Proposition 3, have one for the smart code

April 12, 2013

The city’s website lists the following ballot language for the third proposition:

SHALL SECTION 3.19 OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS OF THE CITY: TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROHIBITION DOES NOT APPLY TO AREAS ZONED AS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS?

I have not figured this one out but suspect that the city has discovered that the smart code that they have been so agressively pushing onto developers has a problem with having a neighborhood bar as the charter now stands.

Again, I would prefer that they tell us the specific language that they propose.

Please think about this and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Proposition 2 or the shady deal enabling act

April 11, 2013

Proposition 2

At least this proposition allows action.  “Shall … the City Charter be amended…”

Proposition 2 is like many of the others presented to us in this election.  It asks for permission to change portions of the charter, but does not tell us what the specific changes are.  Taking the giant leap of faith that city council would end up wording the changes to the charter in a competent manner and in a way that respected the wishes of the voters is not something that I am ready to do.

Quite simply the wording of the proposition can be used by council to justify all sorts of mischief.  “No”, you say, “they wouln’t do that”.  Let me remind you about the vote we recently had authorizing the increase in the hotel occupancy tax.  Before the election the city people told us that the ball park was going to be built regardless of how we voted.  We were only voting to have visitors pay part of the bill, or to pay the bill ourselves.  Now that the voters passed the tax increase the city is arguing in court that our vote was to approve the building of the ball park!

Another problem with the propositions is that they do not tell us what we are giving up.  Proposition 2 would allow city council to lease city property by simple resolution.  Right now they must pass an ordinance.  Ordinances require public notification, multiple readings, and the opportunity for citizens to provide input and ask questions.  Some times this gives the citizens time to mobilize against an action.  We did this recently when council tried to pass an ordinance that would have restricted our access to public information.  The process worked.

Greased skids

Proposition 2 would allow council to lease out any city property with no notification to the public.  They could simply post an emergency agenda item with no notice to the public after having declared it an urgent public necessity — don’t believe me?  see this (item 5).  Council can pass a resolution on a single reading.  So up to two hours before a council meeting the city manager or a city representative could add an item to “Lease the Sports Arena” to someone for a pittance.  Sound familiar?

Other portions of the proposition would act to further weaken the mayor.  Right now for example the mayor nominates the city attorney.  If the proposition passes city council could offer it’s own nominee.

Here is the ballot language directly from the city website:

SHALL SECTIONS 3.5 A AND D, 3.7, 3.9 B AND C, 3.14, 3.18 AND 4.1 B OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, AND APPOINTMENTS: TO ALLOW FOR THE CANCELATION OF NOT MORE THAN SEVEN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ANNUALLY AND NOT MORE THAN TWO IN A ROW; TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE LEASES OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TEMPORARY USES OF STREETS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY RESOLUTION; TO PROVIDE THAT ORDINANCES AND THE CITY CODE BE MADE AVAILABLE BY CONTEMPORARY MEANS SUCH AS THE INTERNET; TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAYOR AND REPRESENTATIVES EACH UNIFORMLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITY’S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS?

This proposition also has the problem that it covers multiple subjects.  See Proposed charter amendments.

I think you know how I might vote on this.

Study it and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Hauling

April 11, 2013

Once city hall has been reduced to rubble someone will have to haul off what remains.

Recent reports have indicated that it will take 1,000 truck loads and about two weeks to do this.

I am not complaining.  It needs to be done.

I just wonder what the impact will be on traffic.  I have not seen where the trucks will be going or how they will get there.

We should allow extra time in our travel plans.

Muckraker

4 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Proposition 1, authorizing nothing

April 10, 2013

I plan to offer my thoughts about the nine  propositions to change the City Charter over the next few days.

Chime in.

El Paso’s voters will be asked to approve or disapprove of several changes to the City Charter in the May 2013 election.  This post is one of several where we will discuss the propositions.

Proposition 1

In Strike two I pointed out the fact that this proposition does not contemplate action.  There is no verb in the opening clause (or any other one for that matter) that takes action.

Some thoughts:

  • Unless council takes some kind of action to fix the ballot language for this proposition, it will be a magnet for legal challenges.  The safe thing to do is to scrap this proposition and bring it back in another election if it is still desired.
  • The proposition would move the city elections to happen on the same day as the November (national) elections.  Some will argue that moving to November will increase voter turnout.  Maybe it will.  That might also have the effect of reducing the turnout for school district elections which will still be held in May.  We should be paying more attention to our school district boards and who we elect to put on them.
  • The initiative would allow a future city council to increase the number of district representatives from eight to ten if our population reaches one million people.  The initiative does not say how quickly council could make that decision, so a future council could elect to stay at eight members even after the city reaches the one million person mark.  The proposition does not specify what source will be used to define when we have reached the higher population.  Concievably council could pass a resolution or commision a study that declares El Paso to have one million people.  This is sloppy and unnecessary.  The proposition should leave the choice of the number of members on council up to the voters.  We should not be laying this booby trap — the voters should be making the decision as to how many members council has, not the council itself.

I post the ballot language directly from the city website:

SHALL SECTIONS 2.1 A AND B, 2.2 E, 2.3 A, 2.4 A AND 8.7, OF THE CITY CHARTER, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, CITY OFFICERS, AND TERMS OF OFFICE: TO MOVE THE CITY’S GENERAL ELECTIONS FROM MAY IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS TO NOVEMBER IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS BEGINNING IN 2018; TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING FOR OFFICE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON DATES WHEN THE ELECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE ACTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES FROM EIGHT TO TEN AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY’S POPULATION REACHES ONE MILLION?

Trojan horse

There will be a lot of discussion about how this proposition might increase the turn out in city elections.  If it is enacted it would certainly hurt school district elections because they would basically be separate elections with the city leaving the May ballot.

A secret motivation here is to make recalls and other citizen petitions much harder.  The way it works now a petition needs the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last city election.  Combining the city election into the November election would increase the number of voters and make getting 5% much more difficult.

Legal battle

We also have to be very careful with this proposition because of its poor wording.  If it is passed we will probably have an expensive legal battle because of its lack of authority for action.  We might be better off doing this next time if the voters want it.

It also has a problem with multiple subjects.  Some will undoubtedly say that there is only one subject — election.  Increasing the number of city representatives has nothing to do with an election.  This flaw will make the proposition subject to legal challenge if it is approved by the voters.

Study the proposition and then vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Congratulations El Paso Times

April 10, 2013

I see in this article that the El Paso Times and its reporters got some much deserved recognition recently.

They recently received awards from no less than the Associated Press Managing Editors.

A former Times reporter who is now with the Denver Post was commended for her articles about the problems over at the El Paso Independent School District:

“Bravo to reporting that seems to have used a combination of digging for records and good-old-fashioned source work to unearth a scandal that had real, quantifiable harm. Investigative journalism at its finest,” the judge wrote.

The Times itself was awarded first place in the community service category for stories and editorials about the cheating.  The judge wrote:

“Exceptional use of reporting and public records laws reveal the depth of corruption and malfeasance in a public school system,” the judge wrote. “Outstanding, tough editorials call for action. The El Paso Times staff performed an immense public service by calling attention to the problem and demanding a solution that would benefit the community’s children, parents and taxpayers. This is exciting, satisfying work.”

I have noticed a marked improvement in the Times since the return of the executive editor.

The Times also “won second place in Texas APME’s best newspaper category for mid-size papers.”  Now I don’t mean to be funny or cruel here, but second place?  I can only wonder about the quality of other newspapers.  Maybe the economic situation that the newspapers find themselves in has changed the standards.

I applaud the Times and its staff and will try to be a bit more gentle with my comments in the future.

In the meantime could we get some coverage of the other problems we have with local governments now that the parade is over?  I’d like to see them win some more awards.

Muckraker

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Open Government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »