Efficient, hardworking city staff

January 15, 2013

The earlier comments about the construction manager at risk selection and how qualified the firms really were for the city ballpark piqued my curiosity.

According to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued for the ballpark, the city would issue a Request for Proposals after it selected candidates that passed the Request for Qualifications process.  In other words step one would be to select those firms that in the city’s opinion were qualified to receive the Request for Proposals (RFP).  Step two would be to issue and evaluate the RFP.

The document indicates that the RFP would be issued on December 4, 2012.  That was two days before the same document indicated they were supposed to figure out who would get the RFP (I guess that was just a typo — who cares about these things when you already have your mind made up?).  Anyway, the lucky firms would have until December 19, 2012 to respond with their offers.

Two weeks to figure out what your offer should be on a project this size is not a lot of time.  That is unless you knew about it before hand and had a chance to be working on your offer before the other firms.  At least four firms did respond though.

The city’s “Score Summary Form” can be found here.  It is a remarkable document.

I cannot help but note that the city staff reviewing the responses was able to work their way all the way through what must have been a lot of paper and technicalities and somehow issue their evaluation of the offers only one day after they received them!

Not only that, but they were unanimous in picking the number one and number two responses.  (A more cynical person might say that they were unanimous in selecting the responses that they were told to select.)  There was evidently some critical thinking necessary in ranking the number three and four responses since the results were not unanimous here.

I also note that the “Raters” did not have their names listed even though the city has listed them on RFQ’s in the past.  This is unfortunate.  Maybe the citizens would like to thank them individually for their hard work and diligence on this matter.

Let me say again that I support the ballpark.  It is the way we are doing it that bothers me.

We deserve better

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

Charter Changes?

January 14, 2013

There was some talk around town this weekend about the Sunday (January 13, 2013) headline article in the El Paso Times.

We have an Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee.  It is working on potential modifications to the city charter that could be voted on this May.

The article indicated that we may be asked to move city elections from May to November.  Two  reasons for this are obvious.  

  • Firstly, conservative voters tend to vote in all elections, even taking the trouble to vote in a May election when few issues are at stake.  November (national) elections tend to draw more voters, including those that are less conservative.  Conservatives tend to get in the way of the progressive agenda that this city council has.
  • Secondly, with more citizens voting in a November election it will be more difficult to obtain the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last general election — thus making petitions for recall or initiative more difficult to certify.

The article also indicated that there may be proposed changes to the percentage of voter signatures needed to validate a petition for recall or initiative.  In El Paso a successful petition to recall an elected official or to propose an initiative require the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last general election.  The article predicted that the number will be raised to 10% in both cases, like “other Texas cities”.

What the article did not mention is that the document that was evidently considered at the January 7, 2013 meeting of the Ad Hoc group entitled “Potential Charter Revisions for the May 2013 Ballot” appears to have been drawn up by a law firm (so much for citizen initiatives, these people are being managed to get desired results).  The document does address the above issues.

What the El Paso Times article did not mention speaks volumes:

  • The draft document advises the members that in “other Texas cities” where the percentage required to certify an initiative petition is higher than in El Paso, the issue automatically goes to the voters if city council does not approve of the action proposed in the certified petition.   You will recall that we have recently sent up petitions that city council has either denied or taken no action on.  No such democratic provision appears to be in the document.  Here if a first petition is denied by council a second one must be certified and even then council must vote to place the issue on the ballot.
  • The current charter requires city council to pass an ordinance (a formal, multi-step process) to lease a public property or grant a temporary use of a street, alley, public way or public property.  The proposed language would allow council to do this temporarily (the document speaks in terms of years) by simple resolution of council.  In other words at any city council meeting.

The document also shows that the Ad Hoc committee is considering other issues including moving some power from the mayor (who is already holds a weak office) to the council and changing some conflict of interest issues that in my opinion should be changed.

Meetings times of this Ad Hoc group are not well known by the citizens.  You should contact the members of the group if you wish to express your opinion.  The membership list can be seen here.

Remember that as another blow to the democratic process, whatever the group comes up with for our consideration must first be approved by city council before it can be voted on by the citizens.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

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

Whither the purchasing site?

January 13, 2013

I notice that if you go the city web site and mouse over to City Departments that the panel the site then presents does not include a link to the purchasing department.

You have to click on the City Departments link, then squint your way through the convenience panel.  The purchasing web site is  in the department listing under the panel.

Accidental?  If I say yes then I criticize their competence.  If I say no, that it is deliberate, then I must be disappointed.

We deserve better.

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

Right to Petition

January 12, 2013

If you have been watching the KVIA TV news at 10 on last Tuesday and Wednesday, you would be amazed to see the Station taking on the City for their attempt to end Petitions to Stop the tearing down of the City Hall. A law suit had been filed in Fort Worth to avoid any protests from the local “crazy” as our City Mother so endearingly labeled the voters. They interviewed the City Attorney who with her best legalize, stated that with the November Vote, increasing and utilizing of Motel/Hotel tax to finance the “Venue project”, it was technically approved “implicitly”(Don’t you people know what I meant to say?). Didn’t this City Council and attorney turn down a couple of petitions because they were not explicit. KVIA presented the facts and one could only conclude that “There was a problem in Houston”
I’m wondering about the First Amendment of the Constitution, something like the right to petition. I think they want this to change. They figure if the Feds can do it so can they.
Also this seem strange coming from the Station that is aligned with The El Paso Times. In the past they didn’t criticize the City. Then I thought of a recent sweetheart real estate deals. So I drove by KVIA to see if there was a for sale sign. Nothing. Maybe now they’ll get an offer they can’t refuse. Otherwise, they may continue. Sure need a beacon besides us little folks.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by M.T. Cicero

When did it happen?

January 12, 2013

Much of what Brutus has been writing about is government activity that is just not right.

In most cases it may be legal though.

That does not make it right.

When did government following the spirit of the law become unimportant?  Why is it that so many of our elected officials and government workers do not care about doing the right thing?  Why are they seemingly only worried about whether their actions can be judged illegal?

There is some hope though.  Even though much of what they are doing around here appears to be legal, their actions may turn out to be illegal.  How so?  Well, conducting a purchase a certain way may be technically legal but lying about facts or falsifying documents may turn out to be illegal.  Ignoring procedural requirements can put them in violation of other laws.

Pulling the search facility from the city web site was wrong minded.  They should be ashamed.

It would be nice if they would embrace the spirit of their jobs.

Time will tell.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, Federal Government, Open Government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »