The State of Public Schools

From the Dallas Morning News:

For the first time in more than 40 years, the majority of children in public schools in the South are poor, according to a report being released today.

Twenty years ago, Mississippi was the only state in the country with such a high percentage of poor public school students. Now, a majority of public school students are considered low-income in 14 states, including 11 in the South, the report by the Southern Education Foundation said...

The report found that 56 percent of Texas public school students were low-income in 2006, based on their eligibility for free or reduced school lunches. That's up from 49 percent in 2000.

I firmly believe the policies of public schools greatly contribute to this statistic. I've written about my own inquiry into why Pearland ISD eliminated accelerated classes at our neighborhood school this year. I believe the school district did this, in part, because it concluded the accelerated class didn't have enough students in the low socioeconomic demographic. In order to address this perceived inequity, I believe Pearland ISD simply decided to eliminate the more academically rigorous class. Consequently, parents who value academic rigor are forced to look elsewhere.

Someday I'll get around to writing about my conclusions, but suffice it to say that Junior Anti-Corruption now attends private school. Of the kids that started the 2006-2007 school year in my son's accelerated class, three have left Pearland ISD over policy differences.

New Doolittle Subpoena

Politico reports via CBSNews.com of a new development in the investigation of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif):

The top administrative officer in the House has been subpoenaed for e-mails related to the ongoing criminal investigation of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), according to a notification read on the House floor Thursday.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the subpoena to Daniel P. Beard, the chief administrative officer of the House, whose office oversees electronic communications for members of Congress and their staff.

"The subpoena was issued in connection with the Justice Department investigation of Congressman Doolittle and seeks material from e-mail backup tapes maintained by the CAO," according to a notification of the subpoena.

This is the latest development in an ongoing Justice Department investigation of the California Republican. Doolittle and six members of his staff were subpoenaed by the same grand jury last month.

The Justice Department has been investigating the lawmaker and his wife in its ongoing public corruption investigation stemming from a probe of jailed former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Precious little information is available from Politico and similar reports by the AP and UPI. I'll make the same observation I've made in the past when it was obvious that the grand jury was moving forward with the investigation of Rep. Doolittle -- having a grand jury investigate you does not portend well.

With Politico, UPI and AP reporting on this, there is a deafening silence. The local papers in CA-04 have yet to write about this. I infer that the Sacramento Bee and Auburn Journal aren't satisfied with the scant facts available at this time. While the national press will go with this, the local press wants more meat to the story. Expect the SacBee and Auburn Journal to write their own stories and provide more facts.

Also note this from the AP's version of the story:

The subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia went to the House's chief administrative officer, Daniel P. Beard. He disclosed it in a notice read on the House floor Thursday evening, in accordance with House rules.

The notice that was read to lawmakers said only that Beard had been subpoenaed for unspecified documents and would determine his response consistent with House rules.

Response consistent with House rules. I suspect this means that the House will exert some privileges under the "Speech and Debate" clause of the US Constitution. Now I'm all in favor of protecting legislative materials from the executive branch. But there must be some balance struck in these corruption cases. Corruption should not be protected by the US Constitution, but the executive branch shouldn't be able to claim corruption to pierce the very real protections of the "Speech and Debate" clause. Smarter people than I need to find a way to strike that balance.

Who is Robert Coughlin?

A few days ago, Erica Werner, the reporter with the scandal beat at the Associated Press, reported on a minor Justice Department official, Robert Coughlin:

Federal prosecutors in Maryland are handling part of the Jack Abramoff lobbying case because of a possible conflict of interest at Justice Department headquarters, an official with knowledge of the case said Friday...

The investigation involves Kevin Ring, a former aide to Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif. Ring later went to work with Abramoff, the one-time GOP super-lobbyist who's now in jail and cooperating in an influence-peddling probe that's focused on Doolittle, among others.

While working with Abramoff, Ring lobbied Justice Department officials including Robert Coughlin while Coughlin worked for the department's office of legislative affairs from 2001-2003, according to an attorney with knowledge of the case...

Ring also provided Coughlin with meals and tickets to events, the attorney said...

Ring lobbied Coughlin and other Justice Department officials on a variety of issues, including getting federal money for a jail for the Choctaw tribe, the attorney said.

The money was held up in the Justice Department, but Ring's lobbying helped to get it released, the attorney said.

Looks like to me that the Justice Department is building a case against Mr. Coughlin and/or Mr. Ring. On the face of things, it is my opinion that there was a quid pro quo where Mr. Ring provided things of value to Mr. Coughlin while Mr. Coughlin used his position to benefit clients of Mr. Ring. (Mr. Ring worked for Jack Abramoff.)

I guess this solves a mystery from back in April when Mr. Coughlin resigned from the Justice Department. At that time, I predicted that "more facts [would] emerge -- facts not exactly exculpatory to Mr. Coughlin". While we knew of the sporting tickets given to Mr. Coughlin in April, I would say that the fact that Mr. Coughlin acted to help Mr. Ring's clients is "not exactly exculpatory".

Correction Pending

Long time readers of this blog know my basic premise regarding the corruption of our former Congressman, Tom DeLay. DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay, held a bogus "job" at Edwin Buckham's lobbying/consulting company, Alexander Strategy Group. Christine DeLay did no identifiable work at Alexander Strategy Group. Her "salary" was basically a bribe.

Therefore, it is not surprising I get excited when I see Alexander Strategy Group or Ed Buckham in the news. Yesterday, Alexander Strategy Group made a Washington Post article. The article itself was inconsequential to the mission of this blog. The WaPo was writing about Blackwater, a private security firm with operations in Iraq. Here's what hit my radar screen:

As such incidents mounted, Blackwater hired some of the most politically connected and conservative lawyers and lobbyists in the country. The Alexander Strategy Group -- Jack Abramoff's former lobbying outfit -- provided public relations advice.

Oy! How could the WaPo get this wrong? Yes, Alexander Strategy Group is Blackwater's lobbyist. But Alexander Strategy Group was founded by Edwin A. Buckham and his wife Wendy. Jack Abramoff worked at white shoe law and lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig. Mr. Abramoff also created other legal entities to launder money such as KayGold LLC and the Capital Athletic Foundation. But these entities were unrelated to Mr. Abramoff's official capacity at Greenberg Traurig, and they were primarily used for illegal purposes.

Expect a correction at the Washington Post soon.

Wine Swilling Pearlanders II

The Brazosport Facts runs an article on alcohol-related initiatives we'll see on November's ballot. In the Pearland-specific initiative, voters will be asked to loosen alcohol laws so that beverages with a greater alcohol content than beer made be sold by retail stores like Kroger. Currently, retail stores may only sell alcoholic beverages with low alcohol contents like beer (Other beverages may be allowed; I'm not sure.) The initiative does not intend to allow the sale of hard liquor at the retail level. Restaurants in Pearland may already sell liquor by the drink with proper licensing.

Back in July, I wrote about how the anticipated sales tax revenue increases by the initiative's supporters is unrealistic. Basically, a family of four in Pearland would have to buy $20 worth of wine each and every week of the year. This does not include beer since beer is already legal. To the best of my knowledge, the Anti-Corruption family has not purchased any alcohol at retail stores in the past twelve months. Maybe someone is buying $40 worth of wine per week to make up for us.

Anyway, to the Brazosport Facts:

“We are supporting this based on economic issues to our community as well as Brazoria County,” said Pearland resident Gary Bucek, a member of BRACE. “In stores, not only would you add the cost of wine, there’s the obvious sales taxes.”

For every $1 in wine sales spent in communities allowing such sale, a shopper buys an additional $3 in merchandise, he said.

“If someone goes to a grocery store in Harris County, they’ll pick up other items like bread, milk. … It’s just convenient to buy all the things you need at once,” he said. “We’re only selling wine and are in it for the economic impact.”

My understanding of the sales tax law in Texas says that the other items Mr. Bucek says are complements to wine are not taxable. I would complain to a store if they tried to apply sales tax to my bread and milk purchases (which the Anti-Corruption family buys on a weekly basis). So I disagree with Mr. Bucek's claim that these items will result in "obvious sales taxes".

Besides, looking back to my last wine purchases in 2006 (or more likely 2005), I sought quality. I bought my wine at Specs, not a grocery store. And alcohol is all I bought at Specs. I do not ever recall buying wine, bread and milk in the same transaction, though I know some people do. So I suspect the complement linkage Mr. Bucek claims is more illusionary than it first appears. Besides, who would intentionally go grocery shopping in Harris County just because the grocery stores there sell wine? Maybe I'm naive, but grocery shopping seems to be a very local activity for most people.

But this is what irritates me the most:

[Larry] Townsend [an advocate of current alcohol laws] said [initiative] opponents believe if the current proposals pass, the same people advocating this vote will push for hard liquor in all Brazoria County cities.

“I’ve read the writing on the wall,” he said. “When they get this thing passed, BRACE will turn around and make it over liquor. They won’t be satisfied until they have a liquor store on every corner in the name of prosperity and economic development.”

That’s not the case, Bucek said.

“We’re selling wine, and kids don’t drink wine,” he said. “We’ve been able to buy beer in grocery stores since the 1930s. The only change is the addition of wine sales at supermarkets.”

I mentioned this in my earlier post, and you're going to have to rely on my rote memory of this. When Pearlanders were asked to loosen alcohol laws back in 2002, we were assured that we were not facing a slippery slope. There would be no more initiatives to make alcohol more widely available. Yet here we are in 2007. We have the same assurances that this time will be the last.

Who is Chris Perkins?

Two months ago, I made a couple of posts about a strange lawsuit filed by one Corwin Teltschik, former treasurer of ARMPAC, against ARMPAC's law firm, Williams & Jensen and other defendants.

Please read the previous posts to catch up on this case.

In short, the portion I found most interesting is that Mr. Teltschik claims that he didn't authorize "retroactive" "payroll" payments to be made to three individuals: Jim Ellis, Chris Perkins and Dani DeLay Ferro. "Retroactive" "payroll" payments sound awfully suspicious to me. Since I've been long critical of PACs and lobbyists involved in the employment of the relatives of officials, I focused on the payments to Dani DeLay Ferro. I still think those payments warrant further investigation, but I wanted to comment on the other two individuals who received retroactive payroll payments.

First, I'm sure many people recognize the name of Jim Ellis. Not only was Mr. Ellis the Executive Director of ARMPAC, he has also been indicted by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle in the TRMPAC case. But I've never heard of Chris Perkins prior to Mr. Teltschik's lawsuit.

Long ago, I criticized Tom DeLay for writing a self-serving letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle. Mr. DeLay said that House Ethics Committee had never cited him for "having broken House rules". Of course, a simple reading of the Ethics Committee's findings shows that Mr. DeLay's statements weren't true:

As you are aware, the Committee has made a number of decisions regarding the allegations made in the complaint that was filed against you by Representative Bell on June 15, 2004. This letter implements determinations made by the Committee that you be admonished for your conduct in two respects:

your participation in and facilitation of an energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort for your leadership PACs on June 2-3, 2002. Those actions were objectionable under House standards of conduct because, at a minimum, they created an appearance that donors were being provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy legislation.

­ your intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. This action raises serious concerns under House standards of conduct that preclude use of governmental resources for a political undertaking.

Emphasis Added

Why do I mention this again? Well, I find it interesting that Chris Perkins was integral to the facts of the Homestead fundraiser. Specifically, an email to Mr. Perkins was cited by the Ethics Committee when it determined that the Homestead fundraiser had crossed the line from a permissable fundraiser to one that was "objectionable under House standards of conduct":

As a general matter, fundraisers directed to a particular industry or to others sharing a particular federal interest are permissible, and at such events Members are free to talk about their record and positions on issues of interest to the attendees. In addition, of course, a Member has no control over what the donors at a fundraising event spontaneously say to or ask of the Member with regard to their legislative interests. Nevertheless, there are a number of considerations regarding this particular fundraiser that raise serious concerns under the standards of conduct discussed above.

In particular, there was the timing of the fundraiser, i.e., it took place just as the House-Senate conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get underway. Indeed, one of the communications between organizers of the fundraiser – an e-mail of May 30, 2002 from [energy lobbyist and former DeLay staffer] Mr. [Drew] Maloney to [ARMPAC staffer] Mr. [Chris] Perkins that notes the legislative interests of each of the attendees – includes a specific reference to the conference. (That e-mail is included in Attachment M.) In addition, there was the fact that Representative DeLay was in a position to significantly influence the conference, both as a member of the House leadership and, by action taken about a week and a half after the fundraiser, his appointment as one of the conferees.

Emphasis Added

I wonder if Mr. Perkins is cooperating with federal investigators.

Dani DeLay Ferro. Jim Ellis. Chris Perkins. All got "retroactive" "payroll" payments from ARMPAC. And all are connected to scandal. Coincidence?

Pearland Pandemonium II

Over at the Susan Bankston's place, I read an interesting e-mail that may have new relevance:

Susan,

One of the best stories this morning at our Democratic meeting was told by a woman who was just elected to the Pearland school board. The superintendent of schools called her up to congratulate her and then inquired about her religious beliefs. The new board member's response was, "My father was Catholic and my mother was Anglican and they taught me that people who ask about other people's religion are the result of bad breeding."

Sam in Pearland

I only know Ms. Bankston by reputation. We agree on little except our shared opinion that former Congressman Tom DeLay belongs in jail. I have no clue who "Sam in Pearland" is. But I have a guess who Sam says accused the Pearland superintendent of being the "result of bad breeding".

If you need a hint, re-read the e-mail I published here. Your second hint, if you need one, is that the Episcopal Church is the Anglican Communion in the United States.

So ... any guesses at which newly elected Pearland ISD Trustee allegedly called our superintendent "the result of bad breeding"?

Serious Democrat Challenge to Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.)

This morning I'm reading the Daytona Beach News-Journal. I learn that the Democrats are putting up a serious challenger to Abramoff-linked Rep. Tom Feeney:

[Suzanne] Kosmas, 63, is a real estate business owner who is involved in numerous community groups and served in the Florida House from 1996 to 2004, when term limits prevented her from running again.

She's also considered the first legitimate challenger to Feeney, whom Democratic insiders see as vulnerable because of criticism targeting him as one of the "most corrupt" members of Congress.

"Tom Feeney's out of touch with his constituents and he has serious ethical questions," said Kyra Jennings, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington. "Suzanne Kosmas is an excellent candidate, trusted in her community. She's going to bring responsibility and integrity back to the district."

I'd prefer that the Republicans "bring responsibility and integrity back to the district". After all, Rep. Feeney has been designated as "Representative #3" in court documents from the Abramoff scandal. (Convicted former Rep. Bob Ney [R-Ohio] is Representative #1; Tom DeLay is Representative #2. Being designated Representative #3 doesn't portend very well for Rep. Feeney.)

So, how are the Florida Republicans reacting? More from the Daytona Beach News-Journal:

Feeney -- whose office did not return calls Wednesday -- has no weakness in the eyes of Republicans, who expect the Oviedo resident to retain his seat.

To me, an FBI investigation into Rep. Feeney's allegedly corrupt links to Jack Abramoff is a weakness. I'd hate to see FL-24 temporarily held by a Democrat because Republicans refuse to nominate a stronger candidate. Have the Republicans learned anything from the debacle in TX-22?

John Doolittle, Richard Pombo and the Mashpee Wampanoag

From CapeCodToday we learn:

According to well-placed sources, the United States Attorney in Boston sent a letter last week to the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council demanding that it produce council records. The letter arrived in Mashpee late in the week. Today is the deadline for production of the records...

The letter from the U.S. Attorney's office is eight pages long and lists specific documents to be delivered as well as specific areas of inquiry. One such area of inquiry, according to a source within the tribe, is correspondence to, from or about Jack Abramoff. Abramoff, who was convicted of defrauding clients of his Washington lobbying firm, is now waiting to serve a federal prison sentence. He has been linked to the lobbying efforts mounted by the Mashpee to gain federal recognition. Specifically, while he was employed by the Washington law firm Greenberg Traurig, two of his protégés -- Kevin Ring and Michael Smith -- worked directly with the tribe in their lobbying efforts before Congress and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Emphasis in original; parenthetical phrase omitted

The Mashpee Wampanoag? Have I lost my mind? Who are they?

Well, way out the speculation curve here, but I suspect this may be related to Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and/or former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). The Sacramento Bee reported in January 2006 that Rep. Doolittle seems a little secretive when it comes to the Mashpee:

Rep. John Doolittle turned down repeated requests from reporters Monday asking him to explain why he wrote letters in 2003 on behalf of two Indian tribes that had hired Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm, including one letter that appeared to go against his long-standing opposition to gambling...

Abramoff had funneled campaign money to Doolittle and hired his wife and a former aide.

The AP obtained the two letters in a Freedom of Information Act request.

Doolittle wrote the June 2003 letter on behalf of the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, and he wrote [former Secretary of the Interior Gale] Norton a second letter in October 2003 in a bid to help the Mashpee Wampanoag of Massachusetts gain federal recognition.

Both tribes hired Abramoff's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, in the same year.

So Rep. Doolittle, representing a district in northern California, was very interested in getting federal recognition for the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts. Any guesses why?

Back in 2005, the Boston Globe reported that another California Congressman with close ties to Jack Abramoff was extremely interested in Cape Cod's Mashpee tribe:

Six members of the Cape Cod tribe [Mashpee Wampanoag] gave a combined $12,000 to a political action committee that is led by a California Republican, Representative Richard William Pombo.

As chairman of the House Committee on Resources, Pombo has jurisdiction over most matters concerning Indian interests.

The donations to Pombo's committee that month also included one from a Detroit casino developer who is bankrolling the tribe's recognition effort. The developer, Herbert Strather, kicked in an additional $2,000.

But the biggest contribution to Pombo's committee, $5,000, came from Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose firm represented the Wampanoags.

Pombo took up the tribe's cause. Working with Representative William D. Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat who also received contributions, Pombo introduced a bill urging the administration to speed up its review of cases such as Wampanoags'.

So maybe prosecutors are after former Rep. Pombo, too. Who knows? I've written about former Rep. Pombo's curious link to the Mashpee at the old place. The thing that makes me question what is going on is that the US Attorney in Boston is the one who is asking for these documents. If Congressmen were being investigated, I'd expect the Public Integrity Unit out of Washington, DC to be demanding Mashpee council records.

Mashpee Wampanoag. I'm sure you'll hear about them again.

Pandemonium in Pearland

Today was School Board day in Pearland, and around two hundred Pearlanders showed up. I was travelling and my flight arrived at IAH at 5:08 p.m. (scheduled: 4:50 p.m.) The Board meeting had already started as I was driving on Beltway 8 to get there. My phone rings. Mrs. Anti-Corruption was nearly in tears as she told me that Board President Tom Allen had resigned, citing health issues. I have always admired Mr. Allen and even wrote something to that effect at the old place. I'll have to dig that up.

If it wasn't bad enough that the popular Mr. Allen resigned, there was another controversy. It was this controversy that caused the full house at the School Board meeting. Another Pearland ISD Board Member, Suzy Roberts, has raised the ire of the Pearland faithful by taking a position that many have interpreted as anti-Christian. Here is an e-mail forwarded and re-forwarded to nearly every Pearland resident:

Dear Ms. XXXX,

Thank you for your thoughtful request for my position. In this storm of misrepresentation it is quite refreshing, and sadly, rare.

I never stated that half of Pearland wants to end prayer. I voiced my concern that since, according to www.arda.com , only 50.3% of North Brazoria County residents claim Christianity as their religion, perhaps we should review the boards' practices regarding prayer and take into consideration how others might feel. I also asked what exactly was legal regarding prayer these days. I had no idea it would turn into such a firestorm.

I am listed next to the item "Pledge and Prayer" because it is my turn to lead. This item is on every agenda. On the November agenda, we expect to hear the lawyer tell us the current state of the law.

Personally, I was not raised to pray in public. My father was Catholic and my mother was Episcopalian and I was taught to pray in church or privately, on my knees. As to the Pledge of Allegiance, I would never question that and never have. My own father's death was ruled related to injuries he suffered in WWII and we received Veteran's Benefits. My only maternal uncle was killed in WWII and my grandfather was a Colonel on Eisenhower's staff in London. I can trace my family to signers of the Declaration of Independence and am eligible for the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) many times over. I have never bothered to petition for membership because my loyalty and patriotism have never before been questioned. Perhaps I should reconsider.

One other thing I have always taken to heart and tried to lead my life by is Matthew 7:12, "Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them."

I really regret that this has turned into such a firestorm. There is no way to defend myself against such a grapevine of innacuracy [sic].

Thank you for asking for my input.

Sincerely,

Suzy Roberts

----- Original Message -----

From: XXXXXXX XXXXX

To: XXXXXXXXX@earthlink.net

Sent: 10/8/2007 2:35:55 PM

Subject: Please clarify your position


Ms. Roberts,
Im sure that youve received many emails by now from concerned parents about the issue of Prayer. Can you please clarify, for me, your position on prayer in school and other functions regarding the school board. If you are seriously considering abandoning prayer in our schools, I would ask you to re-consider. I support prayer and the pledge in our schools, games, board meetings and any other function. I am a parent and a life long citizen of Pearland as are my parents and siblings and their children. I plan on staying in Pearland and continuing to raise my two daughters here and FULLY support them saying a prayer and the pledge to the United States and Texas in school.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX XXXXX

[For the record, both of my parents were raised Baptist, though I am unchurched now. My father was never in the military. My only maternal uncle was never in the military. My grandfather was never in the military. I was never in the military. I can trace my family to Kosciusko, Mississippi where some are pillars of the community and others are gardern-variety ne'er-do-wells. I doubt I'm eligible for SAR (Sons of the American Revolution) or Mensa. I have no desire to join either group. No one has ever questioned my patriotism, but I've never seen any evidence that anyone has ever questioned Ms. Roberts' patriotism, either. I have no clue why any of this is relevant.]

In the end, Ms. Roberts did offer an invocation. Prior to the invocation, she instructed the audience to "adopt your form of prayer and worship." Whatever that means.

Pearland ISD has a policy limiting public comments to three minutes. This policy has been put in place to prevent long-winded speakers from monopolizing the Board Meeting. A large number (it would be interesting to know how many) of Pearland residents arrived early and signed in for an opportunity to speak during public comments. After Mr. Allen's announcement that he was resigning, and his closing in prayer, it was time for public comments. After a five minute recess and tearful good-byes to Mr. Allen, Board Member Florida Dotson announced that public comments regarding prayer be limited due to the issue's popularity. Ms. Dotson stated that only four people would be permitted to speak on the issue of prayer in school. Ms. Dotson suggested that those interested in speaking step outside to choose the four that the Pearland ISD School Board would allow to speak. A Pearland resident in the public seating area suggested in frustration that the first four people who signed up be allowed to speak. And so it was.

On a personal level, I support everything in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I support the freedom of religion, the ability to petition government for the redress of grievances, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech. I would have liked to see all of these freedoms on display at the Pearland ISD Board Meeting. Unfortunately, the freedom of a lot people to petition government for the redress of grievances through speech was sharply curtailed at tonight's meeting.

Issues at Pearland ISD are tearing this community apart. Or maybe they are bringing the community together. If all those Christians knew some of the things I do about a program soon to be implemented across Pearland ISD, the level of community involvement would increase even further. It is hard for me to decide what the proper course of action is.

==

Here are some of Mr. Allen's statements after he announced his resignation:

My greatest concern as I leave this position is not for the challenges you face from without, but rather those that come from within. I believe that you are being challenged to compromise, to elevate tolerance above morality and the values of this community. I want to encourage this Board to be intolerant, to not place political correctness and playing nice in public above courage and conviction. [Applause] Do not think that to get God out and condoms in would in any way make this a better district. [Applause]

I know you're on television now, but I encourage you, Board, to resist the temptation to smile and placate, but rather to say "Shut up" when it is called for. To the community, I would say if any Member of this Board fails to represent you and the majority of this community, please make it very, very clear to them that they will not be tolerated and they will not be invited back to take their seat. [Applause] To the Superintendent and staff, I would like to say you are some of the finest folks that I have had the opportunity to serve alongside. I only hope that I have adequately supported you and made your job an easier one. Continue to put our kids first. I am proud to have been part of it.

When the inevitable questions arise about whether we value academics or athletics or arts, please say, "In Pearland, we value excellence." We do it all, but we do it all with excellence.

Click on the Carleston tag to see my other posts on Pearland ISD.

Brent Wilkes Trial: Opening Statements

The North County (Escondido, Calif.) Times reports on the Brent Wilkes trial:

SAN DIEGO -- It was greed that led a Poway defense contractor to bribe former North County Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham with cash, gifts and vacations to win government work, a federal prosecutor told a jury Wednesday.

"Lies, deceit, greed. Most of all greed. This case is all about greed," Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern told jurors as he laid out the government's case in his opening statements.

I'm surprised that the trial has already started. I was under the impression that it would start October 9. That's what the San Diego Union Tribune reported. Oh well. No need to stress about that.

As I predicted a week and a half ago, testimony will be allowed with respect to Mr. Wilkes' attempts to bribe former Rep. Cunningham by providing the Congressman prostitutes.

"The evidence will show the politician was bought by the defendant lock, stock and barrel," [Assistant US Attorney Phillip] Halpern said, adding that the bribes include "the truly astonishing," such as machine gun lessons and the services of prostitutes.

"Truly astonishing". I'd say that the prostitution angle will interest the press the most. As for me, I am eagerly awaiting the testimony of Rep. Cunningham himself. Or, to be more precise, I am looking forward to the cross-examination of Rep. Cunningham. The best chance we have to learn more of Congressional corruption will come from that cross-examination.

FWIW, I still expect that Mr. Wilkes will be found guilty.

Bribery in the New Millennium

Sixteen people have been caught up in a bribery scandal in Dallas. From the Chron:

A meeting behind a church with $10,000 cash changing hands, five-figure gifts for a city councilman's "birthday party" and a mistress funneling bribes through a sham consulting company were among details spelled out Monday in a federal indictment alleging corruption at Dallas City Hall.

Emphasis Added

My attention span isn't long enough to keep track of this scandal, and I admit I haven't been following it. The only reason I mention it is to compare it to the Tom DeLay scandal. Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill's mistress funneled bribes through a sham consulting business? Anyone see the similarities with former Rep. Tom DeLay's wife receiving bribes through sham employment with a consulting company? Of course I'm talking about Christine DeLay's "job" at Ed Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group.

I guess this is how bribes are paid in the new millennium.

Tom DeLay and Brent Wilkes - Part II

Because Brent Wilkes' trial has been delayed, I don't have a lot to do. I've been reduced to reading an old FBI report (Warning: .pdf) documenting an interview with convicted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

I don't really know how to interpret one particular sentence. It doesn't have any context, so don't blame me for not including any. This sentence appears on the last page of the .pdf. It is page 11 according to Adobe Acrobat, but it is labelled page 125 by the FBI. Here you go:

When asked if he was aware of any wrongdoing by other members of Congress, Cunningham said that Wilkes had hosted fund raisers for Tom DeLay and Jerry Lewis.

OK, Brent Wilkes is a shady character. I will not argue otherwise. But I don't see any violation of the law simply because a shady character hosted a fund raiser for Tom DeLay. Remember, Rep. Cunningham was specifically asked about wrongdoing. I infer that Rep. Cunningham believes there was something illegal about the fund raiser for DeLay. Maybe he told the FBI more than appears in this report. Or maybe not.

This is all very strange, but ultimately I must suspend judgement on it pending further information. I also don't see how a DeLay fundraiser would be relevant to Wilkes' trial, though I'd love to learn more about it. File this one to memory. It may come back.

Original Post: Tom DeLay and Brent Wilkes

Wilkes Trial Delayed

No, it's not DeLayed, it has been postponed until October 9. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

One of two defendants set to stand trial this week in connection with the laundering of bribe money to former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham has meningitis, and his trial will be postponed.

U.S. Judge Larry A. Burns did not set a new date for John Thomas Michael, a 35-year-old mortgage broker from Long Island in New York.

The trial of the other defendant, Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes, will go ahead with a slight delay.

Jury selection will begin tomorrow but the opening statements and first witnesses will not be heard until Oct. 9.

The trial for both men was supposed to begin this week in downtown San Diego.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Judge Burns didn't postpone both trials due to Mr. Michael's illness. I haven't drilled down to the specifics, but I don't think that Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Michaels were being tried together. Can you tell how impatient I am with even a six-day delay?

Check this post to find out what I hope to learn from Mr. Wilkes' trial. There is a possible connection to Edwin Buckham and Tom DeLay.

Housekeeping

A big thank you to all of my readers. I had more readers Sunday than any other day since I moved into this new place. Typically, Sundays are slow days. I can't explain what happened yesterday.

At my old place, I was getting 2,000 hits per month. Some of those people were unwanted readers. I like this new cozy place and have no desire to advertise it on the web. The quality of my readership is outstanding. Today, the two organizations that provided me the most hits were the US Dept. of Justice and Pearland ISD.

Obviously, I've never had dialogue with the Department of Justice, though I'm flattered that they find my writing interesting. If I could ask one question of the Justice Department, I'd ask if Tom DeLay has given them an extension on the statute of limitations applicable to his corruption. After all, the Justice Department needed convicted Rep. Bob Ney to grant such extensions. It seems to me that Mr. DeLay's corruption occurred about the same time as Mr. Ney's meaning that such extensions are necessary. I'm sure that some law exists prohibiting the Justice Department from answering my question, though.

I'm also flattered that Pearland ISD administrators find my diary interesting. For one administrator, today was her first visit. Thanks! I hope to see you come back! Some administrators even check in from home from time to time. It's not clear to me what they find interesting. I mean, I've been honest with them throughout our dialogue. My desired outcome is to get ability grouped classes back in Pearland. Even if the International Baccalaureate Program (IB Program) harms high-ability students by frowning on the use of ability grouping, I'm sure a solution exists to satisfy Pearland parents who favor ability grouping. We'll find that solution!

Again, thanks to all those who find my diary interesting. Also, look on the margin. I'm resurrecting the e-mail address from the old place to use here.

==

I've looked for a reason to post the "Online" video by Brad Paisley for some time. It seems appropriate to post on this thread with no identifiable topic. The "Online" video has been nominated for Best Music Video at the CMA Awards. "Online" is a shoo-in to win. It may be the best music video ever made.




Brad Paisley is witty and brilliant. I love his observations on life in America. "Online" is a great country and western song. Only "You Never Even Call me by my Name" is a better song, but of course that one is "perfect".

Tom DeLay and Brent Wilkes

KPBS, the public radio station in San Diego, plans what promises to be insightful coverage of the trial of Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor that convicted former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham says bribed him. Seth Hettena wrote "Feasting on the Spoils", a book about Cunningham's corruption. Mr. Hettena will be reporting on the trial for KPBS.

Over the weekend, I suggested that I want to know more about the connection between Brent Wilkes, Ed Buckham and Tom DeLay. In an interview on KPBS, Mr. Hettena predicts that Mr. Wilkes will take the stand in his own defense. Mr. Hettena wants to learn more about those relationships, too:

Download MP3 (Right click on link, Select "Open in New Window")

Quotation begins at 13:44.

Seth Hettena: Cunningham was not [Brent] Wilkes' only relationship in Congress, and it will be very interesting to me to hear who else was out behind the scenes. He [Wilkes] was flying Tom DeLay around in a plane. He was hiring Alexander Strategy Group, which is a lobbying firm tightly connected to DeLay. He operated at the highest levels of the government, and it will be fascinating to hear his account of what happened and how Cunningham fit into the plan and how other people fit.

Alexander Strategy Group is owned by Edwin A. Buckham. Recall that Tom DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay, held a bogus "job" at Alexander Strategy Group. She collected a salary, but did no identifiable work. This is how Edwin Buckham bribed Tom DeLay.

Whether or not Mr. Hettena's prediction that Mr. Wilkes will take the witness stand comes true, his reporting will undoubtedly be very interesting. Stay tuned.