The Texas Observer

The story behind the story of James Dannenbaum, a new UT regent, hasn’t gotten much play outside the Valley, where Dannenbaum has received quite a bit of notoriety. In the interest of shedding some light on the case, here’s our take:

In October, Gov. Rick Perry appointed three new regents to the University of Texas System Board of Regents. The prestigious post usually goes to loyal party members who have donated generously to the governor. One of the new regents is James Dannenbaum, president of Houston-based Dannenbaum Engineering, who has stuffed Perry’s campaign purse with $247,500 since 2000. That’s business as usual. What’s new is that Dannenbaum’s company is embroiled in a border scandal that involves a $21 million bridge that doesn’t exist, Mexican shell companies, and pending legal troubles.

The story begins in 1991 when South Texas voters approved $21 million in bonds for the construction of an international bridge to connect the Port of Brownsville to Matamoras, Mexico. The Brownsville Navigation District tapped Dannenbaum Engineering to manage and engineer the job. Although the firm received $15.4 million, the bridge was never built. Presently, $9.2 million of the $15.4 million simply can’t be accounted for, according to the 2005 findings of a special investigator appointed by the navigation district. The investigator traced the sum to three Mexican shell companies with ties to Dannenbaum principal Louis H. Jones. The only products from the 17 subcontractors hired by Dannenbaum were 49 black binders with a few sheets inside.

In February, the navigation district and Dannenbaum reached a settlement in which the district agreed to surrender its ability to collect on the missing funds. In exchange, Dannenbaum agreed to perform the equivalent of $2.9 million in engineering work on the U.S. portion of the bridge. The company has the right to recover that sum from whatever Mexican company is eventually selected for the Mexican half of the bridge. Navigation district commissioner and attorney Peter Zavaletta voted against the settlement, calling it “indefensible” at the time. “I cannot overstate how upset people were about that settlement,” Zavaletta tells the Observer.

Now Zavaletta is suing Dannenbaum on behalf of nine taxpayers, of which he is one. “My case is a very specific challenge asking the court to rule that the settlement must be declared null and void,” Zavaletta says. He argues that Dannenbaum has violated the settlement because, eight months later, they haven’t bothered to start on the project. Meanwhile, a special grand jury is looking into the possibility of criminal wrongdoings surrounding the bridge deal. As of yet, James Dannenbaum has not been directly implicated in the scandal, although he might at a minimum become a witness in the grand jury probe. “Regarding legal issues, the governor is not aware of any criminal investigation into Mr. Dannenbaum or his company,” says Krista Moody, a spokesperson for Perry. “The governor believes Dannenbaum will serve as a good steward of the people of Texas with integrity and character.”

As you can see it’s a long and twisted tale, typical of South Texas. Adding to the confusion is a credulous Paul Burka, over at Texas Monthly. Yesterday, he reported (the deleted post has been reproduced here) on the BurkaBlog that Zavaletta “has been indicted by a Cameron County jury on a charge of misapplication of fiduciary funds.” Pretty juicy stuff. Only problem is the indictment came down in 1988. And the charges were dismissed against Zavaletta. By his own admission, Burka based his post on a nearly 20-year-old Brownsville Herald article that was faxed to him from Dannenbaum Engineering. Burka did the right thing, retracting his post today and apologizing to Zavaletta. He blamed the mistake on an “extremely blurry” fax.

The atmosphere was just right for a visit by The Texas Observer to Dallas this week.

The streets were dotted with signs about the Trinity River Project. Commercials were on air saying things like “Vote Yes on Proposition One. Keep their toll road out of our park!” I swear some of the signs said, “Vote No! Pave the Trinity!” (but that doesn’t quite sound right), and at least one local weekly, the Dallas Observer (no relation), was recommending that voters “Vote Yes”, loudly, on its cover. Politics and policy were in the air.

As staffers, board members, writers, and fans of the Observer and Jimmie Dale Gilmore came together at the Lakewood Theater just northeast of Downtown, there was plenty of reminiscing about Dallas of the past and discussion of Dallas of the present and future. Gilmore kicked it off with a great version of his classic song “Dallas.” Gilmore described the song as a love-hate serenade to the city that over time has become more love than hate.

Wade Goodwyn, whose sonorous voice many will recognize from his day job as a reporter with NPR read a piece by his father, Larry Goodwyn, a former Observer editor and noted scholar of the populist movement. The piece from 1958, titled “Dallas: the personal and impersonal,” detailed the civic boosterism of a racially segregated town in love with efficiency and the notion of progress, up to a point. Dallas Morning News Columnist Macarena Hernandez read from Dagoberto Gilb’s masterful introduction to Hecho en Tejas, reminding the audience of the demographic shift underway. Former state Rep. Jesse Oliver had the crowd laughing with a deadpan reading of “The great Dallas weed trial,” by Bob Cochran and Molly Ivins. The story detailed the struggle of one Dallasite who wanted to grow his backyard so it resembled a prairie of old and the overzealous city inspector who couldn’t tolerate it. Executive Editor Jake Bernstein read Allen Pusey’s recent story on the knavish local Congressman Pete Sessions and Lou Dubose finished the readings off with Molly Ivins’ lament for the death of the Dallas Times Herald. Attendees were also treated to a showing of Paul Stekler’s “The Texas Observer at 50.” And in the end, Gilmore closed the show with a raucous rendition of “The Deep Ellum Blues.”

While driving around Dallas after the show, I couldn’t stop repeating an Ivins quote Dubose had recalled — one that I have heard before, but never really appreciated until now: Dallas is the kind of town “that would have rooted for Goliath to beat David.”

You see, Dallas has this reputation as a mean place — a place where Republicans rule. As the 2006 election showed, that’s not the case anymore. A Democratic precinct chair who is also one of Dallas’ many lawyers and a friend of mine advised me recently that more lawyers are voting in Democratic primaries in Dallas now, because the once all-GOP Dallas judiciary (district court judges and the like) has turned Democratic. This, according to Martin Frost, is part of a recent Democratic sweep in Big D:

In 2004, Bush-Cheney only won Dallas County 51 percent to 49 percent. Democrats that year won the sheriff’s office and several countywide judgeships. This year (2006), the Democratic Party swept all 42 contested judicial positions (elected county-wide) and all five contested county offices including county judge (the presiding officer of the county commissioner’s court), district attorney, county clerk and county treasurer.

Molly’s comment may still hold water in a lot of ways, but politically, this place is changing, and that’s big news for Texas and the state’s teetering, all-GOP political structure.

Question: What all do we know about these 16 propositions on the ballot Nov. 6?

Answer: the big bond props (4,12, 15) are unusually expensive; Prop 4 is a little too prison-friendly; and Prop 11 would make certain votes in the Texas legislature a matter of public record.

We have also established that most of the time whole slates of these amendments to the Texas Constitution pass. Every once in a while, a proposition pisses off enough people that it manages to fail, but it doesn’t happen often.

Question: Since damn near all of these will pass, what do their proponents say they will do?

Answer: There are a few slam-dunks left on the table. There’s Prop 2, which provides bonds for ‘college access’ loans — loans that are usually repaid, and which otherwise wouldn’t be available, particularly since they are not reserved for need-based aid.

Propositions 5, 6, and 8 fit into this ’slam-dunk’ category. Five will allow small towns to use tax breaks to grow their own downtown districts. Six exempts cars from the property tax if they are also used personally. And Eight would make sure homeowners get a paper copy of a home equity loan agreement before borrowing. Like I said, these are pretty simple.

Prop 9, I think, is also a likely yes. Nine will give 100 percent disabled veterans a 100 percent exemption on their property tax. This one is going to pass like crazy.

Proposition 16 has just as much merit, but it may fall victim to its price tag. On the ballot, it will read:

The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas.

The prop allegedly helps Texans in rural and poor areas get modern water and sewer infrastructure. It’s hard to argue against that. But the big figure could pose problems.

Question: What about the props you haven’t mentioned?

Answer: ah, yes, you mean Props 7, 13, & 14. Well, hell. You never know when to expect the next prop pop quiz.

There’s something about White House pronouncements these days that come off like offers from a three-card monte dealer.

Take the the political tussle over renewing the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program. The political grenade-throwing over CHIP continued this week in D.C.

The White House signaled its willingness to budge from its hard line and at least talk about raising CHIP eligibility above 200 percent of the poverty level. That’s about $40,000 a year for a family of four. Congress wants families earning up to 300 percent — roughly $62,000 for a family of four — eligible for CHIP.

The White House offer seemed like a first step toward compromise. But read the fine print.

Here’s the caveat: Under the White House offer, states could expand CHIP to families earning more than 200 percent if — and only if — the states first prove that at least 95 percent of kids from families earning below 200 percent were enrolled.

The White House contends this provision would ensure the poorest kids have access to CHIP before the program expands to wealthier families.

Sounds reasonable. But it’s a trap.

The 95 percent rule is an impossible standard. No state comes anywhere close to enrolling that high a percentage and no state likely ever will. Even if they tried, they couldn’t afford it — the president’s own budget doesn’t currently allocate enough money to enroll 95 percent of kids below 200 percent.

The 95 percent requirement is a backdoor way of keeping the program at 200 percent. And the administration knows it.

With disingenuous offers like that on the table, it’s a safe bet that the political bickering over CHIP will continue.

While attention has been focused on the inane border wall, immigration authorities have been weaving a much more insidious legal dragnet along the border. Bush’s Border Patrol announced today that it is expanding its “zero tolerance” policy towards undocumented immigrants from Del Rio and Yuma, Arizona to the busy Laredo sector. In a nutshell, that means the agency will try to throw every single immigrant they catch into jail. Doing so will require yet more detention centers, jails, and prisons. Zero tolerance likely won’t stop in Laredo. Border Patrol assistant chief Ramon Rivera was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as saying, “We’re hoping it goes nationwide.”

The courts in Laredo are already swamped. Public defenders I talked to two years ago for a story said it was all they could do to provide a basic legal defense for their clients. The courts then were corral-like, with dozens of defendants coming before the magistrate on a daily basis. Laredo had to build a new 1,500-bed detention center to hold them all. That year the Southern District of Texas (Laredo’s district) led the nation in the number of immigration-related convictions - 17,307 in 2005 - even besting Texas Western (where Del Rio is located) at 3,054. How in the world will defenders, prosecutors, and judges handle the caseload once every single illegal entrant is booked, charged, prosecuted, and jailed?

If the Bush administration, with the backing of a pliant Congress, is really intent on expanding zero-tolerance to the whole border and perhaps even moving the program into the heartland, it will necessitate another huge expansion in detention centers, jails, and prisons. The Immigration and Customs Service (ICE), which runs immigrant detention centers, is asking Congress to fund 40,000 beds - 14,000 over the 26,000 beds the nation has right now. Increased prosecutions will also increase the need for more jail and prison beds. Much of that demand will be met by for-profit prison corporations.

This is all fine and dandy for some people, maybe even most people in this country. Some will say the law’s the law and, after all, THEY’RE ILLEGAL. This says something about our priorities. Because the reality is that resources are finite. Prosecutors must make decisions on what crimes they prosecute, administrations have to set budgets for law enforcement, and societies have to decide collectively what behavior to reward and punish. Just consider this: Immigration is now the number-one federally prosecuted crime - not drugs, weapons, white collar crime, or even terrorism. And the most prosecuted immigration crime is illegal entry, the simple offense of an economic immigrant, one that is committed hundreds of thousands of times every year.

Question: What proposition on the November ballot will most affect the Texas Legislature?

Answer: That would be Proposition 11, authored by Rep. Dan Branch (R-Highland Park). This is how it will appear on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes.

This amendment has ‘open government’ written all over it, and as Branch says, “open government is akin to motherhood and apple pie.”

Currently, what votes are recorded in either body of the Texas legislature are governed by the rules of that body. In effect, there’s no guarantee that the public has a right to know how members vote. Although in the House any member can call for a record vote. Prop 11 would write it into the Texas Constitution.

There is some consternation over the fact that these record votes will be mandated — that is, the big board in the House will have to light up, the Senate’s scribes will have to count heads a lot more — but only on final passage. Anybody who has examined a full session’s journals knows that most final passage votes (on third reading) are non-controversial and lopsided. The real horse-trading is done on the first two votes. Lawmakers have as of yet balked at mandating that the all-important second reading vote be public.

Some have raised the issue of the cost of every record vote, but Branch says that argument does not hold water.

“I found the dollar amount to be one of the weakest arguments,” Branch said. The cost is minimal, but it will cause a lot more late hours in the proofreading rooms of the journals.

Branch said the Texas Legislative Council has estimated that the average time between the Texas Speaker’s call for a record vote and the coming down of the gavel is 20-45 seconds — a far cry from D.C.’s 20-minute window.

“At some point it gets back to the larger issue,” he said. “The benefit of having an engaged citizenry… outweighs (the cost issue) by a country mile.”

Branch says the point of Prop 11 is to get a record vote on all successful bills.

“I just didn’t want anything to ever leave a chamber without a record,” he said. He also noted that all bills require a record vote to get out of committee. And, Branch says, one can always go farther in pressing for open government. He says the ‘final passage’ approach is reasonable and won’t unduly change the amount of time taken up by voting.

“The time argument has some meaning if you materially increase the time taken up,” Branch said, by holding more record votes. But, he said, he intends to sit down with Parliamentarian Terry Keel and discuss ways to facilitate voting by members — through technology and process.

Branch said he did not want to speak for the Texas Senate, but Prop 11 would have a binding effect on both houses.

My opinion? The journals, vote-counters and webmasters better get ready, because this baby is likely to pass.

For all of Jerry Patterson’s bluster over the Second Amendment, his arguments for privatizing the Christmas Mountains Ranch just don’t hold water. For starters, people who actually live in the area keep contradicting him. For example, Patterson claims on one hand that a private owner is needed to stop rampant poaching on the 9,200-acre property and then on the other says the mule deer population has been decimated. However, according to several landowners, there is little to no poaching and the deer population is rebounding.

To wit, Tom Alex, chairman of the non-profit Christmas Mountains Association, gets right to the point in a piece (worth reading in its entirety) last week in the Big Bend Gazette: “The Christmas Mountains property is not overrun by poachers and illegal hunters.”

I heard the same thing from two other in-the-know locals. Terry Ervin, who lives next to the ranch, said the Brewster County Sheriff and the game warden have pretty much nipped poaching in the bud. He also contradicted Patterson’s claim that the land is in bad shape and therefore needs some attention from a wealthy owner. “It’s actually in pretty good shape as far as the grass, the vegetation,” Ervin said. Time and the restoration efforts of the Christmas Mountains Association have done a lot to heal the overgrazed land.

“I love that place,” said Roger Gibson, former owner of the Lajitas General Store and hardcore Big Bend enthusiast. “It needs to be made into a park.” Gibson owns property adjoining Christmas Mountains Ranch and worked with the General Land Office in the mid-90s on a conservation project on the ranch. When he read that Patterson was refusing to sell to the National Park Service because the agency doesn’t allow hunting, Gibson said he was “shocked.” “They [GLO] sure didn’t want any hunting on it when we were working our lease out,” said Gibson, a hunter himself. Besides, he said, the Conservation Fund, the group that donated the ranch to the state in 1991, always intended the property to become part of Big Bend National Park… sans hunting.

A reader passed along an email exchange he had with Patterson. The reader, Peter Stiles of Austin, wrote to Patterson a few days ago asking him to turn the land over to the National Park Service. Not satisfied with the form letter he received, Stiles shot back: “Why not sell the land to the NPS as promised? We are all waiting to hear an answer.”

Patterson’s reply is interesting.

I’m arguing that a private owner my [sic] be a better steward for this tract. NPS has 400,000 acres or so in the area. This would be another 10,000 acres that would be inaccessible except by foot. You’ll se [sic] how this becomes a big factor whn [sic] the bids are opened and announced. I have never seen as much bad/wrong info (borders on lying) being thrown about on any issue since I passed the concealed handgun law in 1995.

Stiles was miffed at this answer. After all, people love parks precisely because they are natural, often wild, and pavement-free. Anyone who has ever been to Big Bend, like any other park, will tell you that you can’t really understand the majesty of the place until you actually explore on foot. It’s called hiking. And the last thing anyone wants to see while hiking is some gun-slinging yahoo on a four-wheeler. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that!)

Elsewhere in the exchange Patterson mysteriously tells Stiles, “[T]he outcome I have in mind WILL result in better stewardship, and better access than a simple transfer to the NPS. All of this will become apparent after the bids are recd [sic] and the winner is selected (assuming we have a winner).”

Say what?! How does Patterson have a predetermined outcome in mind when the bidding is still open, the land management plans proposed by the bidders haven’t been weighed, and a winner won’t be selected until November 6th at the earliest? This better be good.