In the land of the blind man the one-eyed jack is king

March 29, 2013

What’s going on at our county hospital, formerly known as R. E. Thomason General Hospital, but now called University Medical Center of El Paso?

The hospital district wants us to sell $162 million of bonds that we will pay for (with interest it will be a lot more — twice as much? — I don’t know yet) through  our taxes.

This deserves some attention, so I think I will do my part.  I went over to their web page to find out more about a recent board of managers meeting (March 12, 2013).

What I found is disturbing:

  • The report of the President/CEO was on the consent agenda
  • “Review and take appropriate action on financial statements for the El Paso County Hospital District…” was on the consent agenda
  • No backup material for items was posted

The board considers consent agenda items as a whole, without discussion.  That means that the CEO’s presentation and the financial actions were to be considered without public comment or scrutiny.

Most governing boards ask staff to provide backup material relating to agenda items to the board members before the board meeting.  Even the El Paso city council makes those items available to the public through their web site.  In my opinion that actually makes city council more transparent than this board.

I guess we can save money on their vision center if they have one.  This board meeting had no transparency.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Part of a story

March 28, 2013

There was an interesting comment on refusethejuice.typepad.com the other day.

I reprint it here in it’s entirety:

I was walking past Evan Mohl’s cubicle at the Times and found these notes on the floor:
T Garcia missed 6 of 12 pension meetings.
She left the meetings early 4 other times.
Studer missed 4 meetings and left early 2 times.
Arrieta missed 4 meetings and left early once.
Arrieta and Studer gave the director a SUPERIOR performance rating for his evaluation last March.
At one meeting, Arrieta voted in FAVOR of buying a building because “it was closer to downtown”.

No wonder the 3 amigos are backpedaling so furiously.
Good thing these items didn’t make it into the article.

Posted by: yep..it’s me | March 26, 2013 at 01:41 PM

Ignoring the moral aspects of this person’s snooping the comment raises some questions if it is true.

Is the Times being objective?

Is this a power play between the pension fund members and the city?

Is the Times returning a favor to the city?

Muckraker

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Goose or gander?

March 28, 2013

The Texas senate recently approved a bill that would limit future statewide office holders to two consecutive terms.  The bill goes to the house of representatives next.

Ultimately the issue would have to go before the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment before it would take effect.

Noticeably absent in the bill is any restriction on members of the legislature — they are not elected statewide.  The can serve as long as the voters choose while offices like the governor, attorney general, comptroller and such will have term limits.

Hypocrites.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Cut and paste writing

March 27, 2013

I’ve got a money saving idea for the El Paso Times.  Money seems to be short over there.  Maybe this would help.

Instead of wasting the salaries of writers and press operators every single day reprinting the exact same details of stories over and over and over, they could sell one edition on multiple days.

Those of us that have already read an article could ignore the paper on the days where the article is the same.

Then if management cares about reporting instead of writing they could cover the other issues that the citizens of El Paso are coping with.

Or if they don’t like this idea why don’t they stop printing a daily newspaper and just use billboards to publish their articles?  I think that with the new billboard wraps that we now see they could post an article on one billboard, leave it there for a week, and then move the same article to another billboard.  After a few weeks they could bring the article back to the original billboard.

Another approach would be to rename themselves The El Paso Multiple Times.

Muckraker

1 Comment | El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Strike two

March 27, 2013

Is it time for changes in the city arrorney’s office?

A previous post Don’t blame me I just voted for it pointed out that no one over at the city is reading the stuff that city council votes on.  Council had passed a voting ordinance setting up the May 2013 election.  The wording of the ordinance was defective so they had to bring it back up in order to amend it.

The city staff blamed it on a Scrivener’s error — you know a harmless little mistake that some clerk should have caught.  Actually the staff at the city attorney’s office, the city manager, the municipal clerk, and the members of council should have caught it.

Anyway, eventually it was caught and the ordinance was voted on again.

Well as it turns out they still did not read the ordinance.

As passed the second time the ordinance specifies the following ballot language for proposition one:

“Shall sections 2.1 A and B, 2.2E, 2.3A, 2.4A 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?”

Confusing?  Hard to read?  Don’t worry it doesn’t say anything.

There is no verb!

The wording starts with “Shall” — asking permission to act.  No action is requested.  They probably meant “Shall sections … be amended; to move…”.  Then again, what do I know?

If this ordinance goes to the voters and is approved, what will happen?  Will Scrivener have to work overtime again?

These are serious matters yet the city cannot spend the time to get them right.  Could it be that in their arrogance they feel that whatever they want to do they can do — and the public does not matter?

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »