After reading the "lean and mean" version of the Dannenbaum Engineering settlement with the Brownsville Navigation District, Cameron County D.A Armando Vilalobos's deal with the company, Peter Zavaletta's recollections of the deal and Carlos Masso's version, all we can say is that someone is fudging the truth.
As a matter of fact, the Herald and Zavaletta's versions seem to be pretty much the same. But it is Masso's, then the chairman of the BND board, that seems to diverge from what has become common knowledge to local residents.
A week ago Sunday, in a story about the debacle and Villalobos' (mis) handling of it, reporter Emma Perez-Treviño walked the unschooled through the details of the bridge fiasco. It all started when – at the recommendation of State Sen. Eddie Lucio – the port board let go of Brown and Root Engineering and hired Dannebaum Engineering, of Houston, in their place. At the time, no one knew that Eddie was on board as a consultant with Dannebaum and was getting a healthy fee for his work of "introducing them to people."
By the time the port had gone through $21 million with nary a pole or board in place, some commissioners grew alarmed – notably Peter Zavaletta – and commissioned attorney Charles Willette as special counsel to conduct an investigation. His 2005 report stated that "of the money paid to DEC, $9.2 million was not justified, $1.7 million in success fees was questionable, and that DEC might have performed about $4.5 million in engineering work."
Willette also reported that despite Dannebaum engineer Louis H. Jones Jr.'s denials that he had anything to do with Mexican subcontractors, he was a principal in three companies that got $9.2 million of that money. Homeframes de Mexico S.A. de C.V got $3.3 million. Another $1.4 million went to Comercializadora Binacional America S.A. de C.V., known as COBINA; and $4.4 million went to to Sistemas Ejecutivos de Seguridad Privada S.A. de C.V.
Another $2 million were also paid to Sistemas Ejecutivos de Seguridad Privada as “success fees.”
The port commissioners knew this by January 2005. In January 2006, Masso's boss, Villalobos, said that his new white-collar crime unit would undertake an inquiry into the money spent on the failed international bridge project. That same year in May, Masso was elected to the BND board. At the time, he was a member of the DA's white-collar crime unit.In other words, for five months before his election to the port's board, Masso, as principal attorney of the white-collar crime unit, had the report in hand and must have known the score. If he didn't, why not?
(In the heated runoff race between Masso and former DA Luis Saenz, the cartoon at right indicates that Masso is still seen as having dropped the ball on the Dannebaum issue as chairman of the board and allowed the company to walk away with the taxpayers' money.)
But on February 2007, BND and Dannebaum – despite Zavaletta's objections – settled their civil dispute. The BND did not recover any money, only the promise by Dannenbaum that it would perform $2.9 million worth of work to complete the engineering required for the bridge on the U.S. side of the border. 
The voting went thus: For: Masso, Martin Arambula, Luigi Cristiano, and Roy de los Santos. Against: Zavaletta.Masso claims in his webpage that when he came on board in 2006, the lawsuit was already pending in Harris County and that they were "advised by our attorneys to try to set up a mediation."
He stated that Dannenbaum wanted to meet with the board members and that "none of the three previous board members wanted to be involved with the suit anymore."
He said that port commissioners – himself included – "met Dannenbaum and his attorneys together with our attorneys. WE WERE NEVER ALONE WITH DANNENBAUM!!! He had his attorneys and we had ours...We went to mediation and settled the case."
As for the $1 million Mando got from the company, he claims that "We (the board) were informed about the seizure and forfeiture of the $1 million after the fact... We advised our attorney to draft a letter on behalf of the board and to inquire about getting the money back for the Port... We were also informed that the money was forfeited under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as contraband. Basically, what that means is that the money is forfeited to the State to be used for law enforcement purposes. The Port Police didn’t have an agreement regarding forfeitures with the DA’s office therefore we would get none of the $1 million. The statute does not provide for a return seized and forfeited property to victims."
Whose fault was it the port was so unprepared to go to court and why?
According to Masso's version, two former board members (Sydney Lassaigne and Julius Collins) were prepared to testify that they were kept informed by (Port Director Raul) Mr. Besteiro of everything...and that they would produce a 3rd one if needed (Capt. Eddie Rendon)."
Further, he states that Susman and Godfrey, the port's attorney's, recommended that the port settle the suit, as did Willette and Guerra Law Firm, David Oliveira, of the Roerig, Oliveira, and Fisher Law Firm, and BND counsel, Dan Rentfro, Jr.
Masso saves a special place in his rambling non mea culpa for Zavaletta. He claims that "he stopped going to our meetings...and did not stay for the executive session where we would have discussed the ongoing litigation. He has refused to sign any documents related to the port for 4 or 5 months. This was his way of denying any knowledge of anything regarding the lawsuit and any settlement and to help his claims that we had dealt with Dannenbaum secretly."
Masso saves a special place in his rambling non mea culpa for Zavaletta. He claims that "he stopped going to our meetings...and did not stay for the executive session where we would have discussed the ongoing litigation. He has refused to sign any documents related to the port for 4 or 5 months. This was his way of denying any knowledge of anything regarding the lawsuit and any settlement and to help his claims that we had dealt with Dannenbaum secretly."
However, Zavaletta wrote in a Feb. 21, 2007 letter to the editor charged that that was precisely how the settlement came about. He said – despite Masso's denials – that not only did then-secretary Masso meet with Dannenbaum without the port's attorneys, but that documentation (or lack thereof) indicated that he had met with them secretly on numerous occasions.
"Official documents from the Port of Brownsville, however, refute the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, and confirm that the settlement with Dannenbaum was borne out of a series of private and secret meetings," Zavaletta wrote.
"First, expense reports reveal that since May 23, 2006 – when Chairman Arambula and Secretary Carlos Masso took office – to Feb. 14, 2007, when I requested the reports, there were 10 private meetings, spanning 14 days, at a cost to taxpayers of $4,559.60. On Sept. 22, 2006, for instance, Chairman Arambula and Secretary Masso flew to Houston, where Dannenbaum’s offices are located. These same commissioners jetted off to Houston again on Oct. 12 and didn’t return until Oct. 13."
On Oct. 20, 2006, Vice Chairman Cristiano met with Interim Port Director Eymard at a Brownsville restaurant, and two days later Ms. Eymard, Chairman Arambula and Secretary Masso had dinner at Rancho Viejo. According to the expense report, other attendees included Mr. Lencho Rendon and Congressman Solomon Ortiz.
On Jan. 7, 2007, Vice-Chairman Cristiano and Secretary Masso met with a BND attorney, Mr. David Oliveira, for lunch at another Brownsville restaurant. Mr. Oliveira told me last week of at least one recent luncheon at Rancho Viejo with Secretary Masso and others that are not on the expense reports.
While 10 private sessions is already an alarmingly high number, the true total is actually quite higher – and that number doesn’t even include conference calls or e-mails among commissioners.
Board policy for expense reports requires they be signed by a commissioner other than the one submitting the report. Interestingly, none of the expense reports for any of these private sessions were ever submitted for my signature, and I didn’t sign any. These meetings were being held in secret.
On Jan. 26, 2007, Secretary Masso jetted off to Houston a third time. As recently as Feb. 8 – the day after our last regular board meeting – Secretary Masso flew to Houston yet a fourth time – accompanied by Chairman Arambula."
And while Masso now claims that there was nothing for the commissioner could have done but to sign the settlement with Dannenbaum, Zavaletta's recollections are starkly different. He stated that:
"It’s a bad deal, plain and simple. It’s "cut and run." Dannenbaum keeps the checks and the taxpayers get the bill. It puts the port back in bed with Dannenbaum.
Reimbursement provisions are terribly inadequate, wholly unenforceable, and as a result illusory. And, given this board’s rejection of transparency and its undeniable move toward secrecy, the agreement also contains stunning anti-media measures designed to chill public debate that will severely limit the public’s right to know."
"With the secrecy that has shrouded this settlement," Zavaletta states, "it is no wonder why it is so decidedly against the public’s interest. If this settlement is not in the public’s interest, then in whose interests is it?"
Masso is now in the runoff with former DA Luis Saenz July 31. Saenz was recently endorsed by Asst. Da Maria De Ford, who pulled some 30 percent of the vote in the primary. Whose version of the $21 million debacle will the voters believe come voting time?
0 comments:
Post a Comment