Proposition 1, authorizing nothing

April 10, 2013

I plan to offer my thoughts about the nine  propositions to change the City Charter over the next few days.

Chime in.

El Paso’s voters will be asked to approve or disapprove of several changes to the City Charter in the May 2013 election.  This post is one of several where we will discuss the propositions.

Proposition 1

In Strike two I pointed out the fact that this proposition does not contemplate action.  There is no verb in the opening clause (or any other one for that matter) that takes action.

Some thoughts:

  • Unless council takes some kind of action to fix the ballot language for this proposition, it will be a magnet for legal challenges.  The safe thing to do is to scrap this proposition and bring it back in another election if it is still desired.
  • The proposition would move the city elections to happen on the same day as the November (national) elections.  Some will argue that moving to November will increase voter turnout.  Maybe it will.  That might also have the effect of reducing the turnout for school district elections which will still be held in May.  We should be paying more attention to our school district boards and who we elect to put on them.
  • The initiative would allow a future city council to increase the number of district representatives from eight to ten if our population reaches one million people.  The initiative does not say how quickly council could make that decision, so a future council could elect to stay at eight members even after the city reaches the one million person mark.  The proposition does not specify what source will be used to define when we have reached the higher population.  Concievably council could pass a resolution or commision a study that declares El Paso to have one million people.  This is sloppy and unnecessary.  The proposition should leave the choice of the number of members on council up to the voters.  We should not be laying this booby trap — the voters should be making the decision as to how many members council has, not the council itself.

I post the ballot language directly from the city website:

SHALL SECTIONS 2.1 A AND B, 2.2 E, 2.3 A, 2.4 A AND 8.7, OF THE CITY CHARTER, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, CITY OFFICERS, AND TERMS OF OFFICE: TO MOVE THE CITY’S GENERAL ELECTIONS FROM MAY IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS TO NOVEMBER IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS BEGINNING IN 2018; TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING FOR OFFICE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON DATES WHEN THE ELECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE ACTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES FROM EIGHT TO TEN AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY’S POPULATION REACHES ONE MILLION?

Trojan horse

There will be a lot of discussion about how this proposition might increase the turn out in city elections.  If it is enacted it would certainly hurt school district elections because they would basically be separate elections with the city leaving the May ballot.

A secret motivation here is to make recalls and other citizen petitions much harder.  The way it works now a petition needs the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last city election.  Combining the city election into the November election would increase the number of voters and make getting 5% much more difficult.

Legal battle

We also have to be very careful with this proposition because of its poor wording.  If it is passed we will probably have an expensive legal battle because of its lack of authority for action.  We might be better off doing this next time if the voters want it.

It also has a problem with multiple subjects.  Some will undoubtedly say that there is only one subject — election.  Increasing the number of city representatives has nothing to do with an election.  This flaw will make the proposition subject to legal challenge if it is approved by the voters.

Study the proposition and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Congratulations El Paso Times

April 10, 2013

I see in this article that the El Paso Times and its reporters got some much deserved recognition recently.

They recently received awards from no less than the Associated Press Managing Editors.

A former Times reporter who is now with the Denver Post was commended for her articles about the problems over at the El Paso Independent School District:

“Bravo to reporting that seems to have used a combination of digging for records and good-old-fashioned source work to unearth a scandal that had real, quantifiable harm. Investigative journalism at its finest,” the judge wrote.

The Times itself was awarded first place in the community service category for stories and editorials about the cheating.  The judge wrote:

“Exceptional use of reporting and public records laws reveal the depth of corruption and malfeasance in a public school system,” the judge wrote. “Outstanding, tough editorials call for action. The El Paso Times staff performed an immense public service by calling attention to the problem and demanding a solution that would benefit the community’s children, parents and taxpayers. This is exciting, satisfying work.”

I have noticed a marked improvement in the Times since the return of the executive editor.

The Times also “won second place in Texas APME’s best newspaper category for mid-size papers.”  Now I don’t mean to be funny or cruel here, but second place?  I can only wonder about the quality of other newspapers.  Maybe the economic situation that the newspapers find themselves in has changed the standards.

I applaud the Times and its staff and will try to be a bit more gentle with my comments in the future.

In the meantime could we get some coverage of the other problems we have with local governments now that the parade is over?  I’d like to see them win some more awards.

Muckraker

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Open Government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Seeing into their hearts

April 9, 2013

Here is another example of behavior that should concern us.

lovesthemic

You can left click on the image to make it larger.

Here (from the bottom) we have a city representative listening to a citizen speak during a city council meeting.  Instead of paying attention and keeping an open mind the city representative sends an email to the city manager saying “This guy loves the mic”.  So much for public input.

Then incredibly within one minute the city manager responds “He always looks at me because he gets nervous that I might jump up and knock him out for talking too much”.

No respect

Clearly neither one was listening with the intent to learn.

The city manager either has to stifle an urge to become violent or has fantasies of how she might like to respond.

Shameful!

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Got the lead out?

April 9, 2013

This writing by the Times columnist (maybe satarist is a better term) poked fun at the people concerned about the health risks involved in felling the Asarco stacks. I guess that he has no responsibilities regarding reporting. His efforts seem to be more oriented toward influencing public opinion than toward reporting. Maybe that is his job. I haven’t figured that out.

On the other hand this article by a Times reporter seems to try to present facts about the precautions that are being taken with the city hall demolition. This quote was attributed to the city engineer: “He added that there are minimal levels of lead in the building, but that the amount is safe and legal for disposal”.

I guess the word “minimal” here has to be interpreted in light of the way the city engineer speaks. In There They Go Again we learned about how the city engineer recommended that city council award a contract for “minor work” and then three months later used that same contract to perform $694,000 of work on the same city hall that will soon be torn down. The post even provides a link to a video showing the city engineer assuring council that the contract would only be used for minor work. When asked about the term “minor” he openly muses about the wonderful ambiguity of the term. If it is unfair to call him a liar we should at least know how he likes to equivocate.

Is it safe?

I am writing strictly from memory here and have not found any documents to susbstantiate my recollections. I might be mistaken.

When they built the Read the rest of this entry »

4 Comments | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Our two cents

April 8, 2013

The April 7, 2013 front page of The El Paso Times was occupied by stories about the $800 thousand school district audit and the pending destruction of city hall. To me a more pressing matter was relegated to a sidebar in the Borderland section.  The county is getting ready to issue $162 million in certificates of obligation (CO’s) to build some outpatient clinics.

Not an emergency

I think the Texas Municipal League does a nice job discussion certificates of obligation:

“But the law also gives cities and counties the flexibility to issue debt through certificates of obligation on a shorter timeline.  This enables them to take advantage of favorable interest rates or an opportunity to acquire a property, to make emergency repairs after a disaster, or to address a critical public need without having to wait for the next uniform election date on the calendar.  Of all the debt issued by Texas cities in 2011, less than fourteen percent was through certificates of obligation.”

These clinics are not an emergency.  The decision to issue debt to finance them should be made through a bond election where the voters get to decide.  That is not to say that issuing the certificates is against the law.

Let the people choose

Actually we do have a choice.  By Texas law we have the right to petition for an election when we find out that the court intends to issue CO’s.  It would take the signatures of 5% of the eligible voters and the petition would have to be presented before the county issues the certificates.  The Times failed to mention that in it’s article.

By the way, this petition issue seems to be a big  reason behind proposition one of the proposed city charter amendments.  The current city charter allows a petition signed by 5% of the voters in the last city election to cause a ballot initiative.  Moving the city elections to November would greatly increase the number of voters and thus raise the bar for citizen initiatives.  Sneaky isn’t it?

Another blank check

The proposed order before commissioner’s court would allow the issuance of the CO’s for some period of time for some rate of interest.  Details like that evidently need to be worked out later.  You may want details, but the county just wants permission.  Actually section 3.02 of the order caps the interest rate at 4.75% and sets the maturity date at no later than August 15, 2044.

Bonds work differently than mortgages, but servicing the $162 million at 4.75% for 30 years would cost about $10 million dollars a year.  Hopefully the county will get a lower interest rate and the costs will be lower.

The newspaper article tells us that the tax will be about 2 cents per hundred dollar valuation, or about $20 dollars a year for a $100,000 home.  With a county property tax base of about $34 billion, two cents per hundred will raise about $6.8 million dollars in extra tax revenue per year.

That $6.8 million of tax means that the interest rate will have to be at about 1.5%.  My numbers may be off, but this does not look good.

This saves money — why increase taxes?

According to the article the hospital district says that the clinics will save us $17 million a year in emergency room costs.  Great!  The $10 million (on the high end) we would have to pay out needs to be subtracted from the $17 million that we are saving.  This gives us a $7 million savings.  That would actually allow them to drop our property tax rate by 2 cents instead of raising it.

Or does it save money?  What about the cost of operating the clinics?  The county judge evidently told the reporter that 450 new health care jobs will be created.  Will these be county employees?

Private vs. government

What I have heard from private practitioners about this is that they are not happy.  Roughly 1/3 of the physicians practicing in El Paso are affiliated with Texas Tech and the county hospital (now called UMC).  The private physicians  note that the proposed clinics are not in the really poor areas of El Paso but instead will cut into the business of private physicians.  I gather that the physicians in these clinics will be part of the Texas Tech combine.

What’s the hurry?

This is not an emergency.  Why won’t the commissioner’s court allow us to vote?  Are they afraid that once we look at this we will see things that we don’t like?

I don’t know how I would vote.  What I would like is a chance to look at this issue.

Muckraker

1 Comment | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »