One down, more to come

March 8, 2013

The ill conceived ordinance that would have put the city in conflict with the Texas Public Information Act was taken off the table at this week’s city council meeting (3/5/2013).

The public and the newspapers did a good job on this one by paying attention to what council was up to and making our voices heard.

The item was originally placed on the February 26, 2013 agenda.  The city representative from district 2 (soon to be termed out of office) made the motion to accept the proposed ordinance at its’ first reading.  Council then decided to retire into executive session to get legal advice.  When council came out of executive session the motion was passed unanimously without any discussion.

Then the public got involved.

The ordinance was on the March 5 agenda for the mandatory second reading.  This time the same city representative asked that the item be removed from the agenda and re-written.  The representative made comments about how the proposed ordinance did not accomplish what council was trying to do and how poorly worded it was.  The city attorney offered to bring the author (from an out of town law firm) to the podium to try to explain what was written.  The representative declined indicating that the wording was not salvageable.   Council voted unanimously to delete the item from the agenda.  The activist city attorney then asked if it would be acceptable to bring the issue back as a resolution instead of as an ordinance.  Our city representative said yes.

What happened here?

Council loved the proposed ordinance before the public got involved.  If they voted for the ordinance without reading it then we have one set of problems.  I believe they knew what it said and were hoping to run it through council before we were aware.

Once the public got involved council ran from it like it was a Public Information Request.

Where was the city attorney on this?  Why are we paying an out of town law firm to generate such junk?

This kind of thing goes on every week at city council.

Thankfully we got what we deserve this time.

That is until they try to sneak something through next time.  It will probably be in the form of a resolution.  Resolutions do not need public hearings so they can do this as part of a consent agenda.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Now that you’re watching

March 5, 2013

According to an El Paso Times article city council may be having second thoughts about their proposal to cripple the Texas Public Information Act.

Council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance on its first reading last week.  They are scheduled to consider it again today (Tuesday March 5, 2013).

The Times points out that a “barrage of criticism” might cause council to reconsider and “go back to the drawing board” with the ordinance.

Reconsidering is a good idea.  The legal mess that this ordinance would cause would cost us a lot of money.  Texas has a good law — it appears that the rest of the state can live with it.  Some members of our council want the right to conduct public business without the public having the right to see what they are up to.  Going back to the drawing board is a bad idea.  It would be another waste of our time and money.

The Times article suggests that some council members believe that the proposed ordinance is not well written.  It would appear that some of them have finally gotten around to reading it.

That brings up the point of this post.  According to an El Paso Inc. article this weekend the proposed ordinance was drawn up by the law firm that is representing the city against the Attorney General of Texas who had previously ruled that the city must turn over documents that were requested through the Public Information Act.  City council does not want to release the documents.

  • Why are we wasting our taxpayer money and time in a mean-spirited fight to deny the public access to its’ documents?
  • If certain city council members object to disclosure why don’t they fund the lawsuit themselves?  The Attorney General is on the side of the citizens.  Council is opposing us and is using our money to do it.
  • The outside law firm did a poor job drafting the ordinance.  Are they competent?  How much are they getting paid to sue Texas and try to keep us in the dark?  How much are they getting paid to write the proposed ordinance that has now been so thoroughly criticized?
  • Should they be fired?

Where was the City Attorney on this?  How did this even get on an agenda?  Was this reviewed?  Was council advised that the proposed ordinance is “a can of worms” to use the Mayor’s words?  Is council now pretending that this was not what they intended?

It is good that the Times has started to pay attention to what is going on at city hall.  If they want fresh front page articles to replace their constant reiteration of problems over at the El Paso Independent School District, all they have to do is read city council agendas and start thinking.  They won’t even have to make up problems.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Inc., El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Ox goring

March 4, 2013

Cato has been busy talking about the proposed city ordinance that would attempt to change the public’s right to access information about city government and its’ employees.

When the El Paso Times weighed in they first wrote an editorial  that said “The proposed ordinance, to put it mildly, is a disaster“.  The editorial was published the day that city council would first consider it in session.  The message was clear — they wrote “We urge the City Council to reject this ordinance“.

Many of us agree and thank the Times for taking this stand.

City council ignored the Times and the public and is moving through the steps involved in adopting the ordinance.

The Times then put their new government reporter (I believe he was a sports reporter before this assignment) on the issue.  His article covered some of the issues.  In general it raised the heat.

Council continues with this assault on our right to know what is going on in our government.

I am not alone in believing that the Times has been trying to help the city with it’s coverage of the destruction of city hall, the moves, and the construction of the ball park.  They have been flogging the El Paso Independent School district while actively siding with the city government.

Now it appears that even the Times cannot abide council’s actions.  Some will say that the Times gives the city a pass because the city bought the Times building.  Many will say that this is because limiting public information will make writing newspaper stories harder — thus goring their ox.

What is important is that the Times is shedding light on this particular attack on our rights.

I doubt council will listen to any of us.  Remember the election coming in May.  We need to change the composition of council and we need to choose a mayor that will respect the will of the people.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Bike Paths

March 3, 2013

 

Several months ago after I found out the the El Paso Times would only publish one letter to the editor per month, I thought a Blog would be the answer. I contacted Brutus by Email since he carefully protects his identity from the public. He is only an Email address to me. Well in either case, he toldme there should be no difficulty obtaining subjects to write about with the goings on of our local governments; County, city and the school districts. He pointed out the indictments and convictionsrecords which make Chicago and Philadelphia look like playgrounds. As you will notice he seems to never run out of material.

 This morning while I was having my “Tall Blond” at Starbucks ( that a type of coffees for u tea drinkers), perusing the El Paso Times and the INC, I noticed on every page there was a tidbits of pure entertainment . Some of the city council members are trying to change the FOIA stating the the State law is not Clear enough. Then You say to yourself, why now, why bring this up. You can’t help but think they have something to hide. In the same article, one finds out they (the City Council) are suing the Attorney General of Texas because he asked them to release personal information in Emails sent toa private electronic address pertaining to the new Stadium and the Triple A Ball team. Who needs a private (secret) Email address besides Brutus.

 Ortega shouts it violates, his 1st and 4th. amendments  rights. He should have included 5th.

Ann Lilly wants her privacy. Has she ever made a motion? Is she awake?

 Niland says she wants more transparency. (Boy, did she and Joyce get burned when their Emails came out, e.g. crazies etc. Is she kidding?).

Suzie wanted more Bike paths.

The editorial addresses the demolition of the city hall and the uselessness of the May vote for demolition. Sounds like they are afraid of moving back to that white elephant downtown.

 On the other hand. I did enjoy the Trish Longs article about the closing of the Red light district by a Mayor of yesteryear. That was a real Mayor. No Guitar stuff, no off key singing, no catering.

 He didn’t use a secret address. Just Sent the Po– lice and got it done. Forget about your amendments bike paths.

According to the article, the former Red light area is vacant. A perfect place for a new City Hall?

After all that , I.m convinved Trich Long should be on the Editorial Staff. Et Tu, Brute?

MT Cicero

 

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by M.T. Cicero

Step into the trap

March 3, 2013

According to an El Paso Times article the Ysleta Independent School District (YISD) stiff-armed a Times public information request relating to bids to conduct a study about potentially outsourcing four administrative jobs.

Let’s start with the fact that the anticipated fee would be $100,000.  That fee would have bought a feasibility study of the effect of outsourcing those few jobs.  Suffice it to say that a more prudent approach would not have required a study.  Some would conclude that management (either at the board or staff level) should be expected to handle a decision like that.

Put simply, this does not look right.  It is good that the Times is looking into this.

The Times seemed surprised that the district “notified the bidder” even though their expert felt it would be hard to see why the information should not be considered available to the public.

The Times walked into the YISD trap.  Remember that government officials, lawyers, and elected people spend our money attending meetings and conferences that draw other people with similar jobs.  One of the things that happens at these conferences is that they share their clever ways to get around pesky requirements that they find inconvenient.

The documents probably contained copyrighted material or information that the vendor might claim to be proprietary.  This gave YISD an excuse to ask for an Attorney General ruling about the contents, thus delaying disclosure for weeks.  Notifying the vendor is required under the law.  Teaching the vendor how to effectively object to the release is not required.  YISD did that to try to avoid releasing the information.  If the vendor does not effectively raise the proper objections YISD may be ordered to release the documents.

The Times should have asked that YISD redact any such material.  After reading the released documents the Times could then decide if access to the redacted information was needed.

Open Records is a previous post that addressed some of the things to avoid or to specifically do when making a public information request.  One thing that the post did not suggest was requesting the right to inspect the documents in person.  This technique can eliminate opportunities for the agency to delay the process.  You are even allowed to make your own copies of the documents if there is nothing that the law requires to be redacted and as long as your copying equipment does not create a safety hazard or disrupt operations.  Think cell phone camera.

What YISD did here was despicable.  It is part of a technique that many public agencies (especially the City of El Paso) use to frustrate the process.

The thing to remember is that the agency will probably try to find a way to trip you up.  Read the earlier post and write your request in a way that avoids their tricks.

Vote in May to change the leadership of agencies that play these tricks.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »