Children’s hospital spending

January 16, 2016

This came in from Helen Marshall:

The Times informed us last weekend that the bill to the county for legal services to monitor the battle between Children’s Hospital and UMC has amounted to $262,000 so far.  This is nothing of course compared to the $1.3 million charged to Children’s by its legal firm, and the $1.25 million for the consulting firm to run the hospital.  UMC fees have not yet been reported, although the Times said they would be available this week.

At least the county hired locally, and the hourly fee, at $350, is less than half that for Children’s ($675) fees, which is also money that leaves El Paso.  

Almost $3 million has been spent so far, and who knows what the total will be when the UMC fees are added.  And what did the sick children of El Paso get for that?  Nada, rien, niente, nichts, zero, zip, not so much as a new toy.  Given how well the adults are doing, maybe we should put the children in charge of the place?

5 Comments | County Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Defining supreme

January 15, 2016

Since the case of  Marbury v. Madison many have held that our supreme court has the power to overturn national laws that it says violate the intent of the constitution.

Determining intent is not done consistently but instead the method changes depending upon what the justices need to justify their ruling.  Sometimes the plain words of the constitution are used and other times they use “clauses” that not contain verbs like “general welfare” to try to justify their positions.

John Marshall was the chief justice of the court that ruled in Marbury.  Marbury had been appointed justice of the peace  by outgoing president John Adams in an effort to stack the judiciary with “midnight judges”.  Congress had approved of the appointment.

The written commission needed to be delivered by the secretary of state, John Marshall.  Marshall failed to deliver it.

Thomas Jefferson, the incoming president refused to recognize Marbury’s appointment.  Marbury took it to court.

Incredibly the chief justice of the supreme court (John Marshall) who at the same time was the secretary of state who failed to deliver the commission agreed to sit on the case.  Most of us would say that at the least he should have recused himself.

Instead Marshall took the opportunity to craft law and now, because enough good people stood by and did nothing, we have a situation where people that are not elected get to tell the country what the law is.

The framers of our constitution did not include language that gave the supreme court that kind of power.  In fact the supreme court was thought to be so insignificant that it did not even have it’s own building until 1935, almost 150 years after the adoption of our constitution.  The original justices were given the responsibility of traveling within their respective districts to hear cases for eight months out of each year.  Even during the Marshall era of the court the justices only met together for two months each year.

Some will argue that the court has overstepped its bounds.  Others will say that the actions were necessary.

Either way, wouldn’t we be better off if we amended our constitution to define what powers the justices do and do not have?

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Comments | Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

A time for change?

January 13, 2016

Our Texas governor has called for a convention of states to suggest amendments to our national constitution.

Article V of our U.S. constitution provides two methods to propose changes to the constitution.

The only one that has been used in our history is the one where 2/3 of the members of both the house of representatives and the senate vote to send a proposed amendment to the states for approval or rejection.  Once sent to the states approval takes an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.

A second method in the constitution has never been used.  It provides that 2/3 of the legislatures of the states voting together can call for a national constitutional convention, the purpose of which would be to propose constitutional amendments.  Once proposed approval of an amendment  would again take an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.

Who votes for the states?

Here congress retains significant power.  Without regard to which method (direct submission by congress or a constitutional convention) is used, congress must choose to put the issue either to the individual state legislatures or to state conventions of the people.  In the case of a state convention it is up to each state to chooses how the representatives to the convention are chosen.

We have a constitution that is over 200 years old  that contains provisions that did not contemplate our current condition.  We also have seen various factions work to claim the ability to override the constitution without having to make their desired changes within Article V.

Some claim that calling a constitutional convention would open the door to mayhem but they are not giving due credit to the requirement that any proposals that come out of a convention must be approved by 3/4 of the states.

“We the people of the United States” are the words that begin our constitution.

What would be wrong with letting the people decide what needs to be done here?

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

More trouble coming

January 13, 2016

Are there any people left at the city that are qualified to act as senior managers, department heads, or deputy city managers?

Our prior city manager ran off people who dared to disagree with her.  She surrounded herself with sycophants.  The results were financially and organizationally disastrous.

Our new city manager got rid of most of the prior city manager’s people and brought in his own team.  That team includes a part time second in command (who we are told does not even live in El Paso) and also an employee of a vendor.

Word on the street is that the many rank and file employees live in fear for their jobs and are marching lock-step with whatever our new city manager decrees.

It’s hard to believe but transparency under this new regime is even worse than under the tear-down-city-hall crowd.

The Times is calling for the new guy’s head.  What will happen if city council gets rid of him?  Who do we have that can run the city?

There are people in town that could do it but why would they volunteer to walk into the cesspool that we now know as city council?

The mayor has limited powers but seems to be our only hope of getting a competent local to step up to the plate.

We are in a mess.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Got us again

January 12, 2016

Will we ever learn not to trust the people down at the city?

In our last election we approved a charter change that would require city council to meet at least every other week.

In an October 3, 2015 article El Paso, Inc. quoted our former city manager thusly:

The City Charter now requires the council to meet every week and allows only three cancelations a year. The proposition, if approved, would require City Council meetings at least every other week.

Wilson said the current requirement creates problems around major holidays and prevents the council from traveling, say, to special events in Austin or Washington and participating in events as a group locally.

“Most cities have a requirement to meet at least twice monthly and to cancel meetings when necessary,” she said. “It also comes up during the budget process. This would allow the council to cancel a Tuesday meeting and have a budget session instead.”

In other words “give us a little flexibility” so that we can skip a Tuesday meeting once in a while.

Once we voted for the change council passed a resolution to only meet every other week.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc. | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »