MissouriCityChatter: After 2 Years MUD-ECO Scandal Criminal Case Moves Forward-click title link for full FBN story-

Saturday, November 10, 2007

After 2 Years MUD-ECO Scandal Criminal Case Moves Forward-click title link for full FBN story-

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9:06 AM
responsible_dvlpmnt said...: Comments/opinion from fbn thread on this scandal:

1 Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D. - Nov 8, 01:05 PM
“one person acting alone…took advantage of a gap in the internal controls. Specifically, the contract manager was able to initiate, close and provide final review of service orders to a MUD, where she sought reimbursement for an item that was not linked to any labor, but was allegedly obtained for a MUD as an accommodation.”

I often wonder why this investigation wasn’t expanded to see if possible over-billing practices by others in the company contributed to these losses.

I would like to know more, since this impacts quite a few taxpayers in numerous MUDs around this county. Why did it take over two years to move this towards a criminal investigation? Why wasn’t there an external audit conducted and paid for by someone not linked with the company?

Questions, questions!

2 Rodrigo Carreon - Nov 9, 12:16 PM
It seems that this is the beginning of future scams to be identify later?

3 chris - Nov 9, 04:02 PM
It would be nice if an outside federal agency would please take a closer look into what seems to be foot dragging in this case. Further, why in the earlier civil cases were gag orders put in place? Still more questions…why aren’t the apparent conflicts of one law firm involved in the “damage control” being looked into also?

Yes, we need much, much more considering the sheer numbers of taxpayers that may have been apparent victims in all this, especially IF it isn’t only one single former manager of the company. I remember in our old neighborhood we had 12 MUDs, with only one under resident control (and the same vendor law firm). I contacted one member of the resident controlled MUD board and he said they were going with the reports from the vendor law firm (the same one that represents ECO). Can anyone say possible further conflicts?

Maybe the Travis county DA would investigate this one too?

4 Cheryl Hill - Nov 10, 10:17 AM
Although I am not condoning theft, but please somebody help me understand if youngsters are caught shoplifting something from a store, certainly not rising to the value of 100, 000 or 200,000 dollars, they run a greater risk of being not only caught, but being punished forevermore. In fact, youngsters often get cut down at the knees early in life because they don’t “really” understand life and the far reaching implications of how a “stupid act” could put them at risk forevermore for ruining life by lost opportunities and unfulfilled potential because of being unable to fill out a job application and strive for careers which would impact their lives for the better without having to check the box about have you ever committed a deed/crime involving moral turpitude.

That being said, a crime of this type as described above can occur because no one is watching because absolute credence is given to some; and, there are no checks and balances in place. This adult individual knew all about life and had the wonderful opportunity to fulfill her potential and become gainfully employed; on the other hand, our youngsters do not know about life and one stupid act can ruin their lives before life really begins for them. My guess is that very little will happen to this adult individual; yet, we devour our young for far less.

5 chris - Nov 10, 01:57 PM
“My guess is that very little will happen to this adult individual; yet, we devour our young for far less.”

Good point Cheryl. I think the reason much of this has taken so long is because only part of the story has ever been allowed released. Too many rich and politically connected for it to be anything else, IMO. As a matter of fact only FBN and FB Sun ever covered this scandal (and only FBN continues to keep us updated).

Maybe someday we will have more elected leaders that aren’t in it for the business as usual end and take the oath much more seriously. Until then we need to turn seats over as quickly as possible. It does get very old only seeing street level crime seriously prosecuted in fbc.

6 wadefishin - Nov 10, 02:18 PM
Chris
apparently you won’t be “satisfied” until someone hangs….what about the sob that used my credit cards?....selective justice?....you bet….

7 chris - Nov 10, 06:44 PM
wf,

It took two years for them to even address this. It hit me and many taxpayers and the company handled most of the original investigation. If you read up on this I would expect you to be angry too, but you are right, too many from the good ole boys network were involved in the damage control so you have to come out and defend them.

Keep it up, because it is way too obvious…the taxpayers and voters have every right to KNOW.

8 mudconcern - Nov 13, 11:22 AM
Maybe it is being worked the way it is because Ms. Treantham has a few things to say about her past employers practices. She is inteligent but not enough to come up with a method of stealing like this herself. I bet if she is put into a cage for any length of time she will sing. I see a prearrainged slap on the hand coming.

9 K D Tunstall - Nov 13, 01:51 PM
I keep thinking of the Beatles song – And Your Bird Can Sing.

10 chris - Nov 13, 04:38 PM
It would be nice if this investigation had been moved out of the county with all the potential conflicts.

11 StanPrince - Nov 14, 12:08 AM
How did she “allegedly” get the money transferred to her personally?

OK, if she made up a work-order, say for MUD 106 to acquire 400 widgets, at a cost of $10 each, and then she made up a fictitious vendor to supply the 400 widgets, e.g., WidgetsUSA, then she could order a check payable to WidgetsUSA, which is the name of an account she would have created at a bank, ECO Resourses would have cut the check and sent it to WidgetsUSA, which would be at an address she created.

QUESTION: Who’s minding the store at MUD 106?

Its like someone using my credit card. If I don’t examine my statement each month, and blindly send my check in, how would I know I might be getting ripped off.

The internal controls of ECO Resources seem to have been woefully deficient. But, the directors of MUD xxx were not being very diligent either if they didn’t catch this scam.

Am I missing something?

12 chris - Nov 14, 09:42 AM
“The internal controls of ECO Resources seem to have been woefully deficient. But, the directors of MUD xxx were not being very diligent either if they didn’t catch this scam.

Am I missing something?” Stan

These are all good points Stan and since we are opining on all this I might add a few myself. What if it was a larger billing problem that wasn’t limited to just one manager at Bob Hebert’s (chief county judge) old edc company? Why were gag orders issued in the very public related civil case by some of our notable fbc judges? Why isn’t the current criminal case being moved out of county? You are also right to be asking about some of the MUD boards and why many of them didn’t ask any further questions or seek outside audits. We lived in just such a neighborhood whose developer appointed MUD boards, all but 1 (and it’s still under the same vendor control that the developers put in place) accepted the story they were given without external checks. I guess just about any system can be manipulated but this foot dragging by our tax supported officials just leaves me wanting to know more. Additionally it concerns me when so many of our commissioners accept regular campaign finance support from so many of the companies involved in all this….but I guess that is just another, as Hebert claims, “conspiracy theory”....but it sure makes for very public perceptual problems (how’s that PPP). . . ; – ]

13 acemac - Nov 14, 11:08 AM
chris, i thought i’d been keeping up with this stuff pretty good and i never heard of any gag order in the civil case. you sure about htat or are you just making it up as you go, like with your line about the commissioners taking campaign contribs from involved companies. what companies? what company is involved except ECO? there aren’t any.

making wild claims lke these subtracts credibility from the good points you make. why embellish?

14 Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D. - Nov 14, 12:06 PM
Well as usual ace you put your foot in it again. Go back and read the FBN updates about the gag orders (dig just a little or read below, I did it for you). As for campaign finance just look at the MUD & ECO law firm (Allen, Humphries & Boone the law firm that represents many of the involved MUDs and ECO). They are on Heberts last few campaign finance disclosure statements and all three linked with our good friends (sarcasm intended) at the fbedc. There are many others, but you only need one to counter the empty claim from above (or is this just baiting for an interested party?).

Sorry you don’t like facts, but hey…(and guess what, no one is claiming any of these links are illegal, but certainly establish potential conflicts, which is why I keep suggesting that this should be moved out of county)...

See these for support ace (not all inclusive, but enough to make comments/opinion on). Yes I’ve followed this and will continue to:

Here’s a quote from just one of the articles you might like to try to refute:

“Sources recently indicated the losses may have greatly exceeded even that amount.” FBN (11/17/06)

&

“On March 15, 2006, ECO filed a petition to intervene in the case, which was heard in Fort Bend County 400th District Court before Judge Clifford Vacek.” FBN

&

““There is a justiciable controversy involving uncertainty or insecurity as to the rights, legal relations, and status of the parties that declaratory relief will resolve.” FBN

or

“MUD 9 countered in a March 28, 2006, answer to ECO’s petition that because of Trentham’s actions, “questions arose as to the internal controls in place by ECO Resources Inc., such as whether or not it was an isolated transaction, whether or not Trentham was acting alone or in conjunction with anyone else and the full extent of fraudulent activity. As a result, MUD 9 elected to pursue an independent audit and/or review of the internal controls” at ECO.” FBN

&

“MUD 9 requested back-up documentation from ECO for all invoices and service orders for the past four years, in order to determine the accuracy of the company’s billing, the court filing states. However, ECO has refused to produce those documents.” FBN

and the big one:

“About two months later, MUD 9, Trentham and ECO Resources filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning such a suit could not be brought again.

“The parties have entered into an agreement settling all matters in controversy between the parties and intervenors, and no longer desire to pursue this action,” the motion stated. Judge Vacek granted that motion on June 8.

Libby King, one of ECO’s attorneys in the case, said she could not discuss details of the settlement. Trentham’s attorney could not be reached, nor could officials from MUD 9.”

Sounds like the judge permitted a “gag” in this settlement, of course that’s not a legal term, but my opinion (which several attorneys agree with) on the report in this story (See http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2228/after-a-year-district-attorney-says-eco-fraud-case-may-be-investigated-by-rangers).

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/508/first-colony-mud-board-grills-eco-managers-over-billings

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/424/concerned-over-scam-pecan-grove-mud-wants-out-of-eco-contract

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/371/texas-rangers-may-investigate-mud-scam

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/300/accused-eco-employee-quits-planning-commission

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/289/eco-resources-discovers-employee-ran-mud-billing-scam

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/306/fired-eco-resources-manager-sued-for-fraud

http://www.fortbendnow.com/business/495/audit-firm-sheds-light-on-workings-of-eco-billing-scam

How’s that ace for refutation. Do you have more questions, slurs, put-downs…spin?; 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: More:

15 acemac - Nov 14, 12:09 PM
chris, you’ve just confirmed that there was no gag order in the civil case.

a gag order is when a judge prohibits people involved in the case from talking about it.

about 99% of the time both sides refuse to discuss the terms of a civil settlement.

that’s not a gag order.

better check the end of that foot to see whose leg it’s attached to.

16 chris - Nov 14, 12:17 PM
Sorry you don’t like lay terminology. I suppose it is an embarassment to be called on the mat and then have so much supporting documentation put in print for you. What’s wrong, you don’t count the AHB connection as a company? That was your other BIG easily refutable point….keep trying. I will keep posting and keep watching the stories and potential conflicts. BTW, what is your interest or connection to all this. Stan asked some great questions as a taxpayer, but you appear to have another motive (such as attack the message or messenger)... ;- }

PS – The judge presides over the case and any settlement. He must sign off on the contract, therefore supporting the earlier claim. I still say this case should not be heard in fbc with all the possible conflicts, what do you say?; 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5:14 AM

MissouriCityChatter

Saturday, November 10, 2007

After 2 Years MUD-ECO Scandal Criminal Case Moves Forward-click title link for full FBN story-

5 Comments:

Previous Posts