By Jody Serrano

American-Statesman Staff

A state senator whose district includes the Highland Lakes filed legislation Friday that would require the state auditor to review the books and operations of the Lower Colorado River Authority.

State Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, has frequently warred with the nonprofit, quasi-state utility, which sells water and electricity used in the homes of more than a million Central Texans.

Recently, Fraser threatened the LCRA with stiffer legislative oversight after its board considered easing restrictions on water releases from the Highland Lakes to benefit downriver farmers.

The river authority later adopted stricter restrictions, but some of Fraser’s lakeside constituents remain suspicious of the LCRA, which recently voted to move forward with a $206 million reservoir in its lower basin.

Fraser said in a statement that since becoming a state senator in 1996, “I have constantly battled with the LCRA on how they conduct business.”

“Asking the state auditor to do a thorough review of LCRA’s finances and operations would benefit all the customers in the basin,” said Fraser, who chairs the Senate Natural Resources committee.

The review, which would include an audit of the LCRA’s operations and performance, would have to be completed by Jan. 1, 2015.

The river authority makes no comment on legislation unless it takes an official position, LCRA spokeswoman Clara Tuma said.

“LCRA is already a transparent public agency accountable to numerous other state and federal agencies,” she said.

This year, for the fourth straight time, it won gold certification — the highest available — from the Texas comptroller’s office for its financial transparency, which included making financial documents available online. The LCRA applied for the honor.

“Transparency is extremely important to LCRA because we are a public service organization and accountable to our customers and the people of the lower Colorado River basin,” LCRA General Manager Becky Motal said in a news release.

Under Fraser’s proposal, the LCRA would reimburse the auditor’s office for the cost of performing the audit.

“An independent review of the LCRA’s performance is good for them and for the state,” Fraser said in his statement. “We need to make sure the people we have managing the LCRA have all the information they need to make the best choices for both water and electric customers.”

It is not uncommon for the Legislature to require the state auditor’s office to perform a review of a specific agency. In 2012, for example, the auditor reviewed the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. That review was prompted by legislative direction passed in 2011.

But with allies of its own at the Capitol, the river authority has at least several times evaded efforts by lawmakers to have it reviewed by the Sunset Advisory Commission, whose staff reviews whether agencies ought to continue.

Read original article here

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, has asked Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to intervene in Davis’ attempt to obtain records from a foundation supporting the state’s troubled cancer agency.

Davis filed a civil complaint Friday, asking Lehmberg to determine that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Foundation is a government body subject to the state’s Public Information Act.

Davis wrote that the foundation has refused to release records, claiming it is not a government body.

Foundation officials responded that they have been cooperating with Davis.

“We have already provided Sen. Davis with an extensive amount of information relating to the operations of the foundation,” said Marc Palazzo, a foundation spokesman. “We also have requested a meeting with her to answer any additional questions she may have. Unfortunately she hasn’t accepted our offer.”

Lehmberg confirmed that she has received Davis’ complaint.

“This office will need to review the complaint and the legal issues involved prior to responding or taking action,” she said.

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas — commonly known as CPRIT — is under criminal investigation and legislative review because of its lax management of at least three of its largest grants, totaling $56 million. Other management practices have been criticized as well.

The foundation was created to raise money to supplement the salaries of executives at the state agency.

For weeks it refused to release its list of donors, but eventually it did so under pressure from the Legislature.

Davis is seeking other documents that she says are needed in time for the Legislature to act. The legislative session ends in May.

In her letter to the district attorney, Davis argued that the Legislature authorized the creation of the foundation, that half of the foundation’s board of directors are members of the agency’s oversight committee and that it is required to report its contributions and expenditures to the Legislative Budget Board.

In a letter to Davis, foundation officials noted that the organization does not receive or spend public money and is solely supported by private grants and donations.

Read original article here

There is always bit of a lynch mob mentality when Texas lawmakers go after a Capitol scandal.

So it was last week for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, the small state agency created to manage a $3 billion, 10-year effort to fund scientists and organizations looking for cures and treatments for various cancers.

Lawmakers had “invited” two of three former executives for the agency — which is commonly known as CPRIT — to testify at a legislative hearing. But then prosecutors reminded them of a state law that inadvertently could have given witnesses immunity from prosecution.

The “necktie party” was called off, but it left me wondering why Bill Gimson, the former CPRIT executive director, and Alfred Gilman, the former chief science officer, were singled out.

What about Jerry Cobbs, the chief commercialization officer who left CPRIT in November shortly after it was disclosed that CPRIT had awarded a Dallas startup, Peloton Therapeutics, an $11 million grant two years ago — without the required scientific and business reviews?

“Who’s Jerry Cobbs?” responded a key lawmaker, the figurative rope still in his hand when I asked him why Cobbs wasn’t invited.

Cobbs, according to a CPRIT internal audit, was the one who “improperly” put Peloton on the agenda for consideration by the agency’s oversight committee more than two years ago.

I couldn’t reach Cobbs for comment (call me?) but he told CPRIT’s compliance officer that he thought Peloton was on the agenda “for permission to perform due diligence on company. Not for approval to fund.”

OK, but why didn’t Cobbs raise his hand and stop the oversight committee when it became clear they were writing checks to a startup with not much more than a business plan and no formal review?

After all, more than two years went by before CPRIT discovered its mistake.

Peloton, Cobbs told CPRIT’s compliance officer, “fell outside the cracks.”

Jimmy Mansour, the chairman of CPRIT’s oversight committee, told lawmakers “I think it was the one major pothole for the agency.”

After hearing about CPRIT’s shortcomings over two days of legislative hearings, I think Mansour was being a bit generous with his assessment of CPRIT’s track record.

Amazingly, the lawmakers didn’t really challenge him on that.

The prevailing mood at the Capitol seems to be: Blame the departed bureaucrats, but don’t blame the part-time agency oversight committee — who happen to be political appointees of Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus Jr. (Comptroller Susan Combs and Attorney General Greg Abbott round out the 11-member board.)

Maybe the Legislature recognizes it vested almost all of the power at CPRIT with out-of-state scientists, who we pay to review the projects, and the agency’s executive team that controlled the process.

Their reasoning? Lawmakers say they wanted the awards based on science, not politics.

On the face of it, it’s hard to argue with that.

Out-of-state scientists, it was reasoned, wouldn’t be influenced by outside factors.

Mull it for a moment, though. What does it say about the state of our politics that we can’t trust our cancer-fighting effort not to be corrupted by politics?

The out-of-state process, at least according to last week’s testimony, largely worked. But CPRIT still mishandled some of its largest grants and contracts — and the oversight committee appears to have played a role.

Why didn’t CPRIT’s oversight committee follow its own rules? Why did it advance money to grantees as opposed to only reimbursing expenses once they were incurred? Why pay millions to a “virtual management company” to assist companies applying for grants? Why didn’t it always require an applicant to have “skin in the game” with hard-dollar matching funds? What about those emails trying to rush a $20 million incubator grant? Did outside factors still play a role?

The oversight committee might have answers for all those questions. But the lawmakers didn’t really press for them.

Last week’s hearings provided more heat than illumination, more venting than pointed questions.

But it was a start.

The public deserves a full explanation of what went wrong — and why.

Otherwise, the public won’t believe it when legislators claim they fixed CPRIT.

Read original article here 

Asked if she recalls voting on bills that would keep Texas taxpayers from knowing how much is spent on legislative pensions, State Rep. Donna Howard replied that she doesn’t.

Howard, an Austin Democrat who took office in 2006, wryly noted that the legislation to deprive voters of such information wouldn’t have been announced in big, bold letters well in advance of adoption.

But thanks to the American-Statesman’s Mike Ward we know about it now. The lack of information surfaced in a court ruling rendered by Travis County State District Judge Lora Livingston. The judge ruled against Texans for Public Justice, whose members wanted to know how much the state pays out in legislative pensions. They weren’t seeking individual pension amounts; they just wanted to know the grand total in retirement benefits taxpayers fund for the 103 former lawmakers who are now lobbyists.

Livingston said the information is secret by law.

How convenient for the lawmakers who voted to deny the public a look at how their money is being spent. How inconvenient for those who fund the pensions.

The anti-disclosure laws were passed over the past decade, gradually choking off public disclosure on how much is spent on legislative pensions to the point where even aggregate amounts and cumulative totals are off-limits.

Legislative pensions are tied to the annual salaries of state district judges which generally speaking are $125,000. Legislative pension totals are a percentage of the judicial pay multiplied by the years of service in the Legislature, multiplied by 2.3 percent. Of course, legislators have to serve at least eight years (four terms for House members, two terms for senators) to be eligible for a pension draw.

Ex-legislators with eight years can start drawing the pension at 60. Those with 10 years of service can start collecting at 50.

Tying the pension amount to judicial salaries is a also a convenient and longstanding dodge. Lawmakers who might be hard-pressed to explain a vote to augment their own pensions but don’t have a tough time making a case to raise the pay of the state’s judges.

Legislators will be quick to point out that their base pay is a mere $600 a month — set by the state constitution — supplemented by a per diem during the session. So, the pension is a sort of deferred compensation for the all the long and grueling hours demanded of legislators.

Even if one accepts the deferred compensation view, however, there is no justification for keeping the public from knowing how their money is being spent. As Howard pointed out, the secrecy only fuels public perception that “we’re only here to help ourselves.”

She also noted the irony of the pension secrecy and announcements about the importance of open government. “Transparency is the big mantra — it’s the big theme this session. How much comes to fruition is the big question.”

Coincidentally, Howard filed legislation last week that would broaden financial disclosure requirements for legislators and legislative candidates. Her bill would require lawmakers and candidates to report all sources of earned and unearned income. Current law requires disclosure of job or professional income. It would also require the Texas Ethics Commission to post the disclosures online. Howard is also calling for a comprehensive review of personal financial disclosure laws during the interim by a committee that would include members of the public.

Asked if her legislation could be expanded to shed light on the pension expenditures now closed by state law Howard laughed.

“I don’t know that I’m going to get a hearing,” on her bills as submitted, she said.

Those disclosure bills should get a hearing and those laws allowing legislative pension secrecy should be reversed. Any suggestion that this is small matter of little public concern should be aggressively challenged.

As the French poet Charles Baudelaire observed: “the finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist.”

And secrecy provides the devil a luxurious home.

Read original article here