Insights

December 21, 2012

We all know that city hall and the Insights Museum are scheduled to be torn down.

Our city council has been busy buying and leasing properties to house displaced city departments.  They have been spending our money in copious amounts.

Council floated and encouraged us to pass two bond initiatives totaling $462 million this year.  These were for quality of life.

If quality of life is the goal then why are we closing the Insights Museum?  We evidently can spend a lot of money for the convenience of city staff but not for our children.

We are told that funding for a new museum was included in the bonds.  Why will our children have to spend years waiting for a new museum?

Why for that matter are we kicking citizens out of a recreation center to make room for a city department?

The city should have found a place to house Insights.

It seems mean-spirited to me.

We deserve better.

Our children deserve better.


Pro Ball Park

December 20, 2012

Please let me make it clear that I was and am a supporter of the new ball park.

I am appreciative of the contributions and commitments that two outstanding families have made for our community.  From what I can read in the newspapers they plan to donate any profits they make from the operation of the team to public charities.

I know that some people suspect that they will profit through real estate transactions as a result of the construction.  To me that is questionable, but I admit possible.

What I personally object to is tearing down city hall.  I doubt that the baseball deal would have fallen apart if it had to be delayed the two years that our city administrators claim it would have taken to secure other land.  Then again I was not part of the negotiations — my doubts may be incorrect.

The fact is that the ball park is planned to cost us at least $50 million dollars.  The city staff told us it would take $33 million to tear down city hall and move in to new facilities.  They have already committed to $63.9 million dollars for the move and have not finished spending.

That brings us to at least $113.9 million dollars and climbing because of a $50 million dollar ball park.

We deserve better.


City Manager’s Statement

December 19, 2012

Last Sunday (December 16, 2012) El Paso, Inc. published a public statement recently made by the city manager.

I don’t know whether to take it as an apology or as a promise to do better.  I hope that it is both but fear that it might be another exercise in misdirection and self justification.

Let me re-print the message as it was printed in the El Paso, Inc. and intersperse some of my thoughts in blue with the hope that the city manager will take them to heart.

I want to thank the mayor and City Council for their continuing vote of confidence and support.  I realize that the controversy surrounding the public release of volumes of emails has created an unfortunate distraction from the important work of the city and a regrettable conflict in relationships between myself and some members of City Council,  (The controversy did not cause the conflict.  You did.  You were wrong when you thought  it was your place to judge your bosses as having dementia.  You were wrong when you committed your thoughts to a written note to someone else.)  and the potential to permanently tarnish my career as city manager (your job, which is not a career, has been tarnished by this and other actions).

I once again want to publicly apologize for my role (not your role, you were not part of the problem, you and you alone  caused the problem) in causing this situation.  I am committed to doing my very best to rebuild those damaged relationships with the City Council and community (I hope that you will learn to put your obligations to the community first.) and to ensure that this conflict doesn’t adversely impact the community’s overall confidence in its city government (face it, it has) and the council/manager form of government in particular.

Even though all our actions surrounding the development of the ballpark project and related agreements were undertaken with only the community’s best interest at heart (thank you for your intent, but please understand that the community gets to decide what is in it’s best interest, not a city employee), the conflict surrounding these decisions did devolve into an erosion of civil discourse (it was not an “erosion” just because the discourse ran contrary to your actions) over a very important and transformative initiave, and I want to do my part to prevent a future reoccurence of same.

Of the many important lessons recently learned, all citizens are entitled to be heard and treated with respect as are all elected officials regardless of their respective positions on issues (I would have hoped that you knew this before taking the job.  The fact that you are just now learning it speaks volumes about your prior actions).  Process and relationships are equally important as results.  I am not the first person to make statements they regretted or which they could take back (Are you trying to say that since other people have made mistakes  that you are less accountable for yours?), or to not fully appreciate the impact of technology on communications (don’t you really mean that you did not realize the Public Information Act would allow someone to catch you?) and casual (casual?  It is not your place to gossip about and denegrate the people that you work for.) chatter.  I am not perfect, even though I recognize that I must be held to a higher standard because of the office I hold (If you had said “I am not perfect and I recognize…”  this would not have sounded like an excuse–are you saying “poor me, I have to be held to a higher standard”).

However, regardless of my personal failings (What are you saying here–you still think they are demented?), the public needs (deserves, not needs–you don’t get to decide what we need to do) to retain its confidence in the organization and leadership and know that this community and organization has been my passion and devotion (I thank you for that but would like to point out that your passions do not entitle you act differently from our will.) since taking office in 2004.

I am deeply saddened to have created a situation which compromised the city government reputation and for letting the mayor and council, the community and my staff down (good, but remember that the members of the community should come first in your thoughts).

2013 will be a year of significant change.  I am committed to providing appropriate stewardship and leadership (I just wish you knew what was appropriate.) going forward to ensure a smooth relocation of City Hall with minimal disruption in customer service, good oversight of the ballpark construction project, a seamless transition of a new mayor and council in June 2013 (What do you have to do with that?  Do you intend to tell us who to vote for?  I hope that you meant to say that you would do what you could to support the new officials.) , which is only six months away, and then a thorough process to recruit my successor (Please stop right there–you should have nothing to do with picking your successor other than answering those questions that the selection group poses.) so there will be no major upheaval or loss of continuity for the future (Who are you to decide about continuity?  Maybe the voters  want an upheaval.)

We also need to successfully launch the quality of life bond initiatives.  The community gave us a huge vote of confidence (That is presumptuous.  Some of us voted for the facilities despite our current government.) on election night and we need to make sure that this present conflict doesn’t undermine this extraordinary movement in El Paso’s history (How are you going to do that?  Silence the opposition?  I suggest that you administer our affairs in a professional manner).

I would like to again reaffirm my gratitude to the mayor and council for your continued support, and in particular to the mayor for the manner in which he constructively handled  (By prohibiting public comment from an elected official?) this situation and review.  Thank you.

Time will tell.  It is not too late for the city manager to start running an open, transparent government that responds to the will of the people.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.


The Lying Two Step

December 18, 2012

I previously wrote about how the city plans to hold their city council meetings at the public library since after all the library is already set up to handle such a meeting.  Meet me in the stacks.

Well let me quote to you from the city’s newly issued request for proposals # 2013-090R, dated December 11, 2013.  “The Main branch equipment is not adequate for hosting public gatherings, conferences, presentations and events.”  The RFP is seeking bids for Library Audio/Video Equipment.

An August 7, 2012 presentation to city council suggested that city council meetings should be held at the library (read it here —  slide number 25).  The presentation indicated that  “The cost is $0 and availability would not be an issue”.

Now it turns out that they do not have the necessary equipment.

Were they lying or are they so incompetent that they did not know the truth?

Council was lied to.  Do they care?  Do they know?  Why do they put up with this?  For that matter why don’t we make them do their jobs?  City staff is out of control.

This will need to be added to the running total of the cost of moving city hall.

We deserve better


Maybe we should bear the tax burden for the entire state

December 17, 2012

My second reading of Tuesday’s city council agenda picked up this absurdity:

We all know that city hall is scheduled to be torn down and the city council has been busy buying up and renting properties to find new, temporary facilities to house city staff.

In fact in So much for quality of life I wrote about the city moving 75 city employees into a recreation center and “inconveniencing” some of the public.

Now item 12 on city council’s regular agenda proposes to lease the Albert Fall Mansion to Texas Tech for $1 per year.

You may recall that the city recently spent almost $1.2 million to remodel this 5,430 square foot historic building.  The city then asked people to lease it and evidently has concluded that giving it to the Texas Tech system for $1 per year is the best use of the property.

Could we have moved one of our displaced city hall departments into the facility and saved some of our tax money or left part of a recreation center open to the public?

Why are we subsidizing Texas Tech?  They have their own budget.

How much of our money does the city want?

Could they have left the kids in the recreation center and moved a city function into the beautiful, newly remodeled building?

We deserve better.

Our kids deserve better.