elpasospeak

The blogger at www.elpasonews.org says that he filed a public information request with the city and tried to pay for it with a United States postal money order.

According to him the city refused the payment because they do not take money orders.

Stalling?

Why does the city continue to make it hard to get public information requests?

The public information act requires the city to respond “promptly”.  Many cities respond to simple requests  (just a few pages) within one business day.  Our city regularly responds on the last day that it is legal for them to do so.  The fact that they claim to be closed on Friday adds even more days to the time it takes to get information.

United States postal money order

The blogger has written that his money order was turned down because the city does not accept money orders.  He wrote that the city sent him an email saying “[the] city does not accept money orders“.

That is not true.  Many departments do.  The city clerk, treasury department, tax office, police department, Sun Metro and the parks department are just a few that do.

The Fiscal Operations Accounts Receivable Manual published by the city contains these two definitions:

Deposits – Monies received in the form of cash, check, money order, and/or traveler’s checks.

Money – Legal tender received and collected, in the form of cash, checks, money orders and/or traveler’s checks.

The manual has gone so far as to say that money orders are legal tender.  They are not, but it is not surprising to see the city defining things with its own terms.

Time for change

We need to let our feelings be known to city council.  The city is stalling.

I doubt that the decision to refuse the money order was made by a clerk.  There may be a paper trail showing who authorized the denial.

I hope that our new administration will take steps to put a stop to these kinds of actions.

Some might even argue that a law has been broken here.

We deserve better

Brutus

Let’s get down to basics.

The City of El Paso is suing the attorney general of Texas over citizen access to public information.

El Paso taxpayer money is being spent against Texas taxpayer money.   Those of us in El Paso are paying for both sides of a lawsuit, we are taxpayers in Texas too.

The lawsuit is about current and former public city officials refusing to obey Texas law and provide the citizens of El Paso with information.

Now according to elpasotimes.com one of the former public officials says that “he has emails “on hundreds of issues” having to do with city business on his personal account, but maintains he’s always acted within the law.”

Hundreds of issues

This guy just admitted that he was conducting city business regularly on his personal email account.  He says that he does not have to turn them over to the citizens even though the attorney general of Texas says he does.

The city is using citizen money to fight the citizens.

The real text

The original open records request also asked for text messages containing public information sent and received from the personal devices of these officials.

These messages may be very revealing.  They may show what kinds of discussions were going on between city officials during city council meetings, behind the backs of the citizens.

Open meetings are supposed to be open.  The public is supposed to be able to see and hear the deliberations.  One city council member passing a note to another during a public meeting is a violation of the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.  It may turn out to be a violation of the law.

Public officials sending emails and text messages between members of city council during a city council meeting is rotten.

We deserve better

Brutus

The fellow over at refusethejuice recently wrote this:

The interesting thing about El Paso Speak is that they either have someone leaking executive session discussion to them or they are being advised directly by Four Names Allala.  They posted about some kind of “settlement” being offered.  That’s not public knowledge given I can’t find any reference to that anywhere and my request of information on that has been met with “executive session discussion items are not for public consumption.”  So, is El Paso Speak using personal email addresses or other means to influence city business?  Shouldn’t they be offering up whoever they are speaking with about official city business?  They are now the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the paragraph he asks “Shouldn’t they be offering up whoever they are speaking with about official city business?”

Another blog had previously posted:

He adds that asking “her to do so is not asking for a settlement, it’s asking her to surrender her quest for transparency”.

The blog is publicly posted and I would invite the author of refusethejuice to read it before jumping to conclusions.

Brutus