Category: Governance

Why Search for Restaurant Ruse When You’ve Seen This?

.Reading time 8 minutes.

McKinney is full of mysteries. And they just keep piling on. How could the City Council possibly be entertaining spending money looking for a place to put the infamous Restaurant Row when they have a place right in front of their faces? Even Councilman Day spoke to it in a public meeting. He said there are only two viable places: 1) Downtown McKinney and 2) Gateway.

Gateway is where the City has already invested untold $millions. How many $millions? A citizen compiled a list totaling over $70 million, and I’ve yet to hear anybody say her numbers are wrong.

Ask any City official who ought to know. If they don’t know, why haven’t they asked? If they do know and won’t say, why would they take that position? If they do know and tell you, then why would they invest so much in one property and then pretend they aren’t sure if it is a good spot for Restaurant Ruse after making such an investment? Have they decided it is a money pit and don’t want to keep throwing good money after bad?

Here is why I point out the need to question the rationale for pushing a Restaurant Row, especially if it is to compete with an already presumably good property.

Please download and look at the Gateway Project plan that was being prepared by Lincoln Properties. Placed adjacent to the Emerson Campus, the Collin College Center, the Gateway Hotel and Conference Center are the following:

Office Site: 5.50 acres.
Office Site: 4.95 acres.
Office Site: 6.30 acres.
Office Site: 6.83 acres with 4 story building.
Office Site: 4.94 acres Class A, 10 stories with parking garage.
Restaurant Pads: 3.32 acres for two restaurants.
Restaurant Pads: 4.31 acres for three restaurants, making a total of five – IN A ROW!
Office Site: 7.44 acres with two Class A buildings, one 6 stories and one 8 stories.
Park Site: 2.03 acres.

There is a mystery as to why Lincoln Properties got this far to prepare a brochure with a plan and expected availability of Spring 2017 (the brochure is dated in September 2015) and then pulled out. I understand a key person at Lincoln Property passed away about this time. But I also heard that the numbers just didn’t work out for them to be able to develop a profitable project.

And why would that be the case? No market demand? If so, then how could that be with 74,401 people within 3 miles and 180,898 people within 5 miles? How could that be with daytime employment being 25,650 within 3 miles and 63,495 within 5 miles? How could that be with Average Household Income of $96,991 within 3 miles and $102,973 within 6 miles? How could that be with 103,000 vehicles per day coming down US 75 and 30,000 vehicles per day coming down Eldorado Parkway?

Nevermind that you can’t see this property when driving north on US 75. Nevermind that if you exit Eldorado Parkway when you when you do get a glimpse of the property, you can’t turn onto the property. But tall buildings will help with the identity some day, and it is not the worse location in the region with sites near clover leafs.

Or is it? Has anybody fessed up to this being the worst location in McKinney after sinking so much money in the property?

More mysteries. So many mysteries. Why won’t anybody come forth and tell the citizens? We can handle the truth. We just can’t handle mysteries and the reasons behind the mysteries.

But let’s go back to the brochure you’ve downloaded.

Why aren’t we starting with this plan and moving forward? If we are going to spend money (more money), what would it cost to rule out this site first before we looked elsewhere? That would make more sense.

Better yet, why wouldn’t we spend a little pocket change in relation to the money already spent to have a valid market study done – or for existing marketing studies to be updated? Why isn’t the MEDC on fire to turn this into a big winner given they own all or most of the property?

Or does this fall into the category of “Perfect But Not Now.” Ouch! My guess is that some of the biggest deals in the region have come about because of patience Plano and Frisco officials and developers have had in the past that is a foreign concept in McKinney. What is McKinney willing to sacrifice to have something on a major corner other than grass when the truly big deal is a few years away. We only have so many prime corners in McKinney.

The single biggest economic development tool cities had for years before incentive agreements, EDCs and  CDCs were allowed (worse laws ever created!) was the proper investment in the roadway and utility infrastructure that opened the paths to private investment. Oh wait, that’s not very sexy and is without the ribbon cutting and photo ops. That’s way too basic. Even though that is possibly the biggest way to be investing today to be ready when it’s McKinney’s time at some point in the future. There’s nothing McKinney can do in a grand way to compete with Plano, Allen and Frisco by wearing the change dispenser belt.

Yet, the Highway 5 Corridor, the Airport (the single item no adjacent city has) can be a game-changer. Lots of open land to the north, but the traffic counts are on the southern central side now.

In the meantime, houses can be built, and yes they are – everywhere. Even though no incentives are needed, McKinney has granted some developers with the use of MUDs with little concern about how that is going to play out in the future.

The famous management consultant, Peter Drucker wrote a book in 1954 and then wrote dozens of books that followed a central theme: “Build On Your Strengths!” Don’t waste resources on trying to fix all of your weaknesses.

If Gateway is not one of the handful of our strengths, then McKinney needs to fess up and declare it so, place it in mothballs and wait for a better day. If it is one of the major strengths, then build on it.

And instead of sprinkling money here and there, think about consolidating the resources to be placed into transportation, infrastructure corridors and things that will matter in the future. Think investment. And patience.

Council, MEDC, if you have a clue as to where we are going and how we are going to get there, please declare it so and shine the light so no mysteries exist. LFM

 

 

 

A Code of Ethics & Conduct McKinney Citizens Should Push To See Happen Now!

.Reading time 14 minutes.

I made an Open Records Request for a document that sets forth a Code of Ethics & Conduct for the McKinney City Council and all Boards & Committees. I received a very legalistic document that appears to apply to everyone except the City Council. I recall there was an attempt to create something meaningful with some teeth in the last couple of years. It started out with a councilmember taking a stab at one. I haven’t watched the video lately from back then, but it seemed like most on the Council saw no need for one. I believe it was left with the Mayor and then Mayor Pro-Tem to follow up with, which I think was code for “wooden stake and mallet time.”  I haven’t heard this subject mentioned since then unless I just missed it.

I would like to suggest one that would be solid and with the mandate from the McKinney Citizens by amending the Charter emphasize the importance and the high expectations. There are many of these from other cities on the Web, which eliminates the necessity of starting from scratch. This one was written to make it sound and feel personal as if genuinely embraced by each Councilmember. There was even a pledge form required to make it an annual and ongoing covenant between the Council and the Citizens. I excluded that part. I also added a few of my own words and phrases as you might expect me to if you follow my blogs.

Since we have the possibility of almost a brand new Council by the 2017 elections, I suggest our current City Council move immediately to make this happen. It is a no-brainer. It could be passed now and left for Citizen endorsement and enforcement at the 2017 ballot box. I cannot imagine an argument for not taking this important step. LFM

THE CITY OF McKinney
CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
ADOPTED __________

 The people of the City of McKinney, at an election held on _________________, approved an amendment to the City Charter of the City of McKinney which states: “The City of McKinney shall adopt a Code of Ethics and Conduct for elected officials and members of appointed boards, commissions, and committees to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government elected and appointed officials.” Consistent with the vote of the people, the following Code of Ethics and Conduct is hereby adopted by the City of McKinney to ensure effective and fair operation of the local government of the City of McKinney.

I.        PREAMBLE

It is the intent of this code to achieve fair, ethical, and accountable local government for the City of McKinney. The people of McKinney expect public officials, both elected and appointed, to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the State of Texas, the United States of America, and the Charter, Municipal Code, and established policies of the City of McKinney affecting the operations of local government. In addition, public officials are expected to comply with the provisions of this Code of Ethics and Conduct established pursuant to the expressed will of the people. All persons covered by this code will aspire to meet the highest ethical standards in the conduct of their responsibility as an elected or appointed official of the City of McKinney.

This code addresses various aspects related to the governance of the City of McKinney and supplements, but does not supplant other laws and rules that prescribe the legal responsibilities of City officials. These include, but are not limited to, the Federal and State Constitutions, various provisions of the Texas Local Government Code and Other State Laws, and the City of McKinney Charter and Municipal Code. Elected and appointed officials are expected to be familiar with these laws to ensure that they exercise their public responsibilities in a proper fashion.

While it is not possible to anticipate and provide a rule of conduct and ethics for all situations that public officials may face, this Code of Ethics and Conduct is designed to provide a framework to guide public officials in their daily duties.

II.  SCOPE

The provisions of this Code of Ethics and Conduct shall apply to the Mayor and members of the City Council, and to all members of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees appointed by the Mayor and City Council, including any ad hoc committees. Further, the provisions of this Code of Ethics and Conduct shall only apply to these officials and members acting in their official capacities and in the discharge of their duties.

III. CORE VALUES

Attitudes, words, and actions should demonstrate, support, and reflect the following qualities and characteristics for the well-being of our community. The five core values and expressions that reflect these core values are as follows:

INTEGRITY/ HONESTY

  • I am honest with my fellow elected officials, the public and others.
  • I do not promise what I believe to be unrealistic.
  • I am prepared to make unpopular decisions when my sense of the public’s best interests requires it.
  • I credit others’ contributions to moving our community’s interests forward.
  • I do not knowingly use false or inaccurate information to support my position or views.
  • I safeguard the ability to make independent, objective, fair and impartial judgments by scrupulously avoiding financial and social relationships and transactions that may compromise, or give the appearance of compromising, objectivity, independence, and honesty.

RESPONSIBILITY/PROTECTING THE PUBLIC’S INTERESTS

  •  I do not accept gifts, services or other special considerations because of my public position.
  • I excuse myself from participating in decisions when my or my immediate family’s financial interests may be affected by my agency’s actions.
  • I do not give special treatment or consideration to any individual or group beyond that available to any other individual.
  • I refrain from disclosing confidential information concerning litigation, personnel, property, or other affairs of the City, without proper legal authority, nor use such information to advance my financial or other personal interests.

FAIRNESS/ACCOUNTABILITY

  •  I promote meaningful public involvement in the agency’s decision-making processes.
  • I treat all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner; I make decisions based on the merits of the issue.
  • If I receive substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration from sources outside the public decision-making process, I publicly share it with my fellow governing board members and staff.
  • I work to contribute to a strong organization that exemplifies transparency and open communication.
  • I will not meet privately with any kind of special interests seeking favor from the City unless those meetings are held in City facilities in offices and conference rooms designated by the City.
  • I will not meet directly or indirectly with any form of Walking Quorum to discuss or solicit the direction of decisions being formed by other members of the City Council or any Board or Commission.
  • I will encourage as much discussion as possible to be conducted by special interests in the public forums that allow all parties, including the public to better understand the need, purpose, rationale and technical information surrounding a potential City action.

RESPECT FOR FELLOW ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC

  •  I treat my fellow officials, staff and the public with patience, courtesy and civility, even when we disagree on what is best for the community.
  • I work towards consensus building and gain value from diverse opinions.
  • I understand and support and pledge to adhere by the Council-Manager form of government as required by City Charter. I respect the distinction between the role of office holder and staff;
  • I involve staff in meetings with individuals, those with business before the agency, officials from other agencies and legislators to ensure proper staff support and to keep staff informed.
  • I conduct myself in a courteous and respectful manner at all times during the performance of my official City duties.
  • I encourage full participation of all persons and groups; I am aware and observe important celebrations and events which reflect the values of our diverse population.

PROPER AND EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

  •  I do not use public resources, such as agency staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes. This includes taking up valuable staff time for special questions that I can send in writing and ask that they be answered during designated Council briefing opportunities.
  • I make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into account the long-term financial needs of the agency, especially its financial stability.
  • I demonstrate concern for the proper use of agency assets (such as personnel, time, property, equipment, funds) and follow established procedures.
  • I am a prudent steward of public resources and actively consider the impact of my decisions on the financial and social stability of the City and its residents.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

City of McKinney elected and appointed officials of the various boards, commissions and committees have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. This Code of Ethics and Conduct will be most effective when the elected and appointed officials are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.

Upon adoption of this Code, all current elected or appointed officials shall be given a copy of the Code and asked to affirm in writing that they have received the code, understand its provisions, and pledge to conduct themselves by the code. All new members of the City Council, upon election or reelection, and members of Boards, Commissions, and Committees appointed by the City Council, upon appointment or reappointment, shall be given a copy of the Code and are required to affirm in writing they have received the code and understand its provisions, and pledge to conduct themselves by the code.

Additionally, all members of the City Council, boards, commissions, and committees, as part of their annual orientation and training, shall be provided additional training clarifying the provisions and application of this code. The City Attorney, or his/her designee, shall serve as a resource person to those persons covered by the code to assist them in determination of appropriate actions consistent with the code.

A periodic review of the code shall be conducted to ensure that the Code is an effective and vital document.

This Code of Ethics and Conduct is intended to be a reflection of the community’s values as articulated by the Mayor and City Council as they represent the will of the people of the City of McKinney.

Captain Obvious To The Country of Oblivious: The Math Won’t Compute Forever!

.Reading time 7 minutes.

I am approaching my ten-year anniversary of writing about a subject that causes me to feel like Captain Obvious speaking to the Country of Oblivious. Some of us are numbers people, some picture people and others word people. I like all three and try to use every tool to communicate. There are five charts below. Let me see if I can summarize them succinctly.

Chart I shows the US outstanding debt from the early 1980s through September 30, 2016. Think Presidents Reagan through Obama. We now owe $19,573,444,713,936.79 in debts. To place $19.6 trillion into a proper perspective,  I have shown this mountain of debt on a per household basis and then adjusted for inflation. The load has risen from $33,017 to $164,695 per household for 4.99x over the relatively short chart period.

This does not include the present value of Social Security and Medicare, which have estimates of over $100 trillion according to the Dallas Federal Reserve. This does not include your personal debt, nor any state, county, city, ISD or special district debt, including the present value of retirement benefits.

Chart II looks like a portion of Texas. It’s the cumulative amount of debt attributable to operating deficits. Here is a recap (in $millions).

               The Total Deficit as of 9/30/1980              $     907,707.
                Deficit Spending Since                                  $11,822,278.
                Debt Sub-total                                                $12,729,985.
                Debt Outstanding at 9/30/2016                 $19,873,445.
                Difference (Off Books???)                            $  7,143,460.

Yes, the debt has soared. By every President and every sitting Congressional Member no matter the party in control since 1980. Chart II also shows the percentage of overspending on the disclosed operating budget. Right now we are at about 17.98% and have averaged about 20% over the chart period. One way this metric could be interpreted is to say that revenues would need to be raised or expenditures cut (or a combination thereof) by 20% to just breakeven on the disclosed budget and probably about another 10-15% to cover the Off-Books spending. That might stop debt from growing but not pay off a penny of the $19 trillion. Raise your hand if you believe either will happen.

I’m pretty sure my 8th grade granddaughter is working story problems more difficult than this one to figure out where things are heading.

 Charts III and IV give us an idea about how we are pushing the limits on what we can expect to be milked from the overall potential revenue base. All you have to know is that every dollar of our annual Gross National Product totals about $19 trillion. And the US government revenue base is $3.3 trillion. Logic would say that if the federal government is taking in 17.20% of the GNP, that’s big no matter how you measure it. Again, layer the state, county, ISDs and other special districts and … you just have to appreciate reasonable limits.

 Chart V is just one of the fabricated and dangerous aspects to the reason we haven’t collapsed since I started predicting so ten years ago. The inflation and interest rates can be manipulated by the Federal Reserve. It has now been so long that many of the newer families and employees don’t realize what has happened. To control rising Social Security costs and to lower the amount the US government pays on interest toward this staggering amount of debt, Chart V shines the light on the gimmick.

Interest rates on US Debt have been lowered from 8.23% in 1988 to 2.21% in 2016. The eye can figure out quite quickly the impact if we were dealing with true interest rates, rates that took real inflation and real risk into consideration. With an expenditure base of about $3.856 trillion, the interest expense of $0.433 trillion is about 11.22%. What would the 2016 disclosed budget operating deficit of about $0.588 trillion have looked like if interest costs were in the 5% range? Close to double. See the motivation our leaders have to manipulate the numbers?

There is another big issue here. Retired people hoping to make it on their 401k and Social Security benefits are getting shafted. The tendency at that age and stage is to be conservative and safe. And for the last several years that kind of thinking will earn retirees very close to zero. I never thought I would  hear serious discussions and see real actions to drive interest rates below zero. But here we are.

To be fair, many Social Security recipients and almost all Medicare beneficiaries are receiving much more out of the system than they ever put into the system – another faulty math problem that has led to the big deficits and debt.

 Conclusion.

The perfect storm is coming as it relates to the sustainability of gimmicks and outright massive spending to keep things afloat. One of the ways the Federal Government has taken advantage of low rates is to move to shorter term instruments. The problem with that is like having a 6-month mortgage instead of 15+ years. You and the lender come face to face frequently, always with the possibility that the lender doesn’t want to reinvest.

The lenders of the $19 trillion are first the government itself. The Social Security funds temporally on hand, for instance, have been used by the Federal Government to pay for operations. Those funds held by foreign countries are not a small part of the lender base. Yes, we are viewed as a safe haven, but that’s mostly because other countries are worse.

 And isn’t that a sound footing to be on? Especially as we want it all, we want it now, and we want somebody else to pay for everything. Good luck, Country of Obvious. That arithmetic is eventually going to catch up with us! LFM

 Chart I.

charti 

Chart II.

 chartii

Chart III.

chartiiiChart IV.

chartiv

Chart V.

chartv

Are We Chasing Our Re-Tails Too Much?

.Reading time 8 minutes.

Are We Chasing Our Re-Tails Too Much?

By Lewis F. McLain, Jr.
President, CityBase.Net
lfm@CityBase.Net

Introduction.

The borders for Retail shopping are disappearing with the exponential increases in online sales. My wife is within a fraction of a percentage point of buying all of our Christmas items online. In fact, we’re close to 100% of all purchases being via the Internet with the exception of food. The red flag was actually raised a few years ago as not just old malls, but relatively new malls have been torn down. We don’t even have time to get nostalgic about a mall before they head toward bankruptcy or the wrecking ball. Worse, when blight attacks strip centers way before the neighborhoods around them, we have a different world to face. You know things are different when there is a Web site called http://www.deadmalls.com.

I’ve been intrigued with the number of studies being conducted in search of Retail Leakage to adjacent communities. We even have all kinds of illogical connections being made in my own City of McKinney where a mayoral candidate is convinced that if we create a Restaurant Row, businesses will be beating down our door to move to our swell town. This is a particularly bizarre movement since McKinney is not without restaurants, and many of them are in areas that fit the definition of a Restaurant Row.

When lunching with a colleague recently, our conversation turned to this concept of chasing pretty things like Retail. His community has an exceptionally large portion of warehouses. You know, those ugly boxes. Those boxes that have a very attractive amount of property tax revenues with a minimal amount of demand on public services. However, if you look closer, there is also an impressive amount of sales taxes that may be associated with inelegant structures in your city.

 

Let’s Look At Some Data.

Below is a recap of Texas cities with a population of greater than 50,000. It is helpful to look at these kinds of numbers before you get dizzy with excitement over some study numbers that give the impression that there are $billions within your grasp if only you know who to chase. You don’t need to spend a lot of money to get a relatively good picture of where your expectations might be reasonably placed. The average of these cities below is $185.94 on a per capita basis placed on a one-penny equivalent. The median is $169.82 on the same basis.

Yes, there are some wide variances. And without a doubt the main consumer-driven sources make a difference. However, don’t overlook that some of the above-average results are coming from cities with a large portion of business- driven transactions. Remember that the actual correct label is not just Sales Taxes; it is Sales & Use Taxes.

The bottom line is that you need both to have a healthy income stream for both Sales Taxes and Property Taxes. In all cases, realize that there is just so much that can be squeezed out of the consumer. And when squeezed too much (credit cards, HELOCs), a painful recoil is just a matter of time. Before you celebrate that a new Kroger has just opened, realize that you might be seeing an equivalent size grocery store closing within a couple of years. You might be just seeing a zero-sum situation except now you have to figure out what to do with an empty grocery store.

c1

 

Where did I get the Consumer/Business allocation data? Actually, from two places. Similar but different. The first review was from the top level categories as compiled by exact information I have from over 25 cities of all sizes (total population of about 3.5 million in population and with collections of about $872 million in the last year) across the state based on NAICS codes that I have cleaned up. By cleaned up, I mean that many of the codes used by the State are in error. Apple Stores, for instance are classified as Manufacturing vs Retail.

A summary of the scrubbed data is in the table below. To no surprise, the dominant consumer categories are on top. However, you might be surprised at the level of sales tax that comes from Wholesale and Manufacturing and others.

c2

Second, I took each of the cities in my first table and allocated into Consumer vs Businesses groups based on data that can be obtained from the state for all cities and then used my judgment to allocate. It is not scrubbed, but the accuracy should be sufficient to make a meaningful comparison. My allocations are in the table below. No doubt you and I might allocate the Categories a little differently. However, this is the best I can do with the public data I have.

c3

Conclusion.

It seems pretty obvious to me that many cities may be chasing the wrong things for sales tax purposes. It is acknowledged that I am focused only on sales taxes and not the production of property taxes nor on the number pf pure jobs and the pay levels for jobs. I can’t resist being Captain Obvious here by saying go for everything that helps provide a healthy balance in your revenue base.

However, now that Amazon and most of the prominent companies do in fact collect sales taxes and remit based on the city from which the order is placed, the potential for a city to get a substantial amount of retail sales taxes whether you have a business located in your jurisdiction has changed in your favor if you care to have your citizens’ money out of pocket coming back to their home city.

Don’t overlook the other Categories that are likely to generate a substantial amount of revenue and actually be more stable over time. LFM

 

 

 

 

 

Is Texas Charging A Hidden Tax To Local Governments & Citizens?

.Reading time 6 minutes.

Introduction.

I fully understand that all local governments (counties, cities, transit authorities and special districts) in Texas are subdivisions of the state. One way to look at that fact is say everything you have, children, is because we gave it to you out of our generosity. Be grateful, stop complaining and leave me alone.

But that is not how I see it.

Local governments are taking a beating from the State in many ways. In small General Law cities (under 5,000 population), the State says we will give you the Charter. You can’t do anything unless the State law says you can. In Home Rule cities (mostly those over 5,000), the State says you can do anything you want unless the State law specifically says you can’t.

Perhaps with at least some justifiable reasons, the State continues to take away local control from cities. Their actions are actually pretty insulting in that the treatment is as if the cities aren’t accountable to the local voters. Again, you are too dumb and evil to be trusted, local governments, so we have to step in to throttle you back as we see fit for the sake of your citizens.

The net result involves several areas of constraints, but the biggest is revenue caps. If we can cut off your oxygen, local governments, we can reform you into good soldiers in our self-professed image.

It’s Two-Faced.

This blog is about an example of how the State is two faced. The mantra is taxes are bad. Actually, that translates into your taxes are bad, local governments, but ours are okay. In fact, here is a deal for you, ungrateful local governments, we will let you charge a sales tax up to 2.00%. This will be added to the State sales tax of 6.25%. Oh, by the way, even though we are collecting sales taxes for us anyway, we will collect and remit your portion. For this privilege, we will charge you 2.00% of your take. We will call it a service fee.

A fee implies there is some rational nexus (logical connection) to the effort it takes to provide a service. Logic would say that the State should charge the local governments about 2.00%/8.25% of the actual cost of the service. The State would recognize (in a logical business setting) that the State’s portion to bear is 6.25%/8.25%.

If the amount paid by local governments is well above the cost of services, then it is a tax.

Whoa, buddy! There goes that nasty word.

So are you saying, Lewis, that the State is taxing the local governments and their citizens?

Well, Let’s See.

Do we want to look at the State’s true cost of service first or the amount that is taxed by the State to the local governments?

I have tried to get the actual cost of service for the Sales Tax Division from the Comptroller’s Web site. It does not appear to be separated. There may be a good reason for that. If you can get me a good number, please send it to me.

Meanwhile, let’s approach this junior high story problem a different way. How much are local governments paying to the State for collecting the local portion of sales tax? I am so glad you asked, because I happen to have that number to the penny.

In the last 12 months, the local governments have paid the State $164,148,777 to handle those collections. In a fair cost allocation model that would mean the entire cost is $164,148,777 divided by 2.00% times 8.25% or $677,113,707.

Do you think it costs the State $677,113,707 to collect sales taxes every year?

I don’t either. To say that is a lot of money is the understatement of the century.

Conclusion.

So, if our State leaders are so emphatic about cutting taxes for the citizens of Texas, as all of their campaign rhetoric states as well as the continuing mantra they chant to local governments, why not do the noble thing:

1)     Determine the real cost of service for sales tax collections.

2)     Charge local governments for their proper share, which is the simple calculation of 2.00% divided by 8.25%.

Otherwise, the State of Texas is imposing a tax disguised as a cost-based fee to the citizens of Texas.

Below is the recap of the annual tax charged to local governments along with the Top 50 payers.

ENTITY GROSS COLLECTIONS 2% SERVICE FEE
GRAND TOTAL

$8,207,438,785

$164,148,777
HOUSTON MTA

$706,588,797

$14,131,776
HOUSTON

$649,877,508

$12,997,550
DALLAS MTA

$549,512,086

$10,990,242
SAN ANTONIO

$326,024,050

$6,520,481
DALLAS

$286,439,874

$5,728,797
AUSTIN MTA

$224,847,374

$4,496,947
AUSTIN

$207,111,910

$4,142,238
SAN ANTONIO MTA

$139,467,030

$2,789,341
FORT WORTH

$139,043,247

$2,780,865
ARLINGTON

$103,856,316

$2,077,126
EL PASO

$84,544,840

$1,690,897
PLANO

$79,127,702

$1,582,554
FRISCO

$76,561,830

$1,531,237
AMARILLO

$76,188,475

$1,523,770
CORPUS CHRISTI

$73,886,344

$1,477,727
FORT WORTH MTA

$69,078,582

$1,381,572
ROUND ROCK

$67,996,147

$1,359,923
LUBBOCK

$66,316,817

$1,326,336
IRVING

$66,009,062

$1,320,181

FORT WORTH CRIME CTRL DIST

 $65,433,451

$1,308,669

SAN ANTONIO ATD

 $63,220,054

$1,264,401

MCALLEN

 $61,739,232

$1,234,785

MIDLAND

 $54,979,855

$1,099,597

SUGAR LAND

 $53,198,028

$1,063,961

GRAND PRAIRIE

 $51,143,821

$1,022,876

MCKINNEY

 $46,632,047

$932,641

EL PASO COUNTY

 $45,826,233

$916,525

MESQUITE

 $43,412,130

$868,243

GRAPEVINE

 $42,358,646

$847,173
CONROE

$42,325,549

$846,511
EL PASO CTD

$41,951,196

$839,024
ABILENE

$41,233,710

$824,674
TYLER

$40,309,897

$806,198
ODESSA

$39,931,872

$798,637
BEAUMONT

$39,684,062

$793,681
LAREDO

$39,468,031

$789,361
ALLEN

$37,741,460

$754,829
WACO

$37,621,206

$752,424
BROWNSVILLE

$37,556,119

$751,122
LEWISVILLE

$35,782,795

$715,656
CARROLLTON

$35,274,253

$705,485
RICHARDSON

$33,472,183

$669,444
COPPELL

$33,098,877

$661,978
CORPUS CHRISTI MTA

$32,885,321

$657,706
PASADENA

$32,755,524

$655,110
MIDLAND COUNTY

$32,588,281

$651,766
ECTOR CO HOSP DIST

$31,148,828

$622,977
BRAZORIA COUNTY

$31,121,946

$622,439
DENTON

$30,871,972

$617,439

LONGVIEW

 $30,430,549

$608,611

Blessing Pay to Play in the City of McKinney

.Reading time 7 minutes.

Introduction.

There is one problem when lawsuits get settled. You never know how the outcome would have been in front of a judge and jury. Guilty or innocent? The facts put forth in a lawsuit may or may not be accurate. Again, the trial is about substantiating the facts through documents, witnesses, experts and cross-examination.

One interesting lawsuit occurred in McKinney in 2009. It has been conveniently forgotten. In spite of the shallow news coverage in McKinney, there were some decent reports in the newspapers. The lawsuit was filed by a developer from out of state involved in the early stages of Gateway. The suit was against 1) the City of McKinney; 2) the McKinney Community Development Corporation; 3) the McKinney Economic Development Corporation; 4) then Former Councilmember Thad Helsley; and then Councilman Bill Cox.

The first three defendants were being sued due to an alleged breach of contract on the Gateway Hotel Project. The last two defendants allegedly extorted $50,000 from the out of state developer. My blog is about the second part of the lawsuit.

What Happened?

A ground breaking ceremony was set for February 28, 2008. The Developer Principals traveled from California to McKinney the day before to finalize agreements. While meeting with MEDC and City officials on February 27, 2008, McKinney City Council Members Thad Helsley and Bill Cox asked to speak privately with one of the Developer Principals. In the Council Chambers at City Hall, the two Councilmembers told the Principal that in order to finalize the agreements and break ground on the Hotel Project, the Developer had to “contribute” $50,000 to the McKinney Veterans Memorial Park Fund.

Prior to the meeting, this Fund was never mentioned, the lawsuit states. However, faced with potential breaches of the timing requirements to start the project, the Developer had no choice but to capitulate to the Council Members’ extortion request. The lawsuit says the Developer agreed to write the check. Also, the Developer was required to make an announcement about the “gift” at the groundbreaking ceremony the next day.

A copy of the cancelled check made payable to the City of McKinney/MCDC was Exhibit A in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit goes on to say the proposed park was situated within Craig Ranch, a competing developer’s project.

What Was The Outcome?

It was reported in the McKinney Courier Gazette n October 2, 2009 that Helsley and Cox filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit parts pertaining to them. The lawsuit by the Developer included assertions of racketeering and extortion. The same newspaper reports on December 4, 2009 that the Developer responded to the motion to dismiss.

Ultimately, the brawl between the Developer and the City, including the charges against Mr. Helsley and Mr. Cox, were part of a large settlement of multiple suits. Therefore, we don’t actually know how the Developer and the two Councilmembers would have been judged by a jury.

But, you know what? It doesn’t matter to me.

In asking around with knowledgeable city officials, there is no argument that the $50,000 check happened. The only argument offered is that the check may have been voluntary and not coerced.

Whoa! That is not a good answer. If Helsley and Cox approached a Developer and asked, pretty please, would you mind giving $50,000 for a park on another developer’s property, who authorized them to make that request? And what developer on Planet Earth would just willingly pay that kind of money? There would certainly be an appearance Helsley and Cox were acting in their official capacity of elected officials for the City of McKinney.

Did the remaining and subsequent Councilmembers weigh in on this event? Did they censure Mr. Helsley and Mr. Cox for the taint this placed on the McKinney’s reputation? The Developer’s lawsuit actually stated, “Upon information and belief, the City has also extorted money from others similarly situated.” I wouldn’t give any weight to that statement except it is also not the first time I’ve heard similar comments even before I knew of this particular lawsuit.

So, where can we find Mr. Helsley and Mr. Cox now? While I should be surprised, I’m not. They are part of the McKinney good ole boys that continue to be circulated from one board and commission to another. Mr. Helsley was on the Stormwater Committee and is now on the Comprehensive Planning Committee. Bill Cox is on the powerful Planning & Zoning Commission and Reinvestment Zone 1.

Conclusion.

Where is the outrage on the audacious action of taking $50,000 from an out of state developer’s pocket to put into a local developer’s project?

Did it ever occur to the City Councils since 2008 (and especially today) that you can have a Restaurant Row that stretches for miles, but that pales in comparison to an image that all developers are treated equally and fairly in McKinney?

It seems to me now that US 75 improvements are done and Sam Rayburn has been wide open for quite some time, the biggest impairments to the commercial growth the McKinney Elite profess to want and need are the very ones putting up blocks to take care of their own?

Why would this kind of mindset happen in 2008 and not still be evident today when the same actors are still being appointed by the City Council?

These kinds of stories need to be told and retold. Many don’t want to look into the past. And we know exactly what happens when we don’t. The stewards of McKinney’s past have failed us.

This will never change as long as the McKinney Citizen-Sheep continue to graze while the McKinney Elite manipulate the key decisions. Let’s end the Blessing of Pay to Play in McKinney. LFM

 

 

A Complaint to the District Attorney and Texas Ethics Commission Regarding Certain McKinney Council Members

.Reading time 18 minutes.

Lewis F. McLain, Jr.
4906 Morning Glory Way
McKinney, TX 75070-5273
214-793-7729 / lfm@citybase.net

 

(Updated for date corrections, items inadvertently omitted and additional commentary)

August 27, 2016

Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis
2100 Bloomdale Rd Suite 100
McKinney, TX 75071

Texas Ethics Commission
Natalia Luna, Executive Director
201 East 14th St 10th Floor
Austin, TX 78701

Subject: Complaint of an elected official abusing his position and violating the Texas Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act.

Dear Sir and Madam:

I would like to make a complaint against an elected official and request that you look into the actions of McKinney City Council member Rainey Rogers. I have included a string of texts and email correspondence between several council members that point to the likelihood of Texas Open Meeting Act violations regarding Walking Quorums. Also, I believe Mr. Rogers has lied and failed to comply with an Open Records Request in violation of the PFIA.

The McKinney City Council consists of Mayor Brian Loughmiller; Current Mayor Pro-Tem Randy Pogue; Former Mayor Pro-Tem Travis Ussery; and Council Members Don Day, Tracy Rath, Rainey Rogers and Chuck Branch.

Current Mayor Pro-Tem Randy Pogue announced on about May 21, 2016, that he was going to run for Mayor in May 2017 even though the official filing date is not until February 1, 2017. However, 17 days later at the scheduled appointment of the Mayor Pro-Tem decision at the June 7, 2016 Council meeting, an action occurred that I believe was the result of a Walking Quorum.

It was pretty much expected within the community that Travis Ussery would be reappointed for his fourth term as Mayor Pro-Tem. He is termed out after one more year serving on the City Council. However, there had to be discussions between Councilmembers prior to the meeting. Documents show that discussions must have occurred right up to 26 minutes before the meeting started on June 7. Below you will find text and emails obtained from my Open Record Requests that show Council member Rainey Rogers polling Randy Pogue on June 6 to ask if his vote, presumably the swing vote, would help Mr. Pogue in his run for Mayor.

Mr. Rogers further and unequivocally documents that he is using his Council position to influence an election. He writes Travis Ussery at 5:04 before the 5:30 meeting to give him a heads up that his vote will be for Randy Pogue instead of Mr. Ussery. Here is Mr. Rogers’ rationale:

“I just see this as a move so that I do not have to work with someone that I do not see as mayor material.”

This reference can only be pointed toward the other mayoral candidate to announce, George Fuller.

There is nothing wrong with one council member helping another council member run for office. However, I believe this is an egregious breach of ethical behavior to use a Council procedure to elevate the advantages of a sitting council member at the expense of an opponent for an election many months away. Common sense tells you that being Mayor Pro-Tem will be a distinct advantage. I am sure the future campaign signs will include the Mayor Pro-Tem title.

Even if Mr. Pogue did not orchestrate this political move, which he says did not happen, there is also no evidence that out of respect and concern for appearance that he discouraged this action. In that regard, I believe he should be stripped of that title so the playing field can be leveled. Before his announcement for the office of Mayor and his Shakesperean ambition (he actually did an in-your-face to the Mayor Loughmiller and Travis Ussery upon being made Mayor Pro-Tem by reannouncing his candidacy at the dias!) got the best of him and was revealed, he has always been gentlemanly and respectful at least for the public’s eye.

Mr. Pogue has also recently initiated a movement to create a Restaurant Row in McKinney that dozens of people I have talked to agree is the most bizarre action in both content and timing. Incentive restuarnts to come and corporations will follow! Nobody is buying this “economic” brainchild of Mr. Pogue. It is clearly an attempt to campaign from the dias showing as many mayoral traits as possible. I have blogged about this event and other conflicts of interest at http://www.citybaseblog.net.

Further, my view is that there is another related legal violation. I requested all correspondence between Council members regarding the discussion of the Mayor Pro-Tem decision. Mr. Rogers said he had none. Yet two council members complied with my ORR showing they had received messages from Mr. Rogers. He has lied and is not in compliance with the law. While I am not a lawyer, I’ve been in municipal government for 43 years and have had the PFIA and TOMA explained to me dozens of times by numerous attorneys. I even have a course certificate from the Texas Municipal League from attending their training.

Related, the City supplied responses from all Council members with the exception of the conspicuous absense of any reponse from Chuck Branch – not even a statement that he did not have any records. In the transmittal letter from the City’s Attorney, this statement was included: “Per the Act, governmental entities are not required to answer fact questions posed as part of a request. Nevertheless, the City is providing all documents responsive to your request …” I have full expectations that Mr. Branch had correspondence with other Council members. I also have full expectations that if either of your offices were to ask Mr. Branch and other Council members under oath if they submitted all correspondence in compliance with my ORR, you will likely get a different response than I did. My guess is that they would not tell you Council members don’t have to answer fact questons.

In conclusion, I request that you investigate this matter. I am a regular citizen, but you have the ability to obtain testimony under oath. I feel certain you are going to find my complaint has merit, with a conspiracy to influence an election abusing his role as an elected official that will lead you to actions taken against Mr. Rainey Rogers. I also request you investigate Current Mayor Pro-Tem Pogue for his unethical behavior veiled in the actions of his supportive council members.

Thank you.

Lewis F. McLain, Jr.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: May 1, 2016 11:38 AM
From: Travis Ussery
To: Brian Loughmiller

Brian,

[LFM Note: there was a part of the message redacted since it had to do with a personal family welfare topic.]

Somewhat related in a twisted way I find myself challenged in ways I didn’t think possible in the public service arena. I fully understand being second guessed and addressing those who don’t agree with decisions. But to have colleagues with some I serve undermining my integrity and effectively my ethics in the area which has elected me three times is unfathomable. Further, I was never included on any part of the discussion. I have not acted in a manner discreditable to the city or myself. And this is done to what end? The betterment of the city as a whole? I think not.

The allure of power and minimizing one who has earned the respect of the community is, unfortunately, the only answer I can determine.

You know of my heredity and my father’s service here. I offer, perhaps again, I shared an office with former Mayor Bill Finney. Finney Park is in his remembrance. I was mentored in some way by the Whisenant family who can lay claim to two mayors. James Steward another former banker and council member with my father was always there when I needed him (I have [a] story about his personally financing a couple of my duplexes I will share). There are others I can add but for brevity only I will leave off this list. With this history I can say firmly I have a 70 year perspective of McKinney governance.

I realize the area has changes and along with the local culture. But after much extended thought and revisiting a few documents I can safely say I don’t think there has been a group more focused on personal glory and standing at the expense of others (at least one being me) and to the exclusion of the civic and moral expectations of public office. I have no reason as of this writing to believe personal financial gain has occurred although I do believe the allure of that forbidden fruit is dangling closer than it should. I know firsthand some of the cheap shots you have received and I am sure there are more that I have not seen. I have gladly supported you in every way I can not only because it is the duty to do so given my upbringing but I know you act with sincerity and for the greater good of the community.

While I will not waver from this I will not lower myself to the deceitful underground of disparagement others find amusing. I do, however, believe when asked I will address the questionable antics of some in my own discreet, William Buckley-ish manner. Not to provide you a heads-up would be less than professional and unbecoming of one respectful of what McKinney has been historically and should be.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: May 1, 2016 11:38 AM
From: Brian Loughmiller
To: Travis Ussery
Subject: Re: higher ground

Challenging times ahead for sure. Tracey asked me who I was nominating for Mayor Pro Tem. I told her that it was going to be you. No further comment was made so it will be interesting to see what unfolds from the group.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Date: June 6, 2016 4:42 PM
From Rainey Rogers
To: Randy Pogue

Randy, I have been struggling with what to do about the MPT position. The only reason I have not to support Travis is that I want to do what I can to help you be our mayor next year. But most anyone I speak to doesn’t that is much help in becoming mayor and it really only has any meaning to those on the council. So right now I am leaning to supporting Travis unless you think it would be helpful to your campaign. What would be your council [sic] to me be?

[LFM Note: I asked Randy Pogue about his response since it was not in the message he sent me. He said “I did not respond with anything but a verbal that I was not going to be involved, and for him to do what he thought to be best.”]

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: June 7, 2016 5:04 PM.
From: Rainey Rogers
To: Travis Ussery

Travis, I wanted to give you a heads up, after giving it a lot of thought I think I would like to see Randy as MPT. It has nothing to do with not supporting you as much as I really see it helping Randy become our next mayor. Someone asked me today if you have been a good mayor PT and I said without a doubt Travis has been a great stand in for the mayor, In every way you have served in this position well. I just see this as a move so that I do not have to work with someone that I do not see as mayor material. Last year I fully supported you and even seconded the move to have you serve as MPT. I do not know what will happen tonight but I didn’t want to surprise you with my direction.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Date June 7, 2016 5:06 PM.
From: Travis Ussery
To: Rainey Rogers

I understand and thank you for the heads up. As I mentioned previously for me this is ultimately about Brian and respect for him. I hope you understand.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: June 7, 2016 5:09 PM.
From: Rainey Rogers
To: Travis Ussery

Absolutely, I uderstand and I too have the concern that someone might think that I would do not support Brian in some way, nothing could be further from the truth.

————————————————————————–

June 7, 2016 10:41 PM
From Randy Pogue
To: Travis Ussery
I know tonight must have been tough for you, and I apologize for the way in which it all came down.

I want to truly thank you for your service to McKinney. I know that you have always been there for Brian, and the City.

I hope to fill your shoes from that perspective.

————————————————————————–

Date: June 7, 2016 10:41 PM.”
From Travis Ussery
To: Randy Pogue

Honestly I know in your mind you mean well but …

I will say whatever I have to say in person. It the only way I know given my upbringing and mentoring by former mayors before your time including my father. Hand of God be with all from the grandson of a Baptist minister.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: August 3, 2016 7:51 PM
From Don Day
To: Mark Houser
Subject: Re: McLain PIA
Mark: I do not have any such correspondence regarding this subject. Don Day.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Date: August 4, 2016 8:54 PM
From Tracy Rath
To Mark Houser
Subject: Re: McLain PIA

Mark: Just to confirm, I have completed a search of all texts, emails and written notes and do not have anything that fits this request. Thanks Mark.

McKinney City Council, Let’s Be Adults About Conflicts of Interest

.Reading time 5 minutes.

Dear City Council:

Please be mindful of true independence in conjunction with conflicts of interests regarding your decisions to appoint, reappoint or remove members from all they key boards and commissions next Monday night. In particular, I ask that you remove Mr. Robbie Clark from the MEDC. See my previous blog for a more complete explanation: https://citybaseblog.net/2016/03/21/mckinney-city-council-raise-the-bar-lower-the-boom-on-mr-mckinney/

But I want to expand on an issue that goes beyond a single person. It has to do when there is an acknowledged conflict of interest, real or perceived, and a councilmember or board member “steps down.” That all looks good for the camera, but stepping down means you go into another room that has a speaker where you can listen. Actually, that’s not necessary since the down-stepper can simply watch the video the next day to catch the non-verbals.

Let’s be adults about this. It is fully expected that people likely to be on the council or boards will at least occasionally have a conflict. But in reality, everybody usually understands the conflict. Yet most people in governance would realize that if the remaining members vote against the item of interest, woe to the wicked, Sancho, the next time the no-votes want something passed. After 43 years in the business, I don’t need a lecture on politics. But I have also seen the genuinely brave and principled individuals who won’t sell their soul to be elected.

So, what is to be done about this conflict dilemma? It’s up to the voters to decide if a candidate for election or re-election can be independent. While I say that, I think it would make a difference if the citizens knew how many times a councilmember has had to step down. A couple of times a year would not raise a red flag. A couple of times a month would.

The joke of all times was when Councilman Pogue takes the Mayor Pro-Tem position away from Travis Ussery and then on Mr. Pogue’s first meeting to be the titular head of the Council, he has a conflict. So what does he do? He does an in-your-face to Councilman Ussery and asks him to handle the agenda item while he steps down.  By the way, just how many times has Mr. Pogue had to step down due to a conflict compared to the other council members since Mr. Pogue was elected? It should be an election issue for anyone running for City Council.

Or appointed to any of the boards and commissions.

Of all the Councilmembers who have attended P&Z, MEDC, MCDC and Airport board meetings, how many have sat in a closed session when there was an item discussed that conflicted or was to be a conflict after the meeting? Nobody is dumb enough to pretend people in the room can’t influence others just by being there.

I don’t blame you for wanting to reward a supporter by appointing them to a prominent board. All I ask is that you select the ones with the best judgement, knows how to make a business decision and is the least likely to have a problem with independence from using their influence to help anyone in general but you on the Council in particular.

Everyone on Planet Earth knows that the best way to get your way is to have a board you can influence to do the work for you. That’s not just McKinney, that’s everywhere.

I ask you to raise the bar. Throw out the good ole boys and the McKinney way of peddling influence. You know as well as I do that it has been way more prominent in the past than it should be. Be different. Be independent. Be transparent in every sense of the word, just like you promised when elected and generally use liberally in your daily public statements.

Many thanks! LFM

Welcome to McKinney’s Restaurant Ruse

.Reading time 6 minutes.

Stop me if you have heard this one. Two guys walk into a bar.

One says, hey, have you heard McKinney is going to have a Restaurant Row?

Cool. What is a Restaurant Row?

Well, it’s a group of restaurants kind of clustered together.

Doesn’t McKinney have several spots like that? It seems like there are a handful of pods already.

Sure, but this “new “idea is going to have a giant magnet attached to it.

What do you mean?

Well, it’s going to pull in all kinds of corporate businesses.

What???

Yes, corporate businesses are telling just one councilman that they are reluctant to move their locations to McKinney because there are not enough restaurants for their employees to eat at lunch.

How many?

How many what?

How many businesses are tethered to their locations and unwilling to move here unless there are restaurants without any other factors being as important?

Dunno. Councilman Pogue made it sound like Carl Sagan talking about the stars in the universe: billions and billions.

Did he get specific? Did he provide a number? Did anyone else get this corporate inside informatoin or mandate? Did the MEDC say McKinney has an IF-THEN-ElSE issue regarding this chicken and egg conundrum?

Dunno. Didn’t really say. Except for Councilmember Day. I’ll get to him in a minute, but now your questions have me wondering how this came about. Supposedly there is a Retail Coach Study that screams for restaurants to seed the corporate relocation boom that is apparently dormant right now.

Was Retail Coach there to make the case or to provide suggestions since they are supposed to be pretty familiar with McKinney.

Don’t think so.

With the thousands of dollars and thousands of hours spent on the Comprehensive Plan, was Restaurant Row mentioned in any way?

I don’t recall. But they are talking about three primary corridors right now, and maybe a fourth. It’s the kind of topic that fits within a council retreat setting, but I don’t recall it being brought up last January. It just came as a vision to Mr. Pogue, I guess.

So, what are they going to do with this Restaurant Row idea?

Well, they are going to study it.

OMG, they aren’t going to go through an elaborate RFP process and study it to death, are they?

Yes, the staff was given the directive to start a process that will go deep into next February.

But I thought the staff was overworked to the point of exhaustion.

I thought so, too. But all it takes is for a random idea to be pitched into the internal wheels of progress and, bam!, off they go on another rabbit chase.

Doesn’t anybody on the Council know how to say no.

No. It just takes two members to put something on the agenda and before long they are shooting Tee-Shirt cannons like at the American Airlines Center when the Mavericks or Stars are playing.

Whoa! Is this going to be one of those deals where everybody knows the outcome, and the study is just for show?

Well, I wondered about that. The first thing they wanted to do is appoint a Council Committee to be a “sounding board.” That’s code for we want to do this in secret.

What happened?

Fortunately, the Mayor made a good argument for why this should be staff driven all the way to decision time and then the entire Council be party to the deliberation process.

Ouch! I’ll bet that screwed the goose.

No doubt.

Are you sure this isn’t just a ploy on Councilman Pogue’s part? I hear he is running for mayor and already wants the throne or to prove his butt fits the seat, taking advantage of his position to promote himself.

Not sure, but it sure looks suspicious. Every agenda seems loaded to the brim. The MEDC has a new Executive Director and a board you’d think would bring up this idea if the time was right. And then Clark Kent rips open his suit to expose the big S.

Wait. This isn’t a deal being engineered to serve friends or family of Councilman Pogue, is it?

Holy Cow! I can’t believe you asked that. The very last question from Council Pogue to the staff and Council was what about a landowner with no knowledge of the Restaurant business who wanted to bid?

I’ll bet this is a wired deal. Doesn’t pass the smell test to me.

Me either.

What were you going to say about Councilman Day?

Don Day is smart and blunt. When he speaks, it is usually with something profound and straight to the point.

What did he say?

After the circuitous discussion went on for some time, he recapped his credentials, cut to the chase and said, and I am paraphrasing, that you can study this to death but I can tell you right now the two most viable locations are downtown McKinney and Gateway.

Makes sense.

LFM

 

 

 

 

 

An Open Records Request To Confirm An Illegal Walking Quorum In McKinney

.Reading time 5 minutes.

Upon hearing that Bernie Sanders made the motion to nominate Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nominee just now, I’ve had a flashback. Nobody on Planet Earth could possibly think Bernie can stand the thought of Hillary. But he is being a good soldier under  “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rule book. 

The flashback I am having relates to the process a few weeks ago when the McKinney Mayor Pro-Tem was selected.

The Mayor Pro-Tem for the last several years has been Travis Ussery. He has only one more year left on the City Council and is termed out. From the audience, Mr. Ussery has been the quintessential Mayor Pro-Tem. He is a gentlemen and has been subservient and respectful to Mayor Loughmiller in all of the good ways. A betting person would have put their money on Travis Ussery being given the courtesy of being Mayor Pro-Tem for one more year. Presumably his las year in that he has not announced that he was running for Mayor in May 2017. 

However, Councilmember Randy Pogue had announced weeks before that he was going to run for Mayor. On the surface! Mr. Pogue also seems to be a gentleman. Many people I talked to assumed Mr. Travis would continue in his role as Mayor Pro-Tem. Well, until a few days before the Council meeting. There were whispers that Mr. Pogue was lobbying other Councilmembers for him to be named Mayor Pro-Tem as a way to bolster his chances a year away to ascend to the Mayoral throne. 

I attended the meeting and arrived early. Travis Ussery also appeared well before the other  Councilmembers. I could tell by his face that something had happened. I don’t know Mr. Travis very well, but I could tell he was hurting. Enough that I was hurting for him and could see what was about to happen. 

When the meeting started, all seven Councilmembers were somber. Then in a most awkward manner, the Mayor stuttered and stammered about protocol, complimented Mr. Ussery and then turned it over to him. Mr. Ussery, also awkwardly, expressed gratitude and then nominated Mr. Pogue as Mayor Pro-Tem. Wow! There was only one problem, and it was huge. His face and tone did not match his words. 

Just about anybody half-way observant would have surmised a coup had taken place. Mr. Ussery had been drawn and quartered and given two ugly choices. 

There was one more weird thing that happened. At the close of the meeting, Randy Pogue re-announced that he was seeking the office of Mayor in 2017. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. If you were to watch the video in slow motion, I’m pretty sure the expression on the Mayor’s face might resemble the Dallas policemen in the white hat and suit standing next to Lee Harvey Oswald when Jack Ruby stepped up and shot him. As I recall, the Mayor joked to Mr. Pogue that he still had a year to be the Mayor. 

Up to now, I’ve been trying to lay the foundation for my primary message. In Texas, Open Meetings and Open Records are serious topics. Discussions are supposed to be in the public forum. Even for qualified closed meetings, the decisions made have to be stated publicly. There is even a specific prohibition against Walking Quorums. This violation occurs when Councilmembers talk to each other individually to work out a deal. In fact, even a third party like the City Manager or a Developer can’t visit with individual Councilmembers to influence a decision, especially to indicate where previously Councilmembers are leaning. Walking Quorums are the most surreptitious and flagrant of Open Meeting violations. 

So, how did this obvious “deal” get brokered? It had to be behind the scenes. I’m not a lawyer, but it sure seems to me that Open Meetings laws were broken. 

Therefore, I am making an Open Records Request (ORR) for any and all emails, text messages or notes between all seven Councilmembers related to any aspect of choosing and selecting the Mayor Pro-Tem serving the current. I fully expect to confirm Open Meetings laws have been broken. I will turn over my finds to the news media and legal authorities. Stay tuned. LFM