IS THE BCIC SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS? DOES $85,000 GRANT TO FORMER MAYOR MENDEZ VIOLATE CODE?

Special to El Rrun-Rrun

In 2020, after much fanfare and news coverage, the Brownsville City Commission – with then-Mayor Trey Mendez – voted to approve an amended Code of Ethics.

Among some of the code's sections is one that prohibits a city official from receiving an improper economic benefit while in office and that prohibition extends to one year (12 months) after they leave office.

Yet, after Mendez left office last May – less than three months ago – the board of the Brownsville Community Improvement Corporation on Thursday, July 20, voted to award 13 grants ranging from $30,00 to $85,000 that included one for the business established at 1018 E. Washington, the old Coca Cola Building.

Interestingly, the name of the recipient or their Limited Liability Company (LLC) was not listed, just the building address. However, it does say that the applicant is the property owner. And a check of the Cameron County Appraisal District indicates the owner is Urban 8 Properties LLC.

The grant for $85,000 was awarded to Urban 8 Properties, which is owned by Mendez and former city director of government and community affairs Ramiro Gonzalez. 

If you recall, Mendez and Gonzalez had applied for BCIC grants, although it was for $200,000 then, to restore the building and establish a business that would create jobs and improve the downtown area.

After their applications for the money was aired on social media, Mendez and Gonzalez withdrew their application saying it had been filed prematurely.

At that time, a sworn complaint was filed with the city's Ethics Commission regarding an alleged violation of the ethics ordinance regarding “Improper Economic Benefit.”

The ethics commission dismissed the complaint after determining there was “insufficient clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that a 
violation of the City of Brownsville Code of Ethics occurred,” according to the official Dismissal of Complaint filed Sept. 9, 2021 and signed by ethics commission chairman David Willis.

Since the BCIC signed off on the Code of Ethics – as did other boards like the Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation (GBIC) – does this mean that it can unilaterally ignore the code at its discretion?

It would appear the BCIC's CEO and Executive Director Cori Peña and Community Development Manager  Miriam Suarez either don't know the law, or chose to ignore it. Chapter 38, Section III specifically prohibits former city officials to have any financial interest, direct or indirect, with the city until a year has passed.

John Cowen Jr., then a Brownsville city commissioner At-Large “A,” and now the mayor, said at the time that some members of the city commission felt the ethics commission needed more teeth. Currently the only way it can vet a complaint, since the ethics commission lacks subpoena authority, is if the complainant testifies, which isn’t always guaranteed, he said.

 Cowen said at the time that some members of the city commission felt the ethics commission needed more teeth. Currently the only way it can vet a complaint, since the ethics commission lacks subpoena authority, is if the complainant testifies, which isn’t always guaranteed, he said.

“The way it stands the committee really has no way to fully investigate the claim, produce evidence or really give proper representation for the (complainant). So we’re recommending ways to improve that and even putting in a mechanism so that the ethics commission can subpoena information if necessary, while 
having safeguards so that the process is not abused.”

In fact, it was Mendez's application for the $200,000 BCIC's BIG 2.0 grant funds through a limited liability corporation(LLC) to help rehabilitate the former Coca-Cola Bottling Co. building that raised the question. Mendez at the time denied that he had done anything wrong and that it was the plan all along to pull the item if the Coca-Cola building project hadn’t proceeded to a certain point.

“It wasn’t even ready, so I was surprised to see it on the agenda actually,” Mendez said.

Cowen argued that BCIC should not have its own set of rules separate from the city, since the city oversees BCIC and has a “fiduciary responsibility to make sure that these funds are administered property and in an ethical manner.”

“I think that’s something that we all need to be on the same page about and make sure we don’t create the appearance of a conflict of interest,” he said. “Everything might be done above board, and I don’t think there’s anything, in my opinion, that went wrong with the grants process in terms of legality or the process. I just think it doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t look right. I think the general public likely feels the same way. I think most of the commission feels that way as well. At the end of day we’re going to improve our safeguards so future commissioners and boards don’t create a problem going forward.”

So the question now becomes: Did the BCIC administration and its board voluntarily violate the city's Code of Ethics in awarding Mendez the $85,000 with the 12-month prohibition period in the code? Or can the board cherry pick and decide what part of the code they want to follow?

The buck stops with Cowen and the rest of the city commission when the grants come up for approval at their next meeting. We'll see where they stand.