City secrecy part two

June 2, 2015

We wrote the other day about the number of items being posted on the city council agendas without backup material.

The situation has continued with last week’s agenda.

City council’s rules used to require that all backup material be posted at the same time as the agenda item.  If not, council was required to take a special vote to allow the exception before considering the item on the agenda.

Cato wrote about this in Testing the newbies back in June of 2013.

In Sneak attack back in December of 2012 we pointed out how council was breaking it’s own rules by not requiring the vote.  We pointed out that:

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.”

The city parliamentarian, who is also the city attorney, should have stopped this but she chose not to.  More on that in another post.

From the record it looks like city staff found the old ordinance to require too much public disclosure so they decided to get their new council to change the rules.

The result

Secrecy.

Council relaxed the rules.  Now city staff posts items without backup material so that the voters do not have time to exercise their rights to address council before damage is done.

We should go back to the old rules.  Agenda items should not be posted without backup material.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

7 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

City attorney focus of attention?

June 1, 2015

This came in from Helen Marshall on Saturday, May 30, 2015:

Al W said at a debate today that the city attorney told council members who objected to hiring the contractor for San Jacinto that the law required that they do so; he stated as an attorney that such was not the case and the city attorney was responsible for the debacle.  And further (both he and Peter agreeing on this) that $1000 per day is peanuts given the size of the contract.

Who knows?

10 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Typical waste?

May 31, 2015

This image was taken at a city park.

IMG_20150427_085140019

Note that there is a metal sheet that goes over a drainage channel.  The structure features two yellow guard rails that are probably there to keep someone in a wheelchair from falling off the sheet.

The metal sheet connects two sections of sidewalk.  The height between the sidewalk and the parking lot is precisely the same as the height between the metal sheet and the parking lot.

I have to wonder why the yellow guard rails were purchased and installed.  A person in a wheelchair would  fall no further from the metal sheet to the parking lot than they would from the sidewalk to the parking lot.

As for falling into the drainage channel, a 6 inch high rail would serve to prevent that.

Then again, maybe I am missing something.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

4 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Concrete facts

May 30, 2015

According to the scope of work presented to city council when they were awarding the contract, the pavers at San Jacinto Plaza were to be installed on a mortar bed over a concrete foundation.

sanjacintocontractawardcropped

These pictures show what they have done:

plazapavers3cropped

 

plazapavers2

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

City secrecy part one

May 29, 2015

A dear friend sent me a copy of the book Democracy in the Dark/The Seduction of Government Secrecy.  Reading the book got me to thinking about the secrecy that the city engages in.

Our city council appears to finally be paying attention to the situation at San Jacinto Plaza.

The other day council went into executive session for an extended period and when they came out they told us that they had been advised by the city attorney not to say anything.

They did say that they wanted weekly updates on the situation.  Is this so that the public will be informed?  The answer is no.  The first weekly update was this week and was also in executive session.  When council reconvened they did not say a word about the Plaza.

Why the secrecy?

Could it be that the city fears a lawsuit from the contractor?

If that’s the case then the city might be culpable for the delay.  If the contractor is right don’t we have the right to know?  Shouldn’t we know so that we can demand that changes occur in the departments at fault?

What right does the city have to hide the truth from us?

If the city has done nothing wrong why are they hiding the facts from us?   Are they afraid of a groundless lawsuit?  That would be strange.  The city legal department has used lawsuits to beat people out of what they deserve before.

Secrecy here serves no purpose other than to protect the city.  They should make the facts public.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | City government, Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »