Put ’em in jail

January 25, 2013

I often hear local citizens express their desire to have our local functionaries put in jail for their actions.

Unless you look closely at the things they are doing you might conclude that they are all illegal.  The horrible truth is that the cabal that has seized our local governments is being careful from a legality point of view.  They seem to decide what they want to do and then examine the rules and bend them to their favor — just to the point — but not quite — of being illegal.  Some of their actions may in fact prove to be illegal, if we can get to the truth.

Getting our local prosecutors to help us is not going to be easy.  Note the absence of the district attorney’s office in the well publicized public corruption issues in El Paso.  For that matter when has this district attorney prosecuted any public official?  The word around town is that he will not do it.  The county sheriff could investigate and then press charges, but he is known to be a close friend of our city manager.

There may be other law enforcement agencies that could help but our chances right now are slim.  I suspect that those acts that may be judged to be illegal will mostly be violations of Texas laws, not those of the United States.  All of that is conjecture until hard facts surface.

When we elect or appoint these people we expect them to do what is right.  Unfortunately we have local governing bodies that ignore that and do what their cabal has designed.

It looks like our more likely remedy is at the ballot box.  Yes, even those rights have been stolen from us.  The various efforts at recall and at initiative have been systematically foiled by one form of parliamentary chicanery or another.

Remember though that a city election is coming in May.  We will have an opportunity to elect four council members plus a mayor.  Get active.

I believe that one of the mistakes that has caused our current situation is that we changed the City Charter to elect council members for four years instead of two.  With four years of office council members evidently feel that the public will not be able to touch them while they do what they want.  We have seen efforts at recall squashed through technicalities.

We need to go back to two year terms.  Unfortunately that will require a change in the City Charter.  Even more unfortunately you and I cannot change the City Charter.  Proposals to change it must come from city council — the very rascals that would benefit from leaving the terms at four years.  Even members of the United States congress must stand for election every two years.  We cannot continue to put our representation on auto-pilot for four years.  Look what has happened!

As you decide who to support in the May elections you might want to condition your support on a pledge from the candidate that they will allow the term length issue to be put before the public in a charter election.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato


A new slant to an old “profession”

January 23, 2013

The job order contracts that Region 19 just issued deserve further attention.  See Competitive Bidding? — Baloney!

The masthead of their web site reads “Serving El Paso and Hudspeth Counties”.  They are more properly known as “Education Service Center — Region 19”.  Again from the front page of their web site “The purpose of Education Service Center (ESC)-Region 19 is to aid teachers and administrators in the El Paso area in their role as educators of our children.”

They are a service organization for kindergarten through high school institutions in El Paso and Hudspeth.

Why then did they just issue contracts for  National Job Order Contracting Services?

National?  Yes the firms  are allowed to  offer services under these contracts in  Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,  Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,  New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.

Oh, and by the way Texas too.  For good measure two of the seventeen firms are allowed to offer their services in “all states and US territories”.

That’s pretty impressive.  Little ole El Paso based Region 19 is competent to manage construction specifics in every state of the Union as well as all of the United States territories.

We know better.

What are they doing here?  Texas law allows certain state government entities to issue job order contracts for construction.  Texas law also allows certain groups (including not for profits, and out of state groups) to piggyback on existing contracts issued by other agencies.  That way an entity like the department of something-or-other in let’s say Puerto Rico can buy off of the Region 19 contract if the laws in Puerto Rico allow it.

Why would Region 19 bother?  I have not found out yet what the amount is but Region 19 can get a percentage or fee from the contractor.  In the case of the Houston based group that the City of El Paso has been buying from the fee is 4%.  The construction company has to pay 4% of what if charges El Paso agencies  to Houston.

So Region 19 is doing it for money.  I seriously doubt that they have expertise in every state and territory of our country but that does not evidently matter.  They are allowing governments to avoid competitive bidding and charging a fee for the chicanery.

Are they so good at what they do for us locally that they have extra time to manage construction in every state?

What are you called when you make money by allowing someone to avoid doing what is right?

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides:

Who cover faults, at last shame them derides

We deserve better

Brutus


liberal

January 20, 2013

The term liberal has been hijacked in the United States.  In virtually every part of the world the term “liberal” refers to what is now called a “classic liberal” in the United States.  We have it backward now.

Classically it referred to a belief in limited government, political freedom, civil and economic freedom, and the rule of law. We refer to this today as the “right” in the political spectrum.

Today it seems to imply a vigorous government that acts to control the economy, redistribute wealth, and actively manage inequalities. Today this is the “left” politically.

So why the change from “right” to “left”? Liberal sounds giving, it is nice. Conservative sounds stingy, we think of that as bad.

None other than the republican Theodore Roosevelt started the shift when he branded his opponent William Howard Taft as being “too conservative” while he was “liberal” enough to lead the nation.

Stealing the term also provided confusion for the electorate. The value of that is obvious.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Cato


Favoritism

January 19, 2013

Here are some specifics about the buy-board contracting that the City of El Paso has been involved in lately.

You will recall that they recently issued a $4 million dollar contract through a Houston based purchasing organization.  This money looks like it is going to be used to remodel the building the city is going to move into.

Some at the city claim that it was competitive bidding:

Decide for yourself:

  • The request for proposals (RFP) was what is commonly called a “beauty contest”.  The evaluation criteria used gave points to each bidder for such things as the bidder’s references (15%), reputation (10%), ability (35%), ownership (underutilized businesses could get 5%), and price (25%).  References and reputation add up to 25% and sound like the same thing to me.  Ability must have been judged subjectively.  With those subjective judgments we are at 60% of the evaluation and it comes down to who looks prettier to the judge.  10% was awarded for something called “Value Add”, whatever that is.  I would think that “Value Add” is in the eye of the beholder.
  • The bidder;s price only accounted for 25% of the evaluation factors.  Price is 25% — how can that be a bid?
  • Pricing was based on what portion the bidder would charge of a nationally published price estimating book (the Oxford Dictionaries define estimate as “roughly calculate or judge the value”).  The book does not reflect current market conditions, it lists historical values that are gathered from survey respondents, in other words what something used to cost on average.   The prices do not reflect current market conditions in El Paso.  When times are tough construction prices go down after all.  Bidding is supposed to use market price to determine the lowest offer.

There are several buy boards in Texas that offer these kinds of contracts.  The city only uses the Houston based one for this work.  The board charges 4% for its services while other buy-boards charge less.

The company that the city chooses each time from this buy-board is only one of twenty or so eligible contractors that are listed for this area.  Other contractors are available.  Why does the city only choose this one?

Staff at the City of El Paso claims that this purchasing method saves time because detailed specifications do not have to be drawn up.  For $4 million dollars, why not?  The point is moot however.  The $648 thousand the city awarded the other day had plans drawn up by an architectural firm.  The $694 thousand they spent with this same firm for a new roof for our soon to be destroyed city hall had plans drawn by an architectural firm.  If the city has plans, why not take it to bid?  You can’t tell me that the city did not know about this need a month ago.  After you advertise for the legally required two weeks and perform your evaluation you can process a bid in one month.  That is tight, but it can be done and done fairly.

The sad fact is that this is favoritism.

  • Other buy-boards that are less expensive are available
  • Other firms are available — even on this buy board
  • The city keeps choosing the same firm from a field of many qualified firms

We deserve better


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