Better

February 12, 2013

According to the  El Paso Times  the companies that are building our new ball park are going to hold a business outreach event next Wednesday (February 13, 2013) from  7:30 to 9 AM at  2401 East Missouri.  Evidently tradesmen that would like an opportunity to bid on some of the work are encouraged to attend.

To me the Times does  a pretty good job of  announcing events.  My observation is that they only go skin deep and fail to let us know what the real story is.  Often they  carry the water for some group and do not reveal the true story.

This event is good though.  The ball park is being built by commercial firms.  The will not be using buy boards to circumvent responsible purchasing.  Sub contractors will be given opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and compete based upon price.  Price.  At the end of the day if there are two offers from firms that do good work  the decision will be made primarily based upon price — not the personal favorite of city staff.

I suspect that this method of construction and buying was significantly influenced by the the people who own the team.  I thank them.

We should not see a $677,000 chiller or a $543,000 foam roof  or a $94,000 cieling for the same city hall that they want to tear down.  These jobs were done through bid boards.

The contractor has an incentive to save our money — 30% of the savings.  My only problem with that will be if they lower the specifications and deliver an inferior product to us.  The city engineer has temporarily abandoned his post and is now the city’s lead person on this project.  Council has given him the sole authority to change the specifications.  That is not good.

We deserve better — and it appears that we will get it this time — not great, but better

Brutus

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

Shovel ready

February 11, 2013

I previously wrote about the preliminary scheduling the city is planning relative to the bonds we just approved.  What committee?  We didn’t promise to listen! focused primarily on the absence of the citizen (until they changed committee eligibility rules after the election) Bond Overview Advisory Committee.

There is a lot more to be upset about.  The document proposes how the city will spend the money in the first (next) three years of administering the funds.

No money will be spent for the new Children’s Museum.  Not a cent toward even planning one!

No money will be spent to replace the Chelsea pool that the city had to close last year.

Maybe the term “Quality of Life” does actually refer to the city staff and not to the public.

What they are spending money on by the bucket full is projects that are to be located downtown (adjunctive to the ball park) and legions of consultants.

We are being told that “shovel ready” projects are being given priority.  For once we are being told the truth.

We all know what they are shoveling.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Give them an inch and they take a yard

February 10, 2013

Next week’s (Tuesday, February 12, 2013) city council agenda has an example of how the city uses multiple sequential actions to trick us.

Item 11 requests permission to award contracts totaling $570,000 for services relating to the new phone system that the system is installing.

The backup material makes the sequence of events clear:

  • October 12, 2010 council approves the purchase of a fancy phone system for the 10th floor of city hall.  The system was not bid.  It was purchased through a state sanctioned bid board. City staff chose their favorite brand.   Citizens spoke against the system as being much more expensive than competitive units.  We were assured that the system was only for the use of the mayor and city council.
  • January 10, 2012 council approves purchase orders for upgrades to the network hardware and software.  These upgrades were necessary for the expansion of the phone system.
  • February 28, 2012 council approves the purchase of more of the same phone system for the police and fire departments
  • October 30, 2012 council buys more of the same phone system for other city departments

This started with city staff picking the system that they wanted.  Competition was not allowed.  As time went by more units were purchased in the name of compatibility with the existing system.

Competitive systems that are as good (if not better) could have been used that would have cost us less than half of what the city is spending.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Shadow government

February 8, 2013

The El Paso Times (giving credit where credit is due) pointed to something fascinating in their February 6, 2013 edition.  I would post the link here but am incapable of finding the article in their web edition.  To me their site is hard to figure out and unbelievably sluggish.  Things flash around, voice recordings accost,  and searching for articles is hard.

They wrote “After executive session, the council directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance on how the city should handle public information requests”.

I can’t wait.  What mischief are they up to now?  Have they found some clever way to subvert our right to examine the goings on at the city?

They already use many tricks to avoid what Texas state law requires them to do.

“… what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”  Stay tuned!  This has real potential.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

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

Helping the team

February 7, 2013

In an article Saturday (February 2, 2013) the El Paso Times wrote “A Socorro City Council member was secretly recorded offering Licon Dairy a $40,000 advertising campaign in exchange for its support of the city’s controversial annexation plan that includes part of San Elizario.”  You can read the article here.

In Texas either party to a telephone conversation can record it without notifying the other party.  I doubt the council member recorded it.  That only leaves the dairy guy unless the call was recorded illegally.  That leads me to conclude that it was in effect a setup.  The dairy guy probably led the council member on in order to get the recording and to use it to fight the annexation plan..

The Times makes no mention of any law being broken.  Nothing is said about any law enforcement agency getting involved.  Why would the Times take the bait and write about the recording, thus helping one side and hurting the other?

Is it possible that the real issue here is that the City of Socorro is trying to annex some land that the cabal that is controlling things downtown  doesn’t want them to have?

I’m confused.  How should I categorize the $9.4 million that the City of El Paso paid the owners of the Times recently?  The city got a building and two parking lots for the money.  Did the city get anything else?  How long does a subscription to the “I won’t criticize your government” service cost?  Does the subscription include the Times carrying your water for some period of time?

The Times published a front page article about something that I would rather not have had happen.  So far no one has said the conversation was illegal.

I have high hopes for the Times as an institution that helps us to improve our governments.  I quote Julianne Schultz:  “The assertion by journalists and editors of independence from proprietors and sources is essential if authority for the Fourth Estate is to remain relevant …”.

What about all of the stuff that is happening to us over at the city?  Why won’t the Times write about that?

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, County Government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »