With four days left before the city defends the federal lawsuit
brought by
Freeport-McMoRan, the air around City Hall these days is becoming
increasingly
steeped in suspicion. Two weeks ago, Councilmember Brigid Shea’s office
requested a chronology of the negotiations that resulted in Freeport’s
latest
proposed settlement, the one rejected by the council on Feb. 23.
Assistant City Manager Jim Smith presented the chronology to Shea
early
last week. Missing from the list, however, was an alleged Sept. 16
meeting,
which occurred only one week before the multinational corporation’s
federal
lawsuit was filed, and one month before staff had been authorized to
initiate
five months of settlement negotiations with Freeport.
According to Tom Selby, Shea’s executive aide, Shea had prior
knowledge of
the meeting through an unnamed source and confronted Smith about the
missing
detail. After recalling the meeting, Smith said that it occurred at the
mayor’s
accounting office some time in September and that it involved himself,
Mayor
Bruce Todd, and Freeport’s lawyer Roy Minton. He could not recall if
others
were present.
Speculation around City Hall last week was that the mayor and
Minton had
concocted the lawsuit as a threat to force some councilmembers to
acquiesce to
a settlement with Freeport. The suspicion is further aggravated by
Todd’s
campaign contributions from Freeport-related interests (over $10,000 in
the
last three years, according to the consumer rights group, Public
Citizen).
Also adding to the intrigue is city staff’s consistent and infamous
complicity
with Freeport in working to get the measure approved by the council.
Moreover, Jim Smith gave a curious speech before the environmental
board
March 22. “…in conversations with the attorneys early on, I don’t
think it
was Freeport’s intention to ever try this lawsuit. They filed the
lawsuit to
create the opportunity to settle this again once and for all, and now
what
everybody is doing is just playing it out.”
And to many, that seems to be exactly what happened. Last
Thursday, the
company filed a pleading to reduce its lawsuit to include only the
25-acre
Falls, and not its entire 4,000-acre Public Utility District
(PUD).
When this reporter questioned Smith Thursday evening, he said he
didn’t
know about the September meeting, and maintained that city staff
frequently
meet with opposing lawyers without council consent. But when asked
whether it
was against city policy for the mayor to meet with lawyers of the
opposing
sides, Smith replied, “You have your facts wrong. There was no opposing
side
when the mayor met with Roy Minton.” Asked once again whether he
knew about
the meeting in question, Smith replied, “Maybe.”
Later, Smith finally stated that Freeport representatives indicated at the meeting in question that it would file a lawsuit.
Todd denied repeated requests for an interview, but his executive
aide,
Trey Salinas, said Monday, “If someone’s planning on filing a lawsuit
against
the city, it’s customary for you to ask them not to sue you. And that’s
what
the mayor was doing. Obviously, he wasn’t persuasive enough.”
Minton acknowledges that he called the meeting to announce the
potential
for a lawsuit. “It was a very amicable meeting, there wasn’t any
fussiness
going on on either side. I just simply said we’re at the point where I
can see
that we’re going to have to have litigation, Bruce, if we can’t [settle
Freeport’s and the City’s differences]. And he was very gracious about
it
himself. And some time shortly after that we did bring the litigation.
Of
course, as you know, we’ve never had any problem in working out
something with
city staff. Our people have always gotten along with them.” He would not comment further on the meeting.
It’s exactly that friendliness that has Shea worried. “I think
it certainly
looks weird that they meet in the mayor’s private office before the
lawsuit’s
been filed to talk about it. And then we have such clear indications
that the
lawsuit’s been cooked up to try and force us to give them, through a
settlement, what they could not otherwise get from the city, which is
sewer
service.”
In a related matter, the offices of Councilmembers Jackie Goodman and Gus Garcia have both
indicated that their proposed agreement for the Freeport PUD is not up for
consideration this week, meaning the council will not attempt to
negotiate a
settlement with Free-port based on such an agreement. The trial begins
May
8.
The city’s five-month budget process opened April 26 with
a clear
message from the city’s budget officers that the council should put the
brakes
on its recent spending spree. (On March 30, the council, with Brigid
Shea
absent, unanimously approved issuance of $12 million in bonds to pay
for the
new baseball stadium and a water-quality pond.) Assistant City Manager
Betty
Dunkerly advised that the city set up a savings fund for capital
projects to
help the city “stay focused on the concept of affordability.” Staff
also
presented a proposal that calls for no new spending initiatives until
at least
six months after the budget is passed in September.
Also, City Manager Jesus Garza noted that the city could maintain
its
effective property tax rate
(56 cents per every $100 of appraised
value) if
it issues only $7 million in bonds this fall, a suggestion that
will
require extra soul searching by the council members. They have
authorized
issuance of $28.31 million in bonds this fall, but could still revoke their plans. If the full amount is issued, the city will have to find $2 million to service the
debt. In
addition, city staff is looking to save $11 million by trimming 6% from
the
budgets of 23 city departments, except for the Fire Department and EMS.
The
proposals will likely return for council consideration by the end of
June.
As of last Thursday, the dispute between the city and
its
legislative delegation regarding a legislative bill that would ensure
funding
for future indigent care at Brackenridge at the 1994 levels has been
settled,
much to the credit of city staff, according to Hugh Strange,
Representative
Glen Maxey’s press aide. Maxey, not privy to the curtained negotiations between city staff and Seton Medical Center,
feared
that indigent care would falter after the Seton/Brack merger. But city
staff,
after spending weeks turning and twisting to avoid any state mandate
regarding
indigent care at Brack, “pretty much agreed to the draft we presented
to
them,” says Strange. “So they have apparently dropped their
objections.
We’re quite pleased with the cooperation shown by the city of Austin in
resolving this matter.”
This week in council: There will be a 4:30pm public
hearing and
vote on the recommendations of the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation
Plan
working group, and a 5pm public hearing and vote on the location of
the new
city hall.
This article appears in May 5 • 1995 and May 5 • 1995 (Cover).