Alliance developer Russell Laughlin, Bell County Commissioner Tim Brown, and Coby Chase, Director, Government and Business Enterprises Division
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Coby's career highlights include steering TxDOT TxDOT’s participation in the 103rd through 109th sessions of the United States Congress and through the 74th through 79th sessions of the Texas Legislature (sessions where more of the Texas Transportation code was changed than had been enacted in 4 decades!). Coby Chase's resume continues: Succeeded in bringing new flexibility, better financing options, and strengthened funding formulas to the Texas transportation system in the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Represented the state’s interests in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), ensuring highway-user fees would be spent for transportation, and securing increased annual federal funding for Texas, and Worked during the 78th and 79th Session of the Texas Legislature to help deliver HB 3588 and HB 2702, which completely altered the methods used to deliver infrastructure in Texas and are national legislative models for the next generation of transportation development.

(House Bill 2588 and HB 2702 are referred to at the CDA/TTC enabling legislation).
Several other board members had ties with the Kansas City Smart Port and Kansas City de Mexico (NAFTA) Railroad.

For the complete list of board members and their resumes click here.

Are they effective? Definitely.
They have succeeded in getting state and federal transportation code changed to allow exercise of eminent domain for private development and profit. They have succeeded in getting "valuation" language inserted into key legislative initiatives. They have succeeded in infiltrating local and county governmental bodies who oversee RTCs with their board members. They have succeed in getting legislation passed in the Texas Legislature which transfers control of state highway funds from Legislative appropriations oversight to RTCs in the form of "surplus toll revenue" and toll road concession fees.
They have succeeded in eliminating many of the advantages to the public of toll projects.

They discuss passenger rail and traffic congestion but their focus is totally on moving freight. They work to achieve their object by siphoning off funding from commuter transportation projects and prioritizing freight moving corridors. They work to insure that private citizens pay the cost for developing improved transportation corridors for moving freight.

In the DFW area, many of the transportation projects are PILOT PROGRAMS breaking ground with public private partnerships, valuation, and utilization of special federal governmental tax free bond programs for private business entities (such as Cintra) who bid on and secure state highway toll contracts.

RTC Fails to Comply with Federal SAFTEA-LU Public Participation Law

Message sent to Cynthia White, Chair of the NCTCOG RTC on May 29, 2007 by Faith Chatham

Is the RTC deliberately attempting to minimize participation and to violate SAFTE-LU and its own Public Participation Plan? By scheduling only 3 hearings on Revisions to the TIP and Funding, RTC fails to implement its PPP. The RTC has betrayed the trust of the people by shutting most of the citizens of this area out from these hearings. Three sites in a 12,800 sq. mi. area is insufficient access for citizens from all over the region. It is appalling that transportation planners selected these times and sites!

Hearings after work should be scheduled on Transit Lines in both Dallas and Fort Worth. There should be well-publicized shuttle service from Centerport Trinity Rail to the NCTCOG office for the Arlington meeting. To "PROACTIVELY SEEK PUBLIC PARTICIPATION" you must communicate with the GENERAL PUBLIC Requiring the public to drive to adjoining counties for public hearings eliminates economically challenged and infirm people from the process.

There has been no coverage in the main stream media. Sending 6000 postcards (mainly to elected officials, planners and contractors) is insufficient to communicate with 6.5 million citizens. Burying meeting notices 3 tiers down on your website does not give public meetings visibility. To rectify this situation, I urge you to BLITZ the main stream media to publicize these hearings, announcing additional meeting sites and times. Tell the public HOW the TIP and FUNDING directly impacts them.

More sites and times are necessary to accommodate transportation deprived, handicapped, economically challenged and working citizens throughout the region. Failing to schedule meetings after work in Tarrant, Dallas and Denton counties is unacceptable!