I want a fancy office

February 3, 2013

A friend asked me a great question the other day.

“If the city has moved IT (information technology) out to the airport why can’t they just stay there?”

According to the El Paso Times “about $1.8 million, was used to move the information technology department and a lot of sensitive, heavy equipment such as Sun Metro’s automatic vehicle locator system, fiber optics and the public safety network.”

OK they moved.  Are they somehow crippled?  Are they working ok?  Is the department failing to provide services that are necessary?  Is this like ousting children and citizens from a recreation center in the name of quality of life (see So much for quality of life)?

If they have moved and are functioning, why not leave them there?  If they have moved and are not functioning, who can we fire?

The current plan is to move them into the Luther building after spending $11.5 million to remodel the building.  That will take a while.

The presentation made to the public and city council on August 7, 2012 listed as a key objective “Relocate IT and City Development department only once”.

Moving all that equipment and connecting stuff another time cannot be cheap.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Doubt

February 2, 2013

Tuesday’s (January 29, 2013) city council agenda has an item (5g) that proposes that the city sell a little more than 15 acres of land to the El Paso Independent School District.

I don’t know if this is the right thing to do or not.  I do know that there is a problem with the process though.

The city’s chief financial officer is  member of the board of managers that the Texas education commissioner appointed to strip the elected trustees  of their powers.

City — school district.  Is it fair to assume that the word “chief” means that the chief financial officer is in charge of all finances?  The sale of the property is for money.  Which pocket is being represented here?

Let me spell it out for them.  C O N F L I C T  that’s conflict!

Maybe the commissioner was not thinking when he made the appointment.  The chief financial officer however should have declined the new post.

Why even take the chance of looking  ike you are not doing the right thing?  Maybe the chief financial officer does not care what us “crazies” and “amateurs” think.  After all we are only citizens.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

The El Paso Times on proper governance

February 1, 2013

The post from Brutus yesterday (January 31, 2013) got me to thinking about what the situation is over at the El Paso Times.

The same day as his post the Times wrote an editorial that supported the negative tone of the earlier article Brutus wrote about.

An elected city representative was chastised for bringing a proposal out into the open for the public and city council to consider!

An idea that might be good for the public somehow came to him.  He explored it at a preliminary level to see if it might make sense and be possible.  He then brought it to city council for their consideration.

The Times says that was the wrong thing to do.  They wrote “The rub? Noe apparently went off on his own in negotiating a possible deal with a land developer. Some on City Council said Noe went behind their backs.”

I thought that is part of what he is supposed to do.  Consider an idea.  Bring it out into the open and let council consider it.  Tell council it is just an idea — one way of doing something — that he is open to other ideas.

Could the Times be saying that the way things have been happening at city council is the way he should have handled this?

Does that mean he should have:

  • Gone serially, one by one to avoid the open meeting laws, to each representative and wired together a deal
  • Secretly finalized the details
  • Waited until there would be no time to consider other options
  • Then sprung the deal so that council would have no choice other than to approve it?

Or does it mean he should have kept his mouth shut and let city staff cut a deal with the cabal and then do exactly the same four things?

That is what has been happening in this city.  The Times has chosen not to expose it.  Now the Times criticizes the open, transparent method that a new city representative attempted.

“I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Times, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Whoa! Was the fix already in?

January 31, 2013

I don’t know Dr. Noe, one of our city council representatives.  I do know that I have not agreed with some of his votes while on council, so I am not one of his biggest supporters.

The front page article in the El Paso Times yesterday (January 30, 2013) really got my attention though.

Evidently the councilman brought a possible land deal for council’s consideration relative to the east side sports complex that the voters just approved.  To me the tone of the article was just short of accusatory.  It characterized the reaction of other council members as negative, “frustrated” and “confused”.

After the discussion the council directed the city staff to research potential locations for the complex “and explore all options”.  Dr. Noe said “his proposed site  did not have to be the final one”.  I seems somehow council did the right thing.

What’s happening?  Why did the Times article take a negative tone?  Is the problem that a council member got out ahead of the cabal that is running the city and had the audacity to propose something for consideration that he thought might make sense?  Is it possible that the strong response was because the fix is already in and his suggestion is not the one that they want?

The article gave details about the developer’s contribution to Dr. Noe’s campaign.  I really don’t remember that kind of coverage from the Times when the ball park and city hall moves were being written about.

Let’s see:

  • A developer contributes $2,000 to a candidate’s campaign.  The candidate gets elected and becomes a city representative.  The candidate and the developer  consider a potential deal to give land to the city in return for some concessions on another project.  The city representative brings a deal for consideration to the entire council — right out in public.
  • The El Paso Times writes an article that makes it look like open warfare broke out and that something sneaky was going on, but ultimately city council did the right thing and told city staff to consider all options.

On the other hand:

  • The city buys a multi-million dollar building from the owners of the Times.
  • The Times turns a blind eye on the shenanigans that have been going on at the city.

Did the good Doctor forget his place?   How did a city representative come to the mistaken idea that he should bring ideas to the council for their consideration?  Doesn’t he know that his job is to rubber stamp what the cabal has decided?

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Me first, children second

January 30, 2013

The  January 29, 2013 city council agenda (here)  has some interesting items on it.

Items 6B, 6C and 6D deal with issuing contracts to install school zone flashers and pedestrian ramps for the disabled.  It looks like there are three separate items because of the quantity of work to be done.  They appear to be similar but each deals with different schools.

The backup material tells us that the bids were due October 3, 2012 and were then evaluated by October 15, 2012.  Evidently it takes 12 days to evaluate bids that affect the safety of our children whereas we all know that a ballpark or new city hall needs to be evaluated in a day, maybe even in hours.

Items 6C and 6D are being recommended for award to company A (El Paso based) — after all it was the low bidder.

Item 6B is being recommended for award to company B (Arizona based).  Company B was not the low bidder.  Company A was the low bidder.

Why don’t they want to give the business to company A?  According to the backup material company A is not “responsible”. The city could have said “responsive” but since the public is considered to be “crazies” what’s the harm in some slander?

Let’s see why company A is not “responsible”.  According to the recommendation:

  • “The proposal is on a form other than the official proposal forms issued to the bidder or bidders”
  • “The bidder modifies the proposal in a manner that alters the condition or requirements for work as stated in the proposal”

What?  Company A bid on the other two projects at the same time in a manner that was evidently acceptable to city staff.  Did they use the wrong form on this particular bid?  Somehow city staff was able to analyze the offer, even if it was on a different form,  and conclude that company A offered the lowest price.  Company A did not use the right form?  Oh!  The humanity of it!  What a horrible inconvenience.

It appears that Company A also had the audacity to suggest different requirements.  They are in the business of doing this type of work.  Were they trying to tell the city that there was a better, more effective way of doing the work?  If so, and the city for some reason felt compelled to follow the bidding laws (a bid should be analyzed against published, set, specifications), why did the city not cancel the bid and redo it with better specifications?  There was plenty of time.  After all the city has been busy feathering their nest.

This stinks.  The city probably has other reasons, but it must be inconvenient to share them with the public.

I doubt that Company A will complain.  They got two out of the three jobs.  They will probably keep their mouth shut rather than risk the wrath of the city.  Who would listen to an irresponsible company?

The fact that it took more than four months to approve something for the safety of our children while city staff can approve building moves for their own convenience in a matter of days tells us a lot about where staff’s priorities are.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | Ball park, City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »