City Manager Bill Dollar addresses the Council on a proposed contract with retiring GP&L director Ray Schwertner

I mentioned in my previous post the news story that made the false claim of sirens or consultant contract. The point of the newscast had nothing to actually do with emergency sirens but rather what is a reasonable rate for a consultant contract to retain the services of a retiring employee. One Council member in the public discussion at our last work session made reference to her fiduciary responsibilities. In this case, our fiduciary responsibilities are far beyond whether the contract is one year or three, or any other concerns raised.
 
The Council's duty is to the continued health and competitiveness of GP&L; our fiduciary responsibility is exclusively to the customers of Garland Power & Light and to the regular citizens that benefit from the transfers from GP&L to the city's General Fund. It is a business decision, not a political one. There isn't room for politics; too much is at stake.
 
First, to my knowledge, the city has not even offered a contract to Ray Schwertner, the retiring director of GP&L, but there have been discussions. The fact that there is no agreement to even discuss exemplifies how ridiculous this situation and public debate really are. The initial contract that was being discussed has since been modified by several Council members and I presume it has not been finalized or presented to Mr Schwertner. I hope not.
 
Second, there has probably been a violation of the Open Meetings Act by this point, either factually or at least against the spirit of the Act. We have gone from polling the council outside a posted meeting to the media collecting input to announce a "vote."
 
Quick background: Garland Power & Light, in just five years, has literally jumped from the stone age of electric generation to become one of the most diverse and respected electric utilities in the state and the country. Five years ago, we were simply spinning generators and delivering power to homes, and paying a lot to do it. Since then we have entered the statewide nodal market, we have setup our own power trading department, we have sued the Public Utilities Commission and won, we have acquired an interest in the multi-billion dollar CREZ line from West Texas, we have agreed to built a transmission line from Texas to Arkansas that will make money for GP&L and enable power transfers to and from Texas, we have settled law suits between the TMPA cities that had been ongoing for twelve years, and, more importantly to GP&L users, avoided any of the rate increases that were projected five years ago (we have actually lowered rates). We had to enter the nodal market since it was a state requirement but we would not have accomplished any of the other successes without the leadership and experience of Mr Schwertner. Period.
 
Much to his credit, City Manager Bill Dollar sought the best person he could find to assume the CEO position at GP&L when the position came open. Mr Schwertner gave his commitment when he was hired to remain five years. Nearing that five years, he announced his need to retire and to move to Austin for family reasons. As related in the article, Mr Dollar suggested that Mr Schwertner continue to provide the same services to GP&L as an exclusive consultant with an office in Austin, which is where Mr Schwertner has to spend much of his time anyway. It was an excellent idea, one that could keep GP&L on track and provide a slow, steady transition as others learned the new sides of the electric industry.
 
In future revenues, Mr Schwertner has brought well over $400 million of business to GP&L that we would otherwise never had. Under his leadership, GP&L has been able to repeatedly cut millions of dollars in expenses over the last five years. At this moment, millions in unexpected costs from TMPA, the power agency 47% owned by Garland and 53% by three other cities, combined, are being addressed, which could still be passed to ratepayers if new management, new policies, and new solutions are not found. Mr Schwertner has been on the forefront identifying the problems and finding solutions. Five years ago those costs would have been passed directly to ratepayers by a blind and industry-ignorant Council.
 
It has been suggested and questioned if Mr Schwertner is irreplaceable. He is. He has truly worked miracles; he has done more than anyone knew to ask, suggest, or dream. And right now he is being debated and berated in public and in the media by those that know nothing of the industry and have no appreciation for the challenges we have faced and will continue to face. I asked the reporter in the linked article when he called recently if he had even spoken to Mr Schwertner. No. He asked if I supported the contract. I told him it would be an Open Meetings violation to announce the expected votes in the media. I also told him that no agreement had been presented to the Council so how could I answer, even if there were no legal ramifications.
 
On individual occasions, Mr Dollar mentioned to Council members his intent to retain Mr Schwertner's services after he retired. I presume he received no significant objections from any Council member. I was supportive in principal and thought it actually essential. What should have happened at that point was for Mr Dollar to negotiate a contract with Mr Schwertner. Because it would have been over $100,000, he would need to receive formal Council approval, as is common on almost every regular meeting agenda for other expenses. He would have received a thumbs up or down vote. If not approved, he could forget about it or seek a contract he thought he could get approved. However, none of that happened.
 
Instead a draft contract was circulated to Council members and two executive sessions held. The primary terms were a three-year contract that could be canceled by the city with 30-days notice for non-performance, that would automatically renew unless specifically terminated, and that listed a Scope of Services and reporting obligations. One Council member thought the proposed contract needed changes. She thought it should be renegotiated every year, thought the scope of services should be prioritized, that the retainer should be an hourly rate. Other members thought there should be other changes. At the last executive session on the subject, it was stated that the discussion would continue in two weeks.
 
The Council, by our City Charter, sets policy and, as in this case, approves certain contracts and expenses. The Council is not supposed to micromanage and the Council certainly is not supposed to be negotiating. The City Charter provides: "Neither the City Council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to or his removal from office by the City Manager or by any of his subordinates. However, the Council may consult and advise with the City Manager, make inquiry regarding the appointments or removals, and may express their opinion in regard thereto. In regard to administrative and executive duties under the City Manager, the Council and its members shall deal solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. Willful violation of the foregoing provisions of this Charter by any member of the Council shall constitute official misconduct and shall authorize the Council, by a vote of a majority of its membership, to expel such offending member from the Council, if found guilty after public hearing, and thereby create a vacancy in the place held by such member." —Art IV, Sec 3. While the Charter does allow the Council to advise, that does not include writing the contracts for the City Manager and dictating the conditions.
 
And notice the Charter's reference to "Council may consult and advise," as a body. No single Council member should be given veto over contract terms yet that has been the case here. Any Council member has been free to dictate terms and the City Manager has tried to accommodate the instruction. At no time have changes been presented to the Council as a whole in a proper meeting and contentious items agreed by majority vote. A contract should not be circulated for "input" where nine people are essentially an unofficial committee making changes. Yet all that has happened.
 
I started hearing "rumors" about the contract changes, so-and-so insisting on this or that. One Council member wanted to negotiate the contract down and another one up by adding more "incentives." It was requested that "will" be changed to "shall" (or maybe it was vice versa), which has no legal difference and which suggestion would make any lawyer, or even paralegal, burst out laughing.
 
I became very concerned that too much was being discussed "back channel" that was inappropriate, that was outside our duties under the Charter, and, frankly, that was ridiculous. I stopped at City Hall to confirm with Mr Dollar that the item would be on the following agenda, as the Council had been previously told. This was all after two executive sessions on the matter. Councilman Edwards was also in the building about to meet with Mr Dollar. We were told it would be on the next agenda. Yet the next agenda was posted without the item. Councilman Edwards and I checked at to why it wasn't there. An revised agenda was quickly posted.
 
Contrary to what I and others then believed, no contract had actually been agreed with Mr Schwertner. Instead of discussing an issue involving a city employee in executive session as is proper, it was posted as an open item. (Video here (Item 2F) and here (Item 9A).) While any contract would need to be public, the meetings with a city employee should have been private. But that didn't happen. The Mayor chose to make it an open meeting item. From the generally gentle discussion on Monday at the work session, the item became prime Kabuki theatre on Tuesday.
 
I haven't even read the latest drafts of the contract. They are immaterial because there is no agreement. Even though I have negotiated and executed more contracts than the rest of the Council combined, I have not offered to draft or revise the contract. That is not my role as a Council member. My role is to review any contract and vote "yea" or "nay."
 
Changing a three-year contract with a 30-day out to renegotiating each year is not in the citizen's interest. If the terms are good, lock them in as long as possible. One Council member making claims to only having had the contract for twenty minutes, as was done at the Feb 21 meeting, was pure theater. It was shared the day before and only minor, well documented, changes were made in the interim, which Mr Dollar offered to cover in detail at that meeting but no one accepted the offer.
 
In spite of the drama that has now been publicly acted, the bottom line is the continued health and performance of GP&L. A contract that essentially pays Mr Schwertner less than he currently makes, expenses and overhead considered, yet keeps GP&L operating in the future on par to the last five years, would be an excellent contract and one that would strongly benefit the customers of GP&L. Of course, I've seen no such contract because no such contract has been agreed. And the meddling, interfering City Council is a prime reason why. (Only a few may be responsible but the whole Council is unable to do what is best for the ratepayers.) My constant worry at the moment is that future fiscal security of GP&L has been compromised, including the associated debt exposure for all Garland citizens, and it will have only been due to the gross incompetence and how this matter has been so badly mismanaged.
 

WFAA newscast from Mar 6

A news report by WFAA/Channel 8 that compares the possible contract with GP&L's director, Ray Schwertner, following his expected retirement, and emergency sirens, is typical of today's so-called fly-by media. It is full of inaccuracies and does virtually nothing to actually inform the public. Compounding the errors are the televised comments by Katrina Pearson, the self-appointed spokesperson for the Garland Tea Party.
 
The story asserts these inaccuracies:

• "Tornado sirens...many in Garland are not being replaced or repaired this year because of budget cuts; however, the city did find $1 million to pay a retiring city employee to stay on as a consultant"
• "That deal was slipped into the Council agenda at the last minute and nearly passed until critics caught that plan"
• "You can't tell the public we can't protect you in the event of an emergency but we can afford to, essentially, pay two people to run Garland GP&L [sic]"
• "...will be paid $333,000 per year; that's 50% more than his current salary."
• "The city manager's proposal was added last minute to last week's council agenda, raising red flags for Peirson. The mayor delayed that vote, which now takes place next week."
• "What I think is that if we need someone to manage GP&L, maybe we should find someone to manage GP&L, and not just hand pick someone because they [sic] are our friend. There's just not one person in the country that can do these kinds of things."

Of course, that's most of the story, verbatim.
 
Comparing emergency sirens to GP&L personnel is like comparing global warming to ice cream; it's a stretch by any standard and a fiscal impossibility. Garland currently has about twenty functioning emergency sirens. They have outlasted our ability to find spare parts and to maintain them. A consultant told the city it would take 90-some new-generation sirens to cover the whole city. About half that area would be simply rooftops where most residents wouldn't even be able to hear the nearest siren. Contrary to the story, the Council approved the purchase and installation of almost 50 new sirens a few weeks ago that will be installed to cover outdoor areas where residents may not have easy access to television, radio, telephone prompts, or weather radios. So, the number of working sirens in Garland is actually being more than doubled and there was never an issue about or mention of budget cuts, other than the continual refrain to operate within our means. There was an issue as to whether spending a half million dollars was in the best interest of taxpayers when so many new, technological layers have been added to the safety net. That's still a good debate but in the end the Council chose to err on the side of caution and safety for residents, even though there has not been a tornado death in Garland since 1927. It could happen but there are so many methods that give much earlier warnings today. For a half million bucks, we could have subsidized a whole lot of weather radios, which in most cases would be more effective and a lot more useful, like for hail or thunderstorm/lightning warnings.
 
Expenses for sirens and for GP&L personnel come from totally different funds and different type of funds. The new sirens will be bought using debt and repaid with tax dollars from the General Fund. GP&L employees and consultants are paid from GP&L revenues. Corporations and the city cannot mix capital dollars and operating dollars. It's even harder for a city; in city government, the number of buckets (separate funds) go up, as do the restrictions on use. There is simply no fiscal way to link sirens and salaries. Even if it were possible, most electric customers probably do not want to be buying sirens as a condition of getting electricity and most residents probably don't want their tax dollars paying utility employees that are already being paid in their electric bill. It's apples and oranges. It should be as plain as the nose on a reporter's face.
 
There never was a "last minute deal slipped into the agenda" and all delays have had nothing to do with critics but rather flaws and abuses with internal processes. These statements are nothing but creative reporting or, as it is called in some publishing segments, fiction. The real story is far uglier, not anywhere in the news story, and the subject of a subsequent post.
 
No Garland Council in the last several decades has ever told the public we won't protect them. Garland has police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency services that equals any city from our area and surpasses most. We train many emergency personnel from area cities, we have the finest facilities and equipment, and we are often called upon when other cities need assistance for situations beyond their capabilities, including search and rescue, helicopter pilots, and swift water rescue. We spend more on fire, police, and emergency protection than everything else in the General Fund.
 
There is no situation of two people running GP&L. Mr Schwertner has long been the corporate equivalent of a CEO and Jeff Janke has been the equivalent of a COO. If the contract does go forward, Mr Schwertner would continue the role he has long filled and Mr Janke would continue in his role. While he would inherit the "director" title, there would not be significant change in his duties. No new personnel would be hired to back fill any positions.
 
The annual figure stated in the report is not factually accurate, just a rounded number from numbers thrown in the air (although any final number would probably be in that ballpark). I don't know that the number quoted is 50% more than his current salary, but let's assume it is. That would make Mr Schwertner one of the lower-paid utility directors in the state, about half of San Antonio's director and far behind Austin's. And as even junior managers at any company can tell you, the overhead for any employee well exceeds 50%. By the time you add the expenses of payroll taxes, matching contributions, medical coverage, special insurance policies on executives, a computer, and portion of a copy machine, accountants and HR managers, most companies are in the 70% range or higher—so 50% is a bargain anywhere except on television and on-camera interviews. What is not mentioned in the story, if Mr Schwertner were hired to continue representing GP&L from Austin, he would have pay for his medical coverage, self-employment taxes, payroll taxes, rent an office, hire someone to be there, hire accounting services, and maintain his own office equipment, plus the many other expenses businesses bear. That would all be included in whatever he were to receive. For Garland, we could be reimbursed for much of his salary by the state, depending on what he is asked to do. Without his continued service, we stand to lose millions and millions either as opportunity costs or as the consequence of not having his expertise and leadership.
 
The Mayor did not delay a vote and I don't know when we will next discuss the item but I can guarantee it won't be next week. The media doesn't know either. So far, there is no contract to present to the Council for approval. That wasn't clear earlier and goes toward the inept way this situation has been handled. (Read that subsequent post.)
 
I can't make much sense of the a statement that if we need to manage GP&L, that we should manage GP&L. GP&L has been managed incredibly well for five years, taking us from the stone age of the power industry to being a leader in the industry, with other utilities and potential partners beating a track to Garland. Instead of the projected rate increases, we've had rate decreases. No one on the Council or the city manager seeks the services of Mr Schwertner because he is a friend; the statement is imaginative and ludicrous. Certainly Ms Pierson has zero knowledge of how many people in the country could effectively replace Mr Schwertner or even come close to matching his industry knowledge, expertise, and experience, or his in-depth knowledge of GP&L. I invite her or WFAA to name just one. I'll be happy to run the name by Mr Schwertner's peers and see if they agree and to let you know the results.
 
I don't ever fault a citizen from asking the difficult questions or suspecting that something stinks. Too often it does. There is plenty that stinks this time but it isn't in this news broadcast. I don't mean to disparage Ms Pierson but this situation is rich with irony.
 
Sirens have been discussed in the last three Capital Improvements budgets. I received hardly an email on the fate of the sirens over that period. I receive Tea Party broadcasts and not one mentioned sirens. A few citizens that describe themselves as Tea Party members questioned the expense of new sirens but there was no official GTP position, for or against. Nonetheless, I don't make decisions based on the pro or con positions of a few people; I make decisions based on the merits, which in most cases is the right decision for most citizens. Now, after new sirens have been approved, the Council is suddenly chastised by the spokesperson for something that didn't happen and for a GTP position that didn't exist. Mention of the sirens could only have been a red herring but WFAA swallowed it.
 

Across the board, January saw more criminal activity than normal. Assaults and a robbery led the rise but burglaries and thefts also were somewhat higher than we've recently seen.
 
Most of the home burglaries were in the eastern part of the district, often not far from each other. Car burglaries were more spread, some in commercial areas but many in neighborhoods too. No part of the district escaped the car break-ins.
 
For thefts, most were in commercial areas. Again shoplifting wasn't the major type of theft.
 
The lesson from January for all of us is to be ever mindful and watchful for criminal activity and to report incidents and suspicious activity to the police as soon as possible. It can't be said too often: keep watch for you, your family, and your neighbors!
 
If you want to review the areas that have reported incidents over the last month, download the complete report here for address-by-address information that includes your neighborhood. If you are a Garland resident reading this but do not live in District 1, you can get reports for your area here on the Police Department's website or from your Council member.
 

 
The Garland Police Dept has made it even easier to see where and what type of crimes have occurred: information can now be accessed through www.CrimeReports.com. If the data doesn't seem to appear, "zoom in" further. Not all types of incidents reported are shown on the maps.
 

The Garland Public Shooting Range is off Pleasant Valley Rd, near the northern city limits.

News that Jim Day, owner of the Garland Public Shooting Range, has agreed voluntarily to make improvements to the range on Pleasant Valley Rd is very welcome.
 
The range has been operating at that location since about 1969. There was very little in the area at the time except some country roads and a few houses. Being in a creek bottom, there was not much concern that a stray bullet would do any notable damage. A city topo map prepared in 1988 shows the range facilities but does not show any berms. The closest homes weren't built until 1993.
 
Obviously the area has become more developed over the years. Still, there is no reason that the range can't continue to operate if no bullets leave the property. According to plans mentioned in the news report, shooters will not have any chance to fire above the berms once they have been raised. That will protect all downrange and also protect city property. Downrange are city parklands, a recently closed landfill that will eventually have other uses, and Garland Power & Light transmission lines that run on the same property and are visible in the aerial photo.
 
Some have insisted that because the range existed first, Garland and Rowlett should not have allowed homes, churches, and schools to be built in the area. That those who lived in homes or drove streets that came later than the range did not have any rights or protections to actions that occurred at the range. That the cities should be responsible for any improvements at the range. There is no basis in law or common sense for such claims.
 
Of course, some of those sentiments are reflexive, a desire to protect the continuing operation of the range. The range has reported a large number of members and regular users. Certainly many would have a vested interest to see a convenient location remain. Some worry that their rights, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, might be abridged. And there may still be a few that just know that Texans have a God-given right to own and shoot guns.
 
But also as Texans, we honor and respect property rights. Yes, the range has property rights but so do all the other property owners in the area. The range's rights quite literally stop at the property line. From there begins the rights of the other property owners. They have a right to enjoyment of their property and to not have others trespassing upon their property. Shooting onto someone else's property is unquestionably a trespass, and potentially one of the more serious ones.
 
I have been told by some that the range is very well managed, that there is no tolerance for not following the range rules. I've heard others say they weren't well supervised when they were there. In either case, there existed a continual risk that an errant round could be fired downrange or even improperly in other directions. Even if none of the incidents recently reported or the man shot over a year ago actually involved bullets from the range, there was literally the open and constant opportunity for such incidents.
 
It has been suggested that the totality of the cities of Rowlett and Garland were attacking the range with the sole aim of closing it, that another conspiracy was afoot. Never mind that on the councils and administrative staffs of both cities were many hunters and shooters, some with lifetime NRA memberships, concealed handgun permits, and most or all quite comfortable around guns.
 
I have been in meetings and on the phone with numerous city and state officials and law enforcement officers and not once did I hear a single person suggest that the range should be closed. I did hear unanimously concern for the safety of citizens that might be near the range, especially downrange. And while my sampling so far is much smaller, I've heard no disappointment that the range will continue operations and there is relief that a solution to the safety concerns has been proposed.
 
Things seem to be working out the way citizens would expect them to.
 

From the Dallas Morning News online:

 

The owner of the Garland Public Shooting Range agreed to safety upgrades Tuesday and avoided a court hearing that could have shut the facility down.
Mona Reeder / Staff Photographer

Rowlett, owner of Garland gun range agree to safety upgrades

By RAY LESZCYNSKI, Staff Writer (rleszcynski@dallasnews.com)
Published: 07 February 2012 09:13 AM
 

AT A GLANCE: Changes at range   Points agreed upon Tuesday between Rowlett plaintiffs and the owner of the Garland Public Shooting Range: Overhead visors on the rifle range will be modified with one-eighth-inch steel plating and lined with foam. The berm that backs the rifle range will be raised from 11 to 20 feet so that, when shooters use the modified visors, the rifle range will have no open sky visible from a shooter’s position at the bench. An additional range officer has been added to the firing line. Modifications will be completed within 30 days; until then, rifles that discharge 30-caliber rounds or larger are prohibited.

The owner of the Garland Public Shooting Range agreed to safety upgrades and avoided a Tuesday hearing that could have shut the facility down.
 
The city of Rowlett had taken action against the range after two houses a little more than a mile downrange were hit Jan. 16. Neighbors who joined in the suit argued from the start that the issue was not gun rights but public safety.
 
City Attorney David Berman said the agreement to provide higher berms and enhanced visors at shooting stations achieves the objective of keeping bullets from flying off the range.
 
“Our position has never been to shut the gun range down,” Berman said.
 
Owner James Day has 30 days to make the improvements, suspending for that time the use of rifles that shoot 30-caliber or higher ammunition.
 
“After that time, we’ll revisit these issues,” Berman said. “If they’re good, then we’re good. But we will not go away.”
 
Garland Mayor Ron Jones said Tuesday afternoon that his city will continue to support Rowlett’s efforts and offer Garland’s resources until a permanent resolution can be found. The range opened in 1969, and its use was grandfathered when the city annexed the property in 1971.
 
“We just want it to operate safely,” said Bob Sandercederlof, who lives across the street from a home that was hit and is a plaintiff in the suit. “We’re very pleased with the agreement if he [Day] follows through.”
 
A team of negotiators and gun experts met at the range to work on a deal Friday. Berman received the signed agreement at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday. Representatives of the gun range did not appear at the Dallas County court where the case was to be heard at 10 a.m.
 
The range owner had asked for proof that the bullets were coming from the range and not from other open areas nearby, which include a landfill, creek bed and farm. Under the agreement, he maintains the position that bullets that struck three homes did not come from the shooting range.
 
But unlike the June 2010 incident in which a resident was injured while working in his backyard, this time the city had evidence of rooftop and home entry points and believes it can prove trajectory that traced the source to the range.
 
“James Day has been very reasonable with this,” Berman said. “They don’t want to be accused of causing danger to people or property.”
 
David Bowman, who took action after a bullet entered his son’s bedroom, said his motives were questioned.
 
“People out there think we’re Second Amendment Nazis and want to see guns taken out of every home,” Bowman said. “That’s just not the case.”
 
Bowman and his wife, Janine, are competitive shooters. Janine Bowman competed in shooting sports in the 2000 Olympics and was the first woman to be awarded the highest marksmanship award in the Coast Guard, the Distinguished Pistol Badge.
 
“We just want the neighborhood to be safe,” she said.
 

There was disbelief among those that knew her because no one would have guessed it, but Patsy Leathers, a city employee, was part of a ring that had been stealing from the city for about 10 years through forged claim forms. [More details here.]
 
Almost three years after the thefts were discovered, Ms Leathers has been sent to prison and those remaining may also be headed to prison. Ms Leather's sister received three years probation, a fine, and restitution. Everyone arrested has now been convicted and those yet to be sentenced will be appearing in court over the next few months.
 

United States Department of Justice Press Release:

 

U.S. Department of Justice   United States Attorney Sarah R. Saldaña Northern District of Texas

FEDERAL JURY CONVICTS HUSBAND AND WIFE
IN CONSPIRACY TO EMBEZZLE FROM CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS

Five Defendants Previously Convicted in This Conspiracy
That Caused a Nearly $2 Million Loss to the City

 
DALLAS [Friday, Feb 3, 2012] — Following a three-day trial before Chief U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater, late yesterday a federal jury convicted Kenneth Wayne Brown and his wife, Leah Michele Brown, of Westminster, Texas, for their roles in a conspiracy to embezzle funds from the City of Garland, Texas, announced U.S. Attorney Sarah R. Saldaña of the Northern District of Texas. They were each convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit theft from a program receiving federal funds and each faces a maximum statutory sentence of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and restitution. Both Kenneth Brown, 50, and Leah Brown, 46, remain on bond. Their sentencing hearings are set for May 18, 2012.
 
Five defendants have previously been convicted for their roles in the conspiracy. In early December 2011, Duane Milford Stailey, 44, and his wife, Sharon Ware Stailey, 46, both of Leonard, Texas, pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy charge and are scheduled to be sentenced on March 2, 2012 by Judge Fitzwater. In early October 2011, Jerry Don Diviney, 69, of Durant, Oklahoma, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced on March 9, 2012.
 
The former risk management adjustor for the City of Garland, Patricia Leathers, 63, of Rowlett, Texas, pleaded guilty in December 2010 and is presently serving a 57-month sentence. Her sister, Connie M. Powell, 60, of Garland, pleaded guilty to her role involving checks exceeding $64,000, resulting in a three-year term of probation.
 
According to trial testimony and case documents, Leathers obtained checks issued by the City of Garland by submitting false claims for reimbursement for damage to vehicles, homes, and landscaping purportedly caused by City trucks or employees. Diviney provided Leathers with names and addresses to use for the false claims and deposited or cashed many of the checks. He then shared the proceeds with Leathers. The Browns and the Staileys negotiated checks payable to themselves and others and returned the bulk of the cash to Diviney and Leathers. The total loss to the City has been determined to be $1,968,479.
 
The investigation was conducted by the FBI, the Garland Police Department and the Garland Offices of the City Attorney and Internal Auditor. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katherine Miller and Brian McKay are prosecuting.
 

 
Associated story: NBC Channel 5
 

 
Garland's In-N-Out restaurant near the entrance to the Firewheel Town Center off SH-78 is nearing completion. Hiring has started and training will begin mid-month. Opening is currently planned for Mar 1.
 
When the Council approved the location in 2010, it was the first public acknowledgment that the famous west coast fast food phenom was coming to Garland and to Texas. I posted a note about it and within days a Google search on the name and Garland yielded over a million sites. Excited transplants and area travelers longed for a chance to get their burger fix.
 
Speculation ran rampant that Garland would be the first site to open. When that proved to not be the case, there were many disappointed local fans. The first restaurant opened in Allen and the lines were seemingly days long. In hindsight, we can be thankful that Garland wasn't the first location. Our location would have had a lot more trouble handling the traffic. We just don't have the same amount of stacking capacity and area residents would have seen traffic jams symbolic of those in California, an import we wouldn't want to see. Burger, yes; congestion, no.
 
While we won't see the long, long lines and hopefully not the hours-long waits, there is still plenty of excitement and local buzz.
 
So, what is really in that secret sauce?
 

From the Dallas Morning News online:

 

Janine Bowman of Rowlett sits in her 5-year-old son's bedroom, which was struck by a bullet last month. She believes the bullet came from a nearby shooting range in Garland.
Mona Reeder/DMN Staff Photographer

Rowlett files to shut down Garland Public Shooting Range

By RAY LESZCYNSKI, Staff Writer
rleszcynski@dallasnews.com
Published: 31 January 2012 11:30 PM [Story link]
 
Bullets found at three Rowlett homes have led to a challenge of a new state law that protects longstanding gun ranges from urban sprawl.
 
Many neighbors, and Rowlett city officials, considered it an isolated incident when Michael Domin was shot and injured while working in his backyard in June 2010.
 
“We saw it as two streets over, not really a problem for us,” Dave Bowman said.
 

Dave and Janine Bowman took this photo of the bullet that hit their son's bedroom.

But on Jan. 16, the Bowmans were downstairs eating dinner when they heard a loud noise above them. A bullet had come through the ceiling and entered their son’s upstairs bedroom.
 
The officer who responded to their call had just answered one at another home hit by a gunshot on Domin’s street.
 
No one was injured, but lives have changed. The Bowman family now avoids the back of the house and their sons do not go in their backyard until after the Garland Public Shooting Range is closed.
 

“Our peace of mind is not there right now,” Bowman said.
 
Over the last decade, Rowlett officials platted neighborhoods a little more than a mile downrange from the facility, which is owned by James Day and has been in operation since 1969.
 
“If Mr. Day was operating safely that would not be a question because bullets would not be leaving the gun range and not endangering the safety of Rowlett residents,” Rowlett City Manager Lynda Humble said.
 
The city filed for temporary and permanent injunction against Day asking that the gun range be closed until safety improvements are made. The case is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in state district court in Dallas.
 
Rowlett officials also are encouraging residents to file suit.
 
The gun range owner filed a response to the court Friday, denying the allegations and demanding proof the bullets came from the range.
 
The action is separate from Domin’s suit, which is set for trial April 23, though Domin was in attendance when city officials met with neighbors last week. Like the Domin suit, the city cites a lack of ballistic baffling or bullet traps that would help keep bullets from leaving the range.
 
It is estimated the improvements to the gun range could cost $500,000. In his response to the court, Day said the requested relief would result in the unconstitutional taking of his property.
 
In September, a law took effect to protect gun ranges, which are typically small businesses, from the costs of defending against frivolous lawsuits.
 
However, while Senate Bill 766 prohibits cities such as Rowlett from bringing legal action against a gun range, it does not prevent civil action to recover for damages to private property, personal injury or death.
 
After 20 to 30 residents showed interest in participating in the suit, the city followed up with about 10 of those Monday night.
 
“As much as I would like everyone who wants to participate to join in, a large number of participants would make the litigation cumbersome,” City Attorney David Berman said.
 
Resident Jon Voorhies, who attended the first meeting, said the city presented strong evidence the bullets are coming from the range.
 
“I am very happy in the direction and efforts,” said Voorhies, who has shot pistols at the range.
 
The attorney general may also take action, a possible pursuit that brought Rowlett officials to Austin on Friday.
 
“Bullets physically went through exterior walls and an interior wall of a residence,” Humble said. “From a matter of public safety, it’s very disconcerting to me that anyone living in Rowlett would feel uncomfortable in their living room.”
 
Rowlett officials are not the only city officials concerned about the range.
 
Garland officials met in closed session to discuss the gun range last week. The city owns a landfill between the range, the Rowlett neighborhood and power lines behind the gun range.
 
Garland Power & Light officials said in late 2010 that they had no issue with the gun range, that it was not impacting service and that they had never had an outage related to the range.
 
But in a statement issued Friday through the city attorney, Garland Mayor Ron Jones said a line had been recently damaged, “evidently, from more than one round fired skyward from the firing line.
 
“While I’m certain that no responsible range operator would condone such behavior, the evidence indicates that other rounds are leaving the range and that this is not an isolated incident,” Jones said.
 
The city estimates damage to its power lines may exceed $100,000.
 
Rowlett police confirmed a downward trajectory of the rifle shot that hit Domin, but did not determine that the bullet came from the range. A creek and farm are also near the range and the neighborhood.
 
Another half mile downrange is Back Elementary School, built in 1985. Garland school district officials said this week there has never been an incident regarding the gun range that brought safety at the campus into question.
 
“If the owner of the range is willing to work with us and with the professional recommendations of the NRA and other shooting range experts, I feel certain we can come to an acceptable resolution,” Jones said.
 

A bullet hole through the dining room crown molding of a home in Rowlett is clearly visible. The bullet strike was reported to Rowlett police last week. Click the graphic to see the Fox 4 News story and video.

The man shot in 2010 in a Rowlett neighborhood filed suit against the Garland Public Shooting Range for damages he suffered as a result of his injuries and that case is expected to be heard in a couple months. Now two or more suits have been filed or are about to be filed.
 
In a Fox 4 News story last night, additional information was presented that is related to my post yesterday on stray bullets that may be coming from the Garland Public Shooting Range on Pleasant Valley Rd. The range is privately owned and has no connection to the City of Garland.
 
New information was available on the second incident reported last week. In the first, a bullet came through the roof and ceiling into the bedroom of a five-year-old. In the second, a bullet came through the wall and through the crown molding into the dining room. A fourth-grader describes her family's experience in the video report.
 
The City of Rowlett does not consider the man that was mysteriously shot last year a one-in-a-million incident. All their guns (figuratively speaking) are now on the GPSR. They have filed for a temporary injunction to close the range to protect residents. Rowlett has also agreed to finance a lawsuit against the range to be filed by the family that had the bullet land in their son's bedroom. It's not entirely clear if the two cases are separate or are to be combined.
 
The news report also said that range owner James Day claims a bullet cannot travel that far. If accurate, that would be very disturbing and would seem to indicate that the range will not be examining their operations or taking any actions to assure residents and others in the area—in Rowlett and Garland—that their safety is a concern, because there is no question that most calibers can reach that far. [See chart in that previous post.]
 
Officials in Garland and I do take these reports to be extremely serious. While none of us has a desire to wrongly accuse anyone, we cannot ignore these incidents, the frequency, or the safety of residents in the area.
 
Rather than those responsible paying, GP&L ratepayers are the ones paying to repair the electric transmission lines in the area.
 
Also, all the land east of the range, all the way to Castle Dr, is owned by the City. The old Castle Landfill that serves as a backdrop for the gun range is officially closed, no longer to ever accept garbage. One responsibility the city has is to monitor methane gas generated at the site. City personnel responsible for checking those monitoring stations could be at risk when onsite. The circumstantial evidence is too great for the City to tell them they are safe. Most landfills eventually have a second life, quite often as a park. One use discussed over the years was to convert the site to a dog park. Under these circumstances, none of that can happen.
 
We can't live with the status quo. It's imperative that we learn where these bullet rounds are coming from and that action be taken to protect everyone in the area.