CITY SEEKS TO KEEP RESIDENTS IN THE DARK ON PAYMENTS TO DIANE DILLARD, WIFE OF FEDERAL JUDGE HANEN: WHY?

By Juan Montoya
Attorneys for the City of Brownsville have refused to provide information on city payments to Diane Dillard – wife of federal judge Andrew Hanen – claiming the Texas Information Act "provides no particular procedure" for obtaining the services for which she was paid $34,124 for the period from November 2011 to August 2013.
El Rrun-Rrun requested the information from the City Secretary under the normal information request process September 6, a Friday. Under the law, the city has 10 working days to provide the information requested or to ask the Texas Attorney General for a ruling on any information they deny to provide the public.
The 10-working-day rule expired Sept. 20, the date of the city letter was sent via certified mail to the publisher's address.
The information request from El Rrun-Rrun was for:
1. for "all disbursements to vendor Diane Dillard" and,
2. "all responses to city RFPs (Requests For Production(?) (sic) Proposals from vendor Diane Dillard."
According to the City Assistant Attorney Allison Bastian, "as the Professional Services Procurement Act does not apply to the solicitation of legal services, and state law provides no particular procedure for obtaining such services, the city has nothing in response to Item 2.
"The city does have invoices from Ms. Dillard which address item 1," Bastian wrote. "We are releasing those to you in redacted form; it is however, the city's position that portions of these items are subject to withholding exceptions pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act. The city is therefore seeking the opinion regarding the redaction of these portions. Should the Attorney General subsequently rule the items you seek may be released, we will do so at that time."
In other words, Bastian and the city are taking the position that the public does not have the right to demand to know how their money is spent and how much was paid and for what purpose to any vendor, specifically one for legal services. At most, this will only buy them time before the Attorney General overrules their objections and they order city attorneys to release the information.
We do not believe – as others have alleged – that Mayor Tony Martinez entered into a quid pro quo agreement with Judge Hanen to steer business to his wife in return for favorable treatment of his son Trey Martinez relating to the racketeering and bribery investigation into the local judiciary. Trey was Limas' treasurer during the last campaign Limas lost to Elia Cornejo-Lopez. And we realize that any prosecution relating to those cases is the proper purview of the Office of the U.S. Attorney, not a federal judge.
However, it is noteworthy that the invoices handed by Dillard to the city were addressed "The City of Brownsville, c/o Mayor Tony Martinez" and not to the city's Finance of Legal Department for approval.
The invoices were approved by City Manager Charlie Cabler.
Both invoices submitted to the city by Dillard were dated August 1, 2013. The first covered the period from November 12, 2012 to July 31, 2013 for which she charged 44.25 hours and was paid $11,062. The invoices' section dealing with "services" was blackened out entirely and does not state the services she rendered for payment, although there were 32 instances for which she was paid.
The second invoice – also dated August 1, 2013 – covered the period from January 17, 2013 to July 31, 2013 and has 45 instances when she charged for work performed in as many days. Those 45 charges totaled 92.25 hours for which she was paid $23,062.50 for a total of both invoices of $34,124.50.
It is apparent that the two invoices dealt with work dealing in real estate transactions that she handled for the city.
Both invoices have been blacked out in the spaces where Dillard describes the work she performed for the city payments.
In her letter to the Attorney General, Bastian says "Diane Dillard is a local real estate attorney representing the city on certain real estate matters."
There have been may questions regarding the binge of real estate speculation for which Martinez has been the driving force. Some of the purchases have included the Casa Del Nylon property for which the city paid $2.3 million and which belonged to Martinez political supporter Abraham Golonsky. Golonsky was represented in that negotiations with the city by Martinez's law firm partner Horacio Barrera.
As to the responses to city RFPs for the real estate transactions, the city holds the position that it does not have to provide that information and cites state law:
(1) Texas Gov't. Code 552.022 (a) (16)
(2.) 552.101, encompassing "other law," specifically Tex. Rules of Civ. Procedure 192.5 and Tex. Rules of Evidence 503, and
(3.) Other law as applicable, including Federal and State statutes and common law
Bastian, in her letter to the Attorney General, states that the city will "follow up next week with unredacted samples of then items Mr. Montoya seeks, as well as a brief in support of their withholding."
To tell our four readers the truth, we don't believe that the city has any responses for RFPs from Ms. Dillard, and that it was probably Martinez steering the jobs trying to win favor from the federal bench. He, his son, and his law firm practice before Hanen and the rest of the judiciary.
It would be a pleasant surprise to us who have been pleasantly surprised at hoe Hanen has sought to uproot the corruption and racketeering on the part of the judiciary, public prosecutors and law enforcement and in the local school district as well, that he ask his wife to authorize the city to provide the information the public is seeking from its government and its elected officials.
Ms. Dillard is a top-flight real estate attorney in her on right. In fact, among some of her major accomplishments is the writing of a Conflict-Of-Interest section on real-estate ethic law. We urge her to authorize the city to produce the information we have requested in the interest of transparency. Will she? And will the city continue to try to keep its taxpayers in the dark about how it spends their money?