Conflict of Interest

Richard Schoephoerster is both the Dean of the College of Engineering at UTEP and the Chairman of the Public Service Board. Recent open record requested documents clearly show a conflict of interest with regard to the UTEP Reclaimed Water Project and his role as Chairman of the PSB.

As I reported in an earlier post, my first ORR to the EPWU came up short. I made a second request. Frankly, the response to it seems to be lacking as well. Nevertheless, there are some email exchanges that demonstrate that Schoephoerster was very much engaged in inappropriate persuasion for the UTEP project and, in so doing, failed to act as a fiduciary for the PSB/EPWU, his sworn duty.

Although Shoephoerster recused himself as both Chair and voting member when the project was discussed at the PSB in August and again in September, behind the scenes he was quite active in promoting it. His enthusiasm became apparent publicly at the last EPWU strategic planning meeting when he attempted to shut down any discussion that was negative about the Centennial Park project or reclaimed water in general. Although reclaimed water is subsidized, Schoephoerster used some pretty creative sophistry to suggest that it isn't. He recused himself from voting at a PSB meeting prior to the strategic planning meeting, but was quite engaged in the discussion during strategic planning and used his position as Chair to shut down any discussion of doubts raised by PSB member, Dr. Richard Bonart. After the PSB failed to support the project at its September meeting, Schoephoerster exhibited what can only be called peevishness. He very much personally owned the issue.

In fact as shown by ORR docusments, Schoephoerster put together "talking points" for the project. His "talking points" came in the form of a resolution as if he were drafting the motion for a vote. When asked by UTEP Executive Vice President Richard Adauto why he used the form of a resolution, Dr. Schoephoerster at first quipped in an email: "Artistic license? :)" Less than 3 hours later in a follow-up email, he wrote: "I used the 'resolution' form just as a way to organize the information." Ingenuous? CYA? In that same follow-up email to Adauto, the Dean of Engineering and Chairman of the PSB added a P.S.: "David Crowder [El Paso Inc.] is doing a story in next week's Inc. He asked to speak with me but I told him I have no comment due to conflict of interest." No comment to Crowder, but a resolution to Adauto and Balliew. 

He highlights two of his "whereas clauses". In both he touts the "education opportunity to thousands [my emphasis] of UTEP students, faculty, staff and visitors annually" and states that the project "will educate thousands [again my emphasis] of students and their families, along with faculty, staff, and community stakeholders, on responsible water management including the use of reclaimed water."

Nevermind the grandiosity of the resolution, the fact that the program showed no benefit cost, was obviously going to be subsidized by ratepayers (you and me), championed a methodology (reclaimed water) which shows dubious and expensive results and says nothing about rainwater management and capture - a better strategy. What was not noted was the fact that waste (read "crap") from the project would not be recycled at UTEP but would instead go back to the NW Plant to be re-processed - a double whammy not included in the cost overruns. Oh - sorry - they didn't show any cost overruns.

Schoephoerster's resolution is rhetoric with very little sense of reality. He is promoting a program. Why? Missing in the second set of documents (and I requested communications as far back as January 2012) was any discussion of the origin of the project. We are led to believe that it just came to mind and just came to many minds at the same time.

Obviously as early as December 2012 there was some talk about justifying the Centennial Park/UTEP Water Reclamation project. An email from government relations consultant John O'Donnell to Ed Archuleta and others talks about the "[use] of reclaimed water on lands at UTEP" as "another way UTEP and EPWU collaborate to provide a water supply to benefit the University, City and Fort Bliss for environmental and economic sustainability in the high desert." The collaboration with UTEP benefits the City and Fort Bliss? How? Again a program of rainwater capture and management would be much better and more cost effective. Students at UTEP can always go to EPWU reclaimed plants off campus. 

Whatever the origin (and it would seem that it may take a court subpoena finally to get all of the relevant documents especially noting the apparent attempt by EPWU legal to shield Schoephoerster from the first request), the Dean of Engineering was very much involved in seeing that the PSB approve the project. In so doing, he was acting not as a sworn member of the PSB but as a Dean seeking a showcase project (those thousands and thousands of students and their parents). His actions would seem to violate Texas and El Paso ethics laws.

By the way, there is one more interesting twist to Schoephoerster's turning down an interview with David Crowder. An old communications policy of the EPWU/PSB states that only the Chair of the PSB, the CEO and the Vice-President of Marketing can respond to media requests. When a request is made to another board member, that member must turn the request over to the Chair, CEO and VP of Marketing. News is controlled and channeled that way. By denying an interview, Schoephoerster is attempting to shut down press coverage negative to his pet project. Crowder in a September 8, 2013 Inc. article reports on the questions raised about the UTEP project by Dr. Richard Bonart.  On the agenda for tomorrow's PSB meeting the communications policy will be discussed in executive session. Why discuss it in the privacy of executive session and not out in the open with the public present? Could this be an effort to get back at Bonart for dissenting on the UTEP project? The only reason why it would be behind closed doors and away from the public is because it may very well be a means of retaliation. Here's the policy and it needs to be abolished or changed since it comes from an old leadership style that wants no transparency, utilizes subterfuge and makes decisions in the dark behind closed doors:

PSB Communications Policy 

PSB members swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States . . . " I guess that the First Amendment is just too darn inconvenient to be covered by the oath.

It would seem that Schoephoerster violated his fiduciary duty and should resign as Chair and member of the PSB. Discussions about communications policies should be made in the open.