As unbelievable as this sounds, it appears to be against the law for you to talk to your city representative about a proposed purchase or project until the item is placed on the agenda or during a public meeting.
The city ordinance is number 16300, you can read it here. It was later amended (but not the part I am addressing).
Let’s say the city publishes a Request for Proposals (RFP) to buy a new chimney sweeper for our local smokestack.
You think that is an unwise use of our money. Do not contact anyone at the city and tell them what you think–it looks like it is against the law.
Section 2.94.090 D reads:
- “During the period of solicitation for requests for proposal (RFP), qualifications (RFQ), highest qualified bid (best value), source selection, or the giving of a notice of a proposed project, which shall begin on the day that it is advertised and end on the date that the notice of the award has been sent to the City Clerk for placement on the agenda, no person or registrant shall engage in any lobbying activities with city officials and employees.” (emphasis added)
Section 2.94.020 G defines lobbying as follows:
- “”Lobby” or “lobbying” means the solicitation of a City official, by private interview, postal or telephonic communications, or any other means other than public expression at a meeting of City officials open to the public under Chapter 551 (Open Meetings Act) of the Texas Government Code, directly or indirectly by person in an effort to influence or persuade the City official to favor or oppose, recommend or not recommend, vote for or against, or take action or refrain from taking action on a municipal question” (emphasis added).
Section 2.94.020 J defines a municipal question:
- “”Municipal question” means a public policy issue of a discretionary nature pending or impending before the city council, a legislative review commitee of the council, or any board, commission or committee set forth in Section 2.94.030 of this code, including but not limited to a proposed or proposal for an ordinance, resolution, motion, recommendation, report, regulation, policy appointment, sanction, bid, a request for proposal ...” (emphasis added)
Section 2.94.120 defines the penalty:
- “A person who knowingly or intentionally lobbies in violation of a provision of this chapter … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” (emphasis added)
The City Charter defines the penalty in Section 1.08.o10:
- “Whenever in this code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such code or ordinance the doing of any act is commanded or the failure to do any act is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, the violation of any such provision shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”
What is with these people? Since the agenda is published late Thursday afternoon and the City is closed on Friday, that only leaves you Monday to speak your piece before the City Council meeting. Try getting a meeting with them on Monday without prior notice.
The people down at city hall call this “The Cone of Silence”. Reminds me of the idiocy of Maxwell Smart and his special room that you can read about here if you are too young to remember.
You think that they would not use this to their advantage? Think again.
This is the kind of thing that I wish the El Paso Times would look into.
So if you have something to say wait for the City Council meeting. All I can offer you is “good luck”. Watch any City Council meeting and see how they disregard the public. Heck, they even disregard each other.
Unconstitutional! you say. It takes a judge to make a ruling. In the mean time:
We deserve better.
elpasospeak 
This ordinance reminds me of CATCH 22, which Joseph Heller aptly described in his novel about the insanity of the military and war. “Catch-22” was “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule.” Our local government and representatives have written the rule book in a way that prevents us from having a voice, so that they can go unquestioned until after they have done as they please.
Catch-22 was invoked throughout Heller’s novel to justify various bureaucratic actions that did not make sense. “Catch-22” basically said the military bureaucrats had “a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.” The new stadium is a perfect example; by the time citizens had a chance to be heard, the stadium was already a done deal, and citizens had been checkmated into voting for the hotel tax.
To borrow from Wikipedia, the protagonist comes to realize that Catch-22 does not actually exist, but because the powers that be claim it does, and the world believes it does, it nevertheless has potent effects. Because Catch 22 did not really exist, there was no way it could be repealed, undone, overthrown, or denounced. The combination of force with specious and spurious legalistic justification is one of the book’s primary motifs.
That’s where our local situation differs from Heller’s novel. In his story, Catch 22 did not exist. In our case, however, Catch-22 is a reality both in ordinances as well as in the behavior and practices of local government officials. But unlike the characters in Heller’s book, we do have the power to denounce, repeal, undo, overthrow, throw out, and take whatever steps are necessary to fix situations like the one you describe. We can stop this insanity — and we should.
LikeLike
I was told the cone of silence is only invokved for the businesses that actually bid/propose on a project. I don’t believe it keeps citizens from expressing an opinion on a bid – so long as they aren’t the actual bidder or related to the bidder. But – if you interpret the language literally your comments would be correct. Funny thing is the cone of silence is broken all the time by staff and rarely does anyone find out about it – especially the other bidders/proposers – who could then file a protest.
LikeLike