Why the smile?

January 2, 2013

The tension between those who want a smaller central (aka Federal) government and a larger one (sometimes known as the nanny state) has been going on since the runaway convention that drafted our Constitution.

Indeed, Alexander Hamilton wrote just a few days after the proposed Constitution was made public that he hoped that soon the States would be entirely dissolved and replaced with “districts” organized under the new system of government.

I am not a trained economist and thus am only qualified to offer my opinion as to which (large or small) is preferable.  For that matter I have a difficult time remembering when the trained economists turned out to be right either.

Which system you prefer is not the topic of this article.

We are either going to go over the “Fiscal Cliff” on the first day of the year or we are going to slide a long way down it.  Enough time does not remain for congress to solve its problems comprehensively.  We might instead see some provisions of the law that are scheduled to go into effect January 1 changed at the last minute.

This article is not about the cliff either.

When talking with friends and acquaintances that prefer the larger government approach I am frequently puzzled by the smile (sometimes even a sneer) that comes over their faces when they relish increasing the taxes on higher earners.  Some will even seriously discuss the need to reduce spending.  Some of us from both sides agree on that.

The joy they seem to get out of raising the tax rates on some other people just does not make sense to me.  It is not that they want to change the rates — it is that they seem to take joy in doing so.   I find it difficult to determine what their thinking is.

It makes me think of Ayn Rand’s predicted Fair Share Law in “Atlas Shrugged”.

I personally believe that a “progressive” tax system can make sense, but not if the lowest rate is zero or even negative.  Everyone should pay some portion of our spending burden.  Any system that creates two groups of citizens, those who do not pay and those who pay, is destructive of our republican form of government.  As long as one group can vote to enjoy the benefits of government while making someone else pay for it we are headed for serious trouble.

So my question is “why are they smiling?”.  What is the cause of that particular emotion?

We deserve better.

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

Sneak attack

December 31, 2012

I was relaxing with the understanding that city council would not meet last week or this because Tuesday, the normal city council meeting day, would fall on Christmas and New Year’s day.

It seems however that council needs to meet this week so they will meet on Wednesday.

The agenda is not a very long one, there are three potential board appointments, a couple of zoning requests, a few other matters — generally housekeeping issues.

Oh wait, there is another item.  It seems that the city wants to spend $648,841.22 to remodel part of a building using that no-bid indefinite delivery contract  method that I have written about so many times.  Council voted on December 4, 2012 to grant another no-bid contract valued at $4 million through a buy board.  The Houston based Harris County Department of Education will get 4% (or up to $160,000) of our money under this deal.  Now the city wants to use that contract to remodel 30,000 square feet for the new offices of the city council, mayor, and the city attorneys.

Remember the El Paso Times building that is so ideally suited to be our next city hall?  On September 18, 2012 the Chief Financial Officer of the city told council (on slide 4 of her presentation under “Improvements Needed”) that they were “Minimal due to condition of building”.  Well it appears that the $648,841.22 is needed to make our city functionaries comfortable.

Remember the buy-board contract that is for “minor” projects?  The city wants to use that contract to do the construction.  But wait!  This is not minor.  Who says?  The Texas State Legislature says.  Section 2267.403 of the Texas Government Code requires all deals over $500,000 issued under indefinite delivery contracts to be specifically approved by the governing body (in this case city council) of the local government.  Why?  Because evidently they believe that half a million dollars is not so minor.

The backup material for the agenda item refers to specifications drawn up by an architect.  Those specifications are not part of the backup material.  Why?  City ordinance 017616 paragraph 8 requires that the contract be posted on the city’s web site   The material must be given to the city clerk by 5 PM the Thursday before the meeting.  Council must now separately determine that failure to take action on this item would be detrimental to the interests of the city before they vote on this item.  Council’s failure to do so puts them in violation of a city ordinance.

Section  2.92.050 (G) of ordinance 017112 makes that an ethics violation which is punishable under 2.92.150 (A).  “The failure of any officer or employee to comply with this chapter or the violation of one or more of the standards of conduct set forth in this article, which apply to him or her, shall constitute grounds for expulsion, reprimand, removal from office or discharge.”

Don’t call your city representative, that would probably be a violation of the city’s ludicrous “cone of silence”.

In summary we have:

  • A sneak attack city council meeting
  • We were lied to about the suitability of the El Paso Times Building
  • A non-bid construction project of almost $627 thousand dollars where $25 thousand will go to Houston schools, not ours
  • An agenda item that is improperly (illegally?) posted
  • A city council that will probably ignore it’s own ordinance
  • You might get in trouble if you call your city representative about this

Then, in the spirit of waiting for the other shoe to drop, please realize that we have not heard the end of this.  The contractor actually wants another $450,000 to demolish the old offices before starting on the new ones (read the backup material, such as it is).  Did the city forget to post this item?  Maybe they have some other creative way to handle the other half a million dollars.

Stay tuned!

We deserve better.

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

What happens when you actually bid something

December 26, 2012

You might recall an earlier article There They Go Again where I wrote about the city spending 543 thousand dollars just last year for a foam roof for city hall.

The article pointed out that the project was not bid (they used a buy board), that 4 percent of the money went to the Harris County Department of Education as their cut, and that it seemed like a lot of money for that kind of roof, especially for a building that is about to be demolished.

My understanding is that the roof of city hall is about 27 thousand square feet.

Well is looks like it really was a lot of money.  The November 13, 2012 city council agenda has an item requesting permission to award solicitation number 2012-271 to apply a rolled urethane coating to the municipal service center on Lafayette drive.  This was evidently a real bid.  You can read the details here.

The winning bidder (who is local) bid $197,888 to handle 42,700 square feet of roofing.  That is $4.64 per square foot vs. $20.11 per foot for the city hall project.  I don’t much about roofing.  My assumption is that the city would want a better, longer lasting roof for the municipal service center since they have not announced plans to demolish the center.  In fact the bid required a 15 year warranty.

Maybe a foam roof on a 10 story building that will be demolished within 2 years costs more than a rolled urethane roof with a 15 year warranty on the municipal service center.  Maybe it even costs more than 4 times as much.

Wait.  The company that got the no-bid city hall project also bid on this project.  Their bid was 11 percent higher.

Why didn’t the winning company here get to bid on the city hall project?  Maybe the city does not like the quality of their work and just had to take the low bid this time.

Wait again.  The winning company’s past performance with the city (the one with the low bid) was evaluated by the city with 17.09 points (out of 20 possible) compared to the city hall company that got 16.7 points.  The city likes this low bidder better than the company that did the work at city hall.

So what happened?  The city evidently does know how to manage a bid.

Why was city hall such a special deal?  The city had specifications written by an architectural firm.  A bid should have been pretty straight forward.  Instead the city awarded the business to a company without bidding and that company paid 4 percent of it’s fee to an out of town school district.

There is something rotten about this deal.

We deserve better.

Leave a Comment » | City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Maybe we should bear the tax burden for the entire state

December 17, 2012

My second reading of Tuesday’s city council agenda picked up this absurdity:

We all know that city hall is scheduled to be torn down and the city council has been busy buying up and renting properties to find new, temporary facilities to house city staff.

In fact in So much for quality of life I wrote about the city moving 75 city employees into a recreation center and “inconveniencing” some of the public.

Now item 12 on city council’s regular agenda proposes to lease the Albert Fall Mansion to Texas Tech for $1 per year.

You may recall that the city recently spent almost $1.2 million to remodel this 5,430 square foot historic building.  The city then asked people to lease it and evidently has concluded that giving it to the Texas Tech system for $1 per year is the best use of the property.

Could we have moved one of our displaced city hall departments into the facility and saved some of our tax money or left part of a recreation center open to the public?

Why are we subsidizing Texas Tech?  They have their own budget.

How much of our money does the city want?

Could they have left the kids in the recreation center and moved a city function into the beautiful, newly remodeled building?

We deserve better.

Our kids deserve better.

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

Maybe “The Truth Will Not Set You Free”

December 14, 2012

The City of El Paso  is now suing the Texas Attorney General to try to avoid turning over emails and other documents that were requested for a citizen back in September.

According to the El Paso Times the city claims that “the personal emails, letters, memos and other documents of the mayor and City Council members should not be subject to public information searches even if they regard city business”.   Also requested were copies of communications between city officials and business people linked to the Triple-A baseball team.  According to the Times the city issued a statement saying “Those documents do not meet the statutory definition of public information”.

The Attorney General has ruled to the contrary and has told the city to turn over the documents.  The basic path that the Attorney General applies to the Public Information Act request in cases like this is:

  • Does the city have the information (and it is not a violation of a person’s right to privacy)?  If so,  turn it over.
  • Does the city pay for or control the email account being used?  If so, turn it over.
  • If the email account is paid for privately, does the email discuss city business?  If so, turn it over.

Another case like this has already gone to court and the judge ordered the information to be turned over.  The case is now on appeal.

It looks like the city will lose this court case.  So why are they challenging the Attorney General, especially if nothing is wrong?

Could it be the principal of the thing?  Preposterous!  The law is clear, the case law is clear, and I have not seen much evidence that the people running the city can even spell principal, much less have one.

What are they trying to hide?  This tactic will allow them to delay, but why?  Have they violated a law?  Are they worried about their images in the next election?

As far as the communications between the city staff and business people, they should be turned over without delay if they were discussing city matters or if city email accounts were used.  The law is clear on this.

A committee in the legislature is even considering changes to the law, in part to make clear that the modern methods of communication (text messaging, emails) are specifically included in the law.  Currently the possession of and content of messages become the basis for declaring them to be public information.

Think about what the city wants to do.  If a government official can conduct government business in secret on his or her own device, what will keep them from doing everything that way?  That would be wrong.

Why are they spending our money on a high profile case with out of town lawyers when the intent of the law is clear and they will ultimately have to turn over the documents?  Why do they want to keep these documents secret as long as they can?  Who are they protecting?

I can only conclude that there is something they do not want us to know.

We will eventually.

We deserve better

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »