Emails show negotiation of upcoming road bond between county, PAC

FROM Conroe Courier By Catherine Dominguez | Posted: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:51 pm

Emails show negotiation of upcoming road bond between county, PAC

A Freedom of Information Act request by The Courier to the County Attorney’s Office revealed a string of emails between a Texas Patriots PAC member and a political consultant, with certain county commissioners and the county judge being apprised of ongoing negotiations to place a November 2015 road bond referendum on the ballot.

The Courier requested commissioners’ emails from Aug. 11 (the date Commissioners Court neither took action nor discussed placing a referendum on the ballot) through Aug. 24 (the date commissioners unanimously voted to place the road bond on the ballot).

On most documents The Courier received, the County Attorney’s Office had redacted email addresses for Commissioners James Noack (Precinct 3) and Charlie Riley (Precinct 2), as well as County Judge Craig Doyal and other individuals because the communications were through their personal emails, not the county’s email system, according to County Attorney J D Lambright. The commissioners supplied those emails to the County Attorney’s Office before being released to The Courier.

The Courier received no emails supplied by Commissioners Jim Clark (Precinct 4) or Mike Meador (Precinct 1). However, one email to Clark was included in information supplied under the request for Riley’s emails.

The Courier also requested cell phone records for the commissioners, but that information had not been released as of Monday.

Marc Davenport, a political consultant who was representing Riley and Doyal in the negotiations, first contacted Bill O’Sullivan, treasurer of The Woodlands-based Texas Patriots PAC, the day after the Aug. 11 Commissioners Court meeting and they had their first face-to-face meeting Aug. 15, O’Sullivan told The Courier Friday.

“I was very willing to talk to him. I wanted to see if we could get something done.” said O’Sullivan, adding that the goal was to work out “a deal he could sell to his side and I could sell to my side.”

Some emails included lists of proposed road bond projects for the November election similar to the May bond as well as a memorandum of understanding that Commissioners Court and the Texas Patriots PAC, among others who opposed the failed $350 million road bond in May, could agree on. A few others brought into the discussion included: Ken Vaughn, of the Montgomery County Tea Party; former District 15 state Rep. Steve Toth; and The Woodlands Township board member Gordy Bunch, according to O’Sullivan.

Initial emails proposed a $270 million road bond, with $105 million going to Precinct 3 and $80 million apiece going to the other three precincts. However, that was changed to a $280 million road bond for November 2015, with $84 million allotted to Precinct 3, $68 million for Precinct 4 and $64 million apiece for Precincts 1 and 2, according to the emails received from the county attorney.

Commissioners unanimously approved the road bond Aug. 24, despite voting 4-1 July 14 not to move forward with a November bond election, with Noack the only one supporting a bond.

After the July 14 vote, commissioners never placed an item on subsequent agendas to discuss a November 2015 bond election until the Aug. 24 special meeting was posted the afternoon of Aug. 21, just over 72 hours before the meeting – the minimum amount of time allowed to post a public meeting.

Former County Judge Alan B. Sadler spoke during the court’s public comment session Aug. 11 and urged the court to move forward with the November bond.

“I have talked to the major opposition to this bond issue and they are now ready to chip in financially with footwork to pass a bond issue if we put it on the November ballot 2015,” he said.

Commissioners did not discuss the bond during that meeting since it was not on the agenda. The Texas Open Meeting Act prohibits the court from discussing items from public comment that are not on the agenda.

However, the negotiations that transpired between the Aug. 11 Commissioners Court meeting and the Aug. 24 meeting led to an agreeable road bond for commissioners, despite no public meetings posted to discuss a possible bond during that time.

The emails that transpired over that time included requests for – and submissions of – road project lists for each commissioner.

Both Riley and Doyal confirmed Aug. 24 that they knew the negotiations with the PAC were ongoing; and the emails show they were informed throughout the process by Davenport, whom, Doyal said, had approached him about working with the PAC on a bond.

“He (Davenport) started talking with the PAC group, and they put together the MOU and the two attachments (resolutions) that went along with it. He sent me two or three different versions as it changed. Some of them I opened, some of them I looked at and some of them I didn’t even look at,” Doyal said. “Until they got together on something that sounded good; and so we sat down (Aug. 20) … and kind of hashed out some stuff that we could agree on and some that we couldn’t. And we met again on Friday (Aug. 21) … and got … something that I felt reasonably comfortable with on the areas that made sense; and we said let’s put it on the agenda.”

Noack told The Courier Friday that he found out Aug. 13 or 14 that Doyal and Riley were discussing the bond.

“Bill (O’Sullivan) sent me the agreement (MOU) – unsolicited,” Noack said.

Clark said he “heard through the grapevine that there was a revitalization” of discussions for a November bond.

Davenport did not return calls from The Courier.

While Meador voted for the bond’s placement on the ballot, he stated he was not aware of the negotiation between the PAC and the county and did not support those actions. Meador called the negotiations a “dangerous path” for the county to take with a “special-interest group.”

Doyal said he was proud that the two sides finally could come together and work out an agreeable road bond that all parties could support.

“If I thought there would be the same fight again … I wouldn’t have put that (road bond) back on the ballot,” Doyal said. “Through a third person, we were able to get that worked out.”

Concerns about the Texas Open Meetings Act

In one of O’Sullivan’s emails dated Aug. 18, he stated PAC member Jon Bauman had advised him to make sure “we do not become involved in a process that can lead to accusations of a ‘Chain Quorum’ of some kind.” The email included several other people whose names and email addresses were redacted.

According to the Texas Open Meetings Act, a chain quorum, also called a “walking quorum,” is described as a way for a governmental body to avoid complying with the act by deliberating about public business without a quorum being physically present by conducting secret deliberations via other methods such as telephone or email with other members of the board.

“We didn’t want to get involved in anything that can be accused of this,” O’Sullivan told The Courier Friday.

When contacted about the emails, Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon stated:

“Based upon the preliminary facts that you have indicated to me, it’s my opinion that I will bring in the Texas Rangers as we do with a majority of our public integrity investigations. They’ll do an initial inquiry to determine if there’s enough evidence to proceed on a criminal investigation.”

READ THE REST HERE