Don't Use Taxpayer Money to Defend Alleged Illegal Electioneering!

Texas Ethics Commission to Review Alleged Electioneering by Trevino & Cunningham

Report by Ron West

    Message:  Don't use NRH Taxpayer funds to defend yourself!

    State law forbids the use of taxpayer funds for political campaigning in support of any candidate or issue per the following section of law:

§ 255.003. Unlawful Use of Public Funds for Political Advertising
        (a) An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising.
        (b) This section does not apply to a communication that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure.
        (c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
 

This section of Texas Law is under the jurisdiction of the Texas Ethics Commission.

    As evidenced by the letters to Mayor Oscar Trevino and City Manager Cunningham, the Commission has accepted a complaint filed for alleged violations of the above law.  You can read the letters from the commission here:  Trevino Letter  -  Cunningham Letter

    Both Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Trevino are required to respond to these allegations within 25 business days from their receipt of this certified mailing from the Ethics Commission.   This has been classified as a Category Two offense and if sustained, is a Class A Misdemeanor.  Fines can be assessed by the Commission commensurate with their evaluation of the seriousness of the offense.  The purpose of the fines is to discourage future similar violations.

    Category Two Violations are based on the following:

§ 571.1212. Categorization of Violations
An allegation of a violation listed as a Category One violation shall be treated as a Category Two violation if the executive director at any time determines that:
        (1) the allegation arises out of the same set of facts as those that give rise to an allegation of a Category Two violation, and the interests of justice or efficiency require resolution of the allegations together; or
    (2) the facts and law related to a particular allegation or a defense to the allegation present a level of complexity that prevents resolution through the preliminary review procedures for Category One violations prescribed by Section 571.1242(a).
 

    The actual complaint alleges that Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Trevino directed city funds to be used to publish material in the City Newsletter to attempt to defeat the Senior/Disabled Tax Freeze.    It also cites the use of water bill advertising inserts for the same purpose.  Examples of the literature and facts developed by City Staff under the direction of Mr. Cunningham were provided in the detailed complaint.

    Since the nature of this complaint is regarding the improper use of taxpayer funds in violation of state laws, we call on Mr. Trevino and Mr. Cunningham to provide their own responses without the use of the services of City Attorney Staples and without the expenditure of additional taxpayer funds in defense of their possibly illegal actions.

    The Commission will rule on these allegations after receiving a required response from both Mr. Trevino and Mr. Cunningham.  Both of these gentlemen have full copies of all documentation regarding this complaint.  The results of the ruling and details of the complaint will be published as available.