Disregard for the facts

July 2, 2013

The El Paso Times reported on June 29, 2013 that city council will be asked to rob $4.5 million from the Montana Avenue bus project and use it to remodel two more floors on the old Luther Building.  The issue is not on the city council agenda yet.  I suspect that this is a trial balloon designed to see if the voting public is paying attention.

The report told us that other parts of the building were currently being remodeled for $8.9 million with a city spokesman saying that the total cost of the renovations would be $13.4 million.

The same Times reporter wrote on January 23, 2013 that city council had voted to issue a contract for $11.5 million to remodel the same building.

Please explain

I would think that the reporter would feel obligated to set the record straight.  My guess is that what is really happening is that city staff wants to spend another $2.4 million above the $11.5 million that they have already received approval for.  The $4.5 million just happens to be sitting over in a corner because the sequestration situation at the national government is going to delay or cut the federal portion of the bus project.

It seems that city staff thinks that feathering their own nests is more important than the transportation system.

Another problem

In another example where Times employees seem to spend more time writing then they do researching facts, the Sunday June 30, 2013 Times has a column written by their editorial page writer.  He suggests that the new mayor may put the question of city manager vs. strong mayor on the ballot in November.

The city charter can only be amended once every two years.  We did that in May of 2013 and cannot do it again until May of 2015.

Muckraker

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Is Scrivener really the city attorney?

July 1, 2013

I was interested to see what happened with item 1C on last week’s city council agenda.  I watched the video but never could find where they even mentioned it.

The minutes of the city council meeting should be able to tell me what happened so I have been waiting to look at them.  Item one on this week’s (July 2, 2013) agenda seeks the approval of those June 25, 2013 minutes.  The problem is that the minutes themselves are not posted as backup material.

That means that according to ordinance 17616 city council must either table the vote or take a special vote declaring that failure to take action would be detrimental to the interests of the city.  Failure to do so is an ethics violation.

Item 1C would have changed that.  I wrote about the proposed new ordinance in Testing the newbies.  It would remove the requirement for a special vote to proceed with the item and change the direction completely by just allowing  council to either table the item or proceed as though nothing went wrong.  The failure of city staff to provide the proper backup material would no longer force council to take a special vote in order to proceed.  Given events of recent years, this has already proven to be a very bad idea.

From what I can tell item 1C was removed from the agenda because it was sloppily done.  The title of the proposed ordinance indicated that the new ordinance would replace ordinance 17016.  Ordinance 17016 created the capital improvements advisory committee.

Evidently someone caught the error.  The item is now back on the agenda indicating that ordinance 17616 would be repealed, which is the old ordinance that dealt with putting items on the agenda.

The item this week is an introduction of the ordinance.  Next there will have to be a public hearing.  Then council can vote to approve the new ordinance.

The problem is that the backup material that was filed with the municipal clerk on June 27, 2013 still proposes to repeal 17016, not 17616.  They will need to start over again even if council is inclined to vote for the new ordinance.

They might claim as they have in the past  that the mistake is a scrivener’s error, which according to Wikipedia is “a phrase which can also be used as an excuse to deflect blame away from specific individuals, such as high powered executives, and instead redirect it to the more anonymous clerical staff.”

In my book we should expect the city attorney to produce accurate, fair work.  The city parliamentarian could catch this for us, but — you guessed it — the city parliamentarian is the city attorney.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Don’t believe all that you read

June 28, 2013

An article in the El Paso Times the other day  said “… the start of City Council meetings was moved up 30 minutes to 8:30 a.m. ”

The reporter was telling us about new rules that council is making about it’s meetings.

My recollection is that council meetings have been starting at 8:30 AM for years now.  I checked agendas back as far as January, 2012 and saw that the meetings have been scheduled to start at 8:30.

As far as I can tell, council did not move the meeting time up 30 minutes.  This may be a small point, but to me it points out that what is printed in the Times is not always factual.  That may be an understatement.

Some of you may say that I am being petty to comment about this.  I believe that the newspaper should be held to a high standard of accuracy.  The articles they publish should be fact checked.  Errors that slip though should be acknowledged and corrected in subsequent editions.

What the reporter might have meant to say is that since the portion of the meeting that allows the public to comment has been moved from the beginning of the meeting to 12:15 PM, the other business of council will now start at 8:30.

That would have been much more accurate.

Muckraker

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Roll call

June 27, 2013

Now that we have the TEA imposed board of managers in charge of the EPISD, let’s take a look at the people who compose the board.

We have a lady that was appointed by the TEA to be the EPISD monitor.  We know little about her other than she is a career educator that seems to have made a difference wherever she was.  Other than the fact that she is not an El Pasoan that was elected by El Pasoans I think her appointment was a good one.

We have a former Texas state representative from El Paso who voted to cut $5.4 billion in funding out of Texas public education.  Actually I respect his vote, evidently one made on principle.  For my part I would prefer that the state not get involved in funding education.  Lower the taxes and fees that they take out of a community and let the local residents decide what their education system should look like.  I certainly don’t think that the feral government should be involved.  Of course I doubt that many would support my view on this.

The man who is most responsible for El Paso having one of the best water usage rates and capacities in the desert is on the appointed board.  He is a well known, well respected force in the water community.  He also operated as a tyrant with a “my way or the highway” approach to government.  He evidently saw no problem with his government organization buying major construction equipment from one of his board members.  Yes it was done legally, but that did not make it right.

The chief financial officer of the city, who is also on the The El Paso Firemen and Policeman’s Pension Fund board has also been appointed.  It seems that with both of those organizations the public has had difficulty getting to the truth of their respective finances.  Beyond that we will have the incredible conflict of interest between her duties to the city and to the school district.  I know nothing of her intentions here but do feel that other people without her conflicts should have been chosen.  How will she find time to do her many jobs?

The head of the Region 19 (it used to be Region XIX but during their period of existence public education declined to the point where they changed the name so that the public might understand it) head start program has also been assigned.  I hope she does well.  The matter of her conflict of interest in serving two separate institutions that frequently interact is another disappointment.

We know that government officials do not relinquish power easily.  How long will they stay when we have elected a new school board?  Your prediction is probably the same as mine.  State law gives them two years.  I know of nothing that would keep the TEA from appointing another board after that.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Creating their own trouble

June 24, 2013

Quality of life

Don’t tell me that includes more city lawyers.

According to the budget posted on the city web site, the 2013 budget for personal services in the office of the city attorney  is $3,144,928.  They are authorized to have 39 full time employees.

That could include receptionists, clerks, secretaries, paralegals and attorneys.  Averaging this out, an employee costs $80,639.17 per year. According to the El Paso Times website most of those attorneys get paid well over $100,000 per year in salary alone.

It is not for me to criticize how much some other person makes.  I do know several private attorneys that feel that the pay vs. capabilities vs. workload equation down at the city works out to be overly generous.  Then again I don’t know many attorneys that do not think they are better than their peers.

What is important here is the money we are spending for legal services instead of parks or libraries and other services.

I wonder what the economic impact on the budget would be if the city attorneys would advise council to do the right thing instead of finding a way around what the public is entitled to.

I do know that Scrivener seems to be involved in a lot of issues.  He seems to be working hard.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »