False promises

April 14, 2016

I don’t know if anyone could make this stuff up.

The City of El Paso Downtown Development Corporation (aka city council in sheep’s clothing) met on March 17, 2015.

According to the minutes published last week one thing that happened was:

“Motion made by Board Director Romero, seconded by Board Director Niland, and unanimously carried to HOLD meetings bi-annually, twice a year.”

They have not done that, or if they have they have not published any public agendas or minutes.

In fact they next met April 11 of 2016.  An agenda item for that meeting was the approval of the March 17, 2015 minutes.

Bi-annually

Bi-annually evidently means talking out of two sides of their mouths.

We deserve better

Brutus


Being unappreciated

April 13, 2016

Maybe I’ve been insensitive.

Our former city manager responded via letter to the mayor’s inquiry.  In it she wrote:

“I basically sacrificed my career for the ballpark project because I bore the brunt of the intense political fallout associated with it.”

Good grief!

Her statement shows numerous flaws in her character and thinking.

Let’s start with these:

If there was intense political fallout it was because the public did not approve of what she did.

Her career is not over.  She has a nice cushy job paid for with the public dime.

She has shown no remorse over what she did to us, in fact she has been openly defiant of attempts to find out what happened.

She claims to have sacrificed her career over an unnecessary expenditure when our city wants for many necessities.

We are told that she is paid $142,000 per year in her new job and receives another $60,000 per year as a city retiree.  She might also be receiving social security retirement benefits.

Meriam-Webster define sacrifice this way:  “the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone”.  I guess most of us would agree with her when explained this way.

We deserve better

Brutus


Dodging the question again

April 11, 2016

Why did it take a full month for our former city manager to come up with her statement that the delay in the sale of the ball park bonds that cost us $27 million was her decision?

Not responsive

And why is it that when she finally did respond to the city’s request that she did not answer the questions that were asked?

From her letter:

“I understand that City Council has asked that I explain and elaborate on the events leading to the delay in the issuance of the ballpark bonds and identify the council members involved in the decision.  Mayor Leeser has specifically asked me to name the several council members who raised concerns about the timing of this activity [the bond sale] in relation to the upcoming election, specifically because of the ongoing controversy regarding the project.”

She then goes on to write about several aspects of the project but never names the council members.

This person is still a public employee at an agency where our mayor and county judge sit as board members.  The fact that she is still employed tells us a lot about the truth.

We deserve better

Brutus


Giveaway

April 9, 2016

paying

We ran this article originally back in June of 2013. To some of us it goes a long way toward explaining the relationship between the Times and the bunch that used to be at the city:

 

This article in El Diario de El Paso reveals another secret deal that the city has entered into as a part of the city hall destruction.

The city bought part of the Times building for $9.4 million this year.

Then why did the city sign a lease for $4,750 per month in an adjacent part of the Times building for the next eight years last February?  The lease has a sweetheart 3% increase every year, so by the time the lease is over the city will have paid more than half a million dollars.

Does the city need the space?  If so, why wasn’t it part of the purchase?

Devious

I don’t know if the city needs the space or not.  What I do know is that the lease was not about space.  It was about paying the Times back for parking space at the Union Plaza parking terminal.

The Times needed parking space as part of their move to another building.  The city had a parking garage.  The Times evidently did not want to pay for the 150 some-odd spaces they needed.

The city charged the Times for the parking spaces.  In a separate lease the city agreed to pay the same amount back to the Times for the half million dollar lease space.  The deals wash.

Give away

The net effect is that the Times is getting free parking for 8 years.

City council feigned lack of knowledge.  How can that be?  Many of the items that come before council ask to give the city manager authority to negotiate and sign whatever documents are necessary without bringing the deals back to city council.

The Times raised the integrity issue in the current mayoral race when it complained that one of the candidates pulled some of his advertising because he thought his campaign was not being treated fairly.

Hypocrites

Now we learn that the city is giving the Times free parking for 8 years.  I wonder if that has an effect on their coverage.

We deserve better

Brutus


Battered trust

March 23, 2016

The Sunday, March 20, 2016 Times editorial started this way:

“Mayor Oscar Leeser and a majority of the City Council appear to believe that repeating the incantation “moving forward” will somehow restore the public’s battered trust in city government.  Instead, their actions continue to undermine their words.”

In a recent article about the ball park bond mess the Times printed this quote from our former city manager:

“After that I expect the city to move on”

The Times evidently thinks it is quite acceptable for our former city manager to tell us what to do.

If they way to talk about battered public trust they should start by looking at themselves first.

The hypocracy from the Times continues.

We deserve better

Brutus