Celebrate Texas Independence?

San Antonio Express News

June 7, 2018   Scott Huddleston

A new $450 million re-imagination of the Alamo seeks to triple the size of its historic plaza at the heart of downtown and turn what now is a cramped, touristy experience into what one design consultant called a shaded, parklike “place of reverence and learning.”

The new proposal, put forth Thursday by the city, the General Land Office and the nonprofit Alamo Endowment, envisions closing parts of three streets to traffic, demolishing up to four buildings and moving the 1930s Cenotaph.

It will be shown June 18-21 during three days of public hearings and could be approved as an interpretive plan by the City Council this fall.

The plan would expand outdoor walking space in the plaza from 3 to 9 acres, with emphasis on views of the famed Alamo church and offer cafe seating amid rows of trees.

Highlights of the proposal

Vertical glass walls no longer proposed

Partial closure of Alamo, Houston and Crockett streets

Expanded Alamo Plaza to function as open-air museum

Make Losoya Street two-way

Relocate Cenotaph

Possible demolition of plaza buildings

Construction of 135,000-square-foot museum

Replicated cannon station at Alamo’s southwest corner

Lowering of ground to exhibit historic architecture

Removal of curbs, other impediments to pedestrian access

Addition of shade trees in plaza

Removal of 1930s Alamo Arcade

Replacement of stone wall with fence around Alamo Garden

Interpretation, to be determined, of historic acequias

Interaction with greeters or docents in the plaza

Curbs and steps would be removed. In some places, the ground would be lowered by 16 inches to its historic level to fully expose the base of the church and Long Barrack and footings of the historic outer walls of the compound that could be shown in outdoor exhibits through a translucent surface.

Removal of traffic from the streets, including Alamo and Crockett streets, around the Alamo remains the cornerstone of the plan, but with two new proposals: closure of part of Houston Street, and conversion of a stretch of Losoya Street to two-way traffic.

“That has to be endorsed, or else we can’t do this,” said Doug Reed, principal with Reed-Hilderbrand Landscape Architects, one of three out-of-state consultants that developed the plan.

The Cenotaph, which has become a contentious point of focus, would be moved about 500 feet to a spot of “greater prominence,” officials told the San Antonio Express-News.

An earlier proposal to move the nearly 60-foot-tall monument about two blocks to a pocket park on Market Street drew vehement opposition last year from Alamo defender descendants and other Texans. Some still feel it should be repaired, but returned to the center of Alamo Plaza, where it has stood since it was dedicated in 1940.

Under the new plan, the Cenotaph would be disassembled, then rebuilt with a new steel frame on the approximate site of a gazebo that now stands in front of the Menger Hotel.

In that spot, it would be treated with reverence and seen by everyone entering through a promenade from the south, design officials said.

The Cenotaph’s current location, the one people are accustomed to, is “out of context for the point in time” when the siege and battle for Texas independence occurred in 1836, City Manager Sheryl Sculley said. She called the new proposed Cenotaph location a thoughtful compromise.

“We took that input that we heard from the community, and this location we think better matches the overall context of what is trying to be explained about the centuries of development at that site,” Sculley said.

A proposal to raze the Woolworth’s Building at 518 E. Houston St. already has drawn the ire of preservationists.

The building, which once housed the first lunch counter in the South to desegregate in 1960, was listed in 2016 by one advocacy group, Preservation Texas, as one of the “most endangered places” in the state. It’s one of three structures in Alamo Plaza, along with the Palace and Crockett buildings, that the Texas General Land Office purchased in 2015.

Those buildings now house amusement attractions that are viewed by many as irreverent. The city is working on creation of an entertainment district where they could be relocated. But officials are not sure the three buildings can function together as a unified museum without being gutted.

Eric Kramer, principal with Reed-Hilderbrand, said the design team is looking at a range of options, including one that keeps all three buildings intact.

“The lunch counter and the desegregation story is an important one,” Kramer said. “And our study of removing that building isn’t one about erasing that story. It’s just a question of how it should be told on that site.”

The plan also proposes demolitions of buildings at 301 and 307 Alamo Plaza that house Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Odditorium, Louis Tussaud’s Waxworks and Ripley’s Moving Theater, to provide open space by a replicated cannon station at the Alamo’s southwest corner. An 18-pound cannon was fired three from the Alamo in response to Santa Anna’s call for surrender to start a 13-day siege.

Frank Ruttenberg, a lawyer and member of group that owns both buildings, serves on the 26-member Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee, said he was unsure of a plan that includes tearing down the buildings.

“To the extent that people talk about buildings coming down, I would say that I always think it’s better to not take down history to focus on a certain part of history,” he said after the draft site plan was presented to the committee.

The plan will be the shown at more public meetings later this month. The public-private project, including construction of a 135,000-square-foot museum complex and repairs to the mission-era Long Barrack and Alamo church, have been estimated to cost up to $450 million.

At the meeting Thursday night, the committee invited responses from many of its members, but did not take comment the public. Nonetheless, some people in the audience of about 200 expressed disapproval at the mention of moving the Cenotaph as well as closing down the streets and converting Losoya to two-way.

Kramer’s suggestion that the Cenotaph could be moved outside the mission footprint was met with a chorus of “No” from some.

One was Jane Klein.

“We don’t want it moved,” she said. “It was put there for a reason: It’s the gravestone for the tomb. … And it might get damaged if we move it.”

Anthony Edwards, a member of the advisory board, questioned the removal of the Woolworth’s building in particular. He wasn’t confident that its history could be adequately preserved without the building itself.

“The Woolworth’s building, for me as an African-American, that’s symbolic as the first place to move toward de-segregating,” Edwards said. “I’m kind of torn there as to whether that should be torn down or not.”

If the latest plan wins general support of stakeholders and the public, it could be presented to the City Council in the fall for adoption of an interpretive plan and an agreement with the state on management of the plaza.

“We’re not in the design stage yet. We’re still thinking strategically about broad concepts and how to resolve those broad issues in great ways,” said John Kasman, vice president of PGAV Destinations.

One such broad concept that some feel has not been addressed appropriately by the Alamo is the matter of painting its history as a “winners and losers” dichotomy.

George Cisneros, anothr member of the advisory committee, said the Alamo site should do more to correct misconceptions fostered by Hollywood representations and other legends.

“It’s always given as a good-versus-bad scenario. There were patriotic, heroic, brave young men who died on the outside of the wall defending their country. We never talk about those men,” he said.

When key concepts of an Alamo master plan were revealed publicly in April 2017, many criticized a concept of enclosing the plaza with interpretive glass walls. That idea has been withdrawn. Design officials said they also have tried to respond to concerns raised about shade, treatment of the Cenotaph, openness and access to the plaza and the impact of street closures on downtown traffic.

“I hope that we’ve come up with some design solutions that have really tried to address the tensions,” said Doug McDonald, Alamo CEO.

The Legislature has committed about $100 million for the plan, including $75 million appropriated last year, while the city has pledged $38 million in capital or voter-approved bond funds. The endowment has said it intends to privately raise at least $200 million. But officials have not said whether the latest changes might affect the final cost. The project would be completed by 2024 — 300 years after the Mission San Antonio de Valero moved to its third and final site, where it became a Spanish fort known as “El Alamo” in the early 1800s.

Susan Beavin, president of the San Antonio Conservation Society, has seen the plan, and is worried about several things, including demolitions, street closures and access to the plaza for Fiesta parades.

“I see there certainly are a lot of bones of contention,” she said.

As for the Cenotaph, the society’s leadership voted last September, deciding it should stay put. The group has not had time to consider the latest proposal for the monument, which depicts the work of sculptor Pompeo Coppini, titled, “The Spirit of Sacrifice.”

Gary Foreman, a historical Alamo re-enactor and filmmaker who has lobbied for decades for an extensive makeover of the plaza to duplicate the 1836 fort as much as possible, said he supports moving the Cenotaph, which he said takes up too much room for interpretive and educational activities in the plaza, where the main courtyard of the battle compound had been.

He also favors demolition of post-battle structures to help visitors remember the Alamo — the end goal since the 1980s, when people began calling for a more reverent, engaging battle site.

“People need to remember how this started before they find things to criticize,” Foreman said.

Scott Huddleston is a San Antonio Express-News staff writer. Read more of his stories here. | [email protected] | @shuddlestonSA

Texas Tribune

June 4, 2018    Ross Ramsey

As the election season rolls on, keep this in mind when Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush opens his mouth: The officeholder from the state’s best-known political family certainly knows how to spin a story.

Back in February, Bush was in a noisy Republican primary fight with his predecessor, Jerry Patterson. Among other things, Patterson is an Alamo buff. He has made it abundantly clear that he thinks Bush has mismanaged things at that monument. And he got some support for that view from a draft of an internal audit critical of the “structure and funding model” at the Alamo put in place by the General Land Office.

“Internal” is an important word in the previous sentence. That draft audit — along with the final version that came out this week — was issued by the internal auditor in Bush’s own agency. That’s what internal auditors are supposed to do: to tell you when there’s spinach on your teeth, toilet paper stuck to your shoe, oddities in your accounting and so on.

They point things out to management. Management is supposed to clean things up.

The draft audit was first revealed by the Austin American-Statesman in early February, and other reporters caught up with the land commissionerto see what he thought about it. “I can’t really comment on the document,” Bush said at the time. “I cannot disclose, but we do have evidence that it was a doctored memo.”

Here’s the lead paragraph from the draft audit — also the lead paragraph of the final audit:

“GLO should reconsider the structure and funding model it uses for operating the Alamo. A contractor performs the daily operations, but it uses state resources to do this, as it does not have its own funds or other assets. This is an unusual situation that has created complexity and a lack of clarity regarding the nature and the use of the funds used for Alamo operations. It is also the root cause of several of the observations in this report.”

The land commissioner’s suggestion that the draft memo was “doctored” temporarily sunk the stories about his management of the Alamo, for the most part, and it did so at a critical time: Less than two weeks later, early voting in the primary elections began. Bush easily won the nomination for another term with more than 58 percent of the vote. Patterson ran second in that four-candidate race, pulling in just under 30 percent.

Now that the final audit is out, you can audit the land commissioner’s political spin. Give him an A-plus. While the leaked draft didn’t foul his re-election bid, the final document is both direct and damning — not the sort of thing a politician wants on his report card to the public:

“We determined that the financial formation and accounting of the Alamo Complex fund did not comply with state requirements,” the auditor wrote. “Also, not all contract requirements of the agreement to operate the Alamo are being met. In addition, controls over budgeting, expenditures, contracting, and reconciliations should be strengthened.”

They made several recommendations to straighten things out.

Auditors typically give space to the people and organizations under the microscope, a place to make arguments, to disagree or to point out things the auditors might have missed. In this audit, the top line sort of slams the door: “Management concurs with the recommendations.”

Managing the Alamo is going to be noisy, no matter who’s in charge. It’s a Texas shrine, and between various factions of historic preservationists, political interests, tourism promoters and people and groups disrupted by the GLO’s efforts to modernize operations and spruce up the site, it’s the subject of a long-lasting, ongoing rumble.

That rumble is a management issue, and Bush is the top guy at the agency in charge. It’s his job. But the hat he was wearing earlier this year was that of a politician, not a manager, and the spin he applied at the time did what he needed it to do: It put off the spanking detailed in the final audit until now — long after the primaries where Patterson was a threat.

The delay helped, but didn’t put the issue of the Alamo to bed. Just read the day-after-the-audit emails from Miguel Suazo, the Democrat challenging Bush in the fall: “It clearly demonstrates that George P. Bush is in over his head and lacks the competence to manage our state’s most historic landmark.”

He sounds like Jerry Patterson, doesn’t he?

San Antonio Express-News

May 31, 2018   Scott Huddleston

A final audit addressing financial operations at the Alamo is in the crossfire of a battle between Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and the Democratic candidate hoping to unseat him.

Bush called the audit and resulting changes by the General Land Office “a deep dive into the Alamo’s financial management policies.”

But his opponent in the Nov. 6 general election, Miguel Suazo, has said the audit should concern everyone who cares about the mission and battle site.

“It clearly demonstrates that George P. Bush is in over his head and lacks the competence to manage our state’s most historic landmark,” Suazo said hours after the Land Office released its internal audit Thursday.

The Land Office, which has endured criticism over a public-private master plan to repair the Alamo’s two 1700s structures, add a museum and refurbish Alamo Plaza as a reverent battleground by 2024, expects to enter an agreement by July 1 with the nonprofit Alamo Trust Inc. to provide daily operations at the state-owned Alamo grounds.

Since 2015, the Land Office has contracted with the Alamo Endowment to help with preservation, management, operation and restoration of the Alamo. That same year, the endowment created the Alamo Trust as a subsidiary and assigned it responsibility for the Alamo operations.

For the first time, the Alamo Trust, which replaced the Daughters of the Republic of Texas as operator of the Texas shrine, will have a management agreement requiring accounting and operational best practices recommended in the audit, GLO officials said. In a news release, Bush said the audit “represents a cultural shift in the oversight of the Alamo’s financial management policies.”

“Many of the recommendations have already been implemented while others are being fulfilled through the implementation of a new Alamo management contract with the Alamo Trust,” Bush said.

Land Office officials said the state agency, assigned oversight of the Alamo by the Legislature in 2011, hired three people with experience in finance for state agencies to oversee Alamo accounting and report to the Land Office’s chief financial officer.

It plans by Sept. 1 to have new policies in place regarding budgeting, purchasing and contracting, including timely reimbursements of operating costs, an electronic purchase-order system, monthly bank reconciliations and vetting of contractors to avoid conflicts of interest.

But Suazo, an Austin-based attorney specializing in energy and natural resources, said vulnerabilities exposed in the audit are disturbing.

According to the report, the Alamo Trust and Land Office did not fully comply or have systems in place regarding procurement, daily deposits into the state treasury and timely requests for and payment of replenishment funds, among other areas.

“This means that the Alamo is also risking the misuse of taxpayer funds,” Suazo said.

The flare-up is the first major one between Bush and Suazo over the Alamo. Suazo favors portions of the Alamo master plan, including closure of the plaza to traffic and relocation of amusement businesses in the plaza, to provide an atmosphere that respects the memory of hundreds of men killed in the battle on March 6, 1836.

But unlike Bush, who terminated the DRT’s Alamo operations contract in 2015, Suazo has vowed to negotiate a contract with the Daughters to manage the site, with “final authority” resting with the land commissioner.

·

Alamo audit recommends ‘operational changes’

The Daughters had been custodians of the site since 1905, but were the subject of a 16-month attorney general’s investigation into alleged mismanagement that began in 2010.

A draft version of the GLO audit was leaked to the media in February, prior to March 6 primary elections for commissioner.

Bush fended off an election challenge by former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, but not without enduring criticism from Patterson and others, including state senators, about confusion and lack of openness involving the Land Office’s role at the Alamo in conjunction with the Alamo Trust.

Bush since has resigned from the Alamo Trust board to avoid a conflict. The board held its first quarterly meeting that was open to the public on May 16.

The Alamo has incurred troubles in the past related to errors or questionable expenses.

In February, the San Antonio Express-News, through a Public Information Act request, obtained an electronic scan of a check for $65,078 to the trust from the Remember the Alamo Foundation — another Alamo Endowment subsidiary created to raise funds privately for the Alamo master plan. GLO officials said the check corrected an error by Alamo accountants regarding personnel expenses.

Last year, another document obtained by the Express-News listed more than $1,600 in personal expensesmade by an Alamo manager that did not qualify for reimbursement. The manager, who resigned but agreed to repay the trust, had made personal expenses that were unauthorized, or for which there were no receipts, using a credit card issued by the nonprofit. They included restaurant tabs, a painting and several unspecified purchases on Amazon.

Scott Huddleston is a San Antonio Express-News staff writer. Read more of his stories here. | [email protected] | @shuddlestonSA

Scott Huddleston

Staff Writer | San Antonio Express-News