From the Associated Press:

Two Texas legislators who made early investments in the booming company said they’d done nothing wrong and never pulled strings on behalf of WatchGuard. But their actions might violate the state constitution and disclosure rules established by the Texas Ethics Commission.

A former Texas legislator and part-time city judge are also investors, the company says.

Government watchdogs say it’s an ethical minefield for state lawmakers to have interests in companies with major state contracts.

“When the state representatives are involved it appears like they’re greasing the skids with the contract,” said Texas ethics watchdog Fred Lewis, who has urged the Legislature to tighten conflict-of-interest laws. “I’m not saying that’s what happened, but that’s what it looks like.”

The state constitution prohibits lawmakers from benefiting “directly or indirectly” from a state contract authorized by the Legislature they serve in, but it doesn’t say what happens to lawmakers who violate the provision.

The company president, Robert Vanman, called WatchGuard “squeaky clean” and said he resented any suggestion that the contractor had engaged in any “shady” dealings. The company has deals to sell patrol car video systems to at least a dozen state law enforcement agencies — and hundreds of local ones, according to company literature and state records.

If WatchGuard is an industry leader, Vanman said, it’s because of its products, not because of political influence.

But WatchGuard’s own Web site touted the company’s politically connected shareholders in the first place. A published company profile boasts that WatchGuard, based in the Dallas suburb of Plano, is “privately funded and closely held by an influential shareholder group that includes three state representatives, a judge, and a number of distinguished entrepreneurs.”

It doesn’t name the politician-investors on the Web site, but Vanman did. They are Reps. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, Byron Cook, R-Corsicana and former Rep. Bob Griggs, a Dallas-area Republican. WatchGuard’s vice president of operations, Dennis Pirkle, is a part-time city judge and jail magistrate, according to company literature.

Cook and Paxton made early investments in WatchGuard Video and Cook sat on the company’s board. Founded in 2002, the company grew just as the industry was undergoing a transformation: Digital technology began to replace older-generation analog systems and cameras were quickly becoming a must-have tool for police vehicles across the nation.

But it was the Texas Department of Public Safety contract in late 2006 that gave WatchGuard its biggest financial boost. Eventually the entire fleet of trooper vehicles in Texas will use WatchGuard camera systems, bringing the company $10 million, Vanman said. WatchGuard also landed a smaller contract for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department this year.

Both Paxton and Cook voted for the appropriations bills that provided the funds used to purchase the WatchGuard systems, records show.

No doubt this is a story that will develop more; we’ll keep you posted. In the mean time, we wonder exactly why the lawmakers didn’t think they needed to disclose these associations with the Texas Ethics Commission.

The story is breaking, but Kay Bailey Hutchison has told a closed-door luncheon of Republican Senators that she will not seek re-election in 2012. More as it develops.

Hutchison’s announcement will now clear the way for Kay Granger, Elizabeth Ames Jones, and others interested in running for her Senate seat to begin their campaigns in earnest. Hutchison, of course, will be likely running for governor in 2010.

State Rep. Beverly Wooley (R-Houston) sent Abbott’s office a request to determine whether or not the Texas Association of Appraisal Districts constitutes a “government body” for purposes of the Texas Public Information Act back in March.

The Texas Association of Appraisal Districts is, of course, supported by public funds, but not directly. It, like the Texas Association of Counties and Texas Municipal League, charges membership fees for the government entities that belong. In short, the vast majority of its income comes from public funds.

Abbott’s office, however, punted, and gave a non-answer:

Whether an entity is a “governmental body” under the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code, depends largely upon whether that entity is supported in whole or in part by public funds. The extent to which an entity is supported by public funds requires an analysis of the facts surrounding each entity. Inquiries as to whether a particular entity is a governmental body are particularly appropriate to the Attorney General’s open records process under the Public Information Act.

The answer is clear, and neither Wooley nor any citizen of Texas should be required to go through the open records process to make this determination. In fact, an AG’s opinion request shouldn’t have even been required. The Texas Association of Counties and Texas Municipal League are both subject to the Texas Public Information Act. I know, because I’ve requested and received public information from both before. The same should be true of the Texas Association of Appraisal Districts.

That Abbott’s office refuses to answer, and instead wants to delay the inevitable by instructing Wooley to essentially file an open records request and see what happens is a blow to sunshine laws in Texas.

Abbott knows the answer because the precedent is clear: the association is supported by tax money. The government bodies fund the appraisal districts, and the appraisal districts then in turn fund this association. It should be an easy connection to make. However, Abbott refuses to make the connection.

Technorati Tags Beverly Wooley, Greg Abbott, Texas Association of Appraisal Districts

According to the report, Texas has experienced a net job loss of 202,900 due to growing trade deficits with China since 2001–with more 34,100 of those jobs lost last year alone.

In terms of net job loss by state, Texas ranks second out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia only to California, and is actually far ahead of many “Rust Belt” states in terms of job loss directly attributable to the China trade deficit.

The report notes that 90,414 of Texas’ job loss to China was in the computer and electronic products industry.

The high job loss to China isn’t always reflected in unemployment numbers sent out by the Texas Workforce Commission, either, because, as the report notes, most of the workers who have lost jobs have been forced to take lower paying jobs in other industries. A prime example of a situation like this would be the shutdown of the Goodyear plant in Tyler in East Texas, where most of the 900 workers have been either forced to retire or find other employment.

It’s important for Texas progressives to take heed of these high numbers for several reasons.

First and foremost, a loss of 200,00 jobs in Texas–particularly nearly 100,000 jobs lost in the computer and tech industry–flies in the the face of the constant claim by Governor Rick Perry’s administration that Texas is actually fostering economic development, creating more jobs and protecting our job climate:

Governor Perry has focused his administration on creating a Texas of unlimited opportunity and prosperity through initiatives to improve education and the Texas job climate, keep taxes low and ensure state spending is disciplined.

While Perry clearly has no control over trade agreements, as Governor, he does have some control or at least influence to keep jobs in Texas. An improved Texas job climate is clearly not a reality in light of the numbers from the new report.

Perry also makes this claim about his administration:

Gov. Perry has made job creation a key focus of his administration, and employment in Texas has soared to all-time highs. Our business climate is ranked the best in America, we are the number one exporting state in the country and in 2004 Texas landed more job expansion and relocations than any other state. Our economy is growing at a tremendous pace because Gov. Perry has worked to create a climate that welcomes the entrepreneurial spirit and every employer who seeks to create new jobs for our people.

While Perry may have made job creation a cornerstone of his administration, the reality is that this claim isn’t completely true. And, even if it was, Perry clearly hasn’t made job retention a priority in his administration.

An interesting case in point, again, is the Tyler Goodyear plant. Here is what Perry’s administration says:

“The decision by Goodyear to close its Tyler facility is disappointing,” Perry said. “Local Tyler officials and my office worked hard to develop a very competitive retention incentive package valued at almost $22 million in hopes that Goodyear would retain its presence in Texas. In light of Goodyear’s decisions, I have asked the Workforce Commission to ensure that there is no delay in unemployment benefits and other assistance to the displaced workers.”

[Note: Although Perry claims the incentives were $22 million, other sources have noted the incentives were a mere $12 million.]

That pales in comparison to a $40 million package that North Carolina worked up to offer Goodyear in 2007, and $30 million put together to keep Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama. Given that Texas is in a much better position to give incentives to manufacturers to keep their jobs in Texas (including the governor’s personal political slush fund, the Texas Enterprise Fund), one must wonder why the Perry administration allowed Texas to be bested by two other states.

The more than 200,000 jobs lost to China from Texas is, of course, due to the trade deficit. However, Texas officials could do more to make sure that less jobs leave Texas for China. And that, they aren’t doing.

Rumors began about Parsley’s impending departure last week, shortly after she was the lone dissenter on a PUC decision to build $5 billion in new transmission lines to bring wind power from West Texas and the Panhandle to urban areas.

Given the amount of work that remains to sufficiently answer the Texas request for a waiver from the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), it is now clear that a final decision on the request will not be completed by July 24. Rather, additional time is needed to allow staff to adequately respond to the public comments and develop a decision document that explains the technical, economic and legal rationale of our decision.

In late April of this year Texas officially requested a waiver from the RFS. Shortly after receiving the waiver request, EPA initiated a public comment during which we received over 15,000 comments and a number of these comments raised substantive issues and included significant economic analysis. I believe it is very important to take sufficient time to review and understand these comments in order to make an informed decision. EPA is also required to consult with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy in considering whether to grant or deny the waiver request and has begun these consultations.

The process remains fair and open and no agreements have been made with any party in regard to the substance and timing of the decision on the waiver request.

I am confident that I will be able to make a final determination on the Texas waiver request in early August.

To help understand what Texas elected officials, lobbyists, and special interest groups that might be for the EFS waiver make up part of that massive number of 15,000 public comments, Capitol Annex has submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for public comment letters from Perry, Bo Pilgrim, any and all state agencies from the Lt. Governor to the Railroad Commission and from any member of the Texas State Legislature (as well as some of the “usual suspect” right-wing Austin-based special interest groups).

So, in advance of the EPA disclosing the records to us (we have requested expedited processing), we’re challenging any member of the Texas Legislature or the executive branch who submitted a public comment on the waiver request–for or against–to get out ahead of the pack and go ahead and disclose what they submitted (after all, we’re going to get it anyway–so why not jump in front of the PAC…come on, be brave). We’ll post it right here on Capitol Annex. You can e-mail them to vince.leibowitz-at-gmail.com. If any officials want to be especially brave, they can send us their public comment letter and tell us how much money they’ve received from Bo Pilgrim.

After reading a post at Alternet on the Ten Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency, I thought we could surely do something like that for some of our elected officials right here in Texas.

We’ll start with the Ten Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Perry Governorship, and move on to the Ten Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Craddick Speakership, and end with the Ten Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Cornyn Senatorship.

But, we want your input. Drop us a comment and tell us what you believe are some of the worst moments of Perry’s, Craddick’s, and Cornyn’s time in office. We’ll put the posts up later this week.

Why did Perry fire Rowe? Perry’s answer, via a spokesperson, is that the chair of the board should pursue the best interests of Texans and not their own “personal agendas.” No elaboration from Team Perry, of course.

Rowe, however, offers a different story for why he was removed:

Dallas money manager Frederick “Shad” Rowe said the move was made because of his repeated warnings about financially troubled pensions and his criticism of some pension investment strategies, such as the use of hedge funds and other alternative investments.

[...]

He also has been outspoken about what he considered gaming of public pension plans and helped to prompt the Texas Attorney General’s Office to scrutinize the pension plan for Fort Worth city employees.

[...]

Rowe also said that he did have an agenda: total candor.

“I presumed I had built up enough credibility that I could ‘tell it like it is’ without worrying about politics,” he said. “I believe underfunded public pensions and other expensive promises represent a fiscal time bomb.”

But wait, it gets better:

Rowe said a Perry aide in recent weeks had asked him to stop talking to reporters and to stop soliciting help from the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Austin American-Statesman reported Tuesday.

Castle said it is “not the case” that the governor’s office asked Rowe to stop working with the attorney general. But she said, “It’s important that there .?.?. be an opening of the lines of communication before going to the attorney general.”

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that Governor Perry doesn’t want talk of underfunded pensions being scattered around the state as he prepares for another run in 2010? Or, does it mean that Perry doesn’t want Abbott–a potential contender for higher office himself–getting credit for doing something about it?

Either way, it is clear that Team Perry wants to keep a lid on talk of any problems with the state’s pension funds. Could it be that many of the pension funds are invested heavily in businesses of his major contributors, such as was the case with the Employee Retirement System of Texas which lost money when stock in James Leininger’s KCI went down the toilet after a lawsuit verdict? Could these be the type of “risky investments” that Rowe wanted to stop?

Democrats like Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) praise Rowe, but say he overreached because the agency isn’t an enforcement agency:

State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who serves on the pension board, said Rowe was “a positive influence” who “helped professionalize the review board and get additional resources.”

But he might have overreached, Whitmire said, particularly in asking the attorney general to get involved in examining public pensions.

“Shad took it as more of an enforcement, oversight agency,” Whitmire said. “It really never had the tools to do what Shad wanted.”

Even so, shouldn’t we be glad that at least one lonely Perry appointee to some board or commission is actually trying to do something to help the people of Texas?

He said……In a hearing before a visiting judge concerning temporary orders and temporary child visitation, Will Perry and Laura Perry squared off against each other in open court.

Daddy Bob Perry should have come to Fort Bend County with his checkbook open and started papering the county with money because it got nasty.

[...]

Under questioning by Laura Perry’s attorney, Will Perry admitted he has been a sexual addict for many years, but had quit attending Sex Addicts Anonymous in January, 2008. He said he had sex with “probably” 20 prostitutes since his marriage. During this testimony, Mrs. Perry left the courtroom and her uncontrollable sobs in the hall could be heard inside.

A chart in Will Perry’s handwriting that he had drawn several years ago tracing his sexual addiction blamed his sexual addiction problems on his father who he claimed was an alcoholic and verbally abusive, and his mother who he said was sexually abused by her father. He said Laura Perry was codependent but he said these were his thoughts 12-13 years ago and was no longer the case. (See what I mean by daddy’s checkbook should be open to keep this whole business out of court. If Perry did file bankruptcy to avoid paying his wife and children, he just made the stupidest move of his life, which is now displayed for all to see.)

Maybe McCain will take some of Perry’s money now…so he can be reminded of this little incident this October.

This is a very important request for opinion, because it is basically asking the AG to give a state agency the right to use the electronic strip when state statute specifically states that it may only be used for specific purposes:

§ 521.126. ELECTRONICALLY READABLE INFORMATION.

(d) The prohibition provided by Subsection (b) does not apply to a person who accesses, uses, compiles, or maintains a database of the information for a law enforcement or governmental purpose, including:
(1) an officer or employee of the department carrying out law enforcement or government purposes;
(2) a peace officer, as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, acting in the officer’s official capacity;
(3) a license deputy, as defined by Section 12.702, Parks and Wildlife Code, issuing a license, stamp, tag, permit, or other similar item through use of a point-of-sale system under Section 12.703, Parks and Wildlife Code;
(4) a person acting as authorized by Section 109.61, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(5) a person establishing the identity of a voter under Chapter 63, Election Code;
(6) a person acting as authorized by Section 161.0825, Health and Safety Code; or
(7) a person screening an individual who will work with or have access to children if the person is an employee or an agent of an employee of a public school district or an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that sponsors a program for youth.

Clearly, the statute is pretty specific as to who can and cannot utilize the electronic strips. My concern is that, if the strips are used, the vendors providing the ITVMs, assuming that the state does subcontract with a vendor for the machines, could collect the information and, quite simply, sell it to businesses who want lists of people who gamble. Or, worse yet, that the state could use the information for other purposes with unintended consequences.

For example, in most cases when someone is put on probation, they are prohibited from gambling or playing the lottery. With TXDL strips being used to verify age, there is nothing to prevent the state from sharing the Lottery Commission with law enforcement agencies, even though such does not appear to be allowed under the statute. And, even if it was specifically disallowed, there is nothing to prevent it from being subpoenaed by law enforcement agencies.

Too, I find it difficult to believe that, since the information would most likely be retained in some fashion, that the state wouldn’t find other purposes for using it. In addition, I don’t see anything that would stop the Lottery Commission from “direct marketing” to consumers who use the machines.

If Abbott allows this, it will open the floodgates.

After being first notified on September 11 of last year that they had to file a legally mandated periodic report with the SOS office (and having been further warned about needing to file it on subsequent occasions), the SOS ordered TLR involuntarily dissolved on February 13, 2008.

It is unclear exactly what this means for TLR. In theory, they could hire an attorney and contest the dissolution order, file the paperwork, and make an attempt to move forward. Given that such big-dogs as James Leininger and Bob Perry are heavily invested in TLR and its mission, I cannot imagine that they’ll let the organization go down like this.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson’s continued insistence that the state get paid for the pristine Christmas Mountains could slow down any potential transfer to the National Park Service by at least a year, a federal park official said Friday.

The National Park Service has expressed an interest in acquiring the land, which was donated to the state for conservation purposes but which Patterson had attempted to sell to private interests.

William Wellman, superintendent of Big Bend National Park in West Texas, said that the park service will likely have a proposal ready for the state by February.

But he said that the insistence by the Texas General Land Office that it get paid for the 9,269-acre tract could seriously complicate any potential transfer.

“You’re looking at a year delay if you were to involve federal funds — it would definitely be a hurdle, and I don’t know if it would be insurmountable,” Wellman said.

Patterson’s office has said that it is its interpretation of state law that it cannot give the property to the park service — even though the property was donated to the state in 1991 for conservation purposes, and even though the General Land Office pledged when it accepted the donation that it would remain in state hands or go only to the National Park Service.

Let’s be honest: this is a weird, sticky situation, and while I don’t think Patterson is necessarily handling the situation to my linking, he believes he is trying to do his job.

Land under the custodial control of the General Land Office is for the sole purpose of making money for the Permanent School Fund. That’s what Patterson is trying to do and that’s his bottom line. I understand that and respect that he makes that a priority.

Where I disagree with Commissioner Patterson is on his decision to ignore the stipulations in the deed:

The written deed further stipulated that if the General Land Office ever tried to transfer the property to any entity other than the park service or the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the land office would first get the donors’ written permission.

Patterson sparked a public outcry when he announced earlier this year that he would ignore that provision, which he called unenforceable.

I’m not a land and title lawyer, so I don’t know whether that provision is enforceable or not. However, when Patterson’s predecessors accepted the property, they made an agreement to honor that provision, and Patterson should honor it.

I’ve also got concerns about Patterson’s continued carping about guns and the land:

A strong Second Amendment advocate, Patterson also has expressed an unwillingness to offer the land to the park service if the agency insisted on enforcing its regular firearms restrictions on the property.

When you are talking about preservation of the land, that shouldn’t be an issue. In addition, when you are talking about selling something, which Patterson is, this shouldn’t be an issue either. If you are trying to do the best thing for the Permanent School Fund, I’m not sure firearms rights come in to play.

Tags: Christmas+Mountains, Jerry+Patterson

Technorati Tags Christmas Mountain, Jerry Patterson

Paxton said when he learned of the TxDOT campaign, estimated to cost $7 million to $9 million in highway funds, “I thought, ‘Wow, I wonder how many other agencies are doing this, and how much of our taxpayer money is being spent on it?’”

That question can be difficult to answer because state records don’t precisely track such efforts, but the tally for advertising, publications and promotional items is easily close to $100 million or more in state and federal funds just for fiscal year 2008. Some agencies with such budgets for this fiscal year include:

The tourism section of Gov. Rick Perry’s office, which has a $40 million advertising budget.

The Texas Lottery Commission, which spends $31 million on advertising.

TxDOT, which has budgeted $18.4 million for advertising on programs ranging from traffic safety to promoting TxTags, which give access to toll roads. The total doesn’t include Keep Texas Moving.

The secretary of state, whose office has an estimated $4 million budget.

No total for 2008 was available for the Texas Department of State Health Services, which promotes everything from disease prevention to abstinence to the fight against tobacco to disaster preparation. Agency spokesman Doug McBride said such costs aren’t centrally budgeted but determined at the program level.

The HHS Spending and Secretary of State Spending I can understand. HHS spends to encourage people to take advantage of state programs and make their lives better. The Secretary of State spends PR money on, among other things, campaigns to encourage voting. TxDOT, however, spending money to make Texans “feel better” about toll roads, is a bit out of whack.

First and foremost, aren’t such fiscal analysis the job of the Comptroller of Public Accounts? As poor as many may think Carole Keeton Strayhorn did her job as Texas Comptroller, I can’t fathom that she’d have completely missed a $23 billion pension deficiency.  For one thing, it would have been a dynamite campaign issue for her last fall, i.e., something she could claim she’d “fix” as Governor.

Check this out on part of Abbott’s study of the pensions, though:

“Our analysis shows that there may be best practices that plans can use to help them reduce or eliminate unfunded liabilities,” Abbott said, “without burdening taxpayers or beneficiaries.”

I understand the “best practices” part possibly being something the AG would deal with, though more likely it should probably be the job of the general counsel of the Pension Review Board or, perhaps, the State Auditor. But, Abbott and his office appear to have completed an actual fiscal analysis of the pension plans.

Second, the $23 billion is alarming. Even with the downturn in the market the Bush administration has seen, it is difficult to fathom that a $23 billion deficit has cropped up that the Legislature, the Legislative Budget Board, the Texas Pension Review Board and the Comptroller of Public Accounts haven’t spoken up or done something.

Finally, check out Abbott’s key recommendations:

•Eliminate conflicts of interest between fund managers and pension board trustees and those they do business with
•Require actuaries to register with the state oversight board

•Balance taxpayer interests with employer and employee interests in determining makeup of pension plan trustees

•Consider passing new laws creating civil or criminal penalties for funds that don’t file required annual reports.

Number one is, of course, quite reasonable and something we need. The others also sound reasonable and, in fact, more like reforms a Democrat would propose rather than a pro-business Republican like Abbott.

This, of course, brings up something else: what’s the purpose of all of this? The AG getting press for doing something that is really a function of the comptroller’s office and, no less, something so headline-grabbing as retiree pensions?

The answer should be obvious: it’s time to add another name to the ever-growing list of Republicans who think 2010 is “their year” to move up the ladder to higher office.