May,      2005 Name of County Attorney _______County Address Dear Mr./Ms. _____________,  I am a citizen of ______ County.  I write to file a complaint and request that you investigate ______ County because I believe that the county may be violating state law concerning lobbying by government entities and, in particular, by associations of counties. My understanding is that this county is a dues-paying member of both the Texas Conference of Urban Counties and Texas Association of Counties.  There is overwhelming evidence that both of these organizations are attempting to influence the outcome of legislation during the 79th Legislature.  First, please find enclosed Section 89.002 of the Texas Local Government Code.  This statute prohibits counties from paying dues to associations of counties that directly or indirectly attempt to influence the outcome of any legislation pending before the Legislature.    On March 16, the Texas House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on House Bill 1006 by Rep. Carl Isett, which would place limitations on the ad valorem tax rates of taxing units, including counties.  As the enclosed official witness list indicates, Donald Lee testified against this legislation in his capacity with the Texas Conference of Urban Counties.  At this very same March 16 hearing, the witness list also reflects that Dr. Ray Perryman testified against House Bill 784 by Rep. Dwayne Bohac providing tax relief and protection for ad valorem taxpayers.  The witness list states that Dr. Ray Perryman testified representing several organizations, including the Texas Association of Counties and the Texas Conference of Urban Counties.  The witness list also shows that Glen Whitley testified against HB 784 representing the Texas Conference of Urban Counties.    I am also attaching data from the Texas Ethics Commission showing that the Texas Association of Counties is paying tens of thousands of dollars to professional lobbyists during this legislation session who, by definition, attempt to influence the outcome of legislation.            Furthermore, I am enclosing a document entitled “Top 10 Reasons Revenue Caps Are a Bad Idea.”  This document dated April 19, 2005 was posted on the website of The Quorum Report, a political newsletter, and attributed to the Texas Association of Counties.  The properties for this document indicate it was authored by “Elna Christopher” with the Texas Association of Counties.  The title of the document is “HB 1006-Ten reasons it’s a bad idea.” Additionally, the witness list for the same March 16 hearing shows that Jim Allison in his capacity with the County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas also testified against both HB 784 and HB 1006.  This organization’s advocacy for and against legislation is further spelled out at: http://www.cjcat.org/legislative. htm.  I would request that you investigate whether county judges and commissioners are paying their dues to the County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas out of county funds in violation of Section 89.002.  There are also other relevant state laws that we believe may be being violated depending on the source of funds that this county is using for its lobbying and for its dues to the above-referenced county associations.   Texas Government Code Section 556.0055 prohibits political subdivisions from using state funds for lobbying.  Also, Section 403.0167 of the Government Code prohibits political subdivisions from using funds from the tobacco settlement for lobbying.  I would request that you investigate whether these laws, in addition to Section 89.002 and any other applicable laws, are being violated.  In sum, I believe that a full investigation by your office into this matter is warranted.  These state laws serve the vitally important purpose of making sure that Texas counties are not using public funds to lobby the state.  It violates the public trust when taxpayer funds are misused to take positions on controversial legislation that many taxpayers do not agree with and that are contrary to their interests.  If your investigation reveals that this county is violating any of the above statutes or any other state law in connection with either its lobbying activity or such activity by associations to which it pays dues, I would ask that you pursue all necessary legal action to bring the county into compliance with the law.  Moreover, I believe that matter requires your most urgent attention because counties and their associations are heavily engaged in lobbying in the closing weeks of the legislative session.  There is a strong public interest in making sure that any illegal county lobbying activity is halted as soon as possible so that it does not further corrupt the public policy process.  Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if I can provide additional information that may be of assistance in investigating this matter. Sincerely, _________________ TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 89.002.  STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.  (a)  The commissioners court may spend, in the name of the county, money from the county's general fund for membership fees and dues of a nonprofit state association of counties if:          (1)  a majority of the court votes to approve membership in the association;          (2)  the association exists for the betterment of county government and the benefit of all county officials;          (3)  the association is not affiliated with a labor organization;                     (4)  neither the association nor an employee of the association directly or indirectly influences or attempts to influence the outcome of any legislation pending before the legislature, except that this subdivision does not prevent a person from providing information for a member of the legislature or appearing before a legislative committee at the request of the committee or the member of the legislature;   and          (5)  neither the association nor an employee of the association directly or indirectly contributes any money, services, or other valuable thing to a political campaign or endorses a candidate or group of candidates for public office.  (b)  If any association or organization supported wholly or partly by payments of tax receipts from political subdivisions engages in an activity described by Subsection (a)(4) or (5), a taxpayer of a political subdivision that pays fees or dues to the association or organization is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent any further activity described by Subsection (a)(4) or (5) or any further payments of fees or dues. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.   Renumbered from § 81.026 by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 13.03(b), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.         TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE  § 556.0055.  RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING   EXPENDITURES.  (a)  A political subdivision or private entity that receives state funds may not use the funds to pay:          (1)  lobbying[0] expenses incurred by the recipient of the funds;                        (2)  a person or entity that is required to register with the Texas Ethics Commission under Chapter 305;          (3)  any partner, employee, employer, relative, contractor, consultant, or related entity of a person or entity described by Subdivision (2);  or          (4)  a person or entity that has been hired to represent associations or other entities for the purpose of affecting the outcome of legislation, agency rules, ordinances, or other government policies.  (b)  A political subdivision or private entity that violates Subsection (a) is not eligible to receive additional state funds. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1498, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE § 403.1067.  RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING EXPENDITURES.  (a)  An organization, program, political subdivision[0], public institution of higher education, local community organization, or other entity receiving funds or grants from the permanent funds in Section 403.105, 403.1055, 403.106, 403.1065, or 403.1066 may not use the funds or grants to pay:          (1)  lobbying[0] expenses incurred by the recipient;                                       (2)  a person or entity that is required to register with the Texas Ethics Commission under Chapter 305, Government Code;          (3)  any partner, employee, employer, relative, contractor, consultant, or related entity of a person or entity described by Subdivision (2);  or          (4)  a person or entity who has been hired to represent associations or other entities for the purpose of affecting the outcome of legislation, agency rules, ordinances, or other government policies.  (b)  The persons or entities described by Subsection (a) are not eligible to receive the money or participate either directly or indirectly in the contracts, funds, or grants awarded in Section 403.105, 403.1055, 403.106, 403.1065, or 403.1066.  (c)  Grants or awards made under Section 403.105, 403.1055, 403.106, 403.1065, or 403.1066 may not be conditioned on the enactment of legislation, agency rules, or local ordinances. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1391, § 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1999.           http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/witmtg/C4902005031610301.HTM WITNESS LIST showing Association Lobbying Ways & Means Committee March 16, 2005-10:30A HB 5 For:   Alllison, Jim (County Judges and Commissioners Assn. of TX)        Bushell, Gary (Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition)        Johnson, Tom (AGC of Texas)        Lavine, Dick (Center for Public Policy Priorities)        Lee, Donald (Texas Conference of Urban Counties)        Morgan, Tom (Texas Association of Realtors)        Newton, Chris (Texas Petroleum & Convenience Store             Association)        Raab, Ted Melina (Texas Federation of Teachers)        Whitley, Glen (Tarrant County/Tarrant Regional             Transportation Coalition/Conference of Urban             Counties) Against:  Carreon, Rodrigo (Self)        O'Ryan, Anne (AAA Texas) On:       Nichols, Robert (Texas Transportation Commission) HB 784 For:      Bettencourt, Hon. Paul (Self)        Brady, Sharon (Self)        Caldwell, Jim (Texas Silver Haired Legislator             (T.S.H.L.))        Hart, Coach Dan (Self and Taxpayers for Equal Appraisal)        Hendee, Lisa (Self and CLOUT, Houston individual             realtors)        Jackson, Pat (Self)        Johnson, Cheryl (Self and Tax Assessor/Collector Gal.             Co.) Against:  Aghamalian, Brandon (City of Fort Worth/Mayor & City             Council, City Manager)        Allison, Jim (County Judges & Commissioners Assn. of TX)        Beneski, Amy (Texas Association of School             Administrators)        Brock, Euline (City of Denton, TX)        Casey, Daniel T. (Self and Texas School Alliance)        Hudson, Don (Texas Association of Community Colleges)        Kautz, David (City of Round Rock)        Lavine, Dick (Center for Public Policy Priorities)        Lee, Donald (Texas Conference of Urban Counties)        McCraw, Ken (Tx Association of Community Schools)        Millikin, Jay (Comal County Commissioners Court)        Morgan, Tom (Texas Association of Realtors)        Nolan, W. Kenneth (Dallas Central Appraisal District)        Perryman, Dr. Ray (Self and Texas Municipal League,             Texas Association of Counties, Texas Conference of             Urban Counties)        Raab, Ted Melina (Texas Federation of Teachers)        Reed, Katie (Texas Association of School Boards &             Northside ISD - Bexar County)        Whitley, Glen (Tarrant County/ Conf of Urban Counties) On:       Carpenter, Bill (Houston I.S.D.) HB 1006 For:      Hendee, Lisa (Self)        Jackson, Pat (Self)        Martinez, Maria (Self)        Morgan, Tom (Texas Association of Realtors)        Ruppert, Charles (Self)        Venable, Peggy (Americans for Prosperity - TX) Against:  Aghamalian, Brandon (City of Fort Worth/Mayor & Council,             City Manager)        Allison, Jim (County Judges & Commissioners Assn. of TX)        Brock, Euline (City of Denton, TX)        Lee, Donald (Texas Conference of Urban Counties)        Millikin, Comal County Commissioner Jay (Comal County             Commissioners Court)        Sandlin, Bennett (Texas Municipal League)        Spataro, Susan (Self and Travis County Commissioners             Court/Travis Count Auditor) On:       Gaylor, Tom (Texas Municipal Police Assoc.)        Schlomach, Byron (Texas Public Policy Foundation) HJR 35 For:      Bettencourt, Hon. Paul (Self)        Brady, Sharon (Self)        Caldwell, Jim (Self and Texas Silver Haired Legislator             (T.S.H.L)        Hart, Coach Dan (Self and Taxpayers for Equal Appraisal)        Hendee, Lisa (Self and CLOUT - citizens lowering our             unfair taxes)        Jackson, Pat (Self)        Johnson, Cheryl (Self) Against:  Aghamalian, Brandon (City of Fort Worth/Mayor & Council,             City Manager)        Allison, Jim (County Judges & Commissioners Assn. of TX)        Beneski, Amy (Texas Association of School             Administrators)        Brock, Euline (City of Denton)        Casey, Daniel (Self and Texas School Alliance)        Hudson, Don (Texas Association of Community Colleges)        Kautz, David (City of Round Rock, Texas)        Lavine, Dick (Center for Public Policy Priorities)        Lee, Donald (Texas Conference of Urban Counties)        McCraw, Ken (Tx Association of Community Schools)        Millikin, Comal County Commissioner Jay (Comal County             Commissioners Court)        Morgan, Tom (Texas Association of Realtors)        Nolan, W Kenneth (Dallas Central Appraisal District)        Perryman, Dr. Ray (Self)        Raab, Ted Melina (Texas Federation of Teachers)        Reed, Katie (Texas Association of School Boards &             Northside ISD - Bexar County)        Whitley, Glen (Self and Tarrant County/Conf of Urban             Counties) On:       Carpenter, Bill (Houston I.S.D.) HJR 50 For:      Christian, George (Texas Taxpayers and Research             Association)        Lavine, Dick (Center for Public Policy Priorities) Against:  Beneski, Amy (Texas Association of School             Administrators/Texas Association of School Boards)        Carreon, Rodrigo (Self)        Casey, Daniel T. (Fast Growth School Coalition)        Downing, Clayton (Texas School Coalition)        McCraw, Ken (Tx Association of Community Schools) On:       Anderson, David (Texas Education Agency)        Raab, Ted Melina (Texas Federation of Teachers) HJR 50 - Committee Substitute (Luna)        Keller, Harrison (Speaker Tom Craddick) TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION List of Lobbyists Texas Association of Counties 1210 San Antonio  Austin, TX 78701 Erskine, Candis B. 4304 Green Cliffs  Austin, TX 78746 Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: $ 0.00 Erskine, John M. Jr. Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: $25,000 - $49.999.99 Gonzales, Marissa 6514 East Hill Drive  Austin, TX 78731 Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: $ 0.00 Kamm, Robert R. 405 W. 14th Street Suite 100 Austin, TX 78701 Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: $25,000 - $49.999.99 Leo, Myra TX Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: Less Than $10,000.00 Marchman, Denice Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: Less Than $10,000.00 McGinnis, Larry D. TX Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: $10,000 - $24,999.99 Norris, Karen A. PO Box 2131  Austin, TX 78768 Type of Compensation: Earned Amount: Less Than $10,000.00 Shivers, Marc T. Type of Compensation: Prospective Amount: Less Than $10,000.00 QUORUM REPORT- Excerpts of reports of Lobbying FROM THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES: Responding to yesterday's piece lauding from the TexasPublic Policy Foundation lauding revenue caps, the Texas Association of Counties today sent over the TOP 10 REASONS REVENUE CAPS ARE A BAD IDEA. Responding to Robby Cook's (D-Eagle Lake) amendment requiring a tax rollback election if a petition is signed by 5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election, TAC said, " Under the amendment, many counties could be forced into expensive rollback elections by an extremely small number of voters. In more than a quarter of Texas' 254 counties, fewer than 100 voters could successfully petition for rollback elections if tax revenues increased by five percent. In most counties, five percent of gubernatorial voters equals about one percent of the total population - meaning that an entire county, its services and 99 percent of its population could be held hostage by an extreme minority." TAC also included a county by county breakdown of the number of voters necessary to compel a rollback election. Top 10 Reasons Revenue Caps Are a Bad Idea 10. Unexpected service demands may increase beyond 3% Are police supposed to ignore a new meth lab, because it isn’t in the budget?  Should a county reschedule a capital murder trial until the next fiscal year? Shouldn’t roads be built to new developments? 9. Roads, hospitals, libraries and parks make our communities livable Business decision-makers want to locate their operations in communities where people want to live. Discretionary quality of life expenditures, like libraries, would be the first to go. 8. Pay-as-you-go government would be discouraged Inability to raise revenue to fund expensive buildings, roads and other infrastructure will encourage local governments to spread payments over time, to remain below petition levels. Local governments will turn more and more to bonds – except for one thing…. 7. Depletion of reserve funds would mean higher bond ratings After imposing its own revenue cap plan in 2004, the City of Houston last month saw its bond rating significantly reduced by a rating agency that specifically cited the revenue cap as a major reason for the drop. 6. Government-specific inflation is running higher than CPI Cities and counties must purchase services and products that produce a different inflation rate than the Consumer Price Index. The Municipal Cost Index was 5.24% last year. Example: Bell County’s fuel costs have increased by 47% over last year. 5. Local government tax incentives would disappear Over the past 20 years, local abatements have been primary drivers of government-induced economic development. Tax abatements and other economic development efforts would end. 4. In HB 1006, proposed petition thresholds would prompt frequent elections Ridiculously few citizens could petition for rollbacks under HB 1006. Example; Bastrop County (population 68,822); 5% of voters from the last gubernatorial election is 754. In numerous rural counties, fewer than 100 voters could force expensive elections. 3. High growth communities would be hit particularly hard New people mean more services. Property tax collections based on Jan. 1 values always lag a year behind. Suburban communities, where farmland suddenly requires city services, demand new roads and other basic infrastructure. 2. Unfunded and under-funded mandates from the state would be unachievable If the state hiccups, local government gets the flu. Example: counties are mandated to provide office space, facilities and support for state probation officers. If probation programs are expanded this year, how will capped counties find the funds? 1. The state of Texas itself can’t live within a 3 percent cap A Dallas Morning News analysis of state budget numbers showed the Legislature has increased its annual revenue and spending more than 3% in all but one budget cycle since 1996. According to a county analysis, a 3% cap imposed in 1977 would have depleted state services by $240 billion.