(After we posted an article asking why Cameron County D.A. did not prosecute City of Brownsville commissioner Rose Gowen as he did City of Hatlingen commissioner Kori Marra for both not submitting and affidavit stating their potential conflict of interet in a commission vote, Saenz wrote us that there was a difference. Below is his explanation.)
Cameron County District Attorney
Why aren’t you prosecuting Gowen like you prosecuted Marra?
The “Marra” applicable Conflict of Interest Statute, Section 171.004 of the Local Government Code states the following: a local public official commits an offense if she violates the following:
(a) If a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity or real property, the local official shall file...an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest and shall abstain from further participation...”
Attorney General Opinion No JM-852 finds that Southwest Texas State University is not a business entity. Similarly U.T. is not a business entity.
Gowen has no substantial interest in real property; She doesn’t own any of the U.T. property.
Legal conclusion: The “Marra” statute (Local Government Code, Section 171.004) does not apply to the Gowen facts.
Defendant Marra by voting for the Agenda item was voting to enhance an area in which she personally owned real property. Thus, she stood to benefit from her vote.
Why aren’t you prosecuting Gowen like you prosecuted Marra?
The “Marra” applicable Conflict of Interest Statute, Section 171.004 of the Local Government Code states the following: a local public official commits an offense if she violates the following:(a) If a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity or real property, the local official shall file...an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest and shall abstain from further participation...”
Attorney General Opinion No JM-852 finds that Southwest Texas State University is not a business entity. Similarly U.T. is not a business entity.
Gowen has no substantial interest in real property; She doesn’t own any of the U.T. property.
Legal conclusion: The “Marra” statute (Local Government Code, Section 171.004) does not apply to the Gowen facts.
Defendant Marra by voting for the Agenda item was voting to enhance an area in which she personally owned real property. Thus, she stood to benefit from her vote.
7 comments:
Rose Gowen may not have any connection to the property at Lincoln Park, but she sure, by virtue of her employment, has an interest in UT. Rose should have recused herself based on her connection to UT. Luis knows that interpretations of the law are like assholes....everyone has one.
"After we posted a comparison"
Bull shit....it was after Rossana Gomez "vented" on FB. Not you, stop taking credit, you would never have the guts Rossana has!!!!!!
Read the post again. ....it doesn't say he was first...says after their story the D.A. wrote them to explain the situation. Still, I agree it is bull shit and Gowen shouldn't have voted at the very least.
Told you he wouldn't prosecute Oliveras's wife's cousin. He doesn't have the balls. He won't even present it to a grand jury of citizens and let then decide. He is the epitome of what is wrong with this county.
Saenz is afraid of the Brownsville crowd, if her employer is an agency that benefits, she should have recused herself. He will not win again, lots of critcism from many people.
Chicken shit
Bullshit! An AG opinion is just that, an opinion not law.
Post a Comment