City Manager’s Statement

December 19, 2012

Last Sunday (December 16, 2012) El Paso, Inc. published a public statement recently made by the city manager.

I don’t know whether to take it as an apology or as a promise to do better.  I hope that it is both but fear that it might be another exercise in misdirection and self justification.

Let me re-print the message as it was printed in the El Paso, Inc. and intersperse some of my thoughts in blue with the hope that the city manager will take them to heart.

I want to thank the mayor and City Council for their continuing vote of confidence and support.  I realize that the controversy surrounding the public release of volumes of emails has created an unfortunate distraction from the important work of the city and a regrettable conflict in relationships between myself and some members of City Council,  (The controversy did not cause the conflict.  You did.  You were wrong when you thought  it was your place to judge your bosses as having dementia.  You were wrong when you committed your thoughts to a written note to someone else.)  and the potential to permanently tarnish my career as city manager (your job, which is not a career, has been tarnished by this and other actions).

I once again want to publicly apologize for my role (not your role, you were not part of the problem, you and you alone  caused the problem) in causing this situation.  I am committed to doing my very best to rebuild those damaged relationships with the City Council and community (I hope that you will learn to put your obligations to the community first.) and to ensure that this conflict doesn’t adversely impact the community’s overall confidence in its city government (face it, it has) and the council/manager form of government in particular.

Even though all our actions surrounding the development of the ballpark project and related agreements were undertaken with only the community’s best interest at heart (thank you for your intent, but please understand that the community gets to decide what is in it’s best interest, not a city employee), the conflict surrounding these decisions did devolve into an erosion of civil discourse (it was not an “erosion” just because the discourse ran contrary to your actions) over a very important and transformative initiave, and I want to do my part to prevent a future reoccurence of same.

Of the many important lessons recently learned, all citizens are entitled to be heard and treated with respect as are all elected officials regardless of their respective positions on issues (I would have hoped that you knew this before taking the job.  The fact that you are just now learning it speaks volumes about your prior actions).  Process and relationships are equally important as results.  I am not the first person to make statements they regretted or which they could take back (Are you trying to say that since other people have made mistakes  that you are less accountable for yours?), or to not fully appreciate the impact of technology on communications (don’t you really mean that you did not realize the Public Information Act would allow someone to catch you?) and casual (casual?  It is not your place to gossip about and denegrate the people that you work for.) chatter.  I am not perfect, even though I recognize that I must be held to a higher standard because of the office I hold (If you had said “I am not perfect and I recognize…”  this would not have sounded like an excuse–are you saying “poor me, I have to be held to a higher standard”).

However, regardless of my personal failings (What are you saying here–you still think they are demented?), the public needs (deserves, not needs–you don’t get to decide what we need to do) to retain its confidence in the organization and leadership and know that this community and organization has been my passion and devotion (I thank you for that but would like to point out that your passions do not entitle you act differently from our will.) since taking office in 2004.

I am deeply saddened to have created a situation which compromised the city government reputation and for letting the mayor and council, the community and my staff down (good, but remember that the members of the community should come first in your thoughts).

2013 will be a year of significant change.  I am committed to providing appropriate stewardship and leadership (I just wish you knew what was appropriate.) going forward to ensure a smooth relocation of City Hall with minimal disruption in customer service, good oversight of the ballpark construction project, a seamless transition of a new mayor and council in June 2013 (What do you have to do with that?  Do you intend to tell us who to vote for?  I hope that you meant to say that you would do what you could to support the new officials.) , which is only six months away, and then a thorough process to recruit my successor (Please stop right there–you should have nothing to do with picking your successor other than answering those questions that the selection group poses.) so there will be no major upheaval or loss of continuity for the future (Who are you to decide about continuity?  Maybe the voters  want an upheaval.)

We also need to successfully launch the quality of life bond initiatives.  The community gave us a huge vote of confidence (That is presumptuous.  Some of us voted for the facilities despite our current government.) on election night and we need to make sure that this present conflict doesn’t undermine this extraordinary movement in El Paso’s history (How are you going to do that?  Silence the opposition?  I suggest that you administer our affairs in a professional manner).

I would like to again reaffirm my gratitude to the mayor and council for your continued support, and in particular to the mayor for the manner in which he constructively handled  (By prohibiting public comment from an elected official?) this situation and review.  Thank you.

Time will tell.  It is not too late for the city manager to start running an open, transparent government that responds to the will of the people.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.


The Lying Two Step

December 18, 2012

I previously wrote about how the city plans to hold their city council meetings at the public library since after all the library is already set up to handle such a meeting.  Meet me in the stacks.

Well let me quote to you from the city’s newly issued request for proposals # 2013-090R, dated December 11, 2013.  “The Main branch equipment is not adequate for hosting public gatherings, conferences, presentations and events.”  The RFP is seeking bids for Library Audio/Video Equipment.

An August 7, 2012 presentation to city council suggested that city council meetings should be held at the library (read it here —  slide number 25).  The presentation indicated that  “The cost is $0 and availability would not be an issue”.

Now it turns out that they do not have the necessary equipment.

Were they lying or are they so incompetent that they did not know the truth?

Council was lied to.  Do they care?  Do they know?  Why do they put up with this?  For that matter why don’t we make them do their jobs?  City staff is out of control.

This will need to be added to the running total of the cost of moving city hall.

We deserve better


Maybe we should bear the tax burden for the entire state

December 17, 2012

My second reading of Tuesday’s city council agenda picked up this absurdity:

We all know that city hall is scheduled to be torn down and the city council has been busy buying up and renting properties to find new, temporary facilities to house city staff.

In fact in So much for quality of life I wrote about the city moving 75 city employees into a recreation center and “inconveniencing” some of the public.

Now item 12 on city council’s regular agenda proposes to lease the Albert Fall Mansion to Texas Tech for $1 per year.

You may recall that the city recently spent almost $1.2 million to remodel this 5,430 square foot historic building.  The city then asked people to lease it and evidently has concluded that giving it to the Texas Tech system for $1 per year is the best use of the property.

Could we have moved one of our displaced city hall departments into the facility and saved some of our tax money or left part of a recreation center open to the public?

Why are we subsidizing Texas Tech?  They have their own budget.

How much of our money does the city want?

Could they have left the kids in the recreation center and moved a city function into the beautiful, newly remodeled building?

We deserve better.

Our kids deserve better.


Council Deceit

December 15, 2012

I try to keep each article focused on a single issue.

Next weeks council agenda won’t let me do that.  There are too many things that they are planning to do to us.

Here is a list of the items that caught my eye on my first reading of the agenda:

  • Item 19 on the regular agenda allows the city to sign a lease for antenna space on top of the Wells Fargo building for the public safety radio system.  Those antennae used to be on top of city hall.  Turns out that city hall was a ten story building and the multiple new buildings they want to move into are not tall enough for the antennae.  Cost? $40,800 a year (to start) for ten years.  That’s another $408,000 that I will add to the running total of the cost of tearing down city hall.
  • Item 18 on the regular agenda asks for permission to change the Bond Overview Advisory Committee (BOAC) resolution. Council created the BOAC so that we citizens would feel that we might get someone honest to watch how the bond money was spent — trust us, we will have civilian oversight.  The resolution stated “No member of the BOAC shall hold any other public office of honor, trust or profit in the government of the city, county or state during his or her term of office”.  That meant no elected officials or government staff.  The agenda item includes “The City Council will consider deleting this provision in order to allow more individuals to apply and be considered for appointment to the 2012 BOAC.”  In other words we want to stack the board with our insiders so that we can spend the money without citizen interference.
  • Item 17A on the regular agenda asks for permission for to have “City Development Department staff draft an ordinance implementing urban design standards/criteria for public assembly use buildings to include all City of El Paso civic buildings and schools.  Furthermore, that staff develop a process by which civic buildings and schools are vetted through an Architectural Design Review Committee to ensure compliance with urban design standards.”  In other words they want control over the design and construction of all of our local schools.
  • Item 10A on the regular agenda contemplates the establishment of the “Baseball Stadium Venue Project Fund”.  Maybe that makes sense.  What does not make sense is that it allows the city to use money in the fund to “pay the principal of, interest on, and other costs relating to bonds or other obligations issued by the City or to refund bonds, notes, or other obligations; …”   In other words they can steal money from the fund to pay for other things not related to the ballpark.  Is this an accidental phrasing?  Do they mean they only want the fund to pay for the ballpark?  Regardless of their intentions, the language is clear — they want to be able to pay for anything.

I will stop now to let you think about these things:

  • $408,000 being spent because the antennae on top of city hall need to be put somewhere else
  • Change the bond oversight committee to allow politicians and government insiders to control what is happening
  • Let us decide how schools will be built and what it will cost to build them
  • Let us spend the Hotel Occupancy Tax on whatever we want to spend it on.

We deserve better


Maybe “The Truth Will Not Set You Free”

December 14, 2012

The City of El Paso  is now suing the Texas Attorney General to try to avoid turning over emails and other documents that were requested for a citizen back in September.

According to the El Paso Times the city claims that “the personal emails, letters, memos and other documents of the mayor and City Council members should not be subject to public information searches even if they regard city business”.   Also requested were copies of communications between city officials and business people linked to the Triple-A baseball team.  According to the Times the city issued a statement saying “Those documents do not meet the statutory definition of public information”.

The Attorney General has ruled to the contrary and has told the city to turn over the documents.  The basic path that the Attorney General applies to the Public Information Act request in cases like this is:

  • Does the city have the information (and it is not a violation of a person’s right to privacy)?  If so,  turn it over.
  • Does the city pay for or control the email account being used?  If so, turn it over.
  • If the email account is paid for privately, does the email discuss city business?  If so, turn it over.

Another case like this has already gone to court and the judge ordered the information to be turned over.  The case is now on appeal.

It looks like the city will lose this court case.  So why are they challenging the Attorney General, especially if nothing is wrong?

Could it be the principal of the thing?  Preposterous!  The law is clear, the case law is clear, and I have not seen much evidence that the people running the city can even spell principal, much less have one.

What are they trying to hide?  This tactic will allow them to delay, but why?  Have they violated a law?  Are they worried about their images in the next election?

As far as the communications between the city staff and business people, they should be turned over without delay if they were discussing city matters or if city email accounts were used.  The law is clear on this.

A committee in the legislature is even considering changes to the law, in part to make clear that the modern methods of communication (text messaging, emails) are specifically included in the law.  Currently the possession of and content of messages become the basis for declaring them to be public information.

Think about what the city wants to do.  If a government official can conduct government business in secret on his or her own device, what will keep them from doing everything that way?  That would be wrong.

Why are they spending our money on a high profile case with out of town lawyers when the intent of the law is clear and they will ultimately have to turn over the documents?  Why do they want to keep these documents secret as long as they can?  Who are they protecting?

I can only conclude that there is something they do not want us to know.

We will eventually.

We deserve better