An attempt by Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace to clear his name and “make Councilman (Russell) Jones put up or shut up,” as Wallace’s attorney said, ended in a stalemate Tuesday.
In the first-ever “name-clearing hearing” called under the city’s ethics ordinance, Wallace asked for an investigation by the city Ethics Panel into allegations of ethical conduct violations he says Jones made against him, involving the Imperial Sugar redevelopment project. The panel is made up of all members of City Council.
Jones, who recused himself from sitting on the panel and considered himself a respondent in the proceedings Tuesday afternoon, told his fellow councilmen he raised no allegations that hadn’t already been raised in March of 2005, when City Manager Allen Bogard asked City Council to create a committee some have called a “firewall” between the mayor and Imperial project negotiations.
When it came time for a vote, councilmen Michael Schiff, Don Olson and Daniel Wong voted that Wallace’s request for an investigation should be dismissed as “insufficient” under the ethics ordinance. Councilmen Tom Abraham and Dennis Parmer voted that the investigation should proceed.
Under rules of the ethics ordinance, that leaves the matter in limbo, as four votes would have been required to either move the investigation forward or dismiss it. Morris told the panel after the vote, “there is no process to do anything” further.
In his formal request for the name-clearing investigation, Wallace had cited 24 statements by Jones “relative to allegations that I may have participated in unethical behavior or may have had, or presently have, a conflict of interest.” Twelve of those were contained in FortBendNow news articles or editorial comments Jones made, published on June 27 and July 9.
Representing the mayor, attorney Michelle Bohreer told council members on the ethics panel that Jones “and his dirty politics” had done harm to Wallace by implying “in effect that he took money off the backs of the citizens.”
A “reasonable person” would believe, after reading Jones’ statements, that Wallace acted unethically, Bohreer said, adding that Jones included no evidence in support of his statements because “there is none.”
“We’re tired of the dirty politics. We’re tired of the statements being bantered about… Mayor Wallace isn’t going to allow this to continue,” Bohreer said, adding that the time had come to “hold a meeting and tell Councilman Jones to put up or shut up.”
Jones told the council that Wallace’s lawyer “misstates everything.”
The statements he made were done as part of a “discussion” over why the city created a “firewall” between the mayor and city negotiations with Cherokee Investment Partners over the Imperial Sugar redevelopment project, Jones said.
What sparked his statements was concern over Wallace’s own statements to City Council at a June 5 meeting during which Jones was out of town. Jones said Wallace “came forward and reinserted himself” into the city/Imperial negotiations.
Jones told council members Wallace violated provisions of the ethics ordinance “when he said the council invited him back into the Cherokee negotiations. Well, I’ve polled every one of you, and you’ve all told me you didn’t ask him back.”
“It’s not me talking about Wallace that’s the real issue, it’s whether Wallace had a conflict of interest in March of 2005″ when City Council acted to separate the mayor from the Imperial talks, Jones said. “If he wants his name cleared, he needs to have his name cleared of the allegations of March 2005.”
Council members on the panel initially appeared somewhat confused over the task before them – which was to vote on whether or not the mayor’s request for an ethics panel investigation should be granted.
“I’m you’re simply asking me is there a reason” to hold a name-clearing hearing, “I’m about convinced you’re all wasting your time,” Schiff said.
If the mayor wants to participate in the Imperial negotiations, “then I guess we need to come up with a way to determine that there is not conflict,” Schiff said. “If he wants to participate…let him just lay out the reasons why he feels there is no conflict.”
“Let me caution you that the mayor is not bound by any other procedure,” Morris told the council. “If he wants to assert his right to vote” on matters involving Imperial, there’s no procedure to prevent that.
“We’re not talking about 2005, but in essence what the mayor did on the June date,” Olson said. “I don’t see that we have an issue to even be here.”
“It seems like we’re sort of a grand jury,” Schiff said. “If in fact the mayor wants this panel to determine there’s no conflict…he has not really shown us any evidence one way or the other. It’s certainly not Mr. Jones’ responsibility to find the evidence.
“I’m not sure that it’s in the city’s best interest to go through this next process,” Schiff added. “I don’t think the mayor’s name has been besmirched in any way.”
“What kind of option does he have if we don’t do it?” Abraham asked of Wallace.
“There is no other defined path at this point in time for anyone to clear his name,” Parmer said.
