Big Sheriff is watching you

Unbelievable.

The Harris County Sheriff's Office acknowledged Tuesday that deputies were assigned to watch two brothers who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the department over their arrest during a 2002 drug raid.

Sheriff's Capt. John Martin said one or two members of the department's investigative support unit conducted surveillance on Erik and Sean Ibarra for five or six hours over a three-day period last October.

While Martin and First Assistant County Attorney John Barnhill said the unit did nothing illegal, the Ibarras are threatening to sue.

South Texas College of Law professor Adam Gershowitz said the department's actions may have opened the door for a harassment or invasion of privacy lawsuit.

"It certainly doesn't make it good policy or acceptable just because it's not criminal," Gershowitz said.

I think "vindictive" might be a good descriptor here. The only possible reason to be doing this is to hope, however vainly, that you can catch them doing something illegal - moderately suspicious or embarassing will do in a pinch if you're doing video surveillance - and use it at trial to attack their character. Does any of that sound like a good use of public resources?

Lloyd Kelley, the brothers' attorney, said he was preparing to sue on behalf of the Ibarras and other people who sued the department and believe they were trailed by deputies.

"I just don't see how the sheriff's department can continue this kind of reign of terror," Kelley said.

Martin dismissed Kelley's accusations, describing the surveillance as a routine step in preparing for trial.

He said he was not sure what the deputies were looking for, other than "background information." Nothing useful came from the surveillance, beyond confirmation of the Ibarras' address, he added.

Oh, spare me. I just said what they were looking for. You can call it "background information" if you want, but that doesn't change anything.

He said the unit has conducted similar operations in the past for the county attorney's office, usually in workers' compensation cases. He said he could not say how much was spent on surveillance of the Ibarras because it was part of the unit's normal operations.

"We're not talking about some long, drawn-out, resource-intensive operation," he said.

Barnhill said the county attorney's office did not request the surveillance in this case. He said the office has 10 investigators who handle that work, though the sheriff's department may have assisted once or twice.

Translation: Mike Stafford, who has enough problems of his own to worry about, wants no part of these shenanigans. You're on your own, bubba.

Gershowitz said it was normal for attorneys to gather background information before trial, but it would be unusual for the person or entity being sued to do the spying.

"It just sort of looks bad," he said. "They may have had the best of intentions, although it's hard to see that, but it looks inappropriate."

Houston City Councilman Adrian Garcia, who is running for sheriff as a Democrat, said the department abused its authority.

Garcia is holding a press conference this afternoon, so I imagine he'll have a lot more to say about this. Here's KTRK video about this story, from Monday and yesterday. You can count on there being more to this as well.

The city budget for 2009

The Mayor's proposed budget for 2009 has something for everyone, which no doubt also means something for everyone to complain about.

Mayor Bill White unveiled a record $4 billion budget proposal Tuesday, calling for a sharp increase in spending on public safety while cutting the property tax rate by a half-cent.

The mayor's fiscal 2009 budget also would, if approved, create a dedicated set-aside of tax revenues to pay for drainage improvements, fund the addition of 150 police officers and add 50,000 homes to the curbside recycling program.

"Because we've enjoyed strong economic growth, and because we're running City Hall more efficiently, we can afford a tax rate cut of half a penny per $100 of valuation to bring our tax rate down," White said.

City revenue is projected to be $4.07 billion in the new fiscal year, which begins July 1. That would be an increase of 6.7 percent over the current fiscal year.

For the first time, the general fund -- the part of the budget paid for by property and sales taxes, fees and fines -- will top $2 billion. The remainder of the budget is made up of user fees for water, sewer, the airports and entertainment facilities.

"It's a big budget we have, but the citizens can be sure we have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb," White said. "Wherever we can find savings, we try to squeeze out savings, which is one reason we are able to deliver far more services with a lower tax rate."

The budget would provide an additional $105 million for police, fire and EMS. Public safety spending makes up 58 percent of the general fund.

I can't wait to hear the complaints from certain factions that both the tax cut and the increase in spending on police are too small. Why, if only we'd budget like the federal government has been doing these past few years, we could have more of each and have enough money left over to fund an invasion and occupation of Galveston. You just have to think outside the box a little, and not worry too much about what will happen after you're term-limited out.

New to this year's budget is a dedicated funding source for drainage improvements. Subject to council approval, 0.3 cents of every $100 in property value would be dedicated to flooding projects.

The rate would rise gradually, reaching 0.75 cent by 2017.

Next year, the set-aside could raise $2.6 million.

The city has scheduled $211 million in capital drainage improvements in its current five-year capital plan.

In his Looking Forward to 2008 essay, Noel Freeman called for the city "to set the budget for drainage infrastructure maintenance and improvements at no less than $100 million for FY2009 and to set a five year plan to increase that number to $150 million by FY2013". I don't know about the first part of that, but it would seem that the second condition has been more than met. Putting more resources into drainage improvements, especially as the city continues to densify, is a very good thing in my book.

The DA's information office

I suppose this is reasonable enough.

On the heels of unprecedented scrutiny of the Harris County District Attorney's Office, interim District Attorney Ken Magidson won approval from Commissioners Court on Tuesday to create a public information office at a cost of about $270,000 a year.

In documents submitted to the court, Magidson said the office's current policy of allowing investigators and assistant district attorneys to talk directly with the media has become difficult to supervise. He described his plan for a public information attorney and public information officer to serve as the "face and voice" of the office in his absence and said they would serve as the liaison between the news media and the staff.

Magidson insisted Tuesday that the change would not restrict the flow of information, even as his general counsel, who is acting as the office's spokesman until the division is created, said access to assistant district attorneys would be limited.

"We're just trying to alleviate a problem in the office, and that is, we're not able to get the kind of responses in a timely and professional manner I want," Magidson said. "That's all."

[...]

In Harris County, reporters currently can contact assistant district attorneys directly to ask them about cases they are handling. After a trial ends, prosecutors often hold impromptu press conferences in the hallway of the courtroom to discuss the verdict.

Scott Durfee, the general counsel for the district attorney's office, said the new policy would route reporters' questions through the public information office, and prosecutors' post-verdict comments would be carefully crafted by the media specialists in consultation with the district attorney. In some instances, only a written statement would be provided, he said.

"It's not going to be the prosecutors' call any more as to what gets said or not said," Durfee said. "It's going to be the district attorney's call."

When told that Magidson said prosecutors would be free to comment, as long as they observed all ethical and legal guidelines, Durfee deferred to his boss.

"Obviously, this is a work in progress," he said.

Maybe that proves Magidson's point about the need to streamline communications. As long as this really does improve things and allows equal or better transparency, I'm okay with it. Both DA candidates seem to like the idea, for what it's worth. At this time at least, I've no objections.

Shocked? No, not really

While it's true that some officials may be shocked to see the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) come out in favor of the big polluters in their lawsuit against the city over its air quality ordinance, I don't think anyone who knows anything about the TCEQ can honestly claim it's a surprise.

The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality contends that the city ordinance requiring businesses to pay registration fees for various sources of air pollution is inconsistent with state law.

The agency's general counsel, Les Trobman, made the assertion in an April 24 letter to the Harris County District Court judge weighing the Business Coalition for Clean Air Appeal Group's lawsuit against the city over the ordinance.

The position came as a surprise to city leaders, who said Friday that they have met several times with agency officials in recent months without mention of the ordinance in dispute.

"It's quite strange that the state's pollution control agency would meddle in the city's lawsuit on behalf of the polluters," said Kathy Patrick, an attorney with the Houston law firm Gibbs & Bruns, who is representing the city in the case. "It's a complete puzzlement."

In a statement, the TCEQ said the letter was sent to the court to provide information that already had been relayed to the city.

[...]

In the letter to the judge, Trobman argued that "requiring a regulated entity to separately register a fee is inconsistent with state law." What's more, it's the role of the state Legislature to grant regulatory authority, making it the best place to resolve the dispute, he wrote.

If the Legislature is the most appropriate venue for the fight, said Elena Marks, the mayor's health policy director, the industry group should drop the lawsuit. "They can't have it both ways," she said.

I agree that in an ideal world, the Legislature would be the place to resolve this. Unfortunately, as we well know, the Legislature is part of the problem. (So's the Governor's office, but we can't do anything about that until 2010.) In the meantime, regardless of what happens with the lawsuit, the TCEQ's actions will serve as yet another reminder of who's really being served by our government.

More on the HCDE and Wolfe

The School Zone blog has a nice account of the marathon Harris County Department of Education meeting at which HCDE Trustee/bad boy Michael Wolfe was censured and asked to resign (the official letter of censure can be found here). This may be my favorite bit:

Two speakers, both Republican activists, speak in favor of Wolfe. Things get testy. Dorothy Olmos, who used to work under Wolfe in the Republican Party, describes the board's movement against Wolfe as a "personal vendetta." She continues: "Our tax dollars are being spent by wasting time on something that is very immature and irrational to the constituents."

I refer you to the censure document, which contains these particulars:

WHEREAS Mr. Michael Wolfe has failed to notify the Department or other board members of his whereabouts for over three months. Board agenda and other official Department information mailed to the address he identified have been returned to the Department unread. Phone calls, emails, and other attempts to communicate with him have been met with non-response; and,

WHEREAS Mr. Michael Wolfe while publicly criticizing the Board and the Department for lack of fiscal responsibility has failed to participate responsibly in HCDE fiscal matters such as the budget development process, the tax rate setting and the associated audit activities. Of the critical, three-month series of meetings leading up to these vital fiscal decisions, Mr. Wolfe attended only the 35 minute wrap-up budget committee meeting; and

[...]

WHEREAS Mr. Michael Wolfe had not attended a board meeting since November 2007 (absent without prior notification from meetings on December 18, 2007; January 22, 2008; February 26, 2008); and

WHEREAS Mr. Michael Wolfe, as a board elected representative, has not attended a meeting of the Harris County Department of Education's Public Facilities Corporation Board since September 2007 (absent without prior notification from meetings in August 2007, December 2007, February 2008); and

[...]

WHEREAS Mr. Wolfe threatened Board Members during an Executive Session and when asked to confirm the threat, he did not deny that it was a threat against the Board members;

There's immaturity and irrationality aplenty here, but I don't think it's the Board that's responsible for it.

School Zone also answers a question that I was unable to determine by Googling around: What is the HCDE tax rate, which Michael Wolfe wants to set to zero?

I just got some numbers from Paul Bettencourt, the Harris County tax assessor-collector who had a run-in with Wolfe earlier this year. The department's tax rate is $0.005853, or less than half a penny per $100 dollars of valuation.

The bottom line: The owner of an average home in Harris County pays $6.62 a year in taxes to the department (with exemptions taken into account). In all, the department gets about $15 million a year in local tax dollars, Bettencourt said. Over seven years, he said, the tax bill has gone up 46 percent. For other entities, the average is about 50 percent.

That's approximately the amount of a combo meal at your favorite fast food restaurant; super-sizing may or may not be within that budget, depending on which sandwich you choose. Whoop de doo.

HCDE trustees demand Wolfe's resignation

Time for another update on Michael Wolfe, Harris County's wackiest Department of Education trustee. Previous installments are here and here. After months of talking about it, his fellow HCDE Trustees have made it official: They want him to resign.

After voting to censure Wolfe, the board then voted to retain an outside attorney to research possible legal moves if Wolfe does not step down.

In their written censure, trustees said Wolfe skipped meetings, ignored communication from the board, wasted employees' time, distorted information and expressed support for eliminating the department's property tax rate.

The department, funded mostly through grants and fees from school districts, assists area districts by running adult education, preschool and special-education programs.

Supporting elimination of the department's property tax rate may or may not be good public policy, but it's at least a matter of policy. The other stuff is just amateur night shenanigans that don't speak well of Wolfe - reread this letter (PDF) that was sent to him last fall by HCDE Superintendent John Sawyer for the full flavor of that. I have no idea if the rest of the Board can actually force Wolfe out, but the fact that they've gone as far as hiring an attorney to research it says a lot.

Wolfe, a local GOP activist, described the board's move against him as politically motivated. All the trustees are Republicans, but Wolfe acknowledges supporting two candidates who defeated incumbents in the primary election.

Raymond Garcia, the board president who was one of those defeated, rejected the claim that the act was personal. Other trustees and even the board's superintendent, John Sawyer, raised concerns about Wolfe's performance last October.

"I do need to say, there is no personal vendetta involved here," Garcia said at the beginning of Wednesday's six-hour meeting, which mostly took place behind closed doors.

There may have been no vendetta, but I'm sure there was a little extra motivation. And who could blame them for that? The two victorious Republican challengers are cronies of Wolfe's, which will make him more powerful next year if they win in November. If that doesn't sound like such a good thing to you, then remember the names Jim Henley and Debra Kerner, because they're the Democrats running against Wolfe's buddies. Having them on the Board instead will maintain a level of professionalism that would be otherwise lost.

Kelley to get $1.4 million

It's a lot less than what he asked for, but Lloyd Kelley will still get a lot of money out of the Ibarra case.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Harris County to pay more than $1.4 million in legal fees to two brothers who won a record settlement resolving their wrongful arrest lawsuit.

[...]

In his ruling approving the attorneys' fees Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt blamed Harris County for refusing to settle the case, even though it had been advised by its own legal expert to do so.

"The tragedy, in the court's opinion, is that this vast expenditure of time on both sides was driven primarily by Harris County's mindset that has proven impervious to the truth, even though that truth was presented more than 5,000 billable hours earlier," Hoyt wrote.

Sounds like Judge Hoyt agreed with Kelley's argument to some extent, but wasn't willing to take it all the way to Kelley's conclusion that the county deserved to be charged more as a way of imposing "punitive" damages.

Harris County also used 26 trial and appellate attorneys on the case, expending nearly $2.3 million in billable hours, when two to four attorneys would have been "more than sufficient," Hoyt wrote.

"In part, this accounts for the factious tone of the litigation as experienced by the court and, as well, the absence of leadership in the handling of Harris County's business," he wrote.

Ouch. This case may be over, but with quotes like that out there, you can count on hearing about it again this fall.

Build green

I like the sound of this.

Houston builders will have to incorporate "green" design techniques such as heat-trapping vestibules and "cool roofs" that deflect sunlight under a proposed new energy code for commercial buildings.

The City Council could pass the new code for commercial buildings on Wednesday. A new residential code also is being developed and could come before the council next month.

Houston adopted its first energy codes in 2002 in response to a state mandate. This would be the first update, and it is decidedly more "green" than its predecessor.

[...]

The code would require simple things like covers for heated pools. But it delves into specific material requirements for required "cool roofs" that absorb less solar radiation. Acceptable types of window glass would have to strike a balance between energy insulation and a good view, Blake said.

New buildings of at least four stories would be required to have vestibules to prevent Houston's hot, humid air from rushing in when doors open and close. That was an addition to the engineering code created especially for the city's climate, said Bob Burch, an engineer with Carter & Burgess and a member of the city's Construction Industry Council. The CIC, an umbrella association for various builders groups, worked with the city on the new code.

Burch chaired the code-writing committee, which included city officials and representatives from contracting, real estate, architecture and green building organizations.

One would hope this means there isn't any organized opposition to this plan. At the very least, the article doesn't quote any opponents.

Burch said many of the requirements would pay for themselves in three years, or less.

"The entire industry is going toward the green," he said. "These are all things that are industry-proven and can be done and should be done."

I presume one reason for codifying this, beyond simply making a statement that the city believes in it, is that there will always be some builders who don't believe in it, or who'd rather take the short-term savings and cut corners. This is why I prefer a regulatory approach to a voluntary one.

HGLBT's Jenifer Pool achieves a milestone

This is cool. From a press release from the HGLBT Political Caucus.

The Houston GLBT Political Caucus is pleased to announce the appointment of Jenifer Pool, President of the Caucus, to the City of Houston's Building and Standards Commission.

Jenifer Pool was appointed by Mayor Bill White and unanimously confirmed by City Council to serve on the Buildings and Standards Commission. The first transgendered person to serve in an elected position in the City of Houston, Jenifer's expertise will allow her to do her duties on the Commission, the purpose of which is hearing and determining cases concerning alleged violations of ordinances relating to dangerous buildings and vector conditions.

"As a Professional Engineer who could not get a job with the City in 1976 because I was transgendered, and as the architect of the 1980 repeal of the City ordinance that made all transgenders subject to arrest, I am very satisfied with the positive changes in City government as evidenced by Ms. Pool's talents and education being fully utilized in this manner," said Phyllis Randolph Frye, a recognized leader in the national GLBT civil rights movement, and a partner in the Houston law firm of Simoneaux and Frye, PLLC.

"To be nominated by the Mayor and unanimously elected by City Council, shows the high regard they hold for Jenifer's expertise and leadership skills in the Caucus and the community," said Maria C. Gonzalez, Vice President of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus. The Honorable Jenifer Pool will serve a two year term on the Commisssion.

The Caucus meets the first Wednesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. The monthly meeting is held at the Havens Center, 1827 W. Alabama. Visitors are encouraged to attend the monthly meeting to learn more about the Caucus. For more information about the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, Caucus events, or volunteer opportunities call 713-521-1000, email info@thecaucus.org, or visit our web site at www.theCaucus.org.

It's a cliche to say we've come a long way, but it's also true. And it's a very good thing. My congrats to Jenifer Pool on the appointment. I know she'll do a fine job.

Recycle or lose it

If your neighborhood is lax about curbside recycling, it might lose that service.

The city has compiled a naughty-and-nice list of neighborhoods that get curbside recycling pickup, and those with poor participation rates may get booted from the program, officials said.

If fewer than 10 percent of households in a neighborhood set out recyclables on the curb, then the coveted service could go to a neighborhood on the waiting list.

"It really makes no sense for us to spend resources if those neighborhoods are not going to participate," said Harry Hayes, director of the city's Solid Waste Management Department.

The city did two house-by-house counts in 2006 to gauge participation. One count took place after a $350,000 marketing outreach effort by the city.

The problem of insufficient participation in curbside recycling goes back a ways. If you remember the report from last year about imposing a fee for heavy trash pickup, some of the revenue from that was supposed to be used on recycling efforts. I really don't know why this service is so underutilized, and I think it's time - past time - for the city to do a real PR/education blitz to get more people to use it. This is exactly the kind of thing that would be ideal for a public/private partnership, as local businesses can help by pushing the concept in their offices as well. Ideally, the recycling program should be a moneymaker for the city. The fact that it's not, at least as of 2005, is a tragedy and a big missed opportunity.

Garden Oaks is one neighborhood that could lose the service. It had a 9 percent participation rate.

"I would be very upset," said Ivan Mayers, vice president of the civic club. "The city shouldn't be reducing recycling, they should be trying to increase it."

Mayers said the community deserves some more time and education.

"Garden Oaks is a neighborhood that's changing," he said. "We have a lot of older retired people and they're not really used to recycling, but we're getting a lot of younger, up-and-coming people, and they're very environmentally conscious."

Mayers said he will ask for a city official to come speak at the civic club meetings.

I have no problem with giving these neighborhoods one last chance. But let's get on with it. If there are other neighborhoods that will actually use the service, they need to be allowed to do so.

On a related note, I like this idea as well.

Houston could offer citywide recycling of "wood waste" such as tree limbs, stumps and brush as soon as this fall.

The program could divert more than 90,000 tons of trash from landfills, saving taxpayers $1.7 million a year. But residents would have to sacrifice half of their heavy-trash pickup days.

City Council could vote on the proposal in the next few weeks. Under the plan being considered by the Solid Waste Management Department "wood waste" pickup would take place on the scheduled heavy-trash day, every other month. Heavy trash -- such as furniture, appliances and some building materials -- and "wood waste" would alternate months.

[...]

LETCO will charge the city $12.45 a ton for the wood. That would save taxpayer money, since the city does not own a landfill and must pay tipping fees of $32 per ton to dump its trash. Officials estimate wood waste makes up almost 30 percent of the solid waste generated by the city.

Seems like a pretty clear win here. What's the concern?

Councilwoman Jolanda Jones expressed concern. She said the recycling is a good idea, but halving heavy-trash pickups could cause problems.

"I don't think every other month is sufficient," she said. "On the north side, and especially in Acres Homes, they need more rather than less heavy-trash pickup."

Then maybe this needs to be done in a way that allows for some areas to get a different level of heavy trash pickup. Maybe that solid waste fee that was discussed last year could be revived for this kind of purpose. I see no reason why this can't be worked out.

Ibarras must settle for their settlement

Last week, the Ibarra brothers sought a hearing to withdraw their settlement agreement with Harris County and take their case to trial, on the grounds that the county violated that agreement by paying the legal fees for two attorneys who had been sanctioned by the judge in the case to pursue an appeal of their punishment. Yesterday, the judge denied their request.

Sean Carlos Ibarra, 37, and Erik Adam Ibarra, 28, sought to return a $1.7 million payment they received from Harris County earlier this month settling their case because they wanted to go back to trial.

Their attorney, Lloyd Kelley, made the request because he said Harris County breached the settlement agreement by appealing sanctions levied against two assistant county attorneys who previously worked on the case.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt had sanctioned the two attorneys, Frank Sanders and Mary Baker, for improperly obtaining and making public Sean Ibarra's medical records during the discovery phase of the case. Sanders' and Baker's attorneys recently asked a higher court to review the matter.

Kelley had also requested an emergency hearing because he alleged Harris County is improperly using public money to pay for Sanders' and Baker's "private appeals."

Hoyt, however, rejected those requests Monday, signaling an end to the Ibarras' civil case.

In his ruling, Hoyt declined to rescind the settlement agreement and refused to reinstate the Ibarras' civil case on his trial docket.

He also declined to find Harris County in contempt or to levy further sanctions in the case.

The judge's decision means the Ibarras will keep the $1.7 million already paid into their lawyer's trust fund on their behalf.

So that's pretty much it for this case, other than the matter of Lloyd Kelley's fee request, which is still under dispute. There was a small story in yesterday's print section about how the money Chuck Rosenthal paid in fines for being found in contempt of court went into Kelley's pocket, but for some reason it doesn't seem to have ever appeared online. Weird. Anyway, barring anything strange, the fee stuff is the only unresolved issue left, and I figure that'll be dealt with soon.

More on the Ibarras' request to withdraw settlement agreement

When the news broke about the Ibarra brothers wanting to cancel the settlement agreement in their lawsuit against the Sheriff's office, I wondered if it was because the county was paying for the appeal two lawyers who had been barred from their case were pursuing over sanctions given them by Judge Hoyt. That would appear to be the case.

The county is obligated by law to provide legal counsel for attorneys Frank Sanders and Mary Baker because they are county employees, even though they were not defendants in the lawsuit, said John Barnhill, first assistant of the Harris County Attorney's Office.

Sanders and Baker are appealing sanctions levied against them by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt, who disqualified them three years ago from defending the county in a civil rights lawsuit filed by Sean Carlos Ibarra and Erik Adam Ibarra -- two Houston brothers who claim they were wrongfully arrested after one of them photographed an officer during a drug raid.

In his 2005 sanctions order, Hoyt concluded Sanders and Baker tried to deny the Ibarra brothers a fair trial and violated Sean Ibarra's constitutional right to privacy when they improperly obtained his medical records from the Harris County Hospital District. The judge ordered Sanders, Baker and the county to pay a $10,000 fine.

But the Ibarras are seeking to return the $1.7 million settlement they received from the county earlier this month and want to go back to trial, alleging the appeal by Sanders and Baker violates the agreement that resolved their lawsuit.

The brothers' attorney, Lloyd Kelley, said paying for the appeal with county funds is illegal unless the Harris County Commissioners Court has approved such an expenditure.

Barnhill said Commissioners Court previously approved spending county money to defend Sanders and Baker.

As I said before, I don't think it's unreasonable for the county to pay the legal fees for their employees in a matter like this. There is a case to be made against that, given that their actions cost the county money as well, but that would seem to be an issue for their supervisors to deal with. I certainly understand where the Ibarras are coming from here, but I don't think they've been wronged by this.

No mention in this story about the dispute over Lloyd Kelly's fee demands, by the way. I'm pretty sure that issue isn't going away.

Ibarra brothers want to go back to court

You know that settlement agreement in the lawsuit against the Sheriff's office? It may not be so settled after all.

The county paid Sean Carlos Ibarra and Erik Adam Ibarra the agreed settlement on April 1, but the brothers want to return the $1.7 million and resume their battle in court because Harris County is appealing some portions of the case.

The Ibarras are seeking an emergency hearing and reinstatement on the trial docket, but U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has not yet acted on that request.

"We're dead serious about this," said the Ibarras' attorney, Lloyd Kelley. "I don't imagine that the court is just going to blow it off."

County Attorney Mike Stafford denied that the county has violated the settlement agreement.

"Everything is in the hands of an experienced, fair-minded judge, and he'll make the right decisions," Stafford said Thursday.

[...]

Kelley said the county breached that settlement agreement with his clients by recently challenging Hoyt's 2005 decision to sanction and fine two assistant county attorneys for improperly obtaining the Ibarras' medical records from the Harris County Hospital District.

But assistant county attorneys Frank Sanders and Mary Baker have every right to appeal Hoyt's decision to disbar them from the case and fine them $10,000, their legal counsel retorted.

The county ultimately deposited that money into the court's registry pending the outcome of the civil lawsuit.

Furthermore, Sanders' and Baker's appeal does not affect anyone's ability to comply with the settlement, said their attorney, Lynne Liberato.

"Sanders and Baker still may appeal for the sake of their professional reputations," Liberato wrote in court papers.

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the face of it, I don't see any reason why the attorneys in question shouldn't be able to appeal their punishment. I'm a little confused as to why that's happening now when the sanctions were given in 2005, but I don't know all the details so perhaps I'm missing something. I suppose the issue for the Ibarras here is if the county is paying the legal fees for Sanders and Baker as they pursue this appeal, and if part of the settlement agreement was that those two had done wrong and deserved those sanctions. If so, then I can see a distinction between them pursuing an appeal on their own, and them doing it on the county's dime.

Kelley also alleged the county violated the settlement by challenging some of the legal fees, court costs and expenses related to the Ibarras' suit after it had agreed to pay all of them as a condition of the settlement.

But the county has since alleged Kelley charged an excessive hourly rate and submitted large amounts of "unexplained expenses."

Well, Kelley's fee request was rather unusual, and I have a hard time faulting the county for taking issue with it. And with all due respect to Lloyd Kelley, it's not really clear to me how this disagreement over the bill affects the deal with the Ibarras. It feels to me like it's Kelley's business and not theirs.

But whatever. Back to you, Judge Hoyt.

Council approves billboard deal

The deal with Clear Channel to take down 831 billboards, which was presumably tagged by Council last week, has now been approved unanimously.

The agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor would remove 831 small and medium-sized billboards -- a two-thirds reduction of all the company's billboards smaller than 288 square feet.

[...]

Mayor Bill White said the new deal was a good compromise. The council approved it without discussion.

It was certainly an acceptable compromise to the folks who had complained about the original deal. I know I'm happy with it.

New billboard ordinance delayed

The deal with Clear Channel to take down over 800 billboards has been delayed for a week by City Council.

The council is expected to take up the agreement at next week's meeting. It calls for the company to dismantle smaller billboards throughout the city. Many are in residential neighborhoods and advertise liquor and lottery games. Mayor Bill White has called the signs offensive.

Council members said they wanted another week to read over the legal agreement with the company before voting. The final documents were not ready by Wednesday's meeting.

I presume it was tagged by somebody, but that information is not in the story. I also presume this will be easily adopted when it does get voted on next week.

KTRK wins injunction in Sheriff's email deletion case

Good.

The Harris County Sheriff's Office policy of automatically deleting e-mails after 14 days violates state law, a judge has ruled.

State district Judge David J. Bernal issued a permanent injunction on Monday, preventing the department from implementing the policy ever again. Bernal also ordered the release of 750,000 e-mails erased from employees' in-boxes in a mass deletion between Jan. 12 and 19.

[...]

The sheriff's office had argued that the deleted e-mails were no longer subject to the Texas Public Information Act once they moved to backup tape.

According to Monday's ruling, however, all the e-mails are considered public information, regardless of their storage medium.

The ruling also determined that Sheriff Tommy Thomas' policy of deleting e-mails after 14 days contradicts the Texas municipal code, which requires all public employees' correspondence to be kept for two years.

As I said before, the Sheriff's argument that email on backup tape was no longer subject to the TPIA was so ludicrous that it's hard to believe they even tried to make it. It doesn't pass the laugh test. This is an embarassment, and it got what it deserved.

The sheriff's office must now turn the e-mails over to Dolcefino within 14 business days and pay all KTRK's attorney fees and costs.

[...]

Thomas has asked to file an appeal, said John Barnhill, first assistant county attorney. Barnhill declined to comment on the possible basis for such an appeal on Tuesday.

I guess there's no argument so stupid that it can't be improved on appeal. This is nothing but a huge waste of time and money, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

At what point can some grownup in Harris County government insist to Sheriff Thomas that he's wasted enough of the public's money, and that it's time to turn over the public's information?

There are two grownups in particular who should be having this conversation with the Sheriff. One is County Judge Ed Emmett, who along with Commissioners Court is going to have to approve the expenditures for those legal fees at some point; given recent history in that regard, one might think they'd be a little risk-averse in pursuing flight-of-fancy appeals. The other is County Attorney Mike Stafford, whose office's resources are the ones being directly wasted on this fiasco. He is certainly capable of telling the Sheriff why this is a no-win case, and why he won't allow his office to be abused in this manner, if he chooses to do so. You want your county government to behave responsibly here, that's where I'd focus my lobbying efforts.

Updated billboard reduction plan set for Council

Back in December, a plan to get Clear Channel to take down 800+ billboards was proposed by Mayor White, but it ran into resistance and was ultimately put off till later because of concerns that it would allow existing billboards to be relocated. It appears those concerns have now been dealt with, because the ordinance is back on Council's agenda, and some former critics are now hailing it.

The agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor would take effect after the City Council approves it. The proposal is on Wednesday's agenda.

Under the settlement, Clear Channel would remove 831 small and medium-sized billboards from across the city, 51 of them from designated "scenic districts." That represents a two-thirds reduction of all the company's billboards that are less than 288 square feet in size

Many of those billboards were slated to come down by 2013, but some could have remained up permanently because they are located on federal roadways and are beyond the city's legal reach.

In return, Clear Channel would get an extension on 24 large billboards that would have come down between 2009 and 2013. Those will get to stay up 20 more years. The last ones will come down in 2033.

"I think that's worth it," Mayor Bill White said Monday. "It takes down more billboards faster."

Anti-billboard activists said they approved of the deal.

"We were very pleased," said Ed Wulfe, a board member with Scenic Houston. The nonprofit advocates for beautification of streets and public spaces. "For all practical purposes, it will mean no new billboards."

The group had blasted White for offering a "relocation" provision in its previous settlement offer last December. That would have given Clear Channel the right to move 466 medium billboards. That was the same as allowing new billboards to be built, the group contended.

[...]

Michael "Mack" Fowler, on the steering committee of the Quality of Life Coalition, said he was pleased with the change.

"I think relocation was a complete and total non-starter," he said. "It was a horrible idea."

One of the critics of the original plan said that the relocation provision "violate[d] a core principle of billboard reduction ... freeze everything in place. Don't let it move, don't let it be rebuilt." I'd say this new plan satisfies that condition, so it ought to have smooth sailing. I'd also say this is a good example of why Mayor White has done as well as he has and maintained such a high level of popularity in doing so: He proposed something that didn't go over so well at first, then took the time to hash out the problems with the various stakeholders, and emerged with a solution that satisfied everyone. You want a good definition of success in politics, that's a fine starting point.

City wins another round in revenue caps lawsuit

In the ongoing battle over revenue cap referenda, the city scored a victory in the courts yesterday.

Anti-tax activist Bruce Hotze lost a legal battle with the city on Thursday, but said he will continue to fight for a cap on all city revenues.

The cap was Proposition 2, which voters passed in 2004. The city has not enforced it, because voters also passed another cap mechanism by a wider margin. That cap, Proposition 1, is not as restrictive.

"I'm mad as a hornet that the appellate court has sent this back to the lower court on a technicality," said Hotze, a local businessman and limited-government activist. "We're going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to."

The "technicality" is Hotze's right to sue, known as "standing." The 14th Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Hotze and his group had no standing to bring the suit, and sent it back to district court to give him one more chance to claim standing on different grounds.

"We are gratified to have prevailed in the Court of Appeals," Mayor Bill White said in a statement. "We respect those who have fought for tax limits for years," he added.

The judgment affirmed the city's decision to use Proposition 1 instead of Proposition 2, even though both were approved by voters, said Scott Atlas, the city's outside counsel.

The standing issue is crucial, Atlas said.

"If you give every taxpayer the right to challenge decisions like this that the government makes, you'll be tied up in courts forever."

[...]

Hotze's attorney, Andy Taylor, pointed out that the First Court of Appeals did give Hotze standing on a related lawsuit that forced the mayor to certify the vote on Proposition 2.

"Somebody's got to have the right to challenge the government," Taylor said. "He's been the pioneer taking the arrows from the beginning, and who would have standing if Bruce Hotze doesn't have standing?"

The court's opinion is here. This gets a little confusing because there's more than one lawsuit relating to the revenue caps. As noted in the Houston Politics blog, this decision reversed an earlier district court ruling that said both revenue cap proposals from 2004 must be enforced. Both measures passed, but the city's preferred Prop 1 had more votes, so it was considered to have precedence over Prop 2. See here, here, here, and here for more background than you probably care about on this. In 2006, there was another referendum (Proposition G) that excluded the city's enterprise funds, such as airports and convention facilities, from Proposition 2. That passed, there was another lawsuit filed by Hotze, and it too was tossed on grounds of standing. Which, lest I've missed something, means that unless Hotze can clear that hurdle in the lower court, this is the end of the line for this particular fight. The wheels do grind slowly sometimes, don't they?

County disputes Kelly's fee demand

Harris County has responded to Lloyd Kelly's request for $4.4 million in fees for work relating to the Ibarra lawsuit against Sheriff Tommy Thomas. Their response, in brief: No effing way!

"Lloyd Kelley's request for attorneys' fees is excessive," said John Barnhill, first assistant at the Harris County Attorney's Office. "We feel it's our responsibility to the taxpayers to point out where it's excessive. We trust the judge will exercise good judgment and consider our comments."

Kelley contended when he submitted his request for payment that courts should be as harsh on those who mount "frivolous defenses" as they are with lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. But county officials say punishment or sanctions cannot be sought after a case has been settled.

"When I took the case, what should have happened is the county should have admitted liability," Kelley said last month. "So they would have saved most of this money."

By arguing unsuccessfully to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the county government, sheriff and deputies should be protected from the Ibarras' lawsuit, Harris County delayed the trial three years and drove the legal expenses higher, Kelley said.

But enhancing those fees because of a desire to punish another party is unreasonable, the county argues.

The county is also taking issue with the $650 hourly rate charged by Kelley and his associate counsel Ben Hall and the $350 hourly rate charged by Kelley's co-counsel David Tang.

County officials argue they should only have to pay the prevailing local market rate, which they suggest is closer to $250 to $350 an hour in Harris County.

County officials also argue the number of hours in the billing request submitted by Kelley and his associates -- more than 3,400 -- should be significantly reduced "due to a failure to document or demonstrate billing judgment."

Some of Kelley's expenses, including magazine subscriptions and hotel bills, appear unnecessary, the county's attorneys said.

As I said before, I don't think the fee-doubling-as-punitive-damages request is out of line, at least as a theoretical device. I have my doubts that the judge will see it that way, but it at least passes the laugh test for me. The hourly rate, I think the county has a good case for arguing that the prevailing rate or something close to it is what they should be billed; the rest is he-said/she-said. I expect that even if the county wins here, we're gonna get stuck with a pretty big bill, which in addition to the settlement serves to prove Kelly's point about how this could have been a lot less painful had the county sought to settle in the first place. Maybe they'll learn from this for the next time.

Pasty time

With all their setbacks in court, the local strip clubs are contemplating other options.

Eric Langan says he may respond to the U.S. Supreme Court with pasties.

Langan, 39, is the chief executive officer of Houston-based Rick's Cabaret International Inc., owner of four strip clubs in the city. On March 17, he and other club owners lost an 11-year fight to overturn a city ordinance when the country's highest court refused to hear their case.

The regulation, passed in 1997, bans topless dancing clubs and other adult businesses within 1,500 feet (457 meters) of daycare centers, schools and churches, double the previous distance. The idea is to force the clubs to move, if not shut down entirely. An easy fix for ordinance-violating bare breasts may foil the plan, Langan said.

"The City of Houston will win the battle and lose the war because they won't be able to regulate us once we move to latex pasties," said Langan, whose company is the largest publicly traded owner of strip clubs, with a market value of $176 million. Pasties are latex coverings used to conceal nipples.

This subject has come up before. I recall that several clubs went the latex-pasties route in the immediate aftermath of the 1997 ordinance, as a way of getting around the requirement for dancers to get licensed with the city. It won't surprise me if that is the preferred option now, as it would be less costly than relocating. How successful it will be, I couldn't say, but I don't recall any clubs closing down at that time, so perhaps that bodes well for them.

Here's an angle I hadn't considered:

The regulation may have unintended consequences, Langan said. "Any ice house can now compete with us just by throwing a girl on the bar in a bikini or pasties without being subject to any additional regulation," he said, referring to neighborhood taverns. "I think we're going to see a lot more clubs putting dancers on stage."

Well, strictly speaking they could have done that at any time before now. Why they'd think it's a good idea all of a sudden is not clear to me. I mean, I guess that could happen, but this sounds like bluster to me.

And for those of you not in Houston thinking "there but for the grace of God..."

Unlike most city ordinances restricting adult entertainment, Houston's measure doesn't have a grandfather clause that lets existing businesses remain, said defense attorney John Weston, who represented the club owners. The businesses also must pay for their relocation, he said.

The Houston ordinance is odd, coming from the only major U.S. city with no zoning laws, said Weston, who filed the Supreme Court petition.

"Politics is a dirtier game than any lap dance I've ever witnessed," said [Angelina] Spencer of the Association of Club Executives. "A bad precedent like this, which is so restrictive, opens up the doors for this to take place across the country."

Keep an eye on your City Councils, that's all I'm gonna say.

In the meantime, the strip clubs did score a victory yesterday, on a different matter.

A Travis County judge ruled Friday that the state's new $5-per-patron strip club fee is an unconstitutional tax, but the state promised to appeal.

State District Judge Scott Jenkins' ruling prohibits Texas from assessing or collecting the tax. Clubs were to have made their first quarterly payments next month.

Jenkins said the fee is actually a "content-based tax" that must be strictly scrutinized because it is imposed on a business activity protected by the First Amendment. He said it did not pass constitutional muster because the state failed to link the activity being taxed to the programs being funded.

The Legislature enacted the adult entertainment fee, effective Jan. 1, and dedicated the first $25 million to sexual assault prevention and additional revenue to low-income health care. The fee was expected to raise more than $50 million for health care in its first two years.

It was the dedication of money to health care that caused the tax to be unconstitutional, Jenkins said.

He heard testimony from club owners, state employees and sexual assault prevention officials during a four-day trial earlier this month.

"There is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured, that any dancer is in fact uninsured, or that any uninsured dancer could qualify for assistance from the fund," the judge said.

"The programs that were to be funded from this money were worthwhile, but we disagree with the unconstitutional manner in which they were imposed," said Stewart Whitehead, who represented the Texas Entertainment Association and an Amarillo club, which challenged the fee.

The Texas Attorney General's Office said it would "vigorously appeal" Jenkins' ruling.

At the time the suit was filed, I thought the clubs' argument was weak. Clearly, I underestimated them. Vince got it right.

The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, which was slated to receive money from the fee, said in a statement on its Web site that it was disappointed by the decision.

"We are hopeful that the attorney general will choose to appeal this decision," said Karen Amacker, a spokeswoman for the group. "In the interim, TAASA intends to continue (to) work with key legislators, the attorney general, the governor, the comptroller and others to ensure we learn from our missteps and pass a dedicated, sustainable funding source for sexual violence-related services in our state."

The statement said the association does not claim that patrons of adult entertainment venues are more or less likely to perpetrate sexual violence.

"It can be reasonably concluded that an industry that flourishes by objectifying women does impact the attitudes and beliefs that support sexual violence," Amacker said. "The fees assessed to adult entertainment venues are a mechanism to mitigate those greater resulting societal ills."

The author of the bill that enacted the fee, Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, was unavailable for comment. An aide said Cohen would study the ruling and planned a news conference Monday.

Cohen, former head of the Houston Area Women's Center, said when she filed the bill that she was not suggesting that strip club patrons commit sexual assault, but that money generated by sexually oriented businesses should pay for sexually oriented crimes.

I'm more in agreement with Rep. Cohen's justification for the bill than I am with Ms. Amacker's. Despite the win yesterday, I still think the state will have decent odds on appeal.

Judge fines Rosenthal for contempt

Slap!

A federal judge on Friday ordered former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to pay $18,900 in sanctions after finding him in contempt of court for deleting more than 2,500 e-mails that had been subpoenaed for a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Additionally, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt determined Scott Durfee, general counsel for the district attorney's office, was jointly responsible for paying $5,000 of that, finding Durfee failed to appropriately advise Rosenthal on how to comply with the subpoena.

Both Rosenthal and Durfee have until April 30 to pay their respective fines, according to the judge's order released late Friday afternoon.

[...]

Whether the county pays those sanctions with taxpayers' money is a question to be decided by Commissioners Court. The court must determine whether paying the sanctions would serve a public purpose, said County Attorney Mike Stafford.

"They have to be able to articulate a public purpose and decide that's worth paying it. That's the general rule of law," Stafford said, adding that he does not know what the Commissioners Court will do.

Mark Bennett, president-elect of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said he cannot see what public purpose would be served by the county paying the sanctions.

"I don't have any reason to think the county's going to do the right thing here, which is to say, 'Look, you got yourself into this mess, you pay it yourself,' " Bennett said.

Bennett noted the county has already approved spending $227,000 to defend Rosenthal in court.

Mark expands on his remarks here. I agree with him completely. I see no reason why Commissioners Court should take Rosenthal off the hook for this fine. Rosenthal has already cost the taxpayers plenty of money. It's time he paid his fair share of it. I'm sympathetic to the Court paying for Durfee's fine, but if they cave and pick up the tab for Rosenthal, I'm going to be pissed.

In blistering and scathing language, Hoyt's court order rebuked Rosenthal for knowingly violating an Oct. 31 subpoena seeking his e-mails.

Hoyt criticized Rosenthal for showing "an intentional willfulness" to disobey the law.

"This conduct reveals a man confident in his status, entrenched in his brand of law," Hoyt wrote. "He would not or could not acknowledge an authority beyond himself."

Various contradictions and misrepresentations made Rosenthal's testimony unreliable and incredible, Hoyt said. "The court views his conduct as venomous and hostile to the judicial process," Hoyt wrote.

Rosenthal gave several explanations for why he deleted the

e-mails, Hoyt noted, such as believing his general counsel had printed hard copies of the documents and claiming he thought the documents were preserved on the computer network's backup tapes.

Rosenthal also later testified that he deleted the e-mails to increase his work efficiency and to free memory space on his computer, Hoyt said.

"There is no evidence that Rosenthal's computer memory space was threatened by additional e-mails or that, in fact, it was short of space. Hence, these reasons -- all implausible inconsistencies -- defy the law of common sense," Hoyt wrote.

The judge's comments about Rosenthal, though stinging, were accurate, said Pat McCann, current president of the criminal lawyers association.

"When you get to this point, I don't think the judge had any choice but to make it clear to Harris County officials that they are not beyond the reach of the law," McCann said.

The full contempt order is here (PDF). I think Judge Hoyt hit on all the main points, and I think McCann summed it up accurately. Now it's just a matter of Commissioners Court doing their part.

While Hoyt said there is no evidence Durfee committed obstructive acts, he found the evidence is "abundant and compelling" that Durfee failed to advise Rosenthal as his professional and ethical duties required.

Durfee showed a "deliberate indifference" to the court's orders and the subpoena by not advising Rosenthal to preserve the subpoenaed documents and remaining silent when he learned that Rosenthal had deleted the e-mails, Hoyt said.

By failing to bring Rosenthal's actions to light upon becoming aware of them, Durfee violated the rules of professional conduct that apply to all attorneys, Hoyt said.

"In sum, while it is undisputed that Rosenthal deleted the e-mails sought by the subpoenas, it is also apparent that copies of many of these e-mails were belatedly produced and/or lost as a result of Durfee's dereliction of duty," Hoyt wrote.

McCann said he was saddened by Durfee's punishment.

"I think it is, at best, difficult to deal with a client who believes that he is smarter than a federal judge," McCann said, referring to Rosenthal. "When that client is not only a client, but your actual boss who hires and fires you, I think that puts a very different take on your relationship."

I'm sympathetic to the position Durfee was in. It's even made me rethink some of the things I've said about Kelly Siegler's failure to do anything about (as she claims) Rosenthal's impaired judgment. I still think she showed a lack of courage, as she had a lot more freedom to act than Durfee would have had; if nothing else, she could have had a few off-the-record talks with a reporter or two. But I can appreciate the bind someone can be put in when they have a bad boss who's behaving erratically.

On a tangential note, with the arrival of a new interim DA and her reassignment to another division in that office, this is no surprise.

Chuck Rosenthal's former secretary has resigned rather than report to the new job to which she was assigned by his replacement.

Kerry Stevens, who became widely known as the object of Rosenthal's desire following the release of hundreds of his private e-mails, told the district attorney's office that she was retiring effective Monday. She has been on authorized leave since she was informed she would be reassigned to the grand jury division.

[...]

Kenneth Magidson, recently appointed to fill the remainder of Rosenthal's term, expressed appreciation to Stevens for her years of public service and wished her well in future endeavors.

Stevens could not be reached for comment.

Stevens, 56, became a character in the drama surrounding Rosenthal's downfall not only through their close relationship but because of questions of possible preferential treatment. At $89,500, her salary was higher than that of executive assistants for most local public officials, including the mayor and county judge, and she also received the use of a county car and free gas. Rosenthal approved an $11,500 raise for her just weeks before he stepped down.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Kerry Stevens. While Chuck Rosenthal clearly acted like a jackass, she kept her email behavior on the professional side, at least as I recall from the original leak of all that stuff. She certainly benefitted from his besotted behavior, so my sympathy only goes so far, but I think she deserved better from this embarrassing episode. Here's hoping she can find something quiet and unobtrusive to do so that her name fades from the public memory and she can get on with her life.

Council OKs contract with HOPE

The collective bargaining agreement that was ratified by HOPE last week has now been officially accepted by City Council.

Houston municipal workers celebrated Wednesday after the City Council approved a union contract that will give 13,200 employees an immediate 3 percent raise.

The 13-2 vote made Houston the first city in Texas to sign a pact with employees who are not police officers or firefighters.

"We have made history," said Wanda Sterling, a customer service representative for the municipal courts. "I think it was worth the battle."

The three-year contract will cost the city $5.2 million this fiscal year, but $179 million overall. The pact calls for additional across-the-board 3 percent pay raises in fiscal 2010 and 2011.

The contract also guarantees that all workers will earn at least $10 an hour by September of next year. That will affect about 1,000 workers who currently earn annual wages below $20,400 -- the federal poverty level for a family of four.

[...]

Council members Toni Lawrence and Mike Sullivan voted against the pact.

"It should not have been across the board," Lawrence said. She also said she did not like that workers making six figures would get the 3 percent raise, too.

For example, the mayor's chief of staff, Michael Moore, is paid $115,760 a year. The 3 percent raise will mean an extra $3,473 for him. By contrast, a refuse truck driver who earns $20,958 annually will see an additional $628 from the first raise.

Lawrence wanted a cap on increases for higher pay grades, which would leave more money for the lower-paid employees.

"Our goal for HOPE (the union) was to help the people making minimum wage," Lawrence said.

But [Mayor Bill] White said higher-paid professionals, such as city attorneys, could get poached by the private sector, so the city has to stay competitive at all pay levels.

I can understand Council Member Lawrence's reasoning, but I disagree with it. Inflation affects people at Michael Moore's salary level, too. And Mayor White is correct about the need to pay professional staff a competitive wage. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to reject the agreement.

Sullivan said he opposed the contract as a fiscal conservative.

"It's just a huge amount of money," he said. "It's the starting point for future costs."

Sullivan said he wanted more time to find out if turnover really was a problem for the city, and if jobs were not getting done because of vacant positions.

"Is it a matter of just giving employees a raise to feel good, or is it necessary to keep the employees that we have?" he asked. "I'm not convinced that being the first city in Texas to have unionized employees is something to be proud of."

I'm sorry, but that's just putting ideology ahead of everything else. By that reasoning, you can reject any raise for city employees. And with all due respect, these negotiations took place over nearly a year. There's been plenty of time to answer those questions about turnover and vacancies.

Be that as it may, I think this is a good day for the city and its workers. Congratulations to all for a job well done.

UPDATE: Stace has more.

HOPE ratifies its contract with the city

The new contract that the city agreed on with HOPE has now been ratified by the union and will be taken up by the city next.

The Houston City Council plans to consider the measure during its meeting next week. If the contract is approved, Houston will become the state's first city to sign a union agreement with its civilian employees.

Members of the Houston Organization of Public Employees overwhelmingly voted for the contract agreement with 2,563 in favor and six in opposition. More than 50 percent of the union's membership of about 4,040 had to approve the contract for its passage.

"That's the magic number -- we made it," announced Felix Harvey, a union member and a city mechanic to a standing ovation from the dozens of other members awaiting the outcome.

The contract calls for an immediate across-the-board 3 percent pay increase for about 13,000 municipal employees, with similar increases in 2010 and 2011.

It also requires an immediate salary boost for the lowest-paid workers to $9.50 an hour. The federal minimum wage is $5.85 an hour. Officials estimate the package would cost $179 million during the three-year term.

Firefighters and police officers, who have their own contract, are excluded. Elected officials, such as City Council members, are also not included.

"The main thing is it has to do with respect," said Monica Cage, a Public Works employee who voted in favor of the contract.

Well done. A statement from HOPE is beneath the fold. I expect City Council will approve this, probably unanimously.

City employees voted overwhelmingly to ratify the contract between their union, the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE), and the City of Houston. In balloting over the last two weeks, HOPE members voted 3,237 to 7 in favor of the three-year agreement. That result comes after a canvass that added 675 provisional ballots to the total.

The ballots were counted Thursday night at the Kelley Solid Waste facility and the tally was overseen by prominent community leaders, including Rev. James Nash of Sunnyside Presbyterian Church and Laura Boston of the Houston Interfaith Workers' Center.

The agreement now goes before the Houston City Council for final approval. If approved by the council, it will be the first-ever union contract between a Texas city and its civilian municipal workers.

"This agreement is great for Houston," said Patricia Mathis, a HOPE bargaining team member and management analyst with the Houston Police Department. "The contract will enhance quality public services for the city and ensure a living wage for every city worker."

The contract would establish a minimum wage of $10 an hour for city workers by September 2009 and immediately create a $9.50 an hour minimum -- a 45 percent raise for the lowest-paid city employees. Other highlights of the agreement include:

• A community action leave pool in which city workers can donate vacation time to be used for volunteering on important community projects. Already, more than 1,200 city workers have donated vacation time into the pool.
• Worker-management consultation committees that will promote idea-sharing and better communication on the job in order to strengthen city services.

The contract will also have a major impact on Houston's struggling neighborhoods, where many city workers live. HOPE estimates that the across-the-board raises in the contract will generate an additional $120 million in economic activity in neighborhoods like the Third Ward and East End over the next three years.

Let's review those deals

Earlier this week, Commissioners Court voted to review all the real estate deals they made with a couple of guys who are now caught up in a federal bribery investigation.

The Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to review all of Harris County's lease-purchase contracts for building space, including three linked to indicted developers Andrew Schatte and Michael Surface.

The county's management services office, overseen by director Dick Raycraft, will look at whether the county should exercise an option on the deals with Schatte and Surface to buy the buildings rather than continue leasing them.

County Judge Ed Emmett said the deals with Schatte and Surface's development company, Keystone Group, raise the question of whether the developers submitted winning bids because they learned of the county's needs from employees before bids were sought.

Keystone and the county reached deals on a two-part complex on Murworth Drive near Reliant Park and an annex on Old Spanish Trail.

Emmett said he assumed the FBI has made the county's lease-purchase deals part of its probe of Keystone Group.

[...]

The county will review the lease-purchase contracts even though several county officials, including Emmett, have said the agreements appear to be good deals for the county.

Emmett said the county must look at whether the deals were fair and ethical.

"Everybody should have ample access to the process," he said.

Some background on the probe and the players involved is here and here. Sure seems like this is a no-brainer to do, but is it enough?

Court members on Tuesday initially were to decide whether the county would review the $36 million Murworth Drive deals.

But Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said she wanted all lease-option deals examined because the county should not cherry-pick the ones to be scrutinized.

"Let's look at all the lease purchases in any of our departments, in any of our entities," she said.

Of the leases with Keystone, Emmett said, "Most of these deals go back 10 years. Just on the face of it, there is nothing that indicates that they go out of market boundaries."

But how do you know till you look? And given the potential for embarrassment (not to mention conflict of interest) for the county, perhaps we need an outsider to look at this. David Mincberg thinks so. Here's his press release on the subject:

On Thursday, David Mincberg called for an immediate, independent, outside investigation of all Harris County's real estate deals over the last decade. With more revelations involving former County employee Michael Surface and his business partner Andrew Schatte coming out every day there is a need for an outside analysis of every deal the County made over the last decade.

"The County must change the way it does business. The leadership of Harris County can no longer sweep these problems under the rug by calling for internal investigations. Sweetheart, no-bid contracts, special interest backroom deals must end. Harris County needs an independent investigation to clean up our County."

According to the Chronicle, since 1997, Harris County officials have approved at least eight projects, worth more than $60 million, involving Surface and Schatte. Surface and Schatte were part of an elite group of insiders who participated in most of the county's real estate deals over the last decade.

"Harris County taxpayers deserve a judge who takes his job seriously. I'm not a career politician. I'm a successful businessman who knows how to run things honestly and efficiently. At a time when Harris County government is facing political scandals, indictments, ethics violations, and resignations in disgrace, the last thing we should be doing is looking to those who created the problems to now investigate their own mess."

In case you're curious, this would mean that the November election season is officially underway. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to call for, and I look forward to Judge Emmett's response.

What's another hundred grand?

Ka-ching!

The lawyer who asked a federal judge to pay his legal team $4.4 million this week for representing two brothers in a civil rights case settled this month wants $132,000 more for past and potential legal work on the related Rosenthal contempt case.

Lloyd Kelley filed the request Wednesday asking U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt to approve $31,625 for work performed by him, another lawyer and legal assistants on the dimension of the lawsuit that led to Rosenthal's resignation.

Wednesday's request also notes that county commissioners approved $227,000 to cover legal fees for the defense of Rosenthal and others.

And compared to that, this is a mere trifle. Well, there's still the other fee request the story mentioned, but that's totally separate. Any lawyers out there want to comment on the reasonableness of these numbers? Thanks.

Kelly to county: Payment time

Woof!

Lloyd Kelley, the Houston lawyer who won a $1.7 million civil rights settlement for two brothers who took photos of a 2002 drug raid, has asked a federal judge for $4.4 million in attorney's fees.

Harris County leaders voted two weeks ago to pay Sean and Erik Ibarra to get out of the four-year-old case. The settlement calls for the county to hand over the money by early April, or as soon as practical -- and to pay all attorney's fees, costs and expense related to the case.

The Ibarras will not share their lump-sum payout with Kelley, who must get his fees approved by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt.

The brothers initially sought $5 million in damages.

In a lengthy fee application filed Monday, Kelley argues that the county fought an "indefensible" case, by its own expert's 2005 admission, that turned into a landmark blow to the county's legal defense tactics.

Harris County has 15 days to respond to Kelley's filing.

County Attorney Mike Stafford said he expects the county to question Kelley's basis for the fee and dispute many of his other assertions.

His application asks the court to double the $2.2 million in standard fees under a multiplier that accounts for a case's complexity and riskiness. Lawyer compensation in civil rights claims can be enhanced for those factors and because the lawyers who accept such cases often spend thousands up front. Kelley said he personally invested $130,000 because his clients were poor.

The $2.2 million includes: $2 million for Kelley's work, $86,000 for a legal assistant and $54,000 for the help of Houston lawyer Benjamin Hall.

Stafford said he doesn't think Kelley is entitled to the multiplier.

Well of course he doesn't. I actually don't think this is terribly unreasonable given the nature of the case and Kelly's investment in it, though I have no idea what Judge Hoyt will think. On the face of it, the fee request doesn't strike me as being way out of line.

Kelley's request also mentioned that for the past four years, he and a legal assistant, for the most part, have been fighting the county's vast resources. He alleged Tuesday that the county overstaffed the case by using up to 15 lawyers at a time to defend those targeted by the Ibarras' lawsuit.

"If the government is willing to pay for 15 lawyers, then how much should they be required to pay at the end of the day when they've lost?" Kelley said. "In the last decade, courts have been very punitive about frivolous lawsuits, and they should be equally punitive about frivolous defenses."

[...]

The Ibarras' lawsuit is a historic civil case in which an appeals court, for the first time, denied the Harris County sheriff qualified immunity -- which often shields government officials from being sued when carrying out their duties -- and declared that the actions of county employees violated the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional right that guards against unreasonable search and seizure. Kelley said most of the Ibarras' legal fees were racked up during appeals.

The county settled the lawsuit to "avoid the possibility of a historic multimillion-dollar verdict," Kelley wrote in his request.

He added that $4 million in attorney's fees would deter the county from fighting other legitimate civil rights claims.

"If everything was the way Lloyd Kelley describes it in his motion, there never would have been a trial. A jury was called upon to resolve disputed fact issues," Stafford said. "Neither side won on the issues, but obviously, Lloyd Kelley won on the money."

Again, what Kelly says strikes me as more reasonable than not. I kind of like the idea of the fee as a form of punitive damages. Stafford is doing his best on the PR front, but I think he'll have to come up with a little more than that to impress the judge. I will be very curious to see how this comes out.

Another SOB setback

The last appeal (in federal court, anyway) by the local sexually oriented businesses over the city's ability to enforce the 1997 anti-SOB ordinance has come to an end for the clubs.

The city's long fight to regulate sexually oriented businesses finally may be over, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal by 11 strip clubs in Houston.

The move affirms the constitutionality of the city's ordinance, city lawyers said.

"We hope owners of these businesses will now comply with the law," Mayor Bill White said. "People in the neighborhoods have been telling us for a long time they want this kind of enforcement."

The clubs appealed a provision that barred the businesses from being within 1,500 feet of any school, day care center, church or park. Other parts of the city's law, such as a requirement that dancers stay three feet away from clients, already have been upheld by the federal courts.

"Obviously, we're very pleased," said Don Cheatham, a senior assistant city attorney. "We hope that this is the end of a long and costly litigation"

The city has spent more than $1.2 million defending the ordinance.

The appeal was filed by attorneys representing the Colorado Bar & Grill and The Men's Club, and at least five other large businesses helped in the effort, including the Ritz Cabaret, Treasures, Trophy Club, Gold Cup and Centerfolds. Several other businesses, including some bookstores, also joined in the appeal.

[...]

The topless bars appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the city won last August in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Then, the city was able to prove that even if sexually oriented businesses had to move, they still could stay within Houston, according to the lead attorney in the case, Patrick Andrew Zummo.

"We put on evidence that there were hundreds of locations where these businesses could move," Zummo said.

The businesses also have to be at least 1,000 feet away from each other.

The Houston Police Department has not been enforcing the distance requirement, but will begin soon, said Capt. Glenn Yorek, of the vice squad.

"We will be huddling up with the City Attorney's Office and make some sort of plan how to proceed," Yorek said.

[...]

The city remains involved in a lawsuit in state district courts with the 11 clubs that appealed to the Supreme Court. That suit involves "amortization," or the amount of time the owners should get to recoup their investments before having to close or relocate.

That trial is scheduled for April 21. Zummo said he is confident the city will prevail and get those businesses to move.

"We don't see any conceivable way that someone has not recovered their investments since 1997," he said.

Makes you wonder what might have happened had the clubs decided to move instead of fight in 1997. Not that I blame them for trying - I still think they've been screwed by the ordinance - but the path they chose was clearly a loser. We'll see if they get any relief from the state courts now.

The new DA speaks

Meet the new temporary District Attorney, Kenneth Magidson.

"My main purpose in being here today is to address the people of Harris County and tell them that I expect, and this office expects us to uphold their trust and faith that they put in us," Magidson said Friday. "We are going to run this office in a professional manner that will seek justice (and) we expect to provide quality legal representation while maintaining the integrity of the judicial system."

A federal prosecutor for the past 25 years, Magidson said that he comes in with no agenda and has no particular changes in mind.

"I'm not planning on do anything until I see what's going on," he said. "When I see actions that need to be taken, I will take the appropriate actions. I can't make comments on things I'm not familiar with or facts I don't know. What needs to happen is that people need to take this job seriously and do the job that they're employed to do. We're all here, again, with that trust in our hands."

He said the office would continue to "zealously" pursue the cases brought to it, "but tempered with justice."

"We're going to make sure we're doing the right thing. What's the right thing? Well, the facts and the law are going to determine that," he said.

Magidson, 59, declined to comment on legal issues surrounding or the conduct of his predecessor, Chuck Rosenthal, who resigned last month under pressure amid a controversy over embarrassing and inappropriate e-mails sent and received on his county computer.

He said he had no plans to discuss his new job with Rosenthal.

"I know the people I want to consult, and it doesn't include that gentleman. I have a pretty good idea of what the goals and expectations of this office are, and the people I need to speak to I will. Right now I have no plans to talk to any prior district attorney," Magidson said.

I think those are all the right things to say. Honestly, if we look back in ten months' time and say it's been a quiet year, then Magidson's stewardship will have been very successful. He seems to have the right mindset for what he's getting into, and that's encouraging. Here's hoping it stays that way.

And we have some news on the Rosenthal front, too:

In a related matter, Rosenthal filed an affidavit in federal court Friday saying part of a previous sworn statement he gave in a civil lawsuit -- the same suit that indirectly led to the scandal that forced him from office -- was incorrect.

He said he is "unable to rely" on his own memory in testifying about the steps he took in deleting more than 2,500 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed in the civil rights lawsuit.

"While I am seeking treatment to address these matters currently, I am concerned and wish the court to take into account that my prior testimony and Declaration must be considered in this context," Rosenthal wrote in his affidavit.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal would have had zero sympathy for such a declaration from a defendant? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but it's really hard not to think he's being a weasel here.

More on the new interim DA

Here's today's version of the story from last night that named assistant U.S. attorney in Houston Kenneth Magidson as the acting DA till a replacement is elected. I'm mostly interested in people's reactions to him:

Bert Graham, who has helmed the office since Rosenthal's Feb. 15 resignation, said he is glad Perry found someone "who's willing, able and qualified."

"He started out here, like most people do, in the misdemeanor courts, and moved up to be a chief prosecutor in a felony court," Graham said. "He did a really good job here."

Other assistant district attorneys were also optimistic about the appointment as word spread through the courthouse halls Wednesday.

Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said he doesn't know Magidson, but that he has a reputation as a man of integrity among defense attorneys.

"He's a solid and fair-minded man," McCann said. He said he looks forward to discussing policies with the interim DA, including the way the office charges minor drug cases, diversity in the office and a possible innocence commission -- all ideas that have been debated in the district attorney's race.

Asked about whether Magidson is more likely to be a caretaker or clean house in the nine months before a new district attorney takes office after November's election, McCann forecast that it would be a mix of both.

"I hope he brings a fresh perspective to the office," McCann said. "And I think a fair and honest man is going to make some changes."

So far so good. You never know what you're going to get with a Perry appointment, but it looks like this one is well qualified. That's a fine start.

Two candidates for district attorney said they don't expect Magidson to make major changes like the reforms that have been suggested in the wake of the Rosenthal scandals.

Sweeping improvements "will take more time and energy and effort than this interim (appointee) will have," said Democratic contender C.O. Bradford, the former Houston police chief.

Bradford said he was confident the next district attorney will apply the law evenly to everyone.

Prosecutor Kelly Siegler, who faces former Judge Pat Lykos in the April 8 Republican primary runoff, said of Magidson, "In the capacity of being a caretaker, I am not sure what kind of changes he would be expected to make.

"I think he would have the best interest of the office at heart," Siegler added. "Certainly the governor's office understands that the person they appoint needs to have many years of experience as a prosecutor and someone who is a prosecutor now and understands what it takes to prosecute criminals in the year 2008."

She has emphasized her credentials as a prosecutor in the contest against Lykos, who was a felony court judge through 1994.

Lykos said she was pleased that reforms could begin immediately under a new district attorney "and that the Rosenthal-Siegler era will be ending."

"What's really important is not my candidacy, but the restoration of public trust in the office," she said, adding that she would be available to suggest any reforms or provide any advice sought by Magidson.

What should we expect this guy to do while he's here? I think he should generally resist the urge to make any policy changes, but if there are process issues that can be dealt with, they should be. This isn't his office - in a few months, it's going to be somebody else's. He shouldn't ignore anything that's obviously broken if it can be fixed by him, but neither should he go putting his stamp on the place. I don't think that should be too hard.

Anyway, as I said last night, welcome aboard, Mr. Magidson. It'll be interesting to see what the place looks like in a few months.

UPDATE: Via Grits, some more positive reactions from Mark Bennett and A Harris County Lawyer.

Rosenthal's replacement coming

Looks like we may finally get a replacement DA soon.

Gov. Rick Perry hopes to name an interim Harris County district attorney as early as this week, his office confirmed Tuesday, and the man now running the office says he's not interested in finishing out the term if it's offered.

Perry spokeswoman Krista Piferrer said "a whole host" of candidates have been considered for the position since Chuck Rosenthal resigned amid scandal last month.

Perry's staff discussed how they might go about filling the opening with former district attorney John B. Holmes Jr., but did not offer him the interim post, Piferrer said. Holmes wouldn't be eligible for the job because he now lives in Austin County.

Whomever Perry appoints would serve the remainder of Rosenthal's term through the end of the year. Voters will elect a new district attorney in November.

Piferrer did not rule out the possibility that the interim spot could go to one of the three candidates seeking the office. But the Republican Party won't settle on a candidate until the April 8 runoff election between Kelly Siegler and Pat Lykos. And the odds of the Republican governor appointing the Democratic candidate, C.O. Bradford, would seem slim.

Since Rosenthal's resignation, the district attorney's office has been directed by first Assistant District Attorney Bert Graham. Graham on Tuesday said he has not been approached about the temporary job, nor would he accept it if offered.

I'd have considered Bert Graham to be the best choice, but if he doesn't want it, then that's that. It's just as well Johnny Holmes isn't eligible, it'd be too weird having him back. Given that it won't be Siegler, Lykos, or Bradford, I guess whoever it is will be a surprise. Anyone want to speculate?

Meanwhile, the story also has an update on Rosenthal's legal situation.

A hearing set to resume Friday on whether Rosenthal should be held in contempt of court has been canceled, but the federal judge presiding over the matter wants to review sworn statements regarding Rosen- thal's use of prescription drugs. A ruling on the contempt motion is expected shortly after those documents are filed.

[...]

An order signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt suggests the court will consider whether Rosenthal's use of medication affected his ability to tell the truth or realize the impact of his actions when he deleted documents sought for a civil rights lawsuit.

[...]

Hoyt has given Rosenthal and his physician until 4:30 p.m. Friday to submit sworn statements. The doctor's will be sealed from public view.

Though the doctor was not identified in Hoyt's order, Rosenthal claimed to be a patient of physician Sam Siegler while testifying during a deposition in November. He is Kelly Siegler's husband.

Not exactly sure why the hearing was cancelled - I guess maybe Judge Hoyt figures he can get all the info he needs to make a decision from the sworn statements. That makes this a lot less fun overall, but I suppose we'll cope. I look forward to Judge Hoyt's eventual ruling on this.

UPDATE: We have a name.

Gov. Rick Perry plans to name Kenneth Magidson, an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston, as the new Harris County district attorney, once he gets approval from the U.S. Department of Justice, a source close to the process said today.

It wasn't known when that approval would be received.

Magidson was waiting to get an assurance from the Justice Department that he would get his job back after a district attorney is elected in November, the source said.

[...]

Magidson, 59, was a Harris County assistant district attorney in the early 1980s and became an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston by 1985. His wife Anita is a former administrator of a state felony court.

[...]

In 1996, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, a set of agencies he started working with from Houston in 1987.

The Justice Department statement on the 1996 appointment said he "has a wide and well-earned reputation as a leading prosecutor, having been responsible for major drug trafficking, RICO (racketeering) and money laundering cases at the federal level (and) capital murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping cases at the state level."

Welcome aboard, sir. Here's hoping you can successfully steer this leaky ship till January. Best of luck to you.

Deleting them doesn't make them disappear

Remember the story of the Harris County Sheriff's Department sudden (and curiously-timed) implementation of a policy to purge all emails older than 14 days from their system? See here, here, here, and here for background. There's now been a hearing on the temporary injunction that KTRK-13 had won to prevent any further destruction of email.

The Sheriff's Office stopped deleting e-mails on Jan. 19 and argued they aren't really gone because they still exist on backup tape. And once that happens, the Harris County Attorney's Office says, they are no longer subject to the Public Information Act.

"When moved to backup tape, they're no longer public information," said Frank Sanders, the assistant Harris County attorney representing the Sheriff's Office.

At a contempt hearing on Friday, Sanders cited prior letter rulings by the Texas attorney general as the rationale behind his client's assertion that e-mails on backup tape are not public record.

Sanders also said the Sheriff's Office's decision to have all e-mails more than 14 days old deleted from employees' inboxes was a storage issue and had nothing to do with the station's interview two days before about questions involving how much Sheriff Tommy Thomas paid a jail contractor to redesign the sheriff's weekend home. That interview aired Jan. 10.

"The decision (to delete) was just to free up storage space," Sanders said.

The station's attorney argued that the letter rulings cannot be applied in a blanket manner to all cases involving backup tape. He also argued that the Sheriff's Office is circumventing not only the Public Information Act, but also local municipal policy that requires public employees' e-mails to be retained for up to two years.

OK, let's take it one step at a time. Storage space issues can be dealt with in a variety of ways that don't require the complete destruction of the email in question. Hard disks are cheap. Harris County is not in such dire financial straits that it can't afford to buy some computer equipment for Tommy Thomas. It's not in financial straits at all, in fact, given the recent property tax cut, the revenue for which could have solved this space problem many times over. This is just a distraction.

The argument that email which is no longer on the server but which remains on backup tape is no longer public information is so ridiculous to me that I almost don't know how to respond to it. I'd be interested in reading those AG opinions, and I'm going to guess they're tailored to much narrower situations, because such a broad reading leads to this ludicrous conclusion. Among other things, it would incentivize a government agency with something to hide to implement a policy very much like that of the HCSO. There's no possible way this can be good public policy. From an IT perspective, it's all still data. Stuff on backup tape is harder to get to, especially if we're talking Exchange email, but there's nothing fundamentally different about it. And finally, I can say from professional experience that corporate email on backup tape is most certainly subject to discovery in civil actions. There's just no justification for this that I can see.

Thankfully, the judge seems to see it this way as well:

State District Judge David Bernal declined to find the Sheriff's Office in contempt, but said he did not find the department's arguments "meritorious" as to why the e-mails were not of public record.

Bernal ordered both sides to submit written briefs by Friday explaining the backup tape issue.

Hopefully, he will give that brief the spanking it deserves.

HOPE and Houston come to an agreement

A bit of non-primary news for right now while I'm crunching numbers, courtesy of HOPE:

We are pleased to announce that the City of Houston and the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE) have reached a tentative agreement in contract negotiations. This fiscally responsible agreement reflects each party's commitment to delivering quality public services to all Houston residents while ensuring fair compensation for every city worker.

When the agreement is ratified by employees and approved by the city council, Houston will be the first Texas city to establish a meet and confer agreement with its civilian employees. Highlights of the three-year agreement include:

- A pay package ensuring that every city employee will make at least $10 an hour by September 2009.

- Additional performance-based compensation based principally on Employee Performance Evaluations.

- The creation of city-wide and departmental labor-management committees that will encourage employees and supervisors to work together to improve city services.

Good to hear. I look forward to this agreement getting formally ratified.

More on the Sheriff lawsuit settlement

I'm not sure why Chron.com still has the same story from yesterday about the settlement of the Ibarra lawsuit against the Harris County Sheriff's office when there's a different and fuller story, with quotes from jurors, in the print edition. All but one of the jurors that spoke expressed some level of outrage at the lack of any investigation by the Sheriff and DA's office into the Ibarra's complaint. Hopefully, that article will make it to the website eventually, but till then, we have Lisa Falkenberg.

Harris County could have avoided legal liability if Sheriff Tommy Thomas' department had simply done its job by investigating the claims of brothers Sean Carlos Ibarra and Erik Adam Ibarra and taking any disciplinary action -- so much as a letter of reprimand -- against the deputies involved.

"The sheriff could have avoided all this with a letter," Kelley says.

But instead of actually looking into the Ibarras' claims that the deputies stormed into their home without probable cause, drew their guns, arrested them, seized their cameras and confiscated their film, the sheriff's department argued that it couldn't investigate because, technically, the Ibarras' written complaint didn't count.

Why? It wasn't typed onto the right form, or, as one representative of the sheriff's department put it, it wasn't presented on pink paper with a blue ribbon. After all, the sheriff's department can't make it too easy for citizens to file complaints. Then everyone who's had his home invaded, property confiscated and spent a night in jail for no good reason could complain about it.

[County Attorney Michael] Stafford, when asked what lessons had been learned during the ordeal, said communications between his office, the DA's office and sheriff's office could have been better. He said the sheriff's department could have done a better job following its procedures on investigating complaints.

Indeed.

The suit may be settled, but the underlying issue isn't. We'll be hearing a lot more about this between now and November. I'll keep my eyes open for the current Chron story on this.

Settlement in lawsuit against Sheriff's office

This is an unexpected but not terribly unsurprising development.

Harris County commissioners voted unanimously this morning to pay $1.7 million to settle a lawsuit that led to the resignation of District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

After an emergency, closed-door meeting, commissioners agreed to settle with Sean Carlos Ibarra, 37, and Erik Adam Ibarra, 28, two brothers who claim that they were wrongfully arrested by sheriff's deputies, whom they photographed and videotaped during a 2002 drug raid at their neighbor's home. Because of a subpoena filed in that lawsuit, Rosenthal's personal, romantic e-mails to his secretary surfaced.

The settlement comes as the sheriff's deputies were scheduled to testify this week in the Ibarra's civil trial in U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt's court. The Ibarras were seeking $5 million in damages for the alleged civil rights violation.

[...]

The Ibarras' lawyers made the offer over the weekend -- before today's scheduled testimony from deputies involved in the case, said County Judge Ed Emmett.

Commissioner Steve Radack said he voted for the settlement because sheriff's deputies made mistakes on the day of the incident.

"There were some policies that were violated,'' he said. "You had somebody on the street who went beyond what was reasonable.''

Emmett said, "The rational thing to do was to accept this settlement offer. Sometimes you make the best deal you can and move on. It allows the sheriff's office to get back to being the sheriff's office.''

Hoyt will determine whether the county will pay more for the Ibarra brothers' legal fees. Emmett speculated the county may pay as much as $1 million to cover those fees.

Okay, I'm not an attorney, I haven't been in the courtroom to hear the evidence and see the jurors' reactions, I don't know what kind of witnesses these two deputies were going to make, and I surely don't know what else Lloyd Kelley had in his bag of tricks. That said, settling for $1.7 million, plus possibly another million in legal fees, when the amount demanded by the plaintiffs was a sure-to-be-reduced-on-appeal $5 million says to me that the county wasn't all that confident in its defense. I could be misreading this, and I welcome any feedback from actual attorneys on this, but that's my read on the situation.

Another point: Stopping things here also has the extra bonus of keeping the deputies' testimony and whatever other evidence there may be out of the public record. I'm still just speculating - it may well be that all the bad stuff is already out, or will get out anyway. But if the goal is to let the Sheriff's office get back to Sheriffing, ending the trial certainly accomplishes that.

The settlement would end all legal actions against the sheriff's department, the four deputies, Thomas and the county. But it would not end contempt actions brought by Hoyt against Rosenthal, Radack said.

I presume that's still on track for March 14.

The county has spent more than $125,000 on Rosenthal's contempt proceedings and his attempts to keep some e-mails private.

Thanks, Chuck. You're a gift that just keeps on giving, aren't you?

More Michael Wolfe

Remember Michael Wolfe, the Harris County Department of Education trustee who was publicly taken to the woodshed by the County School Supervisor last year? Yesterday wasn't such a good day for him, with two articles in the Chron about his shenanigans. First, there was this story about how all of his (fellow Republican) colleagues on the HCDE Board want to see him gone.

Two trustees reserved a spot on the April meeting agenda to discuss whether to ask for Wolfe's resignation. The board has no real authority to remove him, but it's clear that many fellow trustees are fed up with what they see as disregard for the department and its procedures and disrespect for the board. They are also put out by his support for --and they claim recruitment of -- two candidates running against current board members in next week's GOP primary.

[...]

Board president Ray T. Garcia, like most if not all of his colleagues, would love to see Wolfe gone.

"He contributes nothing and detracts quite a bit," said Garcia, who has been a trustee for 14 years. "The guy exhibits no commitment, no concern. I think he sees this as the stepping stone to something else."

Garcia said Wolfe has not attended the last three board meetings and has shown little interest in becoming fluent with the department's programs or budget. His only accomplishment of note was pushing the board to name its administration building after Ronald Reagan, odd given Reagan's antipathy toward education bureaucracies.

"We don't even know how to reach the guy," Garcia said. "He doesn't return calls. His mail is returned. He's totally inaccessible."

He was also until recently a member of the Harris County GOP leadership team (more on that in a bit). You can supply your own joke.

Wolfe, who has worked as a substitute teacher and a clerk in a law office, began his first term in January 2007. He recruited Roy Morales to run for the board with him with an expressed concern that the department served a dubious purpose and wasted money.

Once elected, Morales came to a different conclusion -- about the department and the motives of Wolfe.

"I think we provide a great service and we are a great bargain for the taxpayers," Morales said. "He saw this as a way to get the Republican base fired up about him."

Boy howdy, when Roy Morales thinks you've gone off the deep end...

The other piece is a Rick Casey column that references the infamous candidate questionnaires that Paul Bettencourt threw himself on in order to prevent anyone else from knowing what they say.

Many candidates and incumbents gave the questionnaire the respect it deserved: They ignored it.

The [candidate screening] committee, however, treated it like a sacred text. They prepared a list of "recommended" candidates based on the answers.

And those that didn't answer it -- including the incumbent county judge, county clerk (*) and two trustees of the Harris County Department of Education -- were shut out.

When Bettencourt got wind that the recommendation list would be made public, he asked to speak to the executive committee. After his speech, in which he argued passionately that party endorsements in the primary were unprecedented and would be divisive, the body voted to bar the action. It was a voice vote, and no opposition was heard.

(Party Chairman Jared Woodfill says party endorsements are rare, but not unprecedented. Two years ago the party in the primary endorsed U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, which may be a lesson.)

But as it turned out, candidates committee Chairman Russell Rush had mailed out the list earlier in the day to hundreds of precinct chairmen, marked "Official Recommendations," according to Woodfill.

Such recommendations, said Woodfill, are "specifically precluded in our bylaws unless the executive committee approves."

Woodfill assembled the party's advisory committee, about 10 officials authorized to act for the party between the quarterly meetings of the much larger executive committee.

They called in Rush. He took responsibility, but it became clear he was a rookie chairman taking direction from his predecessor, Michael Wolfe.

The committee called in Wolfe, [who] had been hired to direct the party's primary election.

His performance in front of the committee was not stellar. The committee was not amused that one person on the recommended list was his father, a candidate for district clerk, or that two others were candidates he had recruited to run against incumbent colleagues on the county school district board.

With the backing of the advisory committee, Woodfill fired Wolfe and had the lock changed on his office. It had become obvious that the party couldn't have a man in charge of running a fair primary who pushed a scheme which endorsed his father and friends.

Sweet. Nice to see such a well-oiled machine over there on Richmond Avenue. And since this is likely to be more coverage of the HCDE than you'll see in six months at the Chron, it's as good a time as any to mention that there are two excellent and well-qualified Democrats running for Trustee positions this fall, Debby Kerner and Jim Henley. I'll be sure to do interviews with them later on as the fall elections gear up.

Rosenthal testifies in Sheriff's lawsuit

Chuck Rosenthal took the stand yesterday during the Sheriff's lawsuit, and nothing too terribly exciting happened.

Attorney Lloyd Kelley, who represents the Ibarras, tried to establish that the district attorney's office passed the brothers' claims to the Harris County Sheriff's Office for investigation -- even as the sheriff's office allegedly prevented Kel