MR. D.A. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETE AND KORI?

Previous Next

By Juan Montoya
Back in March 2011, Luis V. Sanez, acting as a special prosecutor for then-Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos, filed  charges against Harlingen city commissioner Kori Mara alleging that as a commissioner she participated in a vote or decision on a matter that had a special economic effect on a business in which she had a substantial interest without first filing an affidavit stating the nature and extent of her interest in the business.
A jury in November 2011 acquitted Marra of the first charge and convicted her of the second, sentencing her to 30 days in the county jail, a $500 fine, and court costs.
It wasn't until four years later that Marra's convictions were overturned by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, ending four years in the courts in a case in which she has always maintained her innocence.
Saenz was acting as a special prosecutor before his election in 2012 to Cameron County D.A. When he became DA, he continued to prosecute Marra.

Her case stems back to the fact that during a city commission meeting  she had voiced her opinion in a presentation on Harlingen’s downtown district — where Marra’s real estate business is located — and also that she did not file a similar affidavit for a subsequent public hearing, which she did not attend.
Saenz concluded that Marra would receive a special economic benefit on her business or real estate from the agenda item, which was listed as a presentation to the City Commission on the downtown improvement district.in a workshop. The charge was that she had a substantial interest without first filing an affidavit stating the nature and extent of her interest in the business.
She, in fact, never voted on the issue aside from speaking out in favor of the reimplementation of the district.
Fast forward to last Thursday when the Cameron County Commissioners Court meeting.
During that meeting, an item on the agenda was discussed on the establishment of a Transportation Reinvestment Zone. If established, the TRZ would funnel a percentage (between 10 to 25 percent) of any increment in property taxes using 2015 as a base year to the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.
No one has figured out how much that would add to the CCRMA, over the 30 to 50 years envisioned in the proposal, it would mean billions, with B, to the coffers of the authority.
Well, it just so happens that Cameron County Judge Pete Sepulveda is also the Chief Executive Officer of the CCRMA at a hefty $230,000 salary. He stands to gain directly from the implementation of the countywide TRZ in terms of his salary employment benefits and a huge increase in the CCRMA's budget.
Like Marra, he never actually voted on the issue, abstaining when the vote was taken.
And as far as we know, he never filed an affidavit stating his personal interest in the agenda item with the county.
Now, why did Saenz make her life a living hell for her over four years and has not lifted a finger to address the Sepulveda matter regarding the CCRMA? What is the difference between Marra and Spulveda. They're both government officials. Both discussed governmental issues that might be construed as benefiting them personally. And neither voted on the issue.
When the Thirteenth Court of Appeals overturned her conviction in March 2013, the court also acquitted Marra because the state had failed to prove the allegations in the complaint that had been filed against her. Saenz refiled the charge in April 2013 to correct the wording in the complaint. Subsequently, and also in 2013, Senior Justice David Wellington Chew, a visiting judge assigned to the case, dismissed the state’s charge against Marra based on the statute of limitations.
Saenz maintained at the time that one of the reasons why he decided to appeal was because he had not been told why the state lost. “I don’t want to commit the same error,” Saenz maintained at the time, adding that he thought Marra had been a good commissioner, wished her the best, and that he was not out to get her as people claimed.

Marra said that her life would never be the same.
“Honestly, I cried when I saw the opinion...and looked at page two of that opinion. I was originally sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine. I chose not to plead guilty or take pretrial diversion as asked by the DA’s office multiple times. I knew I was not guilty,” Marra said.
“When I see what my sentencing was over three years ago, maybe I should have let the DA win. He had unlimited funds and this was like David and Goliath. Thirty days in jail and the fine would have been so much easier to have dealt with than trying to fight this battle. My true belief in myself and that I was right overshadowed what would have been the easiest thing to do,” she said.
“I may have won again, but neither my family nor I will ever be the same. I guess in the end, the only thing I may have left is my integrity.”
Saenz is running for reelection based on his personal morality and integrity. Let's see if he can day the same thing if he turns a blind eye to something that happened in his own front yard.