There is no "there" there. Nothing has happened (apart from cattle thefts elsewhere which is a separate issue and not related to the lease) that warrants an investigation.

If one occurs then I'll be first to admit I'm wrong about that and somehow law enforcement did think an investigation was needed. But from where I'm sitting this is not Watergate on the Brazos.

techno-ag said:

---

There is no "there" there. Nothing has happened (apart from cattle thefts elsewhere which is a separate issue and not related to the lease) that warrants an investigation.

If one occurs then I'll be first to admit I'm wrong about that and somehow law enforcement did think an investigation was needed. But from where I'm sitting this is not Watergate on the Brazos.

---

First paragraph is your opinion stated as if it were fact. A common TexAgs occurrence, but that doesn't make it true

The thing I keep going back to is-

if the owner of the plane wasn't asked to pay $250K to retrieve the plane- in other words he isn't being extorted and can just come get his plane- why hasn't he got his plane by now?

This thread is an example of why these incestuous govt arrangements shouldn't exist at all. There should be no conflicts of interest in appearance or in fact. People are well within their rights to question everything involved with this situation.

Do that and it doesn't need a waterboy

FishrCoAg said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

There is no "there" there. Nothing has happened (apart from cattle thefts elsewhere which is a separate issue and not related to the lease) that warrants an investigation.

If one occurs then I'll be first to admit I'm wrong about that and somehow law enforcement did think an investigation was needed. But from where I'm sitting this is not Watergate on the Brazos.

---

First paragraph is your opinion stated as if it were fact. A common TexAgs occurrence, but that doesn't make it true

---

Yeah. Some times it's important sometimes to say "I think"

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

FishrCoAg said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

skeetboy3 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would guess that if the mayor had never called the pilot on January 3rd, that the plane would be gone by now.

---

The circumstantial evidence indeed seems very strong to support this. The pilot found out the mayor was going to submit a claim to his insurance company and then sued for nearly the same amount.

---

Also it sounds to me like the pilot was expecting a "total of the aircraft" he never got, so instead of a new plane he's gonna have to retrieve and fix the old one. He may have been wrangling with his own insurance company for 2 months before deciding to go this latest route.

---

I doubt that.. The insurance would not cover the cost of a "new" airplane.

This discussion does not concern me. I would like to know how a person "known and trusted" by the BBC would get a $1/year lease on 200 acres of land.

FYI: "known and trusted" is called the "old boy network" in the rest of the United States. I thought those days were behind us, in Bryan at least. What I have learned from this whole incident is that the "old boy network" is alive and well in the BCS area.

---

This has been discussed at length. There is nothing illegal about the lease. It does not have to go out to bid. It's more of a convenience thing than anything else.

We didn't get the deal because most of us here don't have a herd of cattle we can graze. And if we did, that we could evacuate quickly. And if we did, how would the BBC board know and trust us?

The lease is a nothing burger.

---

Perhaps I don't have the herd because I cannot afford the lease prices. I could at that price. As for evacuation, worst case scenario they have a cattle auction every week.

---

Standard rate lease is $2000/year, or $167/mo. If you can't afford that I don't see how you could afford running a herd either. What are round bales going for these days? I saw them at $125 each. Even at half that price, if you can't afford a $167/month lease, you can't afford to feed your cows through the winter.

---

You might be correct if the standard lease rate was in fact 2k per year. Just because you keep stating it doesn't make it accurate.

---

2K is the average for Texas.. Not for Brazos County...

---

What's the average for Brazos County?

---

Last time I checked it was about $3500/year. Anyone have an update?

---

For 200 acres? Even at that price, if you can't afford it you can't afford to feed cows round bales at $125 each all through the winter. Plus range cubes, etc.

---

Pretty presumptuous on what someone can or can't afford.....

techno-ag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

whisperingbill said:

---

I have no dog in this fight, but I am curious to know if this is the only such arrangement the mayor or anyone else has with the city? Grazing land should lease for a minimum of 20 dollars a acre per year. I know many people who pay more than that. To be fair, some places need a lot of work on fences and other improvements, so the person who is leasing the land will sometimes agree to spend the lease money on improvements to the land as compensation for the lease. I'm just curious if this is a one-off incident, or do these types of "leases" exist on other city property?

---

Perhaps it is time to bring in an outside agency to investigate. If this a "nothing burger" as some have suggested then there is nothing to be concerned about... Is there?

---

Except there's nothing to investigate. Nothing illegal occurred with the lease or the airplane. The only legal action has taken place by the pilot who has sued and looks to be trying to cash in somehow.

This is only a "big deal" to a dozen people or so here on TexAgs who think they've uncovered a Brazos County Watergate or something.

---

Just because YOU say there is nothing going on here, doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it.

The appraisal district lists a city employee as the contact person.

doubledog said:

---

Did that party or individual have the authority to award such a good deal? Did that party or individual vet any other potentials lessees? Was that party or individual the present Mayor of Bryan?

---

You say "the party or individual" as if we don't know who awarded it. For those following along, we already know. Spoiler alert, it was the Bryan Business Council, as listed in the posted lease document. Maybe you've heard of them? They're an economic development non-profit based in Bryan.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

The appraisal district lists a city employee as the contact person.

---

Let me guess, it's someone that works in economic development.

doubledog said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

You're right, from the The Eagle article on Friday, the BBC were unaware of what was going on with the land from what I gathered. I probably misread the article. I read it in passing. I have no idea.

---

If true, this would make the $1/year "discount" and even deeper issue. If the BBC did not award the $1/year "discount" who did and why. Did that party or individual have the authority to award such a good deal? Did that party or individual vet any other potentials lessees? Was that party or individual the present Mayor of Bryan?

---

We all recognize that the timing of the lease would have been when Bobby G was a non-voting member of the BBC board and before he was Mayor, right?

Yes but it was also when he already had a business relationship with Dr Dorn.

And? Just because it all happened before he was mayor still doesn't make it right today.

And, he was a sitting member of the city council at the time, which is why he was a non-voting member of the BBC. That he wasn't mayor yet should not make a difference. Ethics should matter at all times.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

And? Just because it all happened before he was mayor still doesn't make it right today.

---

Point being non-voting member would have had no actual say on the grazing lease.

---

No actual say, or no official say? Those are wildly different things.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

And? Just because it all happened before he was mayor still doesn't make it right today.

---

Point being non-voting member would have had no actual say on the grazing lease.

---

No actual say, or no official say? Those are wildly different things.

---

I think they are the same. Without an official say, you can only influence. I'm not suggesting he didn't have influence.

Doubledog suggested that the now mayor could have made the lease agreement. Seems like the board of BBC would have to approve any lease agreement, and the now mayor didn't have a vote. Obviously, he has some amount of influence and could have argued that the lease was good, but ultimately the voting board members had to agree.

The further implication in double dog's post that the now mayor signed a lease of BBC land without any authority to do so behind the back of the board is a big stretch.

---

Edited to add: my apologies to Doubledog's, other posts of his are pertinent, this post from yesterday, by "Danny Duberstein", is a great summary of the situation..

"This thread is an example of why these incestuous govt arrangements shouldn't exist at all. There should be no conflicts of interest in appearance or in fact. People are well within their rights to question everything involved with this situation.

Do that and it doesn't need a waterboy"

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

And? Just because it all happened before he was mayor still doesn't make it right today.

---

Point being non-voting member would have had no actual say on the grazing lease.

---

No actual say, or no official say? Those are wildly different things.

---

I think they are the same. Without an official say, you can only influence. I'm not suggesting he didn't have influence.

Doubledog suggested that the now mayor could have made the lease agreement. Seems like the board of BBC would have to approve any lease agreement, and the now mayor didn't have a vote. Obviously, he has some amount of influence and could have argued that the lease was good, but ultimately the voting board members had to agree.

The further implication in double dog's post that the now mayor signed a lease of BBC land without any authority to do so behind the back of the board is a big stretch.

---

Not what I said (or meant) , I only "questioned" if the Mayor of Bryan was somehow involved. I think that is a fair question.

techno-ag said:

---

Not only that, if no serious money changes hands, is there really anything suspicious going on? The lease looks much more like a measure of convenience than graft to me.

---

Tech, your definition of convenience and mine are completely different.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

GSS said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

I think they are the same. Without an official say, you can only influence. I'm not suggesting he didn't have influence.

Doubledog suggested that the now mayor could have made the lease agreement. Seems like the board of BBC would have to approve any lease agreement, and the now mayor didn't have a vote. Obviously, he has some amount of influence and could have argued that the lease was good, but ultimately the voting board members had to agree.

The further implication in double dog's post that the now mayor signed a lease of BBC land without any authority to do so behind the back of the board is a big stretch.

---

"This thread is an example of why these incestuous govt arrangements shouldn't exist at all. There should be no conflicts of interest in appearance or in fact. People are well within their rights to question everything involved with this situation.

Do that and it doesn't need a waterboy"

---

How far do you go to avoid appearance?

Should the city council members, mayor, BBC board avoid doing business with any business that has a relationship with the CoB? Seems like that would be impossible.

Obviously, this situation is suspicious. But there could even be issues around a city council member getting a discount on catering for a wedding from a caterer that does significant business with the city. Does the caterer have to disclose all their customers when bidding on a city event? Should the city council members disclose all businesses they do business with?

---

It is challenging to not have "line-drawing", as to what may or may not be appropriate. The topic here seems clearer: a high $$ operation was (would have been?) helped by a $1/year lease, in a situation where there was zero disclosure or transparency of who initiated the lease, or who was to be the primary beneficiaries.
The crazy plane saga was definitely an unexpected route, to have discovery, with the questions still unresolved.

doubledog said:

---

davido said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Did that party or individual have the authority to award such a good deal? Did that party or individual vet any other potentials lessees? Was that party or individual the present Mayor of Bryan?

---

You say "the party or individual" as if we don't know who awarded it. For those following along, we already know. Spoiler alert, it was the Bryan Business Council, as listed in the posted lease document. Maybe you've heard of them? They're an economic development non-profit based in Bryan.

---

As discussed, the BBC representative knew nothing about this lease (EAGLE). Am I wrong?

---

Yes, either you or the Eagle are misquoting the BBC based on what wtaw reported. The BBC claims they didn't know Gutierrez was Rafter D's client nor that Rafter D was using the property to hold Gutierrez's cattle.

And it seems like instead of insisting that he stop that potential ethics violation after finding out, given the cows are still happily grazing, they're just hoping that we're cool with the explanation that they found out the same way we did lol.

Like Danny has mentioned, this is totally different from how these things are handled in my work place.

techno-ag said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

GSS said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

And? Just because it all happened before he was mayor still doesn't make it right today.

---

Point being non-voting member would have had no actual say on the grazing lease.

---

No actual say, or no official say? Those are wildly different things.

---

I think they are the same. Without an official say, you can only influence. I'm not suggesting he didn't have influence.

Doubledog suggested that the now mayor could have made the lease agreement. Seems like the board of BBC would have to approve any lease agreement, and the now mayor didn't have a vote. Obviously, he has some amount of influence and could have argued that the lease was good, but ultimately the voting board members had to agree.

The further implication in double dog's post that the now mayor signed a lease of BBC land without any authority to do so behind the back of the board is a big stretch.

---

Just ignore Doubledog's post, this post from yesterday, by "Danny Duberstein", is a great summary of the situation..

"This thread is an example of why these incestuous govt arrangements shouldn't exist at all. There should be no conflicts of interest in appearance or in fact. People are well within their rights to question everything involved with this situation.

Do that and it doesn't need a waterboy"

---

How far do you go to avoid appearance?

Should the city council members, mayor, BBC board avoid doing business with any business that has a relationship with the CoB? Seems like that would be impossible.

Obviously, this situation is suspicious. But there could even be issues around a city council member getting a discount on catering for a wedding from a caterer that does significant business with the city. Does the caterer have to disclose all their customers when bidding on a city event? Should the city council members disclose all businesses they do business with?

---

Not only that, if no serious money changes hands, is there really anything suspicious going on? The lease looks much more like a measure of convenience than graft to me.

---

No "serious money" changed hands because the lease is only $1. That's part of the problem

techno-ag said:

---

And even if the board decided to lease the property at double the state average, we're still not talking about a lot of money.

---

It is not about the amount of money... It is the access to the "insider" deals... Who has access and why? This is the heart of the ethical problem of government officials awarding such "leases" to "known and trusted" individuals.

You avoid appearance thru a couple of methods:

1) Obviously just avoiding entangling altogether is best

But when necessary, you need:
1) 100% clarity and transparency from the moment it is being considered thru today
2) upfront approvals of relationships - with again, MASSIVE transparency effort
3) Robust action plans to monitor the relationship on-going.
4) every year it needs to be put back on the table in a very open and transparent forum, reviewed, and re-approved. This ensures any changes in circumstances are considered and that everyone remains aware of what is out there

Across the US, this is an often abused area, taxpayers get fleeced, and lots of local politicians have gone to jail for misdeeds. So it should be painful to do business in a potential conflict situation and it should involve a constant microscope.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

You avoid appearance thru a couple of methods:

1) Obviously just avoiding entangling altogether is best

But when necessary, you need:
1) 100% clarity and transparency from the moment it is being considered thru today
2) upfront approvals of relationships - with again, MASSIVE transparency effort
3) Robust action plans to monitor the relationship on-going.
4) every year it needs to be put back on the table in a very open and transparent forum, reviewed, and re-approved. This ensures any changes in circumstances are considered and that everyone remains aware of what is out there

Across the US, this is an often abused area, taxpayers get fleeced, and lots of local politicians have gone to jail for misdeeds. So it should be painful to do business in a potential conflict situation and it should involve a constant microscope.

---

How do we know the lease was awarded in secret? I bet it was awarded in one of their regular meetings. I seriously doubt they're conspiring in secret.

I didn't say it was "in secret", but there is clearly a ****load of confusion about what is going on. Not exactly transparent when the mayor's own lawyer is apparently confused

That said, if it was truly transparent, then surely you can easily find where it was reviewed and approved and could post a link to it. Should be in an agenda or in some minutes, right?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I didn't say it was "in secret", but there is clearly a ****load of confusion about what is going on. Not exactly transparent when the mayor's own lawyer is apparently confused

That said, if it was truly transparent, then surely you can easily find where it was reviewed and approved and could post a link to it. Should be in an agenda or in some minutes, right?

---

Item 6 -
Review list of Known and Trusted cattlemen and choose one to maintain the grass on Jones rd.