Proposition summaries (4, 5, 6,7,8,9)

April 28, 2013

Early voting is about to start.  Over the next few days we will cover the proposed changes to our city charter and my thoughts about them.  This will be a serial post in that it will be added to and when finished will cover each of the nine propositions.

Just in time for this series, the city has published their official notices and has actually given us the wording that they will use if we vote for any of the propositions.

Many will disagree with my thoughts about some of these.  Good!

Just go vote your conscience.  Show everyone that elections work.

I wonder how many proposals are turned down.  Then I wonder how many proposals turn out to be a bad idea. 🙂

Proposition 4–no

This doozy would give automatic pay adjustments to the mayor and city council every year.  I doubt you get one.  Your boss gets to decide.  If you don’t like it you may find another job.  Why should we lose one of the few controls we have over this bunch?  I think that their pay should be adjusted.  Why not just make the issue a regular one on the ballot?  See Proposition 4, the blank check.

Proposition 5–no

Proposition 5, fox in the henhouse talks about why having the city auditor report to the city manager is not a good idea.  Look what happened at the El Paso Independent School District.  The text of the changes taken from the notices the city published in the newspaper shows:

“The City Manager shall maintain operational insight over the internal audit function …”

In other words, only look where I tell you to look.

This is a genuinely bad idea in my opinion.

Propositions 6, 7, 8–no

These deal with civil service.  We have not heard a lot of public outcry from the employees (could they be afraid?) or the commission itself.  We even had one commission member tell us that things were ok.  While I respect the commissioner I simply do not trust this current council and administration.  They like to hide their real agenda and that is what I fear here.  I am not against progress, nor am I against change.  Whatever good these amendments might offer can wait until we have a city government that can be trusted.  See Bad Habit.

As an example, if you were to read the long text of proposition 7 you would see a list of actions that a city employee might commit that would be grounds for termination.  The text reads in part:

The following … may constitute causes for discharge, suspension or reduction in grade …

and then lists specific acts like “Refusal to follow”, “Subjecting a fellow employee”, and “Being under the influence”.

However item “N” is grammatically inconsistent.  It reads “Violates the City’s Ethics Ordinance”.  To complete the earlier part of the sentence it should read “Violating the City’s Ethics Ordinance”.

Is this deliberate, or is it just sloppy?  We have a lot of lawyers getting paid by the city.  We even have a city representative that is a lawyer.  Use the search box on the right side of this page to search for “Scrivener”.  You will see several articles that detail how the city uses these lapses.  They have even argued that when the voters approved the Hotel Occupancy Tax increase they actually approved the ball park project even though we were told repeatedly that we were not voting for or against the ball park, we were voting for how to pay for it.

Once again I might vote for Propositions 6, 7, or 8 if I trusted these people.

Proposition 9–no

This would allow the sale of general obligation bonds for “any lawful purpose”.  Evidently there is some current restriction of what city council can sell.  Good!  We have a lot of debt to handle right now and that group already has plenty of ways to take our money.  They don’t need another one.

It would also allow council to buy property (land, buildings, equipment) through lease purchases.  This would allow them to spread costs out over many budget years thus stymieing our ability to force a tax roll back when our taxes raise more than a certain percentage year to year.  We need to be realistic with our budgets and not hide costs.  If we need it we should pay for it when we get it, or have a bond election.

Read Proposition 9 for more.

We deserve better

Brutus


Don’t rock the Boat

April 27, 2013

The ELP Time’s editors came out with their endorsements this morning. Talk about hedging your bets, they endorsed two of the leading candidates for Mayor, both Ortega, the anointed one, and Leeser. My wife commented that was strange since they have clearly indicated who they wanted to be the next Mayor. I told her to look at the last section of the paper. She said, “That’s only Automobile Advertising“. I said “Get it” she said “Oh…Got it”.
“Don’t Rock …..”.
The day before, poor Robert Cormell got hammered. The the Borderland Headlines stated he may face a tax dilemma if elected. The article on the cover page talks about the law clearly states that all judgements must be settled before taking office. Would you believe Cormell owes back taxes? The city attorneys office wouldn’t comment. They were reviewing the Proposed Amendments for omissions again. If you go on to read page 6B which I’m sure many readers didn’t bother since they went to the sport pages, you will find out this is old news and that he made arrangements to pay delinquent taxes on a property he bought last year.
Is this blowing smoke?
The point is Mr Cormell who is excellent and well qualified candidate for mayor, should find a more rewarding way of using his advertising dollars for his Bagel Shops.


Sorry wrong number

April 27, 2013

Proposition number four on the ballot deals with the pay of our city representatives and mayor.

In Proposition 4, the blank check I wrote about the issue and how El Paso Inc.  had written that the city attorney was wrong.

Now after the El Paso Times headline article today (here is the link from the Times  but please be aware that as of the moment that I am writing this it does not work–so much for being careful about what you print):

City representatives would get paid “about $42,000” according to the city attorney.  The Times today puts it at “about $47,000”.  The Inc. said the number is $50,500.

The mayor would get “about $63,000” according to the Times.  Thankfully the city attorney was not quoted in the Inc. article.  The Inc. wrote that the mayor’s salary would rise to $75,250.

For crying out loud

How can a voter make an informed decision on this issue?  Try depositing about $1,000 dollars in your bank.  They expect an exact number and so do we.

Based on the way the city has misled us on many other issues I don’t feel comfortable with this.

To me the real issue with this proposition is that the pay adjustments would become automatic every year.

No muss, no fuss.  Voters need not do anything.

We deserve better

Brutus


Proposition summaries (6,7,8,9)

April 27, 2013

Early voting is about to start.  Over the next few days we will cover the proposed changes to our city charter and my thoughts about them.  This will be a serial post in that it will be added to and when finished will cover each of the nine propositions.

Just in time for this series, the city has published their official notices and has actually given us the wording that they will use if we vote for any of the propositions.

Many will disagree with my thoughts about some of these.  Good!

Just go vote your conscience.  Show everyone that elections work.

I wonder how many proposals are turned down.  Then I wonder how many proposals turn out to be a bad idea. 🙂

Propositions 6, 7, 8–no

These deal with civil service.  We have not heard a lot of public outcry from the employees (could they be afraid?) or the commission itself.  We even had one commission member tell us that things were ok.  While I respect the commissioner I simply do not trust this current council and administration.  They like to hide their real agenda and that is what I fear here.  I am not against progress, nor am I against change.  Whatever good these amendments might offer can wait until we have a city government that can be trusted.  See Bad Habit.

As an example, if you were to read the long text of proposition 7 you would see a list of actions that a city employee might commit that would be grounds for termination.  The text reads in part:

The following … may constitute causes for discharge, suspension or reduction in grade …

and then lists specific acts like “Refusal to follow”, “Subjecting a fellow employee”, and “Being under the influence”.

However item “N” is grammatically inconsistent.  It reads “Violates the City’s Ethics Ordinance”.  To complete the earlier part of the sentence it should read “Violating the City’s Ethics Ordinance”.

Is this deliberate, or is it just sloppy?  We have a lot of lawyers getting paid by the city.  We even have a city representative that is a lawyer.  Use the search box on the right side of this page to search for “Scrivener”.  You will see several articles that detail how the city uses these lapses.  They have even argued that when the voters approved the Hotel Occupancy Tax increase they actually approved the ball park project even though we were told repeatedly that we were not voting for or against the ball park, we were voting for how to pay for it.

Once again I might vote for Propositions 6, 7, or 8 if I trusted these people.

Proposition 9–no

This would allow the sale of general obligation bonds for “any lawful purpose”.  Evidently there is some current restriction of what city council can sell.  Good!  We have a lot of debt to handle right now and that group already has plenty of ways to take our money.  They don’t need another one.

It would also allow council to buy property (land, buildings, equipment) through lease purchases.  This would allow them to spread costs out over many budget years thus stymieing our ability to force a tax roll back when our taxes raise more than a certain percentage year to year.  We need to be realistic with our budgets and not hide costs.  If we need it we should pay for it when we get it, or have a bond election.

Read Proposition 9 for more.

We deserve better

Brutus


Bad habit

April 26, 2013

Items 12A, B, and C on the April 30, 2013 city council agenda deal with construction activities after hours.

Noise levels, grading (heavy equipment earth movers), vibration, and general construction activities have been regulated in the past.  What is new here is that the contractor must get a permit.  If you like big government and restrictive development this is a good idea.  Well, in this case the permit is only $72.00 so government will not be getting much bigger.

Why the trouble?

From what I can see in the old ordinances there were ways for a contractor to get permission to operate like this after hours.  What could not be done easily was to waive the restrictions if the property was within 300 feet of property that had residential zoning.

Let’s see, where could that be?  The new ball park of course.

What’s done is done.

The residents around the ball park will have major changes in their lives.  In all probability their real estate will become the target of developers who want to take advantage of proximity to the new facility.  Most of the buildings are rented out to multiple tenants.  They are apartments.  Even if I am wrong and the buildings are not sold the residents will see crowds, traffic congestion, noise, lights and other new conditions even into the evening hours.

El Paso has committed to building the ball park and getting it done on time.  I suspect that most of those who were opposed to building it on top of the old city hall now realize that further objection is pointless.  To me if construction has to go on at night and on weekends in order to meet the schedule it will be a necessary evil.

Why hide?

It seems to me that this current bunch down at the new city halls would rather  hide the truth than tell it.  It seems like it has become a game to them.

That is why I have an inherent distrust for what they say.

We deserve better

Brutus