Friday, April 10, 2015

In Fort Worth Weekly Is J.D. Granger Exhibit A For The TRWD Prosecution Or The Defense?

On Wednesday after I got myself this week's Fort Worth Weekly I blogged about this week's cover article in a blogging titled Fort Worth Weekly Does Not Know I Am A Foe Of The TWRD.

In that blogging I made mention of an unfortunate typo on the cover and the fact that the online version of FW Weekly had not yet been updated with this week's issue, hence me being unable to make a link to the article.

Until today.

The online version of FOES v. TRWD fixed the TWRD typo. Near as I can tell no editing has been done to the online version to fix the cluttered, confused print version's shoddy quality.

I will copy a few paragraphs from the FW Weekly article. The pronoun "He" in the first sentence of that which I will copy refers to the controversial Jim Oliver, he being the man whose job it apparently is to be TRWD's stonewalling enforcer.....

"He has engaged in feisty combat with Kelleher, who is trying to access many records that the public has not been able to. Most recently, she drew Oliver’s ire during a meeting in the fall when the district’s legal budget had to be increased.

Oliver, she said, blamed her in part for the increase.

Her colleagues are likewise unamused by her repeated requests for documents that include lobbyist payments check stubs, e-mails between district officers and lobbyists, and expense reports for board members.

They suspect her, perhaps with good reason, of simply being an agent for Bennett.

“She wants copies of records so that she can take them to Monty Bennett,” Stevens said simply.

Even if the complaints to authorities and the various investigations go nowhere, the gripes are an irritant to a district that for years sailed along with nary a question as to its operation.

Their concerns have some merit.

Exhibit A is J.D. Granger, son of U.S. Rep. Kay Granger and the head of the TRWD’s sister agency, the Trinity River Vision Authority, the legislatively created economic-development arm of TRWD that has been criticized for its $909 million taxpayer-funded development of the river basin.

With little experience in economic development, J.D. was named head of the TRVA out of the Tarrant County district attorney’s office with almost no public input.

Also in question are contracts with those tight with the TRWD establishment."

Now back to my pithy commentary....

So, apparently FW Weekly is buying into the TRWD's propaganda that Mary Kelleher is a pawn of Monty Bennett, that they, meaning the other board members, suspect her, perhaps with good reason, of being a Bennett agent.

The article goes on to say even if all the investigations go nowhere they are an irritant to the district.

Well, duh.

I suspect anytime anyone gets investigated for shady dealing that that investigation is an irritant.

The section above the horizontal line in the article ends with "Their concerns have some merit."

Whose concerns? The public's? The board member's other than Mary Kelleher?

Immediately after stating that someone's concerns apparently have merit there is that aforementioned horizontal line followed by "Exhibit A is J.D. Granger".

As you can see via that which I copied from the article there are only two paragraphs devoted to Exhibit A.

Is the article intending to indicate that J.D. Granger is Exhibit A of public concerns which have some merit? I have no idea.

Elsewhere in the article we are told that requests for documents mentioning J.D. Granger are the most frequent subject requested.

I have long opined if you want to get to the heart of the corruption in the TRWD you could do that quite simply by making public the record of whatever discussions took place that led to the hiring of Kay Granger's son to do a job for which he had zero qualifications.

Surely there must be a record of the various discussions that had to have taken place before the job was offered to J.D. Granger.

The record of the interview with J.D. Granger which must have taken place would seem to be extremely interesting to read.

At that meeting did J.D. share with whoever was interviewing him his vision of where his leadership of the Trinity River Vision would take the project? Did J.D. speak about his brilliant idea to have Rockin' the River Happy Hour Inner Tube Floats in the polluted Trinity River? Did J.D. speak about his brilliant idea to have those Inner Tube Floats take place at an imaginary pavilion on an imaginary island? And tout that imaginary pavilion as a world class music venue? Did J.D. share his brilliant idea to label a chunk of land, which is not an island, as Panther Island?

There must be public records of how much money has been spent on J.D. Granger's multiple junkets to multiple towns to see how those towns managed to build, on an actual project timeline, actual successful projects involving re-developing waterfront areas.

How about J. D. Granger's expense account records? Like how much has been spent on stays in a Dallas hotel whilst on some imaginary River Vision business in that evil town run by Monty Bennett?

Among the documents the TRWD and Jim Oliver are covering up by stonewalling do they include records of whatever transpired between J.D.'s mama, Kay, and the TRWD and Jim Oliver which led to the hiring of Kay's son?

How come TRWD board member, Mary Kelleher, is denied access to records of the sort I am mentioning here?

Jim Oliver is pretty much Nixonian in his stonewalling coverup.

I do not think, years ago, the TRWD board ever dreamed  its shenanigans would become a public issue, operating as they did like a private fiefdom, complete with a private hunting preserve.

I think it is pretty obvious that what is in those public documents must be rather damning and rather embarrassing. Likely with more than one smoking gun.

With Nixon it took a unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court to force him to fess up, release the tapes and reveal he'd been in on the Watergate cover-up from the start.

What will it take to get the TRWD to fess up, release the documents and reveal the extent of their shady dealings?

An election?

No comments: