Minimal due to condition of building

January 18, 2013

In Pre Sneak Attack I wrote about how city council broke the remodeling of the second floor of the El Paso Times building into two job orders.  The first one they issued without letting us know — it was for $450 thousand to demolish the old improvements.  The second one was for $649 thousand — they had to take it to city council.  The city manager called obeying state law “a formality”.  See 1 plus 1 not equal to 2.

The net effect is that the city slipped through the $450 thousand and spent a total over $1 million through a buy board where schools in Houston get 4% of what we spend and local contractors do not get a chance to bid.

The contract was discussed in More of Our Money For Houston where city council awarded $4 million through the buy board, with 4% of that going to Houston.  I wrote at the time that I wondered why the amount was so large.

The El Paso Inc. cleared that up for us in its January 13, 2013 front page article.  It appears that the contractor will start next week doing work at the 811 Texas building.  Then on February 15 they are scheduled to start work on the first floor of the El Paso Times building, all this through the Houston buy board.

Remember that on September 18, 2012 the citys Chief Financial Officer told the city council that the improvements needed at the Times building were “Minimal due to condition of the building”.  We now know of at least three separate job orders that must have been issued through this buy board on this building that we were told to buy.

The El Paso Inc. article also mentions that the city plans to house council chambers on the first floor.  Previously we had been led to believe that council would meet in the main library for a while.  Maybe that is still the case.  In City Council Chambers the cost to build new council chambers was identified as $800,000 from a city slide presentation.

So what does this add up to?  So far:

  • $450,000 to demolish the second floor improvements
  • $649,000 to build new offices on the second floor
  • Unknown amount (so much for open government) for work on the first floor
  • $800,000 or so for new city council chambers

That puts us at at least $1,899,000 and climbing.  The El Paso Inc. article puts the purchase price of the building at $9.4 million.  The Oxford Dictionaries defines minimal as “of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible”.  

Twenty percent is not negligible!

They have not been telling the truth.

We deserve better

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc., El Paso Times, Open Government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Declaratory judgment

January 17, 2013

City council has decided to file a lawsuit to get a declaratory judgment that would say that they have the right to issue bonds for the construction of the new ball park.

It seems that there just might, maybe, could be valid legal challenges to their claim of legality.  They need a definite ruling to make the bond issuing process safer.

I have been vocal about my thoughts that tearing down city hall is a horrible idea, but at this point we need to go ahead with the project.  Undoing the damage (buildings purchased, contracts started, movement of staff, etc.)  that has already been done would be expensive and really messy.

A declaratory judgment in the city’s favor would make it clear that the court thinks issuing the bonds is legal under Texas law.

The mechanism they are using is chapter 1205 of the Texas Government Code.  The chapter gives the city the right to file the suit either in Travis County or El Paso County.

It seems that they chose Travis County.  According to the chapter, the court must now issue an order.

Sec. 1205.041. NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES.

(a) The court in which an action under this chapter is brought shall, on receipt of the petition, immediately issue an order, in the form of a notice, directed to all persons who:

(1) reside in the territory of the issuer;

(2) own property located within the boundaries of the issuer;

(3) are taxpayers of the issuer; or

(4) have or claim a right, title, or interest in any property or money to be affected by a public security authorization or the issuance of the public securities.

(b) The order must, in general terms and without naming them, advise the persons described by Subsection (a) and the attorney general of their right to:

(1) appear for trial at 10 a.m. on the first Monday after the 20th day after the date of the order; and

In other words, if you want to say anything about it show up in court in Travis County.  I don’t see a lot of us traveling to present our thoughts.

If the lawsuit had been filed in El Paso County a visiting judge would probably have been appointed so that no local judge would have to be involved.  That would make sense to me.  We could have then gone to court to have our say one way or the other.

City council obviously did not want that.  We might have had a say on the issue.

Is there no end to how far they will go to deny public input?

We deserve better

1 Comment | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Charter Changes?

January 14, 2013

There was some talk around town this weekend about the Sunday (January 13, 2013) headline article in the El Paso Times.

We have an Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee.  It is working on potential modifications to the city charter that could be voted on this May.

The article indicated that we may be asked to move city elections from May to November.  Two  reasons for this are obvious.  

  • Firstly, conservative voters tend to vote in all elections, even taking the trouble to vote in a May election when few issues are at stake.  November (national) elections tend to draw more voters, including those that are less conservative.  Conservatives tend to get in the way of the progressive agenda that this city council has.
  • Secondly, with more citizens voting in a November election it will be more difficult to obtain the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last general election — thus making petitions for recall or initiative more difficult to certify.

The article also indicated that there may be proposed changes to the percentage of voter signatures needed to validate a petition for recall or initiative.  In El Paso a successful petition to recall an elected official or to propose an initiative require the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last general election.  The article predicted that the number will be raised to 10% in both cases, like “other Texas cities”.

What the article did not mention is that the document that was evidently considered at the January 7, 2013 meeting of the Ad Hoc group entitled “Potential Charter Revisions for the May 2013 Ballot” appears to have been drawn up by a law firm (so much for citizen initiatives, these people are being managed to get desired results).  The document does address the above issues.

What the El Paso Times article did not mention speaks volumes:

  • The draft document advises the members that in “other Texas cities” where the percentage required to certify an initiative petition is higher than in El Paso, the issue automatically goes to the voters if city council does not approve of the action proposed in the certified petition.   You will recall that we have recently sent up petitions that city council has either denied or taken no action on.  No such democratic provision appears to be in the document.  Here if a first petition is denied by council a second one must be certified and even then council must vote to place the issue on the ballot.
  • The current charter requires city council to pass an ordinance (a formal, multi-step process) to lease a public property or grant a temporary use of a street, alley, public way or public property.  The proposed language would allow council to do this temporarily (the document speaks in terms of years) by simple resolution of council.  In other words at any city council meeting.

The document also shows that the Ad Hoc committee is considering other issues including moving some power from the mayor (who is already holds a weak office) to the council and changing some conflict of interest issues that in my opinion should be changed.

Meetings times of this Ad Hoc group are not well known by the citizens.  You should contact the members of the group if you wish to express your opinion.  The membership list can be seen here.

Remember that as another blow to the democratic process, whatever the group comes up with for our consideration must first be approved by city council before it can be voted on by the citizens.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

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

Whither the purchasing site?

January 13, 2013

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

When did it happen?

January 12, 2013

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »