Sneak attack

December 31, 2012

I was relaxing with the understanding that city council would not meet last week or this because Tuesday, the normal city council meeting day, would fall on Christmas and New Year’s day.

It seems however that council needs to meet this week so they will meet on Wednesday.

The agenda is not a very long one, there are three potential board appointments, a couple of zoning requests, a few other matters — generally housekeeping issues.

Oh wait, there is another item.  It seems that the city wants to spend $648,841.22 to remodel part of a building using that no-bid indefinite delivery contract  method that I have written about so many times.  Council voted on December 4, 2012 to grant another no-bid contract valued at $4 million through a buy board.  The Houston based Harris County Department of Education will get 4% (or up to $160,000) of our money under this deal.  Now the city wants to use that contract to remodel 30,000 square feet for the new offices of the city council, mayor, and the city attorneys.

Remember the El Paso Times building that is so ideally suited to be our next city hall?  On September 18, 2012 the Chief Financial Officer of the city told council (on slide 4 of her presentation under “Improvements Needed”) that they were “Minimal due to condition of building”.  Well it appears that the $648,841.22 is needed to make our city functionaries comfortable.

Remember the buy-board contract that is for “minor” projects?  The city wants to use that contract to do the construction.  But wait!  This is not minor.  Who says?  The Texas State Legislature says.  Section 2267.403 of the Texas Government Code requires all deals over $500,000 issued under indefinite delivery contracts to be specifically approved by the governing body (in this case city council) of the local government.  Why?  Because evidently they believe that half a million dollars is not so minor.

The backup material for the agenda item refers to specifications drawn up by an architect.  Those specifications are not part of the backup material.  Why?  City ordinance 017616 paragraph 8 requires that the contract be posted on the city’s web site   The material must be given to the city clerk by 5 PM the Thursday before the meeting.  Council must now separately determine that failure to take action on this item would be detrimental to the interests of the city before they vote on this item.  Council’s failure to do so puts them in violation of a city ordinance.

Section  2.92.050 (G) of ordinance 017112 makes that an ethics violation which is punishable under 2.92.150 (A).  “The failure of any officer or employee to comply with this chapter or the violation of one or more of the standards of conduct set forth in this article, which apply to him or her, shall constitute grounds for expulsion, reprimand, removal from office or discharge.”

Don’t call your city representative, that would probably be a violation of the city’s ludicrous “cone of silence”.

In summary we have:

  • A sneak attack city council meeting
  • We were lied to about the suitability of the El Paso Times Building
  • A non-bid construction project of almost $627 thousand dollars where $25 thousand will go to Houston schools, not ours
  • An agenda item that is improperly (illegally?) posted
  • A city council that will probably ignore it’s own ordinance
  • You might get in trouble if you call your city representative about this

Then, in the spirit of waiting for the other shoe to drop, please realize that we have not heard the end of this.  The contractor actually wants another $450,000 to demolish the old offices before starting on the new ones (read the backup material, such as it is).  Did the city forget to post this item?  Maybe they have some other creative way to handle the other half a million dollars.

Stay tuned!

We deserve better.

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

City Council Chambers

December 28, 2012

I missed it.

In Meet me in the stacks I wrote about how city council plans to conduct its meetings in our main library once city hall is torn down.  The inconvenience to the public and the inefficiency imposed on city staff were part of my concern.

I also warned that their representation that the library had the electronic equipment necessary to conduct and broadcast the meetings might be false.

Then in The Lying Two Step  it became apparent that “The Main branch equipment is not adequate for hosting public gatherings, conferences, presentations and events” according to a request for proposals issued by the city dated December 11, 2013.  It appears that the city needs to buy equipment to facilitate the meetings.

Now I see on slide 10 of this November 6, 2012 city presentation (slide title “Total Costs”)  that the city plans to spend $800,000 to build council chambers in the El Paso Times building.  According to the slide the chambers will be “funded separately”, whatever that means.  I suspect that you and I will pay for it, and that does not make it very separate to me.

Let’s break this down into steps:

  • Tear down the existing facilities
  • Temporarily occupy space at the library and buy new electronic equipment
  • Spend $800,000 to build new council chambers in the El Paso Times building

Don’t forget that the city is already talking about building yet another new city hall after all of this round of moving is done and they have had a chance to catch their breath.

In the mean time I will add this amount to the running total.  It was at $63.9 million (out of a promised $33 million) last time I added it up.

We deserve better.

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

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

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

So much for quality of life

December 11, 2012

The El Paso Times reported recently that 75 city employees will be moving into the Pat O’Rourke Recreation Center (formerly the YMCA on Montana avenue) next month. The city will be occupying the space for nine to twelve months.

They will occupy a computer lab, a game room, an activity room, and a multipurpose space.  The kids and citizens that use these facilities will be “inconvenienced” according to the article.

The city is thinking about leasing parking space for the employees it moves from a Baptist Church across the street, “leaving nearby street parking available for the public”.

We will have to wait to see how much the required remodeling, parking (which was free at the old city hall)  electronic equipment, and moving expenses will add to the $63.9 million (out of $33 million — go figure) already committed to facilitate the move out of the city hall that will be torn down.  About a year from now we ought to be able to see how much it costs to move these people again.

Some of us think that recreation centers contribute to a community’s quality of life.  Evidently some people don’t care about that.

We deserve better.

Our children deserve better!

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

Watsagoinon in ELP

December 10, 2012

Let me tell you, Brutus has been a busy man. Earlier this week he was spotted at Home Depot and Lowe’s pricing of all thing, ceiling tiles. Later, he was spotted driving up and down Durango and Santa Fe avenues. He does his homework, you betcha.

Rep Ortega joined the City mangler in referring to the voters (nebobs of negativism, I guess) in addition to crazies, as amateurs. He tossed his bagel into the voters rings hoping to be our next Mayor. Never practised law (or baked), so he needs a job. Speaking of Bagels, we have real Bagelman, Robert Cormell entering the race. A real working man who has successfully managed 3 shops without using East River water for the Bagels (New Yorker say.. aw fowgetaboutit). I guess the Dementia getting the best of me.

Speaking of Dementia, our Westside Rep in an EPT Editorial, did her thing about the Chucoleaks and the Emails that were uncovered. Can you imagine any pol not knowing that these thing are public property? Even the Chicago Pols figured that out. Well, in either case she praised the City Mangler for calling her Demented. I think that what she said. Stephanie, you better stop with the Emails.

Now getting back to what I originally wanted to say before I freely associated. “Anonymous” comments about the Canutillo School Board on 12/08/12 are very revealing. He puts a lot of loose ends together in his explanation of their actions. Not much to add. That’s investigative reporting. Crowder, someones stealing your thunder.

This is an Open Forum and we want your comments. Don’t let Brutus steal the tiles, or the street signs. Put your 3 cents in. Just leave me alone. I’m very sensitive.

Arcus Senilis

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc., El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by M.T. Cicero

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »