How much did it cost to elect someone Mayor of Garland? And why did $2 out of every $3 spent in the recent mayoral election come from 3 PACs?

Final reports filed in Austin show that the local Garland Firefighters PAC spent $22,408.48 to underwrite the current Garland mayor's election on May 5.

When I first discussed running for mayor of Garland in this past May's election, an acquaintance warned me that such a race is highly expensive—as much as $50,000.

"Do you know how much a mayor's race costs?" he asked with concern in his tone.

I rolled my eyes, thinking that I had no intention of ever spending that amount for a political campaign, even if I had family, friends, and supporters who would come forth with that kind of money. I presumed hard work, candor, transparency, a background in management and leadership, a great team of volunteers, high energy, and tenacity would pay off.

My source's dollar-figure for a mayoral election here turned out to be more accurate than I ever dreamed, but the real question is not how much a campaign costs individual candidates and their Garland supporters.

The pertinent question really is, "How much are PACs willing to spend for their candidate to become mayor of Garland?" Or even a city councilmember? And why are they doing this? And shouldn't the public be brought into the loop with full disclosure and transparency on this very serious reality?

These controversial PACs clearly are not just a national issue, they are a local concern, too. Their tentacles reach all the way down deep into our city and involve not just the mayor's office but the city council seats as well. 

Three PACs were involved in our last Garland mayoral election on May 5 and provided $2 out of every $3 spent in that whole campaign. That's no insignificant percentage or sum.

If you've been following the U.S. Senate race in Texas, you've no doubt heard over and over the debate about these Political Action Committees, commonly called PACs. These entities are formed by special-interest groups, usually wealthy organizations, who either make contributions to a candidate's campaign or run parallel campaigns for the candidate, or both. These PACs always have some kind of agenda.

Incumbent Texas Senator Ted Cruz warmly embraces support of some of the most powerful and wealthy PACs in Texas and the U.S. They are spending vast numbers of dollars to support his reelection bid. Their recent injection of money probably accounts for Cruz's uptick in at least one recent poll.

His challenger, Democratic nominee U.S. Rep. Robert "Beto" O'Rourke of El Paso, refuses to have anything to do with PACs and will not accept money or support from them. Beto instead is relying on small donations from ordinary citizens and is receiving a huge outpouring of support for his stand. Until the last few days, polls showed Cruz and Beto locked in a dead-heat. National conservative PACs are reported to be rushing in with wheelbarrows full of dollars for new advertising to counter the Texas insurgency and rescue Cruz.

Thanks to Beto and others, the public is growing wise to the unbalanced and unfair (and I would add unAmerican) influence of these PACs.

Until the final tallies were in and I figured out how to trace the actual money spent by the three PACs involved in the recent Garland mayoral race, I had no idea how much they collectively invested—and how much influence—these PACs wield on Garland elections or the city governments of Garland and its surrounding cities.

I still don't know exactly why these three PACs do this and to such an extent.

Final reports filed in Austin show the Texas Association of Realtors spent $20,569.73 to underwrite the election of Garland's current mayor.

In this year's election, on required City of Garland election forms, the winning candidate and I appear to have spent somewhat equal amounts of money: $13,406.52 for Moore for Mayor; $17,234.38 for the winning candidate for Mayor; while the third candidate for Mayor reported that she spent $349.00 (but also used signs and equipment from a previous mayoral election in which she ran.)

Everything between the first two candidates looked somewhat even until I began to ferret out the real numbers deep in the files in Austin. Then the picture changed dramatically.

Kay and I provided more than half of the funding for my campaign, while 53 individuals made contributions ranging from $20 to $500 to the Moore for Mayor campaign. We personally donated $7,122.88 from our own resources plus $1,200 of in-kind services to the Moore for Mayor campaign.

The third candidate reported contributions of a total of $150 from 3 individuals.

Neither the third candidate nor I received any PAC funds.

The Garland Firefighters Association's PAC provided about $6,700—less than half—of the winning candidate's donations. The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas PAC provided her with another $1,500, while 26 individuals made contributions ranging from $100 to $500. That winning candidate listed $1,225 in donations of $50 or less from individuals whose names are not listed.

Donors who give $50 or less (usually in cash) do not have to be listed by name.

Documents filed in both Garland and Austin show that the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas spent $1,500 to underwrite the current mayor in the May 5 campaign.

The winning candidate and the other candidate did not show that they put personal money into their own mayoral campaigns but instead called differences between what was contributed and what was spent "loans". (Based on the winning candidate's reports, she sustained a debt of $1,382.61; the other candidate sustained a debt of $199.00).

Campaign debt is also a technique used for years by Texas politicos; it allows PACs or individual supporters to come in later after an election and quietly contribute funds to pay off the debt. Former Mayor Douglas Athas' campaign treasurer claimed that after he won election in 2013, his campaign was more than $40,000 in debt for personal loans he made to the campaign. During his second and uncontested campaign two years later the treasurer told me that he was raising money to help pay off the first mayoral campaign's debts and asked me for a donation.

The Moore for Mayor Campaign opted instead to clear the books of all debt with additional contributions from me.

As the late News Commentator Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the rest of the story:"

You won't find this information on file in the Garland City Hall nor reported in any city publication. You have to look in the records of the Texas Ethics Commission in Austin to get it. And you have to know how to slog through the myriad of bureaucratic forms and hurdles to find the information. All of it is public record, but that doesn't mean it is easy to find.

PACs are registered with the State of Texas and report to the state, not to our city government, despite the fact that they make huge contributions to our political races—a situation that ought to concern every Garland citizen.

Besides the $6,658.73 the Garland Fire Fighters Community Interest Committee PAC gave directly to the winning candidate's campaign, the local firefighter PAC spent an additional $15,749.75 on advertising and other expenses to benefit that candidate, for a total of $22,408.48. It paid $5,110.00 to David Riggs of Sulphur Springs, who has headed up the local Firefighters Association for many years, for work at the polls putting up signs, lobbying voters arriving at the polls, etc. Besides Riggs, five other Garland firefighters received $1,882.00 total for working in the campaign—all doing work Garland citizens volunteered to do for the Moore for Mayor Campaign.

The $22,408.48 total spent by the Garland Firefighters Association's PAC for the winning mayoral campaign is almost double the total spent by the Moore for Mayor Campaign. Because the $6,658.73 is reported as a "donation" from the firefighter PAC on both the winning candidate's form filed in Garland and as a "donation" to the candidate on the firefighter PAC's form filed in Austin, that makes it difficult to compare the winning candidate for Mayor's real campaign contributions. Without that donation, the winning candidate's campaign total drops significantly—to less than half the firefighter PAC's total spent.

The Garland firefighters' PAC also paid $958.96 of advertising expenses for the successful District 2 council candidate, where the original opponent to the winner withdrew weeks before the election but whose name remained on the ballot.

In the 2018 election the firefighter PACs' Schedule F1 filed in Austin also lists $1,000 paid to Thomas Tran for "signs" and $330.00 paid to a Garland firefighter for "campaign work", but neither of those line items in the state report says whether the money supported the Garland successful mayoral or council candidate. That required line item on those two pieces of information is blank.

The Garland firefighter PAC has actually financially supported the elections of the majority—five—of our current city council members. After the council election two years ago, one opponent of one of those five said he felt as if he had been running against the Garland Firefighters PAC instead of his actual opponent in what turned out to be a very close runoff election.

Of the remaining four council members, three have never faced an opponent, nor has one single citizen actually ever voted in an election for any of the three. The fourth was not endorsed by the firefighters PAC when he first ran but certainly can't miss the value of having the firefighters association on his side in case he has further political ambitions.

The firefighters local association has lobbied city council heavily to get the city to begin making Retirement Stability Benefit contributions for civil service employees. After years of lobbying, in 2018 the fire fighters union at last succeeded in this effort. In the 2018 FY budget, the city finally agreed to begin contributing .5 percent of a civil service employee's (police and firefighters') paycheck toward these retirement funds. The employee matches the funds. When this year's budget was introduced by the city manager, it proposed increasing the city contribution to .75 percent—reflecting exactly the annual increase that was recommended during last year's budget discussions.

However, before budget hearings ended this year, council at the last minute managed to increase the city contribution to 1 percent in the FY 2019 budget. Not one council member (including those whose campaigns had been funded by the firefighter PAC) spoke in opposition to this extra boost that went beyond what was in the original budget proposal. Nor did any of them opt to recuse themselves from voting because of the contributions their campaigns had received.

When the FY 2019 budget was adopted a few days ago, the added .25-percent hike was in the budget, at an additional cost of $151,168 to citizens this year. The firefighter PAC certainly saw its diligent work in the 2018 election as well as in past elections (and the promise of elections to come) pay off in this bottom line voted on unopposed for civil service employees.

As required, the firefighter PAC's filings in Austin also lists donations it received from its members mostly through payroll deductions from city paychecks. On forms filed in Austin, all but a few donations are from firefighters cited as living outside of Garland. City statistics indicate some 95 percent of all Garland firefighters do not live in Garland but instead live in cities ranging from southern Oklahoma to Central Texas, from west of Fort Worth to East Texas. Garland fire fighters make contributions to their association and PAC through payroll deductions from their city paychecks. Keep in mind that this is taxpayers' money—deducted from their paychecks that citizens fund—that is turned immediately back around and used to support candidates in local, regional and state political races.

As a taxpayer, voter, and citizen of Garland, I am appalled that $2 out of every $3 spent in the recent May 5 election for Mayor of Garland was provided by three PACs, which means people living outside of our hometown now exert more influence over our local elections than citizens living here.

The third PAC that got deeply involved in Garland's recent mayoral election was a big surprise—for me at least. I previously thought it was just a minor player in Garland politics, as did many others I've talked with. It turns out that the Texas REALTORS PAC based in Kerrville, TX, was the second biggest spender in Garland's May 5 mayoral campaign—running a close second to the Garland firefighters PAC. Its reports filed in Austin indicate checks totaling $20,569.73 were issued by its central office in Chicago, IL for expenses such as advertising and robo-phone calls supporting the winning Garland mayoral candidate.

The Texas Realtors report is truly eye-popping. That wealthy PAC gets involved in City Council and mayoral races throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as well as throughout the state. (While the Greater Dallas Apartment Association seems to focus its resources only on the DFW area, the Texas REALTORS PAC is statewide and affiliated with a nationwide organization.) The amount given by the REALTORS to support my fellow candidate's campaign seems to be standard operating procedure for the Texas REALTORS PAC.

While the firefighter PACs' involvement in Garland elections—but not the actual amounts of money it spends through directly paid expenses and parallel campaign expenses—is somewhat known in the community, the Texas REALTORS PAC is not.

I now see why my acquaintance tried to warn me about the heavy financial costs of mayoral elections here. What he didn't tell me (and what would have been more helpful) is the vast extent of financial involvement by these three PACs in Garland municipal elections—and the fact that they bankroll two-thirds of the total campaign expenses.  

All this means people living outside of our hometown now exert more influence over our municipal elections than ordinary citizens living here do.

And that's not right. There's something seriously wrong with that situation.

These comments are by no means intended to reflect on any of the candidates involved in Garland's last local election. It also does not diminish the high regard I have for Garland's outstanding fire department and the excellent work our firefighters do to protect our citizens. My intent is simply to point out the great influence the three PACs have on local races—and the seriousness of a political system created over many years which has diminished the importance and influence of ordinary citizens in our municipal elections and replaced them with PACs whose influence is majorly significant here now.

I feel a moral obligation to warn other citizens in our beloved city, especially those who might be thinking about running for city council or mayor. This is a truly serious matter. As we are learning in the Russian interference allegations about the 2016 U.S. Presidential race, our elections are a cornerstone in our freedoms. Free elections are guaranteed to us in our U.S. constitution. We don't need anyone taking that right away from us. PACs are legal but still questionable. Garland citizens need to be in charge of their own destiny and make decisions accordingly, not people who don't live, pay taxes, and vote in our city.

Somehow, some way Garland needs to move beyond its captivity to these powerful financial influences on its political life.

If you don't manage to receive contributions from these three PACs, does it do you any good at all to run for office? Unless you are independently wealthy and have a bottomless pit of resources to spend on your race, how can any candidate stand against these deep pockets? As I've mentioned before in this blog, this deprives our citizens of the democratic process. With the PACs a factor, we'll keep having uncontested elections and deprive our citizens of the right to choose among qualified candidates. It will greatly discourage qualified, involved citizens who wish to run for public office. Why bother to run for office in this city when the deck is stacked secretly against you?

Forcing these PACs out of the darkness of secrecy and into the light of public awareness is one way to combat them. Eventually electing a reform-minded council not beholden to them is another. A third way is for citizens to form additional PACs to compete with these three. Can you imagine if other city employees opted to follow the firefighters' model: "Garland parks and recreation workers' PAC . . . ", "Garland streets department workers' PAC . . .", "Garland environmental waste workers' PAC . . ." and so on. Each would be entitled to raise money through payroll deductions from city paychecks, which are funded by Garland taxpayers. And each could lobby Council for its own pet project benefiting its members.

Or Garland homeowners in a particular part of town could form a PAC to lobby for better conditions in existing single-family houses and apartments in their area. I wonder if such a group could demand a cut of the taxes collected in their areas? Seems rather silly, doesn't it?

While Beto and I may disagree about certain points in his platform, he is dead-on correct in his opposition to these PAC's. 

You can count on me to join ranks with Beto and others who are alarmed about the stranglehold these well-funded unAmerican wealthy PACs have on our constitutional freedoms as citizens of the United States of America.

Just for the record, here are the three Texas ID numbers of the three PACs that were involved in our city's recent elections: Texas REALTORS PAC, TX filer ID 00070098, the Garland Fire Fighters Community Interest Committee PAC, TX filer ID 00057219, Apartment Association of Greater Dallas PAC, TX filer ID 00016482. To learn more about these three PACs and to obtain copies of their reports, click on https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/index.html. Then in the left hand top corner, click on "Search Campaign Finance and Lobby Reports", then enter the ID number or name of the PAC. When the first report pops up, be sure to look in the right hand corner for an arrow that will take you to see other reports.

Garland citizens deserve better than having non-citizens through these PACs dumping huge sums into our local municipal elections. 

 

Transparency is suddenly way-cool in the lead up to the Garland Bond Study Committee meetings, and citizens are the beneficiaries

Citizens need to listen closely—and speak up—as the City of Garland decides whether to hold a bond election in 2019. Their money and future may be at stake here.

Garland city councilmembers are now falling all over themselves to make sure the public is fully informed and has access to all the proceedings going forward for the possible 2019 bond election next year.

During their marathon work session Tuesday, September 4, council went the extra mile to make sure the soon-to-be constituted 19-member Bond Study Committee's sessions are fully open to the public and recorded on audio and possibly video, with those recordings and meeting notices posted in a highly accessible place.

I commend council for taking this stand. Citizens certainly will be the beneficiaries.

An earlier blog questioned the roots of this bond issue, which had the appearance of materializing almost out of thin air, with the fact of a 2019 bond election suddenly becoming mentioned around as though it were gospel. One council member responded that talk about the possible bond proposal emanated at the council's retreat last December 15 at a local hotel. Further research by this blog showed that the retreat was one of only a few "special" meetings of council during that calendar year that was NOT televised. No recording of the event is delineated on the city's website listing CGTV videos. The posted agenda to that meeting says it was only a staff-based "future bond program discussion", with no dates given. The meeting's official minutes posted on the city's website indicate no vote was taken nor consensus reached on the bond "discussion" at the retreat—with a "hypothetical timetable of events" presented by staff. 

Few citizens attend the day-long marathon council retreats, especially when the meetings are held in a hotel on the northern end of town and, as with the case of this one, are scheduled 10 days before Christmas when ordinary citizens already have full schedules.

Was the un-televised retreat held deep into the chaotic Christmas season the right time and/or the right setting to suddenly introduce a proposal with possible serious tax consequences for Garland citizens? Do our citizens deserve better than this?

No City Council meetings held outside Garland City Hall are videotaped and/or broadcast on TV. The day-long council retreat last December 15 at the Hyatt Hotel was where the proposed 2019 bond proposal was said to have gotten its start—out of sight of most citizens. Wouldn't televising such council retreats be respectful of citizens? Should these gatherings be moved back to city hall if televising retreats is impossible?

As engaged citizens and professional journalists during the early days of the adoption of the Texas Open Records Act, Kay and I are always concerned when local and state politicians seem to wander to the edge of that law. The law was born in the early 1970s when Frank Sharp, president of Sharpstown Bank in Houston, was convicted of colluding with city officials behind closed doors. The tentacles of that scandal reached far and wide in Houston and South Texas, prompting Texas legislators for solid and good reasons to adopt the state's Open Meetings Law.

Out in the sunshine is the only way any form of government should operate, especially when taxes and money are concerned!

On Tuesday night, councilmembers even went so far as to consider whether citizens attending the public bond committee sessions would be able to address the committee meetings briefly. Kudos to Councilmember Jim Bookhout for strongly supporting citizen input at the committee meetings; I certainly hope some provision is made to let citizens have a brief say-so during the committee sessions.

Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, on the other side of the equation Garland citizens need to pay serious attention to ALL the proceedings regarding the possible 2019 city bond election. So far, proportionately, very few Garland citizens seem to be taking it seriously enough. That may be good for our politicians short-term but very bad for the community long-term.

The last such city bond election—in 2004, 14 years ago—has been dubbed a "failure" by one sitting Garland city councilmember. Yet another has inquired of the city manager whether that 2004 city bond election could be "undone". I concur with them. A little over 40% of the money approved by voters in 2004 has NOT been spent. Dozens of approved projects have never been implemented. The excuse used for the delay—the 2007 Great Recession—was over within three years; the Dallas area recovered quickly and has been in a boom for several years now. Meanwhile, nearly $100 million in approved bonds remain on the books to be issued at the whim of city leaders. (By the end of this year—four months from now—city figures indicate the $100 million should drop to $88 million.) Retreat minutes summarize that Councilmember Scott LeMay asked City Manager Bryan Bradford if election of the unfinished projects in the 2004 bond election could be de-authorized. In the minutes Bradford tells LeMay that doing so would require a vote of Garland citizens (an election or "un-election" of the 2004 bond issue).

 During the Tuesday-night city council meeting, a discussion occurred about whether a "small" new $100-million proposed bond program would increase taxes. Left out of that discussion was the 1 + 1 = 2 question about whether the $100 million remaining on the books PLUS a new $100 million approved in a 2019 election would, if both fully implemented alongside each other, cause a tax increase. Is there room in the budget for just one or both? I posed that question to city staff, who said indeed, the city could sustain the remaining $88 million plus a new $100 million in bond-fund projects without requiring a tax increase. 

For the extra $100 million, the city possibly could get the most needed (and publicly promoted) projects done—its new police evidence building, a new animal shelter, realignment and repair of the Naaman Forest Road where flooding occurs, and a couple more projects spread out over the city.

But don't get lulled to sleep thinking City Council and city staff are thinking small. Despite rumors emanating from some Garland politicos that council has already set in stone a bond proposal totaling $250 million, during the Tuesday-night session council members declined to set financial parameters for the new bond study committee, to be inaugurated about September 19. Council was told that suggested project proposals already total some $800 million and could go as high as $1 billion. Discussion, however, seems aimed at the $250 million to $450 million range. That would mean eliminating three-fourths to one-half of the already-suggested projects or whittling them down in size. One councilmember said his district would "burn me at the stake" if he supported a bond program as high as $450 million. Anything between those $100 million to $800 million numbers will definitely raise Garland property taxes. The higher the numbers, the higher the tax increase. Anything higher than $400 million could possibly spark a taxpayer revolt in some parts of town.

After bungling Garland's 2004 bond implementation so badly and for so many years, Garland's needs are great. Nobody should argue against that—it's evident in our parks, on our streets, along our creek beds (drainage), etc. But how fast and how much do we spend to get out of the hole the city is in?

And also, going forward does the city do these projects using borrowed money or cash that will be generated by increasing property values set to hit our residents over the next few years and expiring bond payments (after 2024) that will exit the city's budget? And with a water-rate hike and other city fees—and even a potential GP&L hike down the road—on the possible increase? Those are all important questions that deserve a hearing.

The City of Garland can learn much from the 2014 Garland ISD bond election. Many citizens are still bothered that the proposed new school district Natatorium wasn't listed on the ballot as a separate item instead of being lumped with other projects.

Though it was not actually a part of the proposed 2019 city bond-election discussion, one item on Council's regular agenda Tuesday night (the location of the school district's new Natatorium near the George Bush Freeway) spotlighted the problems associated with a local bond package not vetted properly. Garland ISD's new Natatorium was a hot potato when it was approved in 2014 and has remained so ever since. While city council this week worried over parking, buses, and fencing to protect neighbors at the proposed facility, GISD continues to struggle with dissident voices over the fact that the controversial Natatorium was not a separate yes-or-no item in that bond election.

If we actually do hold the proposed city bond election in 2019, the City of Garland needs to learn from the school district's misfortunes and separate as many as possible of the large, especially controversial items, into separate yes-or-no votes.

The city also can learn a lesson from germinating its discussion about the possible bond election at the non-televised, poorly attended, day-long retreat last December. December 17, 2018, is projected as the deadline for hearing the bond committee's final report and recommendations—learning whether the committee recommends putting the bond issue on the May 2019 ballot and what items are suggested to be on it. That date of December 17 is not best for our citizens, but if Council insists and goes forward with it, the meeting— wherever it takes place—needs to be televised, well publicized, and shared repeatedly over the next few months with the citizens of Garland. Making public such an important decision just 8 days before Christmas is not likely to gain much citizen attention.

Listen up, Garland citizens and taxpayers: These are serious matters right now. They WILL impact your pocketbook. Council has signaled rightly its willingness to listen to you. Get informed. Stay tuned. Let your voices be heard loud and strong!

As they say during wedding ceremonies, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."

Garland voters have the final say on whether the city can issue more bonds.

 

School district and city bonds are totally separate financial matters, though many of the same Garland citizens pay taxes to support both. Some lessons from the 2014 GISD bond issue can apply to the potential 2019 Garland issue, if it goes forward.