A different way to handle the agenda item issue

March 28, 2015

Under the city manager form of government that we have here in El Paso elected district representatives are not allowed to tell city employees what to do or not to do.

That right has been given to the city manager.

One of the ways that district representatives can voice their concerns about activities in city departments is to create an agenda item that allows a discussion with the city manager in public view.

The council resolution being considered that would require that at least three representatives sponsor each agenda item could take that remedy away from our district representatives.

The resolution is a bad idea.  Some say that the real reason for it is to stop one or two of the existing representatives from ambushing the others with agenda items that are not clear.

Much of the problem could be avoided if there was complete backup material provided with each agenda item.  The rest of the problem could be handled by not engaging in the discussion and letting the item fail without comment.

We deserve better

Brutus

8 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Stacking the deck

March 26, 2015

Our city council has directed our city attorney to draft an ordinance that would require the concurrence of three city council members in order for one of them to place an item on the city council agenda.

Our employee (the city manager) would evidently be free to place as many items on the agenda as she/he wishes.

This is quite simply a naked power grab.

We don’t know whether this idea is being promoted by the moneyed people who influence council or if city staff wants to further subjugate their masters.

We do know that two of the candidates for the district one seat are outspoken and not bashful about speaking out strongly against things that they disagree with.  Is this proposed ordinance a way to limit the potential disruption that one of these candidates might bring to the plan that is directing the city?

One of the city council members pointed out that the proposed ordinance could cause violation of the Texas open meetings laws.  The law specifically prohibits serial meetings between council members  where city business is discussed.  Requiring three council members to place an item on the agenda will require at least three of them to have discussed an item out of public view.  If a council member wanted to put an item on an agenda she/he would have to reach out to other council members.  If one of those members said no then it would be reasonable to expect the council member to try someone else.  That could bring us to four members who had discussed the item, one shy of a law violating quorum.

The ordinance is a very bad idea.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Hard to explain

March 25, 2015

This document:

casatrucks

was part of the backup material for a city council agenda item the other day.  The purchasing department was ranking various vendors for the purpose of deciding who to buy from.

I found the awarding of zero points in the category of “Reputation and Quality of the Bidder’s Service” to one of our oldest dealerships interesting.  Further down the page they have the category of “Past Performance” where the city gave the dealership a rating of 5, the highest value that could be given.

The dealership has a good reputation for service.  Their quality has been fine in the past.  Given that no organization is perfect I can see that the city might not have given them the maximum of 20 points on this item.  However the city gave them a zero, meaning to me that the city considers the dealer’s reputation and service quality to be horrible, non-existent, not worth considering.

The dealer offered one of the two lowest prices.  It is interesting to note that the other dealer with one of the lowest prices was also given a zero in the same category.

Could it be that city staff found the bidders prices to be inconvenient?  Would staff have had to give the business to someone that they might not like just because of price?  Did they use low ratings in the reputation and quality category just to knock out the two low bidders?

Also interesting is the “Vehicle Fuel Economy” category.  The dealership that the city has chosen to give the business to received the maximum 5 points that could be given here.  All of the other dealerships were given a zero.

How can that be?  It would seem to me that we would see some other numbers here.  Or is the city saying that the losing dealerships were offering vehicles that used an infinite amount of fuel?

We deserve better

Brutus

8 Comments | City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Questions for city council candidates #1 (PSB)

March 23, 2015

Some of us will be attending various public meetings where we get to meet the candidates and ask them questions.

Maybe we can use this blog to help voters decide what issues are important to them.

In that spirit, let’s pose this question:

Should the city leave the public service board as it is or should the city take more control?

Please consider sending your questions to us through our email (brutusep@yahoo.com) so that we can feature them as posts.  Because of the way the blog works posts get more readership than comments.  We will post your questions without attribution unless you specifically allow it.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

5 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Another cancelled bid

March 21, 2015

Lest you think that our post the other day about the city rejecting all construction bids for a project at the zoo because of bad specifications, here is another one:

vendingbid

This time four bidders spent time and money responding to a city bid and were then told that now that the city had their financial numbers the process would start over.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »