Conflict Of Interest Is A Crime In Richardson Texas But Not Fort Worth

Yesterday I said again that it seems as if the zone of Texas I'm living in is under some sort of protective bubble that prevents the laws that govern the rest of America from being relevant.

This morning I learned the protective bubble is smaller than I thought. Now I'm thinking Fort Worth is at the center of the protective bubble, with its suburbs likely under the cover, while suburbs of Dallas, like Richardson, are outside the protective bubble, with Richardson operating under the laws that govern the rest of America.

So, what did I learn this morning? Well, the people of Richardson have raised Conflicts of Interest issues regarding alcohol sales at a public golf course and city official's involvement in those sales.

Seems a fairly trivial Conflict of Interest compared to that of Fort Worth's Mayor Mike Moncrief and his having an interest in all the natural gas companies drilling in Fort Worth. Interests that pay him over $600,000 a year. The Conflict of Interest in Richardson did not involve any use of eminent domain to take citizen's property, did not involve the release of dangerous toxins into the air, did not involve the theft of river water.

I truly do not understand why criminal charges have not yet been brought against Moncrief. Surely the gas industry is not so powerful that it has co-opted law enforcement.

Permit me to spell out the legalese regarding Conflict of Interest.

Political Reform Act of 1974

The Political Reform Act of 1974 contains a general prohibition against conflicts of interest in public decision making, as well as a provision for the adoption of a conflict of interest code. It prevails over any other conflict of interest law to the contrary. Gov’t Code § 81013. The restrictions of this Act apply to all government employees, without regard to whether they are required to file an annual conflict of interest form.

The General Prohibition

No public employee at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his [or her] official position to influence a governmental decision in which [s/he] knows or has reason to know [s/he] has a financial interest.” Gov’t Code § 87100. Any person who willfully violates the general prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor. Gov’t Code § 91000. This prohibition applies to all government employees.

Conflicting Personal Financial Interests

A personal financial interest extends beyond the public employee’s own finances or investments. A public employee has a personal financial interest in a government decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the employee, a member of his or her immediate family, in any one of the five economic interests. Gov’t Code § 87103.

Five Economic Interests

1. Any business entity in which the employee has a direct or indirect investment worth $2,000 or more, including ownership of stock by the employee or the employee’s spouse or dependent child.

2. Any real property in which the employee has a direct or indirect interest worth $2,000 or more. The employee’s home is not included in this calculation but any other investment property would be.

3. Any source of income that provides $500 or more in value promised to, or received by, the employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.

4. Any business entity in which the employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.

5. Any donor of, a gift or gifts totaling $420 or more, received, or promised to the employee within 12 months prior to the decision being made. Meals, travel costs, or anything else of value are included in the $420. (This amount is tied to a consumer price index and is occasionally adjusted.)

---

Now, how can any sane person not get that Fort Worth's Mayor is committing a serious crime? Let me spell it out again, loud and bold.

THE MAYOR OF FORT WORTH, MIKE MONCRIEF, IS TAKING $600,000 A YEAR FROM NATURAL GAS DRILLERS WHO ARE ABUSING EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE FORT WORTH CITIZEN'S PROPERTY & POLLUTING THEIR AIR WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICALS WHILE STEALING WATER FROM THE TRINITY RIVER.

Debating for 4 Hours

Last night, starting at 6pm Central time I hunkered down in front of my tube and turned to channel 8 to watch the New Hampshire primary debate marathon. First the Republicans, then the anti-Republicans. The debates ended a bit before 10, well past my usual bedtime. But I found them so over stimulating I ended up staying up past 11pm for the first time since I was stuck on a redeye flight from Phoenix that got me back here in Texas at 3 in the morning.

The Republican debate seemed to have more entertainment value than the Dems due to the amount of ganging up on Mitt Romney. The moderator, Charlie Gibson, let an actual free-wheeling debate take place. John McCain sort of sat above it all, for the most part, but he also got a zing or two in at Romney.

I love how the others debaters treat Ron Paul like he's some sort of addled grandfatherly nutcase channeling his inner hippie. Ron Paul spews raw common sense, stating what should be the obvious, while the others act as if he is just way too way out there to have what he is saying addressed with any level of seriousness. The annoyingly blowhardish Fred Thompson with his perpetual scowl and worst case of dark eye circles in human history was the most offensive with his condescending to the wonderfully woeful hangdoggy Ron Paul.

If I had to pick a winner of the Republicans in this debate I guess I'd go with John McCain. Huckebee, to me, comes across as a Richard Nixon type with better social skills. I think Mitt Romney came out the worst in this debate. I don't like how he projects himself. He looks like he belongs in movies. I really can't get behind a presidential candidate who is better looking than me. That is just unsettling, even more so when I think I'm more consistent on issues than he is.

Now, the Democrats. Hillary did real well at this debate, it seemed to me. She was actually funny a couple times and not in a way that seemed pre-planned. And she was quite forceful in describing how she'd unleash a nuclear retaliation against any nation-state which harbored terrorists who exploded a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil. Few things are more stirring than listening to a woman describe how she would use nukes to wreak havoc on our enemies. I will admit I was aroused by her rhetoric.

John Edwards I did not like in this debate. His over the top me against the bad guys populist shtick bordered on sounding kookybananas. It is real hard to hear some guy yammer on about how he is going to take on evil corporations and all the bad guys who are keeping the poor downtrodden and miserable while he gets $400 haircuts and lives in his new gazillion square foot home that he bought with money, some might say ill-gotten gains, from successfully bringing lawsuits against deep pockets on behalf of supposed victims. I'm thinking if you care so much about the downtrodden why not take that 400 bucks you spend on a haircut and take a few hundred kids out for a Happy Meal? Personally I would feel much more comfortable doing that than sitting in a barber chair knowing it was going to cost me about a half thousand dollars once I was done tipping. And on another John Edwards note, how do you spend that much on a haircut and end up with that unusual part in your hair that appears to go where no normal part goes???

I'm liking Barack Obama. Previously not so much. I was sort of the opinion that he has not done anything except give a rousing speech at the last Democrat Convention. But last night he seemed presidential. And I liked him. Even Hillary admitted he is very likable. Last night he also seemed more detailed on specifics than I'd heard before, where previously I'd thought all he did was spew a bunch of empty platitudes, like any run of the mill politician.

But, of the four Democrats in this debate (thank God the powers in charge decided to leave that pipsqueak Kucinich and that ridiculous Gravel guy out of it) the candidate I liked best of both the Republicans and the Dems is Bill Richardson. He is likable, he's experienced, he's smart, he's articulate, he's funny, he seems genuine. And I particularly like that he is a bit over weight and his wife does not look all glammed up. He looks like a president. He seems like he could be a great president. He is who I would vote for if I was voting in Tuesday's primary. Which means he does not have a ghost chance of winning.

---

So, there is my political diatribe for the day. Now it is time to go out and enjoy this January day in Texas that is heading to a predicted high of 82. That is almost HOT!