Proposition 1, authorizing nothing

April 10, 2013

I plan to offer my thoughts about the nine  propositions to change the City Charter over the next few days.

Chime in.

El Paso’s voters will be asked to approve or disapprove of several changes to the City Charter in the May 2013 election.  This post is one of several where we will discuss the propositions.

Proposition 1

In Strike two I pointed out the fact that this proposition does not contemplate action.  There is no verb in the opening clause (or any other one for that matter) that takes action.

Some thoughts:

  • Unless council takes some kind of action to fix the ballot language for this proposition, it will be a magnet for legal challenges.  The safe thing to do is to scrap this proposition and bring it back in another election if it is still desired.
  • The proposition would move the city elections to happen on the same day as the November (national) elections.  Some will argue that moving to November will increase voter turnout.  Maybe it will.  That might also have the effect of reducing the turnout for school district elections which will still be held in May.  We should be paying more attention to our school district boards and who we elect to put on them.
  • The initiative would allow a future city council to increase the number of district representatives from eight to ten if our population reaches one million people.  The initiative does not say how quickly council could make that decision, so a future council could elect to stay at eight members even after the city reaches the one million person mark.  The proposition does not specify what source will be used to define when we have reached the higher population.  Concievably council could pass a resolution or commision a study that declares El Paso to have one million people.  This is sloppy and unnecessary.  The proposition should leave the choice of the number of members on council up to the voters.  We should not be laying this booby trap — the voters should be making the decision as to how many members council has, not the council itself.

I post the ballot language directly from the city website:

SHALL SECTIONS 2.1 A AND B, 2.2 E, 2.3 A, 2.4 A AND 8.7, OF THE CITY CHARTER, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, CITY OFFICERS, AND TERMS OF OFFICE: TO MOVE THE CITY’S GENERAL ELECTIONS FROM MAY IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS TO NOVEMBER IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS BEGINNING IN 2018; TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING FOR OFFICE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON DATES WHEN THE ELECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE ACTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES FROM EIGHT TO TEN AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY’S POPULATION REACHES ONE MILLION?

Trojan horse

There will be a lot of discussion about how this proposition might increase the turn out in city elections.  If it is enacted it would certainly hurt school district elections because they would basically be separate elections with the city leaving the May ballot.

A secret motivation here is to make recalls and other citizen petitions much harder.  The way it works now a petition needs the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last city election.  Combining the city election into the November election would increase the number of voters and make getting 5% much more difficult.

Legal battle

We also have to be very careful with this proposition because of its poor wording.  If it is passed we will probably have an expensive legal battle because of its lack of authority for action.  We might be better off doing this next time if the voters want it.

It also has a problem with multiple subjects.  Some will undoubtedly say that there is only one subject — election.  Increasing the number of city representatives has nothing to do with an election.  This flaw will make the proposition subject to legal challenge if it is approved by the voters.

Study the proposition and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Congratulations El Paso Times

April 10, 2013

I see in this article that the El Paso Times and its reporters got some much deserved recognition recently.

They recently received awards from no less than the Associated Press Managing Editors.

A former Times reporter who is now with the Denver Post was commended for her articles about the problems over at the El Paso Independent School District:

“Bravo to reporting that seems to have used a combination of digging for records and good-old-fashioned source work to unearth a scandal that had real, quantifiable harm. Investigative journalism at its finest,” the judge wrote.

The Times itself was awarded first place in the community service category for stories and editorials about the cheating.  The judge wrote:

“Exceptional use of reporting and public records laws reveal the depth of corruption and malfeasance in a public school system,” the judge wrote. “Outstanding, tough editorials call for action. The El Paso Times staff performed an immense public service by calling attention to the problem and demanding a solution that would benefit the community’s children, parents and taxpayers. This is exciting, satisfying work.”

I have noticed a marked improvement in the Times since the return of the executive editor.

The Times also “won second place in Texas APME’s best newspaper category for mid-size papers.”  Now I don’t mean to be funny or cruel here, but second place?  I can only wonder about the quality of other newspapers.  Maybe the economic situation that the newspapers find themselves in has changed the standards.

I applaud the Times and its staff and will try to be a bit more gentle with my comments in the future.

In the meantime could we get some coverage of the other problems we have with local governments now that the parade is over?  I’d like to see them win some more awards.

Muckraker

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

The week of April 7, 2013

April 8, 2013

Last week’s articles:

Monday I wrote about an El Paso Times article that left unanswered questions.  Missing the point.

Cato wrote Scheming institutionalized Tuesday about how government employees often get together to figure out ways to flaunt the intent of laws.  Then Brutus quoted from Shakespeare and  exposed nonsense at the city in Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Wednesday Brutus showed us some facts about our extremely high property tax rates in For whom the bill tolls and then Brutus gave another example of how some government officials ignore the intent of the rules in Cheater.

Cato started a discussion about the Proposed charter amendments Thursday morning and then I wrote about government officials controlling the timing of public announcements in Suspicion proven.

Friday saw Train wreck from Brutus.  Getting the land for the ball park is going to cost the citizens a lot more than money.

Saturday Brutus gave some more background material about the land deal in Hiding in plain site.  City council did their best to keep the story from us.  Then he posted Cart before the donkey after this blog was accused of hatred.  He felt some explaining would be in order.

The mayor’s efforts to have the citizens pay his legal bills came out on Sunday as Bail me out please.  Brutus wondered why the taxpayers should have to pay money to have an elected official fight the taxpayers.

Muckraker

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

Bail me out, please

April 7, 2013

The April 9, 2013 city council agenda has item 1, “Discussion and action regarding the legal debt incurred by Mayor John Cook in fighting the illegally circulated petitions calling for the recall of Mayor Cook, Representative Byrd and Representative Ortega. ”

The El Paso Times tells us:

The process, which lasted more than two years, left Cook with $579,939 in legal bills. Cook said he owes $551,044, which is far more than he can afford.

“I fought what should have been the city’s fight,” Cook said.

How?

How can it have been the city’s fight?  City council did not vote to tell the mayor to take it to court.  The mayor made that decision.  He has no right to commit the city without the vote of city council.

To me the arguments regarding initiative and referendum are interesting, but they are not the point.  He and he alone chose to fight these issues in court.  If he wanted city support he should have asked for it.

How did this cost $579,939?  Did the mayor fail to manage his lawyer?  Did the mayor think that he would get reimbursed?  What was he thinking?

Are the fees reasonable for this action?  What did the other side spend?

Why?

Why did the mayor choose to fight this in court?  Why not allow the recall election and see what the voters wanted?  Was this about principles?  Then why not fight it in a principled way?

What now?

I feel badly that this bill needs to be paid, but not badly enough to pay for it myself.

The city is developing a costly habit of using taxpayer money to sue the taxpayers in court.  Their lawsuit filed in Austin to try to legitimatize their ball park actions is an example.  State law allowed the suit to be filed in El Paso or in Austin.  The city chose to fight the battle in Austin making it more difficult for the local taxpayers to show up in court to have their day.

I can’t help but note that this is an issue that should take a good deal of attention during the city council meeting — the same meeting where the railroad give away is going to occur.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Cart before the donkey

April 6, 2013

A reader criticized the blog this week  writing “Guess because there is such hatred toward the city manager and certain city reps on this blog there is no way possible for anyone to advance a counter argument.”

Cato had posted Proposed charter amendments where you can read the exchange.

I commented that I had not seen any hatred at all on the blog.  We go out of our way to focus on issues, not the individuals involved.

I try to focus on actions and behavior, not personalities.  A long time ago I learned that I am the one who loses the most if I hate someone.

I think that if I spend some time writing about the kinds of actions that I am concerned about, some may come to better understand the issues.

In that spirit let me start with this email (left click on it to make it larger):

moveon

What we have here is an email from the city manager to the mayor pro tempore June 26, 2012 at 3:14 PM.  That was during a city council meeting.  The mayor was not there.  The discussion was about the proposed ball park and the issues surrounding it.  Many members of the public wanted to speak and have city council consider their views.

The city manager is telling, not asking, the mayor pro tempore “tell council we need to vote and move on”.

Our city charter makes the city manager “responsible to the Council for the administration of all City affairs placed in the Manager’s charge by or under this Charter”.

The city manager works for city council.  The city council works for the voters.  The city manager is not elected.  The city manager should not tell council what to do.  It must be the other way.

The city manager is a city employee.  City council is a legislative body.  The charter says council “shall have legislative powers, and the power and duty to select, direct, and regularly evaluate the City Manager …”.

Council is in charge.  The proper position of the city manager is to ask, and advise, not tell.

At 5 hours and 30 minutes into the recording we hear the mayor pro tempore say “This is the end …”  just as she was told to do.

Secret discussions

Also troubling is that we have proof that city council members use electronic devices to communicate during meetings of city council that are supposed to be open.  Current Texas law does not specifically prohibit this practice, but in my opinion it should.  The courts do too, I quote from Tal Kopan’s post when the Texas supreme court refused to hear a case that would have invalidated provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act:

In 2005, two Alpine, Texas, city council officials were indicted for violating the Texas Open Meetings Act over emails they exchanged, which the government argued constituted a closed meeting. Though charges were later dropped, some of the officials involved in the email exchange sued, saying the act was a restriction of free speech, overbroad and vague.

The district court and circuit court both upheld the statute, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.

The three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit held that not only is the law content-neutral and constitutional, it also serves an important purpose for open government.

“Here, government is not made less transparent because of the messages of private speech about public policy: Transparency is furthered by allowing the public to have access to government decisionmaking. This is true whether those decisions are made by cogent empirical arguments or coin-flips. The private speech itself makes the government less transparent regardless of its message,” opinion from Judge Jerry Smith stated.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who defended the act, issued a statement praising the Supreme Court’s move to let the lower court ruling stand as a win for open government.

“Open, transparent government is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Today’s decision ensures that the Texas Open Meetings Act will continue holding elected officials accountable to conduct the taxpayers’ business in the light of day and in a manner that informs the public about government decision-making,” Abbott said.

As is customary, the Supreme Court did not offer any reasoning for its refusal to hear the case.

We deserve better  — in this case we got it

Brutus

7 Comments | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »