elpasospeak

It appears that city council may have done the right thing in their May 31, 2016 meeting in regard to a proposed change to the outdoor lighting ordinance.

In Goose, not gander we wrote about the introduction of an amendment to an ordinance that would allow the city to ignore the rules that we have to follow when using outdoor lighting.

At the second reading of the ordinance on May 31 it was amended to exempt splash pads and the “airport corridor”.  That corridor starts with the egg beater things at Airport Road and I-10.

An assistant city attorney read the proposed ordinance changes to council and for the record.  She did not specifically say that the portion of the amendment that would allow the city to ignore the rules whenever they want was going to be removed.  Instead she stated that two new sections (one for the splash pads and the other for the corridor) would be added to the ordinance.

Watching the video many of us would assume that the new ordinance would only allow the two exceptions.

Then again you just cannot tell when dealing with these people.

For the time being (until we can read the final draft) it looks like the right thing has happened.

As a side note, it is hard to understand how when the law requires an ordinance to be read twice they can make changes at the second reading that make the ordinance different from what it was in it’s first reading.

Brutus

City representative Robinson placed two items on the June 14, 2016 city council agenda that dealt with the continued use by some city representatives of electronic devices during city council meetings.

We thank him.

Council had previously passed rules that prohibited use of such devices during city council meetings.

Some representatives have continued to use them even after being reminded of the prohibition.

Mr.  Robinson asked if there should not be consequences for breaking the rules.

Other members of council spoke of things like paying attention and being polite.

The simple fact is that communicating about agenda items in a public meeting in such a manner that the communication cannot be heard by the public is against the law.

The end result is that council instructed staff to come back to it with suggestions as to how the rule can be enforced.

This is better.

Brutus

Well it seems that someone at the city does know right from wrong.

In City staff lies to city council again we pointed out that the city had improperly (probably illegally but we are not the jury) extended a contract for ambulance billing.

Then in The collective we we pointed out that one of our participants had sent notification of the post to our city purchasing director and to our city attorney asking for their response.

Recapping, city council passed a resolution authorizing the city manager to sign an amendment to a contract extending it past June 15, 2016 while the city was to get their act together and finish evaluating a bid.

Council was told that they were exercising an option.  There were no options left in the existing contract.

From what we could see that would have been a violation of state law.  The punishment for the violation could have involved removal from office for the people telling the lie.

Coincidentally

Now the June 14, 2016 city council agenda includes an item that would award a contract to one of the bidders.

By awarding the contract one day before the original contract expired the city is following the law and will not need to  use the extension that we wrote about in City staff lies to city council again.

Evidently people at the city read this blog.  They have, however, not had the courtesy to respond to our participant’s inquiry.  A simple thank you would be in order.

We deserve better

Brutus

Our fire chief and purchasing director came before city council Tuesday May 31, 2016 with item 4.3 on the consent agenda.

You’d have to be pretty quick to catch this one.  Thankfully one of our loyal participants gave us a tip and documents to backup his claim.

The item’s backup material asked permission to extend a contract by exercising the city’s option to extend the contract “pursuant to the initial award on December 4, 2010”.  The extension was to be for no more than four months and would allow the city to finish the bid solicitation process for a new contract.

The item passed without discussion.

Liars

The lie here is that the city had a remaining option to extend the contract.

The original contract was awarded for three years on December 14, 2010.  On September 24, 2013 and September 30, 2014 council approved one year extensions that they were entitled to.

That would bring us up to December 13, 2016.

What has been going on from December 14, 2015 to May 31, 2016?

Well, in an October 29, 2015 letter from the purchasing department the city exercised a six month extension.  From the letter:  “The City of El Paso is exercising the following clause of the Bid Contract:  Under Section F, Item 1, Type and Term of Contract, 2nd paragraph states, “In the event the City has not obtained another service contractor by the expiration date of the term contract, the City, at its discretion, may extend the contract on a month-to-month basis not to exceed six (6) months until such time as a new contract is awarded.”

The city awarded a three year contract, then awarded two one year extensions, and then because it did not have its act together it took a final six month extension that it was legally entitled to.

That extension will expire June 13, 2016.

The city is not entitled to any more extensions and the item must be rebid according to state law.

No mention of the October 29, 2015 final extension was made to council.  I cannot find a record of the final legal six month extension coming before council.

They were lied to!

You can probably convince me that the fire chief did not know that the law was being violated although an open records request might be a real problem for him.

The purchasing director has no excuse.  Will anyone hold him accountable?

We deserve better

Brutus