Shadow government

February 8, 2013

The El Paso Times (giving credit where credit is due) pointed to something fascinating in their February 6, 2013 edition.  I would post the link here but am incapable of finding the article in their web edition.  To me their site is hard to figure out and unbelievably sluggish.  Things flash around, voice recordings accost,  and searching for articles is hard.

They wrote “After executive session, the council directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance on how the city should handle public information requests”.

I can’t wait.  What mischief are they up to now?  Have they found some clever way to subvert our right to examine the goings on at the city?

They already use many tricks to avoid what Texas state law requires them to do.

“… what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”  Stay tuned!  This has real potential.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

No voters wanted

February 4, 2013

Today (February 4, 2013) is the day that hearings start in Travis County relative to the City of El Paso wanting a declaratory judgment that what it has done to finance the ball park and move city hall is legal.

Declaratory judgment  explains the issue.

City council could have had the hearings in El Paso. The law gave them a choice. Local judges would probably have run from the case, but a visiting judge from out of town could easily have been appointed.

If the hearings were in El Paso we would have had an opportunity to voice our thoughts. The city chose to have the hearings in Travis County so that we would not attend.

This single act shows most clearly that we have a run-away city council that does not want input from the voters.

Shame!

The voting results that show who is doing this to us can be seen here on pages 17 and 18.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Doubt

February 2, 2013

Tuesday’s (January 29, 2013) city council agenda has an item (5g) that proposes that the city sell a little more than 15 acres of land to the El Paso Independent School District.

I don’t know if this is the right thing to do or not.  I do know that there is a problem with the process though.

The city’s chief financial officer is  member of the board of managers that the Texas education commissioner appointed to strip the elected trustees  of their powers.

City — school district.  Is it fair to assume that the word “chief” means that the chief financial officer is in charge of all finances?  The sale of the property is for money.  Which pocket is being represented here?

Let me spell it out for them.  C O N F L I C T  that’s conflict!

Maybe the commissioner was not thinking when he made the appointment.  The chief financial officer however should have declined the new post.

Why even take the chance of looking  ike you are not doing the right thing?  Maybe the chief financial officer does not care what us “crazies” and “amateurs” think.  After all we are only citizens.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Me first, children second

January 30, 2013

The  January 29, 2013 city council agenda (here)  has some interesting items on it.

Items 6B, 6C and 6D deal with issuing contracts to install school zone flashers and pedestrian ramps for the disabled.  It looks like there are three separate items because of the quantity of work to be done.  They appear to be similar but each deals with different schools.

The backup material tells us that the bids were due October 3, 2012 and were then evaluated by October 15, 2012.  Evidently it takes 12 days to evaluate bids that affect the safety of our children whereas we all know that a ballpark or new city hall needs to be evaluated in a day, maybe even in hours.

Items 6C and 6D are being recommended for award to company A (El Paso based) — after all it was the low bidder.

Item 6B is being recommended for award to company B (Arizona based).  Company B was not the low bidder.  Company A was the low bidder.

Why don’t they want to give the business to company A?  According to the backup material company A is not “responsible”. The city could have said “responsive” but since the public is considered to be “crazies” what’s the harm in some slander?

Let’s see why company A is not “responsible”.  According to the recommendation:

  • “The proposal is on a form other than the official proposal forms issued to the bidder or bidders”
  • “The bidder modifies the proposal in a manner that alters the condition or requirements for work as stated in the proposal”

What?  Company A bid on the other two projects at the same time in a manner that was evidently acceptable to city staff.  Did they use the wrong form on this particular bid?  Somehow city staff was able to analyze the offer, even if it was on a different form,  and conclude that company A offered the lowest price.  Company A did not use the right form?  Oh!  The humanity of it!  What a horrible inconvenience.

It appears that Company A also had the audacity to suggest different requirements.  They are in the business of doing this type of work.  Were they trying to tell the city that there was a better, more effective way of doing the work?  If so, and the city for some reason felt compelled to follow the bidding laws (a bid should be analyzed against published, set, specifications), why did the city not cancel the bid and redo it with better specifications?  There was plenty of time.  After all the city has been busy feathering their nest.

This stinks.  The city probably has other reasons, but it must be inconvenient to share them with the public.

I doubt that Company A will complain.  They got two out of the three jobs.  They will probably keep their mouth shut rather than risk the wrath of the city.  Who would listen to an irresponsible company?

The fact that it took more than four months to approve something for the safety of our children while city staff can approve building moves for their own convenience in a matter of days tells us a lot about where staff’s priorities are.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | Ball park, City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Zero visability purchasing

January 26, 2013

Item 12B (1) on the November 13, 2012 city council agenda requests permission to issue a purchase order in the amount of $560,406 for computer equipment.

Once again these items were not competitively bid — they were purchased from a buy board.

The backup material does not tell us what quantities or models are being purchased.  We have no idea if the prices are in line or not.  You can see the backup material here.

This is a pretty common occurrence with computer items on the city council agenda.

We all know the problems with buy boards not being competitive.

The backup material asks the question “Is there an urgent need for the product/service?”  The department answered “yes” since the equipment was to be used to “refresh” (replace) existing equipment.  Urgent?  Not at all!

Items 12B(2) and 12B(3) totaling a little more than $608 thousand have the same lack of detail.  Just give me the money.  Let me spend it without oversight.

It appears that the information technology department does not want us to know what they are up to.

We deserve better.

Brutus

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »