This came in from Dan Wever:
Suggested tips wrong
June 9, 2017We saw something the other day that you might want to be careful about.
The image below is from the bottom of a restaurant receipt:
None of the suggested tip percentages yield the suggested tip amount. In each case they are suggesting more than the indicated percentage.
These people would fit right in with our local governments.
We deserve better
Brutus
Environmental theft
June 8, 2017Our city garbage bills also include a five dollar per month “ENVIRONMENTAL FEE”.
According to this city presentation the fee is to “help cover the costs of cleaning illegally dumped materials, compliance with environmental laws, pick-up of dead animals, alley cleanups, graffiti removal, median maintenance, and neighborhood cleanups”:
Then why?
…on the same city internal audit report do they show that 10.8 % of the monies collected went to the fire department, 10.71 % went to the city general fund and downtown management district, and 5.58% went toward paying for additional building inspectors?
Let’s not forget that the city also gets a portion of the sales tax that they charge on the environmental fee.
We deserve better
Brutus
Paying for our roads again and again
June 7, 2017The city adds $1.10 per month to our garbage (ESD–environmental services division) bills.
They list this as “FRANCHISE FEE(NO TAX)”.
Franchise fees are usually explained by local governments as charges for the use of public right of ways (streets). The fees are charged to private companies that use public roads (electric, telephone, gas, cable, private ambulance companies).
Our streets
The problem here is that this franchise fee charges residents for the use by our own city garbage trucks of roads we have already paid for.
If this is permissible then might we then see new franchise fees charged for police, fire, ambulance, animal services and other city department’s use of city roads?
We deserve better
Brutus
EPISD–gag order? or consistent communication?
June 6, 2017The conflict between the EPISD school board president and the group that includes the county judge and one of the school board members is heating up.
At the Tuesday, May 30, 2017 meeting of the school board they evidently went into closed session and discussed how school board members are supposed to handle questions from reporters.
Evidently the local board’s guidelines tell school board members to direct questions to the superintendent or board president if the question does not involve the district that the school board member represents.
On the other hand the district evidently has written policies that, according to one board member, conflict with the guidelines in that school board members are free to speak as long as they make it clear that they are speaking for themselves and not the board.
Regardless of the board’s guidelines or policies it seems that elected officials need to answer to the public.
There is an underlying fight going on here but it cannot interfere with our ability to interact with the people that we elect.
Citizens do have rights.
We deserve better
Brutus

Posted by Brutus 

You must be logged in to post a comment.