Grading their Agendas

December 6, 2012

To my knowledge the laws controlling government agendas in Texas are pretty specific about when and where they must be published, but do not address much about the content of agendas.  The only local  exception to this that I am aware of is the City of El Paso ordinance number 16806 that is quite specific about the backup material that must be provided when an item is placed on the agenda.

I thought it would be interesting to see how much information our local government agendas give us citizens and to assign a grade to them.

Many of the agendas tell us that there will be discussion and action on various topics but fail to give us any of the backup documents that the voting group gets to see.  Most of the items on agendas are put there by the paid staff.  Generally they want their governing board to approve a recommendation.  That means that back up materials (bid analyses, proposed contracts …) are given to each of the voting members before the discussion.

The public generally does not get to see the backup materials before the vote, even though it should.  If the XYZ school district administrators want their board to approve a policy to paint all second graders green, the item would typically be placed on the agenda as “Consider and take possible action relative to certain students”.  If as a citizen you think that painting all second graders green is not a good idea, you have no way of knowing what they are considering until after they have already done it.  So much for public input.

I did a brief review of some of our local government agendas available on the web to see what I would find.  I only looked at one agenda each, so the one I looked at might be an exception.  Maybe I should consider this grade like a 6 weeks grade, not the final score.

The grades are my opinion:

  • F    Anthony Independent School District.  This agenda is a model for brevity and obscurity.  While they appear to be using the same software that the Canutillo district uses, they do not provide any backup information even though they could.
  • A    Canutillo Independent School District.  The agenda tells us what they will consider and includes a link to an “Agenda Packet” that seems to give us the information that the board is to look at.
  • D    City of El Paso Texas.  Their agenda includes backup information for most items and in all fairness when compared to the other entities in this list it is the best.  The problem is that they are violating a very specific ordinance that requires them to post more information than they are.
  • B-   El Paso County.  It looks as though they have a policy of presenting backup material on the web site, but they appear to be conveniently inconsistent.  A previously postponed mandatory presentation from the CEO of the El Paso County Hospital District (University Medical Center) included backup material that was simply a four point listing  (Strategic Plan, Leadership Development, Operations Improvement, Financial Update) of what was to be presented.  There were no details.
  • D    El Paso County Community College District.  The agenda gives us a pretty complete idea of what action is being considered (including names and dollar amounts) but none of the analysis or competitive data that the staff used to make their recommendation.
  • F    El Paso County Hospital District (aka University Medical Center).  Horrible.  First it is hard to find the agendas.  Once you do find them it appears that they only post agendas for meetings yet to be held.  I could not find past agendas.  There are no backup materials.  The agenda wording is very vague.
  • F    Socorro Independent School District.  The agenda tells us very little.  Among other items they consider awarding competitive contracts without telling us who they suggest should win the award.  How can a competitor tell his side of the story when he does not know what he is up against?
  • D    Ysleta Independent School District.  The agenda gives us a pretty complete idea of what action is being considered (including names and dollar amounts) but none of the analysis or competitive data that the staff used to make their recommendation.

The only web site that I could find that to allows us citizens to do key word searches is the one for the City of El Paso.  They all should.

We should each contact our elected representatives at these organizations and tell them that we want to see everything that they see when considering agenda items except for those things that are properly handled in executive session.

We deserve better.

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

A Tiffany Dome for City Hall

December 3, 2012

I wrote in another post about how the city spent $94,993.76 to replace 17,000 square feet of ceiling tile on the 10th floor of city hall last year.  I sure hope they did not have to pay much for the warranty since the building might soon be torn down.

City staff claims that this amount was obtained through a competitive bid process.  In other posts I have said that is not so.

Let’s look at the numbers.

Using Google one can find the exact tile they used for less than $10,000.  Let’s add 20% for profit.  We are now at $12,000.

The city evidently wanted new grid.  I don’t know what was wrong with the old one, but let’s assume they need to tear down the old one and put in a new one.

In writing this I was going to go off and research the individual costs.  Then an idea came to me.  I wonder if the city has actually done other ceiling projects?  Well as it turns out they have right here.  Wander down to items 17, 18, and 19.  To save you the arithmetic their first recommended bidder wants $1.33 per square foot to tear down and install acoustical ceilings (without materials).

This was a 2011  award the city made through another buy board (our local Region 19), just not the buy board that lets us send 4% of every purchase to Houston.  By the way Region 19 rebid this in 2012 and the low bidder for tear down and install was at 70 cents (down from $1.33)–but we will use the 2011 numbers since they were available at the time.

We have:

  • $12,000 for the ceiling tiles (available to you and me on the web, who knows what you could get them in volume for)
  • $22,610 for labor to tear down the old grid and install the new one
  • $10,000 for the materials in the ceiling grid

That brings us to $44,610 and even that number is just a price survey (not a competitive bid–which would be lower).

In the construction business they refer to site conditions–things that make the work more or less expensive.  Could the extra $50,000 that we spent be because the workers had to work on the 10th floor of city hall?  Did the contractor determine that it is a cesspool filled with snakes?  I don’t know.

Humor aside, here we have a situation where we paid twice as much as we should have.   Why would they use a buy board out of Houston when an El Paso buy board was half the price?

We deserve better!

3 Comments | City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

More Of Our Money For Houston

November 30, 2012

Next Tuesday’s City Council agenda has an item to award a 4 million dollar contract for construction work without a real competitive bid.  Read the item here.

I have written about the non-competitive issue before.  You should read Saying It Does Not Make it So.

The company in question put a new roof on city hall last year to the tune of 694 thousand dollars.  Yes, the city hall that they are about to tear down.  Read There They Go Again for the gory details.

Remember that four percent (that is 160,000 dollars) goes to the Harris County Department of Education because the city is buying off of a buy-board!  I would think that we could use the money.

I sense that we may be seeing the old two-step here.  I have no evidence yet, but I suspect that they are up to something more.

Remember that the city has been telling us that it will take about two million dollars to tear down city hall.  That’s the city hall with a new roof, and a new chiller, and a whole bunch of valuable emergency communication equipment that they say will be imploded into the rubble (click here to see $63.9 million and climbing).

Last year the city issued a contract to this same firm for 750,000 dollars.  Why the big jump to four million dollars?

Is it possible that the city will use this new contract to get away with tearing down city hall without a real bid?  There is probably real value in the salvage.   Are they going to claim that they do not have enough time to conduct fair bidding?  How long have then been planning to tear down the building?  Four percent of 2 million dollars is 80,000 dollars.  How much money could we save by conducting  a bid with existing city employees?  How much would it really cost to tear down city hall if we let the market work?  Is there real value in the salvage and are we going to get it or is some contractor going to get it?

So far we have not seen any bidding activity from the city where they are trying to find a contractor to tear it down.  The city says it takes about 60 days to run a Request for Proposals.  Have they decided to use this new contract?  Hide and watch.

Call your city representatives!  Be careful not to tell them what to do.  Incredible as it sounds that appears to be illegal.  Read Cone of Silence by clicking this link.

I wish that we could get the El Paso Times cover these stories.  I know that they have to fight cost issues, but it seems to me that they could bring real value to this situation.

We deserve better.  Maybe we will get it in the next election.

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Times, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

Cone of Silence

November 29, 2012

As unbelievable as this sounds, it appears to be  against the law for you to talk to your city representative about a proposed purchase or project until the item is placed on the agenda or during a public meeting.

The city ordinance is number 16300, you can read it here.  It was later amended (but not the part I am addressing).

Let’s say the city publishes a Request for Proposals (RFP) to buy a new chimney sweeper for our local smokestack.

You think that is an unwise use of our money.  Do not contact anyone at the city and tell them what you think–it looks like it is against the law.

Section 2.94.090 D reads:

  • “During the period of solicitation for requests for proposal (RFP), qualifications (RFQ), highest qualified bid (best value), source selection, or the giving of a notice of a proposed project, which shall begin on the day that it is advertised and end on the date that the notice of the award has been sent to the City Clerk for placement on the agenda, no person or registrant shall engage in any lobbying activities with city officials and employees.” (emphasis added)

Section 2.94.020 G defines lobbying as follows:

  • “”Lobby” or “lobbying” means the solicitation of a City official, by private interview, postal or telephonic communications, or any other means other than public expression at a meeting of City officials open to the public under Chapter 551 (Open Meetings Act) of the Texas Government Code, directly or indirectly by person in an effort to influence or persuade the City official to favor or oppose, recommend or not recommend, vote for or against, or take action or refrain from taking action on a municipal question” (emphasis added).

Section 2.94.020 J defines a municipal question:

  • “”Municipal question” means a public policy issue of a discretionary nature pending or impending before the city council, a legislative review commitee of the council, or any board, commission or committee set forth in Section 2.94.030 of this code, including but not limited to a proposed or proposal for an ordinance, resolution, motion, recommendation, report, regulation, policy appointment, sanction, bid, a request for proposal ...” (emphasis added)

Section 2.94.120 defines the penalty:

  • “A person who knowingly or intentionally lobbies in violation of a provision of this chapter … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” (emphasis added)

The City Charter defines the penalty in Section 1.08.o10:

  • “Whenever in this code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such code or ordinance the doing of any act is commanded or the failure to do any act is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, the violation of any such provision shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”

What is with these people?  Since the agenda is published late Thursday afternoon and the City is closed on Friday, that only leaves you Monday to speak your piece before the City Council meeting.  Try getting a meeting with them on Monday without prior notice.

The people down at city hall call this “The Cone of Silence”.  Reminds me of the idiocy of Maxwell Smart and his special room that you can read about here if you are too young to remember.

You think that they would not use this to their advantage?  Think again.

This is the kind of thing that I wish the El Paso Times would look into.

So if you have something to say wait for the City Council meeting.  All I can offer you is “good luck”.  Watch any City Council meeting and see how they disregard the public.  Heck, they even disregard each other.

Unconstitutional! you say.  It takes a judge to make a ruling.  In the mean time:

We deserve better.

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

$63.9 million and climbing

November 27, 2012

El Paso Inc.  published this article Sunday (11/25/2012) about tearing down city hall.

A previous post City Hall Relocation pointed out that the city was telling us before the bond issue that the cost of relocating city hall was about $33 million.

At that point the costs that City Council had agreed to were at $37 million without relocation costs or land renovation.

The article yesterday pointed out a problem with emergency communication equipment being in the building.  They were interviewing the City Engineer who has evidently stepped out of that job temporarily to become “project engineer for the stadium project” and wrote:

  • “The city is modernizing and replacing much of its public safety communication system but the current system atop City Hall will have to continue operating.”
  • “The intent is to have it up and running before we tear this building down, which means the current system will still be in the building when we implode it,” he said.

Let’s think about this.  They plan to leave the old communication system in the building when they tear it down.  Are they going to run the old system up until the moment of the implosion?  I doubt it.  I wonder what the salvage value of the old system is and why they do not take the issue to the open market.  Oh–that would require bidding–something that the City has a lot of trouble with.

City Council has already agreed to obtain the new system for a mere 20 million dollars.  They have also agreed to buy a new 6.9 million dollar phone system.

Let’s do the arithmetic:

  1. $11.8 million for 801 Texas Street
  2. $13.7 million to renovate the Luther building
  3. $11.5 million for the El Paso Times building and parking lots
  4. $20 million for the new emergency radio system
  5. $6.9 million for a new for a new phone system

So now we are at 63.9 million dollars and still have not paid for relocation or land renovation or whatever else comes up.  Where did they come up with the 33 million dollar figure?

Are they lying to us or are they incompetent?  Either way we need new management.

We deserve better!

3 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc. | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »