I notice that if you go the city web site and mouse over to City Departments that the panel the site then presents does not include a link to the purchasing department.
You have to click on the City Departments link, then squint your way through the convenience panel. The purchasing web site is in the department listing under the panel.
Accidental? If I say yes then I criticize their competence. If I say no, that it is deliberate, then I must be disappointed.
We deserve better.
Leave a Comment » | 
City government, Open Government, Purchasing | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Much of what Brutus has been writing about is government activity that is just not right.
In most cases it may be legal though.
That does not make it right.
When did government following the spirit of the law become unimportant? Why is it that so many of our elected officials and government workers do not care about doing the right thing? Why are they seemingly only worried about whether their actions can be judged illegal?
There is some hope though. Even though much of what they are doing around here appears to be legal, their actions may turn out to be illegal. How so? Well, conducting a purchase a certain way may be technically legal but lying about facts or falsifying documents may turn out to be illegal. Ignoring procedural requirements can put them in violation of other laws.
Pulling the search facility from the city web site was wrong minded. They should be ashamed.
It would be nice if they would embrace the spirit of their jobs.
Time will tell.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, Federal Government, Open Government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato
One of the tools that the city has provided on its web site is the ability to search.
Well, it seems that searching may have made it too easy to figure out what is going on.
They have removed it from the website.
Look here if you find this difficult to believe.
Of all the low down, mean spirited tricks …
They could have and should have left the old search feature up while they are working on the new one.
We deserve better
Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Okay, Okay! People tell me that I am naive. Guilty as charged.
Yesterday I wrote in Baseball art that it looked like the city at one time thought about spending $850,000 for art at the new ball park, with most of the money going to out of town artists. I saw some documents that made me hope that the amount had been cut down to $150,000 and would go to a local artist.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride …
Next Tuesday’s (January 15, 2013) city council agenda has item 11B on it that would approve the 2013 Public Art Plan for the City of El Paso.
The plan includes $850,000 for art at the soon to be built baseball park and $478,000 for art at the new city headquarters (why can’t we move art from the soon to be demolished city hall?). Dozens of other projects are listed in the plan.
Art is something that I know nothing about. I suppose we need it. Please don’t make me pick it.
My objections here are that we evidently are using certificates of obligations (borrowing) to fund this. If we borrow I think it should be for necessities. We should pay for niceties with money that we actually have.
Secondly (but certainly no less important) if we are still giving preference to out of town artists I think that we are doing the wrong thing. It appears from reading the document that the artists have already been chosen, and some are indeed from out of town.
Take a look at the document. It shows what they plan to spend and where the art will go. It even has conceptual renditions of what some of it may look like.
Much of the plan addresses dressing up the Bataan Railway right next to the proposed ball park. What a coincidence. Should we consider this part of the cost of the ball park?
We deserve better
2 Comments | Ball park, City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
It appears as though some reasonable management may have occurred at the city recently.
I ran across this request for proposals recently. It asks for national, regional, and local artists to apply for funding to create public art at our soon to be erected baseball field.
Evidently the plan was to award up to $500,000 to a national group, $200,000 to a regional group, and $150,000 to a local group to decorate the new ball field.
Give me a break! If a local group is good enough to win whatever kind of competition (OK, I know we are dealing with the city, it looks like to me competition is an unknown word over there) a local group should be eligible for just as much money as a national or regional group.
Management seems to have happened though. From what I can tell the request for proposals has been modified and now only offers $150,000 to a local winner. I don’t know if the national and regional offers are off the table. I hope so.
Now thinking about the $150,000 I realize that the city has a graffiti removal program. Maybe we could get some of those talented artists without a palette who decorate our city for free to come over to the ball park and paint for us once in a while. This could give them something to do, lessen the graffiti removal costs, and maybe even give us changing art at the stadium.
Then again, I doubt that many of our local Picassos read the city web site. They probably seek truth elsewhere.
We deserve better.
2 Comments | City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
You are currently browsing the archives for the City government category.
You must be logged in to post a comment.