Double whammy

August 1, 2013

A few days ago one of our commenters asked one of us about the new radio system for the sheriff’s department.

You will remember that the city destroyed it’s 2008 radio system when it imploded city hall.  This article explained how the city chose to buy a new $20 million dollar radio system instead of moving the one they had.

My focus at the time was about how the rush to vacate the old city hall seemed to have made it impractical to move the multiple channel radio system one channel at a time, thus saving the equipment and our money.

Now the sheriff needs a new radio system like the city’s in order to be compatible with other agencies and to improve coverage.

The commenter asked a great question.  Could the old city system have been used by the sheriff?

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, County Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Scofflaws

July 31, 2013

A reader pointed out the Texas Local Government Records Act to me.

My previous posts about the email controversy have addressed the issue with the Texas Public Information Act in mind.

This post, like all of my others, is only my opinion.

I conclude that the emails in question are local government records under the Texas Local Government Records Act (the law).  If my readers want me explain my thought process, I will post subsequent articles explaining the several steps that it took for me to come to this conclusion.

What surprised me is that it looks like our former city representatives are already in violation of Texas law.

City representatives hold a public office, that of district representative.  Section 201.006 of this law requires each of them to turn over all local government records in their possession at the expiration of their term to the person who becomes their successor.  Not eventually.  There are exemptions, like a copy of a record or a personal journal, but the emails in question are correspondence.  If the district representative has an email that qualifies as a local government record that the city does not already have, it must be turned over.

Possession of a local government record (not a copy) by a private individual is a class A misdemeanor.  Class A misdemeanors are punishable by a fine up to $4,000 and/or one year in jail.

We need to ask

The new district representatives should each ask their predecessor for all local government records in the former district representative’s possession.  I would think that the criminal charge would not be appropriate if the records are turned over now.

City council also has the right to demand return of the documents and I believe it should.

We need to communicate with city council and let them know that we would like them to take these actions.

District attorney

I believe that our district attorney should investigate this situation and announce his findings to the public.  Part of his job is to prosecute violators of state laws.

I would think that 74% of the voters think the same thing.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Do over

July 30, 2013

There seems to be a movement to rename the building at 218 N Campbell.

We currently call it the Luther building because of the moving and storage company of that name that occupied the building.

Originally it was named the Mulligan building after the local businessman who built it.

Soon after the building was built it became the Quartermaster Corps supply house for General Pershing’s Punitive Expedition into Mexico.

Now it will be one of the many buildings that our city government has been scattered into.

It seems that the building’s historical association with banditos will be continued.

Then again, those of you who play golf will understand why I would be happy to see the building renamed Mulligan if the tax payers get to take one on the whole deal.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Children first

July 29, 2013

Now that the dust has settled and we have a new mayor and city council,  I want to bring up the subject of the children’s museum.

We had the Insights Museum and it got torn down as part of the ball park project.  So be it.

We passed  a quality of life bond issue with $19.25 million in it for a new children’s museum.

The city’s three year roll out plan for managing the bond spending does not include even preliminary action related to building a children’s museum.

We should each contact the mayor and our representatives.  Building the museum is not a matter of raising more money.  It is a matter of priorities for the city staff.

We need to ask that the children’s museum be given a higher priority so that it can be built soon.

Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty.

Cato

6 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Indian givers

July 27, 2013

Item 8C on the consent agenda of the July 30, 2013 city council meeting is troubling.

The item asks permission to reject the sole bid received by the city for some airport property.

It reads:

 Request that the Purchasing Manager, Financial Services, Purchasing Division, be authorized to reject the sole bid received for solicitation No. 2013-192 (Sale of Real Property Improvement, Airport Hangar #7) as the bidder did not agree to the terms and conditions of the Contract.

The backup material tells us that the city solicited bids from 16 parties.  One responded.  The backup material tells us:

Department of Aviation has reviewed solicitation 2013-192 and recommends rejection of the sole bid received as the bidder did not agree to the minimum lease rate for the ground lease.

The item will be rebid.

What gives?

The city sent out a bid.  Sixteen parties were invited to bid.  Only one spent the time and money it takes to bid.  The bidder made an offer.  The airport does not think it was good enough.

What are the chances that the sole bidder will try next time?  Slim is the word that comes to my mind.

What went wrong?

Did the city send the bid to 15 parties that would have no interest in the deal?  We can see the city doing that from time to time when they want to be able to say that they asked for bids but do not really want a wide field of bidders.

Does the city really want to lease the property or were they just testing the waters?  That would be a shameful waste of a private concern’s money.

Does the city want to hold out for a higher bid?  That is what this looks like.  Was the bid low because the solicitation was written poorly?

What makes the city think that they will get a better offer next time?  What will they do differently?  Was the bid poorly written and thus a waste of everyone’s time?

It seems to me that the sole bidder has set the market value for the deal and is being treated poorly.

Not alone

I have written before that I know many firms in El Paso that will not even bid for city business.  They feel the process is unfair and a waste of their time and money.

This bidder has the right to be furious.  It seems the bidder played by the rules but ended up wasting time and money.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »