City government | elpasospeak

Deleted e-mails

December 26, 2015

This came in from ManintheMoon in response to Better than a shredder :

Brutus

You may not know it but you have exposed a crime in the e-mail that you showed were deleted which are public records and in the state of Texas deleting public records is a crime. City’s chief financial officer should be charged. It does not matter there are copies he has a legal oblation to keep all e-mails sent to him because it is a public recorder. Brutus believe Felony has been committed.

Check this out, look at number 3.Also check out the charges.

Regards

ManintheMoon

Found under TEXAS GOVERMETNAL LAW

PENAL CODE

TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION

Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record;

(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record;

(3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record;

(4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully;

(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or

(6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully.

(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code.

(c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

(2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was:

(A) a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, data reported for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law or rule requiring that reporting, or a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree;

(B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action;

(C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or

(D) a search warrant issued by a magistrate.

(3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student.

(4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing.

(d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record;

(2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under:

(A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or

(B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and

(3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor’s intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another.

(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant.

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government’s purpose for requiring the governmental record.

(g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government.

(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections.

(i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program.

(j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement “NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT” or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, Sec. 66, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 113, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 6, eff. May 21, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 823, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 659, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 718, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 771, Sec. 3, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 198, Sec. 2.139, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 257, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1364 (H.B. 126), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1085 (H.B. 3024), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 73 (H.B. 1813), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130 (H.B. 2086), Sec. 31, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 510 (S.B. 124), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 690 (H.B. 644), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2015.

8 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Another disaster brewing?

December 24, 2015

City council is poised to give us another one of their unwanted presents in their final regular meeting of the year.

As part of the quality of life projects the city is going to add a “Chihuahuan Desert Project” to our zoo. The agenda includes an item to award a design and consulting contract to a firm from Missouri to handle this project.

The firm will develop the concept, design the facility, and oversee the construction of the facility. Actual construction will be a separate contract.

They will do all of this for a mere $1,323,000 plus expenses. Expenses include travel. From the attachments:

Meals (Food Costs): Meal receipts are not required. Actual costs are allowable up to a maximum Per Diem allowance of $51.00 per day or current State of Texas rate applicable at the time cost is incurred. Meals are only reimbursable with overnight lodging away from headquarters. Tips and alcohol are not reimbursable.

Receipts are not required. Alcohol is not reimbursable. How will the city know if they do not have receipts?

The contract has mistakes in it.

Personal Automobile Mileage: Up to the rate of .575cents per mile or the current State of Texas rate applicable at the time cost is incurred. Expense report must clearly identify the departure/arrival time, To/From destinations and purpose of trip.

Even tightwads are willing to pay more than half a cent per mile.

Ugly locals

State law does not allow bidding services of this type. Instead the city must use a different evaluation process commonly called a “beauty contest”. The winner of the contract is the one that city staff likes the most.

Local knowledge

We live in the Chihuahuan Desert. Look at this graphic from DesertUSA.com:

Is there no firm in El Paso that could do this work?

I suppose we should be happy that the city did not have to go to Germany for help like they did with what used to be our plaza.

Then again why do we need a zoo exhibit to show us what we live in every day? Wouldn’t we want our kids to have an opportunity to see something different?

We deserve better

Brutus

16 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Planning failure

December 23, 2015

Our city manager’s December 2, 2015 “Financial Adviser Request for Qualification Report” is unsigned. There is no letter of transmittal explaining who wrote the report or why they wrote it. It is probably correct to assume that it was written by the city manager and his assistants in response to a request from the mayor. Why it is unsigned is probably another example of them trying to establish deniability sometime in the future.

There is an interesting email in the report from our former city manager to our current city attorney. The email is dated August 26, 2013. It starts:

Sylvia, as requested by City Council during the August 1 executive session, the following is a summary of the chronology of events and issues surrounding the delays in proceeding with the sale of bonds for the ballpark project.

It is interesting that the city manager (who reports to city council) would send the document through the city attorney.

The email goes on to say:

Summary

Project was over-designed and the city’s project team failed to insist on scope reductions immediately to ensure the project came in within budget.

Failed

I would say so. What was the budget? On November 27, 2012 city council approved a contract with an out of town architectural firm that says in part:

3.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. The Consultant acknowledges that the construction budget for the Project allocates THIRTY FIVE MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($35,000,000.00) for the award of a construction contract base bid, which is to include all features essential to the operation of the Project for its intended use as described in the Scope of Services and Project Budget in Attachment “A”. The Consultant does hereby agree to design the Project such that the Consultant’s final agreed upon cost opinions for the construction of the Project, including all features essential to its intended use, is within the above budgeted amount for the base bid. If the cost options exceed the Project Budget at any time, the Consultant shall make recommendations to the Owner to adjust the Project’s size or quality and the Owner shall cooperate with the Consultant to adjust the scope of the Project.

The contract with the architect was for $3,095,370.00. On June 18, 2013 the city amended the contract to give the architect an additional $725,310. After all, when you design a project to go over budget you might think that you deserve more money.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Better than a shredder

December 22, 2015

Part of the mysteriously unsigned December 2, 2015 “Financial Adviser Request for Qualification Report” lets us know that our city staff is destroying documents, presumably so that we cannot see them.

A Tuesday, October 13, 2015 email from our city’s chief financial officer to our city attorney read this way:

Hi Sylvia,

I skimmed the attorney documents you sent to me yesterday, paying particular attention to the sections of interest. I did not save a copy, and your e-mail with the attachment has been deleted from my inbox and also from my deleted items box.

There you have it.

We deserve better

Brutus

10 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Rent a manager

December 21, 2015

How low we have sunk?

City council recently required the city manager to tell us who the acting city manager(s) will be while he is out of town on vacation.

They further required that the designated people not be implicated in the current mess we are watching unfold.

The result is that one of the designees is not even a city employee. Somehow I doubt that this contractor can legally do the job.

Also of interest is that the number two person in the city’s management structure (the chief performance officer) was not named as the acting city manager. Was she involved in the failed attempt to get rid of our financial advisor firm? Or would becoming the acting city manager interfere with her other interests outside of the city?

Either our bench is so shallow that we have to resort to a city vendor, or a bunch of the senior city staff is involved in the current mess.

What is really remarkable is that we do not have a deputy or assistant city manager. Our city charter requires that the city manager name an acting city manager whenever the city manager is absent or disabled.

Shouldn’t we have someone designated permanently so that if our city manager were to be in an unfortunate accident we would have a city manager?

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

elpasospeak

Deleted e-mails