$63.9 million and climbing

November 27, 2012

El Paso Inc.  published this article Sunday (11/25/2012) about tearing down city hall.

A previous post City Hall Relocation pointed out that the city was telling us before the bond issue that the cost of relocating city hall was about $33 million.

At that point the costs that City Council had agreed to were at $37 million without relocation costs or land renovation.

The article yesterday pointed out a problem with emergency communication equipment being in the building.  They were interviewing the City Engineer who has evidently stepped out of that job temporarily to become “project engineer for the stadium project” and wrote:

  • “The city is modernizing and replacing much of its public safety communication system but the current system atop City Hall will have to continue operating.”
  • “The intent is to have it up and running before we tear this building down, which means the current system will still be in the building when we implode it,” he said.

Let’s think about this.  They plan to leave the old communication system in the building when they tear it down.  Are they going to run the old system up until the moment of the implosion?  I doubt it.  I wonder what the salvage value of the old system is and why they do not take the issue to the open market.  Oh–that would require bidding–something that the City has a lot of trouble with.

City Council has already agreed to obtain the new system for a mere 20 million dollars.  They have also agreed to buy a new 6.9 million dollar phone system.

Let’s do the arithmetic:

  1. $11.8 million for 801 Texas Street
  2. $13.7 million to renovate the Luther building
  3. $11.5 million for the El Paso Times building and parking lots
  4. $20 million for the new emergency radio system
  5. $6.9 million for a new for a new phone system

So now we are at 63.9 million dollars and still have not paid for relocation or land renovation or whatever else comes up.  Where did they come up with the 33 million dollar figure?

Are they lying to us or are they incompetent?  Either way we need new management.

We deserve better!

3 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc. | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

Introduction

November 26, 2012

Brutus invited me to contribute to this blog, so I think I will give it a try.

Brutus has the ability to point to facts with the intensity of a laser thus shining a spotlight on an issue while  M. T. Cicero uses his amusing wit to help us think about what is going on.

I don’t think that I will write as frequently as Brutus. Nor do I intend to dwell on specific issues, at least initially. I want to start with how our politicos hijack words to mislead us.

Let’s start with “federal” as in the so called federal government.

The online Oxford dictionary today defines federal as “having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs”.

During the ratification process of our Constitution there was a fear that the United States government would crush the state governments.  Indeed the “supremacy clause” stated “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”.  Some people thought that “made in pursuance thereof” protected us from laws that were not to be allowed under the Constitution.  Others knew better.

The fear of centralization became so widespread that the Tenth Amendment was enacted later.  It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

At one time that government was federal.  The senators were appointed by their state legislatures.  Each state had two senators that were appointed to represent the interests of the state and it’s people.  The states had a say in what became law and who the high level officials were who ran the government and in international treaties.

That all went away when senators started being elected directly by the people (the 17th Amendment–1913).  Now the states have no say in the laws that are passed.  Our government is no longer federal.  The states are not independent in their internal affairs.

Call it “the national government”, “the government in Washington”, “the United States government”, “the central government” but not the “federal government”–because it is not federal.

Some would argue that common usage redefines the word and that the “federal government” is the one in Washington because that is what it is called most commonly.

Precedent does not make principle.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

1 Comment | Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Another shameful way to allow favoritism

November 26, 2012

Just when I think I have figured out the extent that our local administrators will go to to circumvent fairness and the law, their wicked (look it up, it means evil or morally wrong) minds come up with another travesty.

The El Paso Independent School District issued a Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP) #13-106 for iPads, Computer, Telephone and AV (audio visual) parts.  Note the word competitive.   On the face of it I don’t know of too many vendors that sell products  in all of those areas, but maybe the results of the CSP could prove differently.

Twelve vendors responded. That is pretty good until you realize that most of them responded only to a portion of the bid.

What did EPISD do? They awarded the bid to all twelve, even after they found some bidders to be less desirable because of past performance. Preposterous! The stated justification was “to allow the campuses and departments the flexibility to compare and purchase products from several approved vendors based not only on price but availability and lead time” You can see that on the EPISD document here.  The explanation is at the bottom of the last page.

This is not competitive bidding, it is a sham. It allows the administrators to buy from their favorites among the twelve with impunity. By definition it is not competitive. It is however devious.  By awarding the bid to all twelve proposers, no proposer has anything to complain about. Now staff has a blank check to buy from any of the twelve.  Staff is free to pick who they like and eliminate anyone else.

Why does the school board allow this?

The El Paso Times uses a lot of ink writing about the board.  They need to look at the managers and staff in our local governments.

Our children deserve better.

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

Thanking another blog

November 23, 2012

Thank you to David K. at http://refusethejuice.typepad.com for the mention.

He runs a lively conversation and points out many issues in our area.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

The list goes on

November 22, 2012

Today is Thanksgiving Day.

Instead of writing this weekend, let me post an index of some of what I have been writing about local purchasing.

Managing Our Money addresses local governments using buy boards

City Management talks about the two step that they use down at City Hall

Sole-source or favoritism or laziness? gives an example of how the City lies so they can buy sole-source

There They Go Again chronicals a major waste of money

More No-Bid Spending shows how buy boards should be used

Jumping to Conclusions shows how EPISD cannot write an RFP even when they try

Saying it does not make it so exposes the lie that bid board contracts are competitively bid 

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, El Paso Inc., El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »