SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

09/23/2025

In the next few days, the Houston Chronicle will publish an article in regards to contributions to County Commissioners and the Harris County Judge. This “investigation” (a great “clickbait” word…) uses a tried and true media technique that suggests or implies or leads someone to believe that something might be askew. The technique creates great headlines and sells a few more papers. This post should also help them in their efforts.

The upcoming article concerns from whom and how we receive campaign contributions. I should note that in my elections, I have answered these questions before. Afterwards, I was endorsed by the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board each time.

Here is a portion of the email my office received around lunchtime last Friday that I was asked to respond to no later than Tuesday (another great media technique). The full email is posted below:

* How would you respond to allegations that the relationship between contributors and contractors is a clear conflict of interest? 
* How would you respond to allegations of a quid pro quo relationship between county contractors and commissioners?
* Anything you would like to point out or highlight?
* Do you believe county campaign finance laws should be reformed? 
* Would you support legislation that set expenditure and donation limits for county campaigns? 

So what the Houston Chronicle is “investigating” is something they have published in the past on at least two occasions. They’re investigating something that has a clear and transparent process. In my case – in which I receive donations from engineers (some in that group of friends and co-workers I’ve known for decades!), the Chronicle is suggesting that those engineers are donating for quid pro quo relationships that they have taken an oath against. Doing so would cost them their licenses, their business, and their profession.

So in FULL TRANSPARENCY – AGAIN – here is my response. It’s long and detailed but I think it’s important to fully explain how off base the Houston Chronicle is on this.

First, to their questions:
* How would you respond to allegations that the relationship between contributors and contractors is a clear conflict of interest? 

A classic “gotcha” media trick. My response is: WHO is making allegations? HOW is it clear? That I am a current professional licensed engineer whose friends and acquaintances are also in the position of working with the county – why is there an automatic assumption something must be wrong? If someone is alleging there is a conflict of interest, have they not contacted the County Attorney or a state representative? We listen to hours of testimony every meeting and I can honestly not recall this subject coming up once at Commissioners Court?  

This (Houston Chronicle?) alleged conflict of interest can’t happen and I’ll explain shortly the processes put in place to avoid the very thing the paper is questioning.

* How would you respond to allegations of a quid pro quo relationship between county contractors and commissioners?

Again, who (is anyone…?) making these allegations?

* Anything you would like to point out or highlight?

Here we go… I’ll start by saying my personal ethics and integrity are on full display in my life. I’m proud of the way I represent myself, my family, my Faith and my profession.

In Harris County, vendors who do work with the county are usually selected by a department like Flood Control or HCTRA or Engineering or other departments.

COMMISSIONERS DON’T SELECT CONTRACTORS.

Once they go through the bidding process, those recommendations go to the Purchasing Department for further review. Then the final recommendation is brought to Commissioners Court for our vote to approve or vote down the recommendation.

In the case of engineers and other vendors, there is a Qualifications-Based Selection. That is a procurement method where the County selects a service provider, such as an architect or engineer, based on their qualifications, experience, and demonstrated competence rather than on price alone. The reason we do this is because building roads and bridges and pipelines and hospitals, etc. are infrastructure that can do great good and when done poorly, can cause great harm. That’s why following the death of hundreds of students and teachers in a school in East Texas in 1937, the State of Texas enacted the Engineering Registration Act (now rewritten as the Texas Engineering Practice Act).

A summary of it defines the Act as “professional engineering services” and the types of work that must be performed or supervised by a licensed engineer. The primary intent of the Act is to safeguard the public by ensuring only qualified individuals are entrusted with practicing engineering. It establishes grounds for disciplinary actions against license holders for misconduct, negligence, or violations of the Act. It provides the regulatory board with the authority to enforce the laws and rules, which may include suspension or loss of license and other penalties. Finally, it mandates that engineers uphold a high standard of moral and technical conduct. Texas requires a separate ethics exam based on the Act and board rules to ensure understanding of these requirements. 

So in essence, the Houston Chronicle, in this “investigation”, is suggesting that engineering firms in Harris County are ignoring everything they’ve sworn to – providing safe work, with the highest professional ethics, and risking the possibility of never working again if violated. They’re suggesting that individually engineers are not ethical and moral. They’re suggesting the worst – without any evidence of any wrongdoing – so that you will keep your subscription.

Finally, I won’t speak for the others on court but they are questioning my commitment to my professional oath as an Engineer, my professional standards, my obligation to my profession and living and they’re suggesting my role as your representative is not what it appears to be. 

I take offense to their insinuations.

* Do you believe county campaign finance laws should be reformed? 
* Would you support legislation that set expenditure and donation limits for county campaigns? 

My answer to these two questions is the same: I will represent the will of Harris County residents.

Again, systems are already in place to highlight the donor/recipient relationship and prevent what the Chronicle is suggesting from happening. You can see my donors (and others) here:
https://ethics.harrisvotes.com/CampaignFinanceReports/COR.aspx

These quarterly reports are filed so that anyone can view the “who and what” of the process. They are filed with Harris County and any discrepancies are ultimately enforced by the State of Texas.

To be clear, as my record shows, I believe we should be as transparent as possible. I question the selective nature, however, of the Houston Chronicle when it comes to “investigations”. As I’ve been saying from the County dais for 6 years, there have been lots of instances where investigations and audits should be initiated. In my opinion, the Chronicle has overlooked or worse, ignored, obvious situations where they could have dug a little deeper. For instance, on this very topic, why are donors from other states involved in our local elections and local races?

I hope this answers their (re-hashed) questions on this topic. My desire for transparency in our county is on the record. Again and again and again. I chose to answer their email openly and in public so that my answers aren’t edited or selectively picked in order to fit a bias intended or not.

I take my responsibility representing Precinct 3 as the honor that it is and will always do what is in the best interest of the residents. 

To be questioned is welcomed. Be ready for answers.

———————————————————————————————————————

The entire email received from the Houston Chronicle (names and contact information have been left out for obvious reasons):

Hello! 

The Houston Chronicle has, over the past several months, analyzed the Jul. 15 campaign finance reports for the five members of Commissioners Court. Donors were cross referenced with publicly available contract records to determine what share of contributions came from individuals who had done business with the county. 

Our investigation found that at least 97% of Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s contributions (calculated in dollars and not number of contributions) included in the Jul. 15 report (the Chronicle did not include contributions from previous reporting periods) came from individuals or entities that have done business with the county. “Done business with the county” in this context refers to any business or individual who was awarded a Harris County contract while the commissioner was in office.  Additionally, only contributions over $1,000 were evaluated for the purposes of this article.

We are planning to publish an article detailing our findings for all five members of commissioners court late next week. We would like to extend the opportunity to you to issue a statement (no later than Tuesday) responding to the following questions:

* How would you respond to allegations that the relationship between contributors and contractors is a clear conflict of interest? 
* How would you respond to allegations of a quid pro quo relationship between county contractors and commissioners?
* Anything you would like to point out or highlight?
* Do you believe county campaign finance laws should be reformed? 
* Would you support legislation that set expenditure and donation limits for county campaigns? 

Please note, the article scheduled to run for next week will include our findings for all five members of commissioners court and is not limited to any one individual.

Thanks, and please don’t hesitate to reach out should you have any questions or concerns.