The El Paso Times on proper governance

February 1, 2013

The post from Brutus yesterday (January 31, 2013) got me to thinking about what the situation is over at the El Paso Times.

The same day as his post the Times wrote an editorial that supported the negative tone of the earlier article Brutus wrote about.

An elected city representative was chastised for bringing a proposal out into the open for the public and city council to consider!

An idea that might be good for the public somehow came to him.  He explored it at a preliminary level to see if it might make sense and be possible.  He then brought it to city council for their consideration.

The Times says that was the wrong thing to do.  They wrote “The rub? Noe apparently went off on his own in negotiating a possible deal with a land developer. Some on City Council said Noe went behind their backs.”

I thought that is part of what he is supposed to do.  Consider an idea.  Bring it out into the open and let council consider it.  Tell council it is just an idea — one way of doing something — that he is open to other ideas.

Could the Times be saying that the way things have been happening at city council is the way he should have handled this?

Does that mean he should have:

  • Gone serially, one by one to avoid the open meeting laws, to each representative and wired together a deal
  • Secretly finalized the details
  • Waited until there would be no time to consider other options
  • Then sprung the deal so that council would have no choice other than to approve it?

Or does it mean he should have kept his mouth shut and let city staff cut a deal with the cabal and then do exactly the same four things?

That is what has been happening in this city.  The Times has chosen not to expose it.  Now the Times criticizes the open, transparent method that a new city representative attempted.

“I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

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

Whoa! Was the fix already in?

January 31, 2013

I don’t know Dr. Noe, one of our city council representatives.  I do know that I have not agreed with some of his votes while on council, so I am not one of his biggest supporters.

The front page article in the El Paso Times yesterday (January 30, 2013) really got my attention though.

Evidently the councilman brought a possible land deal for council’s consideration relative to the east side sports complex that the voters just approved.  To me the tone of the article was just short of accusatory.  It characterized the reaction of other council members as negative, “frustrated” and “confused”.

After the discussion the council directed the city staff to research potential locations for the complex “and explore all options”.  Dr. Noe said “his proposed site  did not have to be the final one”.  I seems somehow council did the right thing.

What’s happening?  Why did the Times article take a negative tone?  Is the problem that a council member got out ahead of the cabal that is running the city and had the audacity to propose something for consideration that he thought might make sense?  Is it possible that the strong response was because the fix is already in and his suggestion is not the one that they want?

The article gave details about the developer’s contribution to Dr. Noe’s campaign.  I really don’t remember that kind of coverage from the Times when the ball park and city hall moves were being written about.

Let’s see:

  • A developer contributes $2,000 to a candidate’s campaign.  The candidate gets elected and becomes a city representative.  The candidate and the developer  consider a potential deal to give land to the city in return for some concessions on another project.  The city representative brings a deal for consideration to the entire council — right out in public.
  • The El Paso Times writes an article that makes it look like open warfare broke out and that something sneaky was going on, but ultimately city council did the right thing and told city staff to consider all options.

On the other hand:

  • The city buys a multi-million dollar building from the owners of the Times.
  • The Times turns a blind eye on the shenanigans that have been going on at the city.

Did the good Doctor forget his place?   How did a city representative come to the mistaken idea that he should bring ideas to the council for their consideration?  Doesn’t he know that his job is to rubber stamp what the cabal has decided?

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Me first, children second

January 30, 2013

The  January 29, 2013 city council agenda (here)  has some interesting items on it.

Items 6B, 6C and 6D deal with issuing contracts to install school zone flashers and pedestrian ramps for the disabled.  It looks like there are three separate items because of the quantity of work to be done.  They appear to be similar but each deals with different schools.

The backup material tells us that the bids were due October 3, 2012 and were then evaluated by October 15, 2012.  Evidently it takes 12 days to evaluate bids that affect the safety of our children whereas we all know that a ballpark or new city hall needs to be evaluated in a day, maybe even in hours.

Items 6C and 6D are being recommended for award to company A (El Paso based) — after all it was the low bidder.

Item 6B is being recommended for award to company B (Arizona based).  Company B was not the low bidder.  Company A was the low bidder.

Why don’t they want to give the business to company A?  According to the backup material company A is not “responsible”. The city could have said “responsive” but since the public is considered to be “crazies” what’s the harm in some slander?

Let’s see why company A is not “responsible”.  According to the recommendation:

  • “The proposal is on a form other than the official proposal forms issued to the bidder or bidders”
  • “The bidder modifies the proposal in a manner that alters the condition or requirements for work as stated in the proposal”

What?  Company A bid on the other two projects at the same time in a manner that was evidently acceptable to city staff.  Did they use the wrong form on this particular bid?  Somehow city staff was able to analyze the offer, even if it was on a different form,  and conclude that company A offered the lowest price.  Company A did not use the right form?  Oh!  The humanity of it!  What a horrible inconvenience.

It appears that Company A also had the audacity to suggest different requirements.  They are in the business of doing this type of work.  Were they trying to tell the city that there was a better, more effective way of doing the work?  If so, and the city for some reason felt compelled to follow the bidding laws (a bid should be analyzed against published, set, specifications), why did the city not cancel the bid and redo it with better specifications?  There was plenty of time.  After all the city has been busy feathering their nest.

This stinks.  The city probably has other reasons, but it must be inconvenient to share them with the public.

I doubt that Company A will complain.  They got two out of the three jobs.  They will probably keep their mouth shut rather than risk the wrath of the city.  Who would listen to an irresponsible company?

The fact that it took more than four months to approve something for the safety of our children while city staff can approve building moves for their own convenience in a matter of days tells us a lot about where staff’s priorities are.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Heads I win, tails you lose

January 29, 2013

Our local governments have been giving away the store.

This example is a proposed lease of a parking lot that the city seems to think that they need for either the new city hall or the 801 Texas building (even though they told us that they would not need this parking lot.  See No parking zone.)  The landlord is the railroad company that also owns the train tracks next to city hall.

This is a ten year lease.  The amount to be paid will automatically increase by 3% each year, compounded.

Many leases tie their rate increases to the Consumer Price Index that is published by the general government.  The published number changes each year and for the last ten years has been beneath 3% — it was even negative one of those years.

Why give away 3% in advance?  Maybe because you think that inflation will come back with a vengence during the 10 year lease and locking in a mere 3% is smart business.

Then why does the lease let the landlord “redetermine” the rent every 3 years?  The landlord wins either way!

Are they competent to manage our money?

Or could it be that as FedUp wrote yesterday that this is a way to give the landlord a blank check for something else?  Rumor has it that the new ball park will require building over the sunken train way that is next to it.  Some say the site is not large enough for a ball park without building on top of the train way.

Is leasing this parking lot part of they way the city plans to pay the railroad for the right to build structures over the train way?

We deserve better

Brutus

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

No parking zone

January 28, 2013

There they go again.

The city wants to lease a parking lot for either the new city hall or the 801 Texas building. Either way they did not tell us the truth.

This is really pretty simple.

On September 14, 2012 the city chief financial officer made a presentation to city council and to the public. This was to try to convince us to move city hall. The plan was to move into a few buildings. It was all figured out.

The main part of city staff would move into the Times building and its parking lot. One lot, singular, not two lots. The building was in great shape, needed “minimal” improvements and the lot could handle our parking needs.

The city subsequently bought the building and has spent a lot of money remodeling it. They got their parking lot too.

Now do they want another parking lot for the Times building — or do they want it for the 801 Texas building that we were told in the same presentation had ample parking?

Step one:

  • Start with the same presentation from the city’s chief financial officer.
  • You can see the page here 801TexasParkingPortrait
  • The chief financial officer told us that the building had “ample customer parking in city-owned lot and streets”.  Ample is defined as “
    enough or more than enough; plentiful”.

Step two:

  • Next Tuesday’s (January 29, 2013) city council agenda has as item 14 “Discussion and action that the City Manager be authorized to sign a Lease of Property by and between the City of El Paso and Union Pacific Railroad Company for approximately 43,800 square feet on Mills St., between N. Ochoa St. and N. Virginia St., El Paso, Texas, the property to be used primarily for City employee/visitor parking.”
  • The lease, with it’s automatic 3% price increase per year, comes to over $611 thousand.

We were told that if we bought the building, parking was “ample”.  Now they need to lease an acre of land two blocks over.

The told us that they needed to buy one parking lot with the Times building.  They did.  They told us that the 801 Texas building had ample parking.  They want yet another parking lot now that the other purchases have been approved.

That’s another $611 thousand that we should add to the cost of the move.  My numbers come to over $66 million and raising  for a project that we were told would cost $33 million.

Will city council speak up?  Will they remember?  Are some of them part of the lie?

Is this deliberate lying or is it gross negligence?  Either way —

We deserve better

Brutus

 

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »