elpasospeak

Our city charter makes provisions for the removal of elected city officials as follows:

Any elected City official shall be subject to removal from office if that official:

Is convicted of any felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;

Violates the City Ethics Ordinance;

In the case of the Mayor or a Representative, fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council.

There are other provisions but the three ones above seem most likely to apply to members of our city council if they are found to be guilty of violating the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Moral turpitude

Our Texas first court of appeals has declared six definitions of moral turpitude:

1. Crimes involving moral turpitude are those that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or deliberate violence.
2. Offenses concerning matters of personal morality.
3. Anything done knowingly contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals.
4. An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general.
5. Something immoral in itself, regardless of whether it is punishable by law. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude.
6. Immoral conduct is that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

Not being a judge or jury our personal opinion is that the recent serial meetings of some of our council members would qualify as an offense of moral turpitude under numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6.

Ethics ordinance

El Paso’s ordinance is numbered 017112.  We don’t need to read very far into it to find in section 2.92.010 the following:  “At the very least, being ethical includes being disposed to comply with all laws that apply to one’s position”.

If the members of council are found guilty of violating the Texas Open Meetings Act it seems that our ethics ordinance would find them to be un-ethical.

Failing to attend council meetings

City council now has a bi-weekly regular meeting schedule.  If any of them end up in the county jail for more than six weeks they will probably miss three meetings.

There is a lot at stake here for both the public and the city council members being investigated.

We would have all been better off if they had respected our right to transparency.

We deserve better

Brutus

Our city attorney has rejected two ethics complaints related to the serial council meetings that appear to have been held in violation of state law.

Our city ethics ordinance requires the city attorney to take one of four actions within twenty days after a complaint is filed:

1. Refer the matter to the ethics review commission if the complaint meets the necessary requirements.
2. In the event of deficiencies the city attorney “may” notify the complainant and request correction.
3. Dismiss the complaint if the matter would not violate the ethics ordinance.
4. “Refer complaints that cannot be readily assigned to the ethics review commission because of deficiencies, complaints that lack specificity in identifying the alleged violations of this chapter, and complaints that appear to have been frivolously filed to a panel of the commission.”

According to a recent Times article the city attorney wrote two letters that say the complainant  “failed to identify a specific section of the ethics ordinance you believe has been violated.”

See number four above.

She also did not act within twenty days as the ordinance requires.

New complaints can be submitted that would make the city attorney’s action moot.

Choice

Here the city attorney could have chosen to do the right thing and follow the actions required in number four above.  Instead she has chosen to setup a road block.  She does after all work for council.

It would appear that she chose to try to protect her bosses instead of obeying the law.

We deserve better

Brutus