fbpx

Top Stories

Austin City Manager: Dallas discard vs Austin retread

Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is to implement those policies. A great city manager can get that done and keep the ship of state sailing smoothly. A good city manager can get most assignments done and avoid...

Will lawsuit blow up Project Connect train tracks?

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Dirty Martin’s et al v. Mayor Kirk Watson et al claim they’re victims of a bait-and-switch scheme because Project Connect will deliver improvements vastly inferior to what voters were promised when they approved Proposition A...

Latest articles

Council Member’s Pay Violates Texas Constitution

Posted Tuesday May 4, 2010 2:39pm
Updated Wednesday May 5, 2010 10:56am
Georgetown Council Member’s
Pay Violates Texas Constitution
Investigative Report by Ken Martin

Pat BerrymanPat Berryman, who is serving in her second term as a member of the Georgetown City Council, was paid a lump sum of $13,600 by the City of Georgetown in an apparent violation of the Texas Constitution.

The payment was requested by Berryman as reimbursement of expenses from July 2008 through December 2009.

The payment is reflected in a copy of Council Member Berryman’s city payroll record obtained from the City of Georgetown using the Texas Public Information Act.

During the entire period for which Berryman claimed reimbursement, she was a state employee working for State Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan), according to state payroll records obtained from the Secretary of the Texas Senate through an open records request.

Section 40(b) of the Texas Constitution prohibits a state employee who is a member of a governing body from drawing a salary. A state employee serving as a council member may be reimbursed for actual expenses but must prove that the expenses equal or exceed the amount reimbursed.

Council Member Berryman has not met that requirement.

How it happened

Mark-SokolowIn a December 15, 2009, e-mail to Georgetown City Attorney Mark Sokolow, Berryman requested reimbursement of expenses from July 2008 through December 2009.

The $13,600 she was paid represents 17 months at $800 a month.

Berryman’s e-mail to Sokolow lists 16 items, or types of expenses. The e-mail provides no indication of the amount of expenses incurred for any or all of these items. Berryman provided no receipts for the stated expenses.

Reimbursement previously refused

According to the minutes of the Georgetown City Council Meeting of April 8, 2008, under Agenda Item T, the council voted 7-0 to approve a change to the compensation schedule for the mayor and council members.

The new schedule was based on recommendations of a compensation committee appointed by the council to study the matter.

The compensation schedule authorized:

• “Base compensation” of $450 a month for the mayor and $300 a month for each of the seven council members.

• An “optional stipend” of $800 a month for the mayor and council members.

The minutes of that council meeting do not fully explain the compensation, but the minutes specify—as the compensation committee recommended—that the mayor and council members “would not be required to explain their reason for accepting the stipend.”

 

To facilitate these payments, the city devised a form that provided boxes to be checked, to either accept or decline each form of compensation

A warning was printed on the form:

Georgetown City Attorney Hired In Secret

Posted Wednesday April 28, 2010 5:31pm
Updated Friday April 30, 2010
Georgetown City Attorney Hired In Secret
Investigative Report by Ken Martin

The City of Georgetown has legal problems.

On September 8, 2009, the Georgetown City Council made the decision to hire a new, in-house city attorney, Mark Sokolow, in a closed-door executive session. That appears to be a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

James HemphillAttorney Jim Hemphill of the Austin law firm Graves Dougherty Hearon and Moody, serving as a volunteer attorney on behalf of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, described the nature of such a violation.

“While the Open Meetings Act allows deliberation of personnel matters to be held in executive session, it does not have any provision authorizing hiring decisions to be made in executive session,” Hemphill said.

Hemphill pointed to Open Records Decision No. 605, issued by then Texas Attorney General Dan Morales, that states:

“Although deliberation may take place in an executive session, the board may take action to hire an employee only in an open session properly noticed in accordance with section 3A of the Open Meetings Act.”

Strike two
A possible second violation of the Open Meetings Act is also connected to the hiring of Mark Sokolow. This one relates to the description of an agenda item for the executive session. The notice did not adequately describe what the city council was to discuss behind closed doors. The posting for the 6pm session of the September 8, 2009, agenda stated for Item BB:

“Sec. 551.074 Personnel Matters — City attorney.”

Patricia CarlsPatricia “Trish” Carls of the Austin law firm Carls, McDonald and Dalrymple had served as Georgetown’s city attorney for years. She was present and acted in that capacity at the September 8 council meeting. (It is common practice for small cities to contract with outside law firms for legal services rather than hire the staff necessary to provide such services.)

The wording of the agenda item for the executive session is unclear. It could be construed by the public to mean that a discussion of Carls would be undertaken.

What actually occurred, however, was revealed in the minutes of the September 8 council meeting, which under “Action from Executive Session,” reads as follows:

“Motion by (Council Member Pat) Berryman, second by (Council Member Gabe) Sansing that the Human Resources (sic) have the authority to continue his discussions with the

Q&A with ACLU’s Terri Burke

Posted Monday April 19, 2010 2:36pm
Terri Burke
Executive Director of the Texas ACLU

Interview by Gwen Gibson

Terri BurkeQ. You have tackled many controversial issues during your two and a half years as chief executive of the Texas ACLU. Your ongoing efforts to protect the rights of immigrants and to guarantee religious freedom for all seem to stir up the most debates. How do you explain your stand on these contentious issues to your supporters and to your detractors?

A. One of the first things I stress is that we are talking about immigrant rights, we are not talking about immigration reform. The Constitution doesn’t have those words in it. The Constitution talks about people; it doesn’t talk about citizens. The way we treat our immigrants is a reflection of who we are as a people and whether they’re here legally or illegally, whether they’ve broken the law or not, they deserve the due process that everybody in this country gets according to the Constitution. I don’t ask you to believe that immigration policy should be changed. I don’t ask you to believe that 12 million people ought to be thrown out of the country or 12 million people ought to be let in. I just ask you to think about who we are as a people and what are our very most fundamental American values. When we don’t afford these folks the basic constitutional rights they are entitled to, we diminish ourselves as Americans.

Q. How do you respond when people say you are defending criminals when you defend the rights of illegal immigrants?

A. I say it’s no different when you have an American accused of committing a burglary. In this country we believe that every person is entitled to an attorney and a trial and a jury of his or her peers. Am I coddling a criminal when I say that? Maybe you think I am. I think it’s about basic rights. My answer is, “What part of the Constitution is it that you don’t like?”

Q. And what about religious freedom?

Are Boom-Bust Cycles In Austin’s DNA?

In just three decades Austin has enjoyed three giddy economic peaks followed by three economic hangovers. Is this any way to build lasting prosperity?

A quick history lesson: A large room was packed with lawyers, real estate investors, and bankers, and all eyes were on U.S. Representative J.J. "Jake" Pickle. It was early 1990. Austin's economy had been brought to its knees

Austin’s Road Building Plan

Posted Monday April 5, 2010 10:26am

Austin’s Road Building Plan
Costs Too Much, Does Too Little

Commentary by Roger Baker

Roger BakerThe Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) recently unveiled its new 2035 long-range draft transportation plan, “People, Planning and Preparing for the Future: Your 25 Year Transportation Plan,” plus a separate appendix with important details. The comment form to accept your feedback on the plan will be open until 5pm April 13.

This long range plan is the result of a federally mandated planning process required of all large U.S. metropolitan areas. The federal rules mandate that CAMPO's long range plan must be updated every five years.

On the federal funding level, the fate of the big new federal transportation funding bill, the successor to the current “SAFETEA-LU” legislation, is bogged down in Congress. The current legislation is being kept in force with periodic emergency extensions. Federal Rescissions, or take-backs of previously promised funds, has stalled many state projects, even while a roughly equal amount of federal stimulus funding has been added.

In the absence of more fuel-tax revenues, the current federal stimulus spending for roads is unlikely to be sustainable for long because it is based on a troubling level of debt in competition with entitlements. Further, the U.S. Treasury at some point will face higher interest rates as the price for continuing deficit spending. 

Nobody can accurately predict federal transportation funding, and how that might affect the CAMPO plan. The long-range vision of the CAMPO plan is based on speculation about federal funding decades from now, whereas the reality is that we can't even predict it for next year.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is claiming it will be broke in a year or so, its options are limited to building no more new big roads at all. State Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, explains why. Carona said, “Today, the state's transportation revenue is almost equal to the maintenance costs for our current system. Texas can barely maintain the roads it has, let alone build new ones.”

TxDOT is running out of money because its motor-fuels tax revenue—which netted the agency more than $2.2 billion in the fiscal year that ended August 31, 2009—is declining rapidly with overall driving. This mirrors the sharp drop in national driving over the last few years. As if this were not enough, the Texas

Investigative Reports

For more than a decade the Bulldog has published hard-hitting, in-depth investigative reports that have shaped civic discourse and public policy, resulted in criminal prosecutions, and enlightened voters about candidates' records. Here are a few samples of our work:

About us

The Austin Bulldog is the premiere investigative journalism outfit in Central Texas. Established in 2009, the Bulldog has become a trusted independent voice for government accountability, known for its incisive, in-depth coverage of local elections and local governments.

Newsletter

What's really going on in government?

Keep up with the best investigative reporting in Austin.

Follow us

Bulldog Team

Ken Martin

Founder and Editor

Our critical accountability journalism wouldn't be possible without the generous donations of hundreds of Austinites. Join them and become a supporter today!

Areas of Coverage

Austin City Manager: Dallas discard vs Austin retread

Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is...

They’re off and running for council

As in horse racing, the bugler has sounded, “Call...

Are tax subsidies for luxury development legal?

In a lawsuit filed last April plaintiffs sought a...

Lame duck council set to vote on 20-year sweetheart tax deal for developer

With just weeks to go in his term, Mayor...

Environmentalists assail plan for lakeside high rises

New development to reshape South Central Waterfront When former First Lady...

Urbanists vie to replace council member Kathie Tovo

Updated 2:30pm August 20, 2022, to correct the misattribution...

First-ever opportunity to elect appraisal board members

Right now local voters are of course focused on...

They’re off and running for council

As in horse racing, the bugler has sounded, “Call...

District 10 Council candidates jump in early

With 2024 being a presidential election year—maybe a rerun...

Trust, but verify

We would like to think people in our nation’s...

Announcing the Government Accountability Project

Local officials manage government organizations that spend billions of...

Central Health launches search for new CEO

Central Health, the local government agency that levies a...

First-ever opportunity to elect appraisal board members

Right now local voters are of course focused on...

Trust, but verify

We would like to think people in our nation’s...

Announcing the Government Accountability Project

Local officials manage government organizations that spend billions of...

Project Connect

Lawmakers weigh axing Project Connect’s ‘blank check’ loophole

At a hearing at the legislature, critics and supporters of Project Connect clashed over a proposal to rein in the newly created transit agency.

Project Connect scope drastically scaled back

Two factors have sparked renewed debate around the cost...

Austin Transit Partnership gears up for key decisions on light rail design

Billions of dollars to be spent on mass transit...

Become a Bulldog supporter

The Bulldog is funded by its readers. We're not affiliated with any political party or interest group. We're not paid by corporate sponsors. Support us today so we can continue to be a trusted voice for government accountability.