NURITH EXPLAINS NO VOTE ON PROBE INTO LOST $1.3 MILLION

(Ed.'s Note: Tuesday's vote by a majority of the City of Brownsville commissioners to investigate  the $1.3 million double payment by the Brownsville Public Utility Board to Texas Noble Construction was not joined by District 1 commissioner Nurith Galonsky. Despite her no vote, the city administration's request to initiate a probe into the initial missing $1.3 million payment which was sent to the wrong bank account and the wrong bank where it disappeared was approved. Below is Galonsky's reasoning explaining why she voted against the probe by the city.)

By Nurith Galonsky

District 1 City of Brownsville Commissioner

One of the reasons we have different city boards is to engage Brownsville citizens in local government. It is our responsibility to appoint people who we believe are competent and qualified to sit on each board and that we trust will make good decisions for the City and our citizens. 

 To that end, we should encourage board members to take an active role in executing their duties as board members — ensuring that they regularly attend meetings, stay informed about the issues their organization is dealing with, and that they explore all sides of each issue.

In addition, I believe that the City Commission should respect a board’s decision on matters that it has explored and decided after careful consideration. In other words, if the board has received ample information to make an informed decision, then I think we as a City Commission should respect and ratify the board’s decision unless new information comes up or it becomes apparent that material information was disregarded.

In this particular case, it has been less than two months since the incident in question happened and the BPUB Board has decided to wait until the FBI investigation is concluded. If this is an instance of phishing, then BPUB has cyber security insurance that can cover most if not all of the damages that the company has incurred. 

Alternatively, if the incident is a result of an “inside job,” then I trust that the FBI will identify everyone involved in the crime and prosecute them accordingly. Meanwhile, BPUB’s internal auditor has done her own audit and given recommendations on what policies and procedures should be adopted to avoid the same situation happening again. Consequently, it is my opinion that having the City Commission initiate its own audit and/or investigation at this time is premature or duplicative.

Additionally, Mayor Mendez sits on the BPUB Board and is a member of BPUB’s Audit Committee. In deference to him, I would like to give him and his peers an opportunity to deal with the situation as they see best.

There is no indication that BPUB is being poorly managed or impropriety is prevalent thereby necessitating an immediate intervention. 

 Like I said earlier, if it turns out to be an instance of phishing, it is likely that BPUB can recover most if not all of the damages. And if it turns out that the loss of money was an “inside job,” then I certainly do not want to compromise the FBI’s investigation or assume that we can do better. 

To the extent that the City Commission has questions about what has happened, it is appropriate for us to ask the Mayor what he knows or have CEO John Bruciak give an explanation of what he knows. But to go as far as initiate our own investigation or audit seems ill-advised at this point.