Mayor faces Criminal Complaint over Conflicts

GI Forum Members file after being shut out of negotiations by leadership.

A criminal complaint was filed Friday with the Corpus Christi Police Department against Mayor Joe Adame for failure to file a correct disclosure form and not fully disclosing a conflict of interest regarding the Coliseum. The charges could result in a finding of guilt on multiple Class A Misdemeanors, each punishable by up to $4,000 fine and one year in jail for each offense.

The law does not automatically provide for removal from office or voiding of any vote on the issue. Removal from office may happen if the violation constitutes misconduct under state or local law. A law or ordinance may be voidable, but it would not be voided if the accused vote does not change the outcome. Discussing, urging or campaigning for such passage of a measure however, could open the question to a decision by the courts.

Johnny Canales GI Forum members Ruben Morales filed the complaint after complaining that he and other members had been shut out of negotiations by Canales and Joe Ortiz, that no vote was taken of the membership and that their chief complaint, that Adame had an undisclosed conflict of interest, remained unresolved. Those allegations were the basis of the GI Forum suit against the City to stop demolition of the Coliseum.

According to the 2010 Texas Conflict of Interest Laws Made Easy by the Office of the Texas Attorney General, there are four reasons under which a conflict of interest can generate a criminal complaint, two of which seem to apply here:

1) Failure to File an Affidavit Noting a Conflict: Failing to file an affidavit with the
official record keeper noting the officials substantial interest in an item if such a
filing is required by Local Government Code Section 171.004;

Adame signed a disclosure form on October 15, 2010 that was filed on October 20, 2010 regarding his downtown Whataburger property. The problem is the filing is incorrect. He filed it the name of the business entity as “Joe Adame Real Estate” instead of the company that owns the property and has the lease Whatadeal LLC. Second, he failed to circle any of the options defining his substantial interest is as required.

Third he failed to define as required by law, “the nature and extent” of his ownership, by not disclosing that he gets a percentage of the gross revenues from the Whataburger over a certain threshold. That percentage clause would be proof of a violation of the law, that he would receive an economic benefit not inuring to the general public requiring disclosure and recusal from voting or discussing the issue.

That participation and discussion could also trigger an additional offense as Adame not only participated in discussions in and out of the council, but he also took part directly in the negotiations leading to a compromise with the GI Forum that would allow the demolition of the coliseum and him receiving a direct economic benefit different from the general public.

2) Participating in Discussions Regarding an Item for Which There is a Conflict:
Discussing or otherwise participating on an item if such participation is prohibited
under Local Government Code Section 171.004 due to a conflict of interest on that
item;

Adame, a commercial realtor, cannot really claim ignorance or misunderstanding as two different legal opinions were issued cautioning him to be careful of these very issues.

Former City Attorney Mary Kay Fisher issued an opinion in response to a We the People article revealing Adame’s ownership of the property that stated, “In the event you or one of your relatives have a potential conflict of interest (a potential conflict of interest is a standard of local ordinance) which could influence the council member’s ability to make an important decision, an interest, a reasonable expectation economic benefit, … you shall make a written disclosure of your interest in the matter and abstain from any vote or decision and not participate in any discussion on the matter.”

Fisher did not state any knowledge of the percentage of revenue clause, which surely would have created an economic advantage not accruing to the general public. In an opinion by acting City Attorney Lisa Aguilar for Jimmy Bray (the City says it has no other opinion issued by Jimmy Bray) dated November 16, Bray says regarding property values an economic impact study would be required to determine if the tearing down of the Coliseum itself would have an economic impact.

Bray repeats Fisher’s cautions about property values and specifically addresses the percentage of revenues asking the question; “Is it likely that approval of the development would result in more customers for Whataburger to the extent that excess gross receipts would increase thus increasing the rent to Whatadeal? He goes on to say, “…on its face this is the most likely situation in which a legal conflict would be found.”

The Caller Times quoted a “draft opinion” in an article on November 10, 2010 that Bray had given Adame the all clear. They did not report the percentage of gross. Adame, a commercial real estate broker, obviously had a basic understanding of how demolition of the Coliseum and building of a park might affect his rent at Whataburger when he voted on a November 17 motion to tear down the Coliseum and build a “Discovery Green” like park on the location. He was and has been an advocate of the Destination Bayfront (inspired by Discovery Green) proposal that would overhaul the area into a hyper park with destination type activities and features.

If he had any doubts all he had to do was listen to the Destination Bayfront groups presentations to City Council and the community. On its website is the following statement, “Economic Impact: Mixed-use Destination Public Spaces are a great source of positive Economic Benefits to our cities: Destination Public Spaces leads to economic development which, in turn, leads to increases in real property values. Economic development also leads to an increase in municipal revenues as well as increases in tourism, which brings in more hotel occupancy tax.”

The Caller Times agreed in an editorial dated January 28, 2010 saying the, “proposed development would spur development.” And that Destination Bayfront would, “lead to increased economic activity which might lead to increased values of some properties in the downtown/Bayfront area.” They went on to say, “mixed use parks in Houston and other cities have generated tourism and helped to drive the economy.”

The only question now is how the new and controversial District Attorney will weigh the law against a politically charged indictment. If she chooses not to pursue the issue, the only path left may be for angry citizens to pursue a grand jury indictment.