BAD NEWS GALORE?

By G. Romero Wendorf

People always accuse the media of putting the focus on the negative just to gain attention – more readers, more viewers -- so I thought I’d throw media critics a post-Christmas bone, of sorts, by putting “Bad news galore” in the headline, although clearly, there’s been more good happening in Hidalgo County than bad this past year. For all the crime and corruption reported, there’s probably 10 times as much good, kindness and charity handed out among the population. But it’s true: bad news gets more attention.

Plus, call me contrary, but I enjoy bugging the happy/clappy chamber of commerce types --- which by defnition are all about good news even when it’s false -- almost all of whom are incapable of operating as self-sufficient entities without the support of taxpayer dollars, as do we who work in the private-business sector. If as a chamber of commerce executive director making, say, $130k per year, should you not be capable of going out and raising money on your own without the support of the taxpayers?

But back to the issue of good news vs. bad news:

If politicians and judges behaved, and the cartels went away, what would we have left? Nothing but good news?

Once the FBI releases its crime stats for 2015, which probably won’t be released until late 2017, since it usually runs two years behind, we’ll probably see what we saw in 2013, an actual decrease in overall crime. You just wouldn’t know it from the headlines, because, well, bodies dumped by the side of Valley roads make the headlines more than charitable acts seem to do, although at The Advance News Journal, we at least try to balance the good news and the bad.

In fact, between 2009 and 2013, the county crime rate dropped from 3,816.4 per 100,000 to 2,462.6 crimes per 100,000. And that was while Lupe Treviño was still Hidalgo County sheriff and the Panama Unit was patrolling the streets.

Speaking of Lupe and his son, Jonathan, they helped Hidalgo County kick off 2015 with a nice cover story in Rolling Stone Magazine (Jan. 5, 2015) titled: “America’s Dirtiest Cops: Cash, Cocaine, Corruption on the Texas Border.” Certainly good PR for those looking to relocate to the RGV from, say, Minneapolis.

We end 2015, of course, with more stories about public corruption: the Starr County Tax Assessor-Collector, Carmen Peña, and assorted staff arrested and charged with allegedly stealing $700,000 in taxpayer monies. There are also alleged ties to the Mexican cartels on the part of her offce, handing them fake vehicle registrations to facilitate drug trafficking.

In Hidalgo County, state District Court Judge Jesse Contreras is being looked at for allegedly handing out special favors – read, gobs of money -- to several close attorneys whom he knows (more on that next week), which may cost the county $660,000 in state grant monies, which are used to pay for pre-trial services to determine if those recently arrested qualify for a public defender (these would, of course, include the many illegal immigrants now being housed in the county jail). Apparently the state isn’t happy with Contreras’s performance as judge and wants to fne the county the $660k. I mean, it’s not like we’re broke or anything. The county’s only approximately $8 million in the hole for 2016.

It’s still not clear if Contreras is running for re-election or not. Hopefully we can get an interview with His Honor to clarify some things.

The Judge Contreras story is reminiscent of last year’s story about another state district judge, Noe Gonzalez of the 370th, who received a formal admonishment from the state’s commission on judicial conduct (can’t these people up in Austin just mind their own business and leave well enough alone?) for allowing one attorney, David N. Calvillo, to pay his frm $1.2 million for legal fees and expenses after being declared the court-appointed receiver to oversee business and family monies while a divorce case (Anton Domit vs. Maria Domit) was being settled. 

On top of the approximate $1.2 million he received as the court-appointed receiver, Calvillo allegedly paid some divorce lawyers he knew approximately $999,000 for legal fees and expenses – ka-ching -- to help settle the Domit matter. When all was said and done, a federal lawsuit followed, claiming the Domits’ money (the builders of the leaning Ocean Tower condo on South Padre, which led to more lawsuits) had been wasted on frivolous legal expenses, after which Calvillo filed for bankruptcy allegedly using the Domits’ money to pay for his own bankruptcy attorneys (who says lawyers aren’t clever?). Last heard of, it this case was still resting in federal court. (Hopefully, we’ll have more on this story next week.)

This Calvillo issue came up, by the way, after The Advance published a story last week about the temporary administrator appointed by Probate Judge Homero Garza to oversee the approximate million-dollar estate of murder victim Martin Knell. Already, the two attorneys working the case – Ricardo Gonzalez and Antonio Villeda – are turning in fees ($250 per hour), which is tacked on to a five-percent commission on all monies spent or received while managing the estate. Since the murder case is expected to drag on, what the final administrative legal fees come to is anyone’s guess.

(Those $125 30-minute phone calls do add up. Look at a fax and tack on another hundred.)

Meanwhile, The Advance News still can’t get its hands on Shary ISD’s audit report. Both the school district and attorney general have denied our open records request. Did the district violate bidding laws or didn’t it? We have two interviews, with two former board members, scheduled for publication next week. One former board member says clearly laws were broken and it was he who first alerted the FBI as to Shary ISD’s malfeasance. The other former board member says he’s proud of his service on the board, proud of Shary ISD, and even though a few mistakes might have been made – might have been made --  it’s nothing that amounts to anything of a criminal nature.

In Weslaco, we’re working on a story that asks the question: did the previous city administration majority follow proper procedure last year when it awarded $750,000 to a San Antonio firm to draw up a drainage and comprehensive plan for the city in August of 2014? 

Initially, five months earlier in March 2014, the city went out for RFQs (request for qualifcations) and six firms replied. All were rejected because the city commission majority said it lacked the approximate $750,000 to pay for it.

Then in August of 2014, without going out for additional RFQs or RFPs (request for proposals, which includes price) an item was placed on the agenda, and the job was suddenly awarded to a San Antonio firm (which wasn’t part of the original six). The drainage and comprehensive plan it ultimately drew up was basically a shopping list, according to one source, that would have cost the city of Weslaco $1 billion, which the city clearly lacked.

Now the question becomes, how did the city commission majority at the time, which didn’t include the current mayor, come up with the $750k in August, when it said it couldn’t afford it in March? And by awarding the San Antonio firm the money without putting out another RFP or exempting it by placing an exemption item on the agenda, were all the proper state rules and regulations followed? Meanwhile, is the $750k drainage and comprehensive plan of any real value to the city or will it simply sit on the shelf forever collecting dust?

Good news for the San Antonio firm: it’s already been paid the $750k. Good to go.