A Very New Year

We are at the beginning of a brand new year and it promises to be very different. We will end up with a new Mayor and we might just have a real election in the process. Councilman Morrison is going to run for Mayor, which means someone else will have to fill the SMD 2 seat. I will be running for that seat. This blog will still be active, and I will be posting on issues from time to time but in keeping with our policy of focusing on issues not candidates I will not be using this blog for my campaign. I will set up a separate website/blog for that purpose. This blog will not endorse candidates, even me, for office. ConchoInfo will be a part of the election because the reality is my platform and issues and reasons for running have been stated on this site since 2004. What I campaign on will include what I've been saying here from the beginning. That won't change.

This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.

A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.

Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.

Jim Turner

The Un-Mayor Race

Thanks to Mr. Turner for the video of the Democrat Club sponsored Q&A from Monday. Despite going heads up against the highest rated Monday Night NFL game in history, an SRO audience attended. Tells me we have high interest in a very open special election to replace Mayor Lown.

I am referring here to the "Un-Mayor" portion of the Nov. 3 election, the State Constitutional Amendments. I can tell you, election clerks and judges regularly get more questions on these measures than nearly any other item on a ballot: by law, come election day, about all we can do is read what is on the ballot. FYI, while I still can, let me run these Amendments down by the numbers.

Amendment One will give cities with military bases the option to use bonds or tax increment zones to buy buffer land between the base and local development, cutting down on complaints. This would apply more to a base such as Dyess in Abliene with an active and noisy flight line. Goodfellow's training mission is quieter, we have residences cheerfully building right up to the perimeter fence. Our local effect is close to zero, but I will vote yes. It will help cities with a noise problem deal with that and keep good relations with the local base

Amendments 2,3 and 5 are related to property tax appraisals. I hear often from people who first read of an ad valorem reduction, as San Angelo has done five years in a row, but then find their tax bill has not gone down, or has even increased due to a higher appraisal of the property. Amendments Two and Three are on the same issue: On Two, current common standard is "highest and best use". In English, if you live near a commercial establishment with a high evaluation, the Appraial District can evaluate your property as though it were worth the same. Amendment Two will require the District to evaluate that residence property on its residential value. The companion Amendment Three will give State Comptrollers office authority to write a fairer standard than "highest and best use". Amendment Five allows appraisal review boards (equalization boards in ballot language) to consolidate as the appraisal districts have. Two and Three are crucial, Five is housekeeping with a possible lowering of expense. I vote "yea" on all three.

Amendment Four would create a National Research University Fund designed to help major Texas Universities become Tier One research institutions. Though ASU is not one of the seven named schools, we could see some local benefit to ASU through its affiliation with Texas Tech, which is specified in the measure.

Amendment Six will allow the Texas Veterans' Land Board to issue bonds if needed to assure our veterans the Land Board benefits of lower-interest loans for home buying. In the past, each bond request required separate voter approval, the last in 2001. I don't think voters have ever turned down a bond request. This program is self-funding, with a default rate under 0.5%. In a state with 2 million veterans and no cost to taxpayers, I see this as a solid "yes".

Amendment Seven adds the Texas State Guard to others exempt from the rule against "holding two paid civil offices". Many voters are unaware of the Texas State Guard. It is an all volunteer group, separate from the National Guard. Its function is to supplement the Texas National Guard if it is unable to respond due to say, deployment overseas. See hurricane Ike. If we could allow LBJ to run for Senate and VP on the same ballot, surely we can allow a State Guard reservist to be a Councilman or County Commissioner without resigning his/her State Guard position.

Amendment Eight is the diciest. It would allow the State to support and build VA hospitals. HB 2217 has already been passed, and there is valid debate whether Amendment Eight is truly needed to support 2217. I'm probably wouldn't have supported HB 2217. Slight digression here, but I have long supported laws that would eventually replace the separate VA Hospital system with cards/vouchers allowing vets to recieve the care we owe them at the same hospitals we use. Local care, gov't funded. This is going to be my "NO" vote in November.

Amendment Nine is called "Open Beaches". Obviously little local impact unless you vacation at our Texas beaches. Since 1959 the legal definition of Public Beach is the area between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In short, if you choose to "build thy house on shifting sand", your property rights depend on the vagaries of aforementiond shifting sand. Even if you have the grandest house on the waterfront, you can't keep us commoners off the beach between your manse and the beach. Hurricane Ike again; some homeowners found their houses to be a "public beach" due to storm related erosion. I am not completely without sympathy, BUT...Homeowners knew they were building on sand. Nine merely gives Constitutional standing to a law that has been on the books since Eisenhower was President.

Amendment 10 is the sort of housekeeping another state would have had decided by Commissioner's court or some county review board. No local interest I know of, if I bother to vote it, I will vote in favor.

Amendment Eleven on eminent domain. It moves us in the right direction, post the infamous Kelo decision. I would have preferred stronger, more informed debate. With Gov. Perry backing the TTC and its huge appetite for eminent domain, it's hardly a secret he opposes this Amendment. That's OK Gov. Perry, I don't like Amendment 11 either. I think it should have been even stronger. Definite "yes" vote on this. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

There it is, my personal guide to the "un-mayor" issues. Regardless of how the gentle reader votes, I hope you will vote on the Amendments. I hope this helps make it an informed vote.

Doggie Catch "22"

It did not escape my attention that Emilio Jimenez-Perez's final offering is listed as Agenda item #22. Irony "rocks" as the younger set might say.

Brief precis: he has proposed an ordinance which would preclude Council from re-examining an ordinance, passed or failed, within 6 months of last final action unless 4 of the 7 members agreed to place it on agenda. There are exceptions to allow for adjusting to state or federal mandates, but... Cut to the chase, This might be called the "Save the doggie Ordinances" amendment.

Understand, I have sat on Emilio's patio and shared an adult beverage with him, I am with him well over 80% of the time, even though he is not my Councilmember. He is a good man and has a good record as Councilmember, but on this issue, we must agree to disagree.

It is a well established principle that one Council may not bind the next Council by Ordinance. This is why our last Charter Review Committee, of which I was a member, was proud of putting in play, for instance, the Capitol Improvements Planning. As a voter approved Charter Amendment, CIP is now an ongoing part of the budget process no future Council can ignore just because it might be inconvenient. In this instance, the draft ordinance has pretensions of a Charter Amendment without troubling ourselves with a Charter election.

As it is now, Emilio is retiring (as he promised), the two contenders for his seat are not running against him. Nonetheless, both candidates for his seat have been open as to their doubts about the recently passed by 4-3 vote, doggie ordinance package. Hypothetical: had this been a livelier race, and an issue such as this been key, would we not see this amendment as a limiting, "Dog-in-the-Manger" move? Another day and time, would a new City Council accept such an attempt to restrict its power?

Whoever prevails in SMD4, it will be, by definition, a "new" Council. When we are talking items passed 4-3 by existing Council, the "new" is critical.

Any elected Council, new or not, ought be allowed to consider, re-consider, or bring up new items as circumstances demand. "Stuff" happens, there might be all sorts of reasons we would want to re-examine a recent Ordinance. Any existing Council might find itself looking at new info or citizen input, and wanting to re-visit a recent Ordinance on short notice. I notice that of the three exceptions to the six month rule under the draft ordinance, citizen outcry is not included.

Practical aside, I am not a legal scholar with letters after my name, but my layman's read: This would violate Texas state statute, Constitution, and (forgive me for mentioning it) the intent of the law. How does one go about getting 4 votes just to put something on agenda without violating Open Meetings Statute? Open Meetings means just that: decisions by Council, or SAISD Board, or County Commissioners are to be arrived at in public meetings. None of these bodies are supposed to be meeting off-the-record and hashing things out in some "smoke-filled room" out of public view. If a quorum of such a body is to meet at a local cafe or watering hole, they best bring along a court recorder to take minutes of such a de facto "meeting".

The matter at hand, the "doggie ordinance" package is very likely to come up shortly after the May election. Aside from lively public comment, we have a new Animal Services Board advisory committee. This group, unlike its predecessor which had problems getting a quorum for meetings, is taking its tasking seriously.

City has already played "fast and loose" on this issue. A "committee" was appointed completely outside the Council-approved Bylaws of the existing Animal Services Board. Under Articles 5 and 6 of ASB Bylaws, any special committee is to be appointed by the ASB chair, and "shall be comprised of of a chairman, who must be a member of the Board...". Unless Council has formed a separate Committee to override the existing ASB, a dubious proposition at best, any sub-committee tasked to study doggie ordinances should have been appointed by the new ASB Chair, Jennie Wilson, and have had as its Chair "a member of the Board", which this group does not.

Realistically, the best option for the City would be to put enforcement of the "doggie ordinance" package on hold. The Texas legislature has a few bills still in the hopper which might add statewide requirements as to breeders, spay/nueter, and humane confinement. Frankly, we have been wrestling with this issue for at least four years. We have a problem, not a crisis. This is a real good time to step back, let the new ASB have a chance at doing its job, wait for State Statute (or not), and then, with all facts in, take the matter up and deal with it properly. Frankly, my guess would be after Labor Day, maybe sooner, but sometimes quorums are hard to come by during summer vacation season.

Come May 10, we will have a new Council. I am not speaking for either SMD4 candidate, but were I in that position, I would be offended at this attempt to limit my franchise as Councilmember. Current Council can do the "new" Council a favor by voting against item 22 this Tuesday.

Questions for Mayoral candidates at the Democrat Club

Questions for the candidates for Mayor at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club meeting. There were 4 questions

Question 1

Question 2

Questions 3 & 4

JW Lown at the Democrat Club

Video of JW Lown's introductory remarks at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club Meeting. He is running for the Mayor's seat on the council and is currently the Mayor.

Lars Nyberg at the Democrat Club

Video of Lars Nyberg's introductory remarks at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club Meeting. He is running for the Mayor's seat on the council.

William Bryan Jr at the Democrat Club.

Video of William Bryan Jr.'s introductory remarks at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club Meeting. He is running for the Mayor's seat on the council.

SMD 4 Q&A at the Democrat Club

Questions and answers for the SMD 4 candidates, Fredd Adams and Richard Bart, at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club forum

Richard Bart at the Democrat Club

Video of Richard Bart's introductory remarks at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club meeting. He is running for the single member distict 4 seat.

Fredd Adams at the Democrat Club

Video of Fredd Adams' introductory remarks at the April 6th 2009 Democrat Club meeting. He is running for the single member district 4 seat.

Candidate Steve Mida Presentation

Candidate Steve Mida's presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.


Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.

Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.

What We've Got Here

One of the most memorable lines ever from a movie was delivered by Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke. That line started playing over and over in my mind last Tuesday, because “What we've got here is failure to communicate.” By the end of the day, I was convinced that City Hall continually fails to communicate.

The most obvious example was in Rep. Darby's statement to the joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting. His first words were about how few people in the Real Estate community knew about the meeting or what was being proposed. This was shortly after Planning Staff had asserted they physically visited every property affected by the CG/CH rezoning plan. How can you have City Staff visiting hundreds of properties and not have the owners and tenants know why?

The movie line was again brought to mind as Jim Ryan and I were leaving the meeting. Jim had made another of his periodic calls for an Ombudsman to serve as a single point of contact between city hall and people trying to navigate the red tape involved in any business and construction venture. Shawn Lewis, director of the development services department, wondered why we were still asking for an Ombudsman, when that position was now in existence and had been since a recent reorganization. Neither Jim nor I could remember hearing that, and we both try to pay attention, but we could have missed it. Just to make sure, I asked one of the council men later if he was aware of the Ombudsman, and he was as surprised as I was. We also gave Mr. Lewis a business card and asked for more information. Nothing yet. Look at the development services web page, and find the Ombudsman. The job title is less than informative. I also wonder why neither the City Manager or Mr. Lewis took the opportunity to point out this long needed addition to the city organization chart. Deja Vu. What we've got here is failure to communicate.

City Hall, like most government bureaucracies, needs an effective communications strategy. This strategy needs to be grounded in the basics. First they need to know that effective communication isn't in just one direction. You need to put the information out but there has to be feedback. Every time you put out a message, you need a way to ensure it was received. In radio communication, you have the ”rodger” acknowledging success. In personal communications, there are active listening techniques. In public speaking, there are ways to judge the crowds response. If the snores are getting annoying, you might not be communicating. City Hall can and must employ feedback techniques in any communications strategy. They must identify and actively use feedback mechanisms.

Personal contact is also part of an effective communications strategy. Any time a city employee comes in contact with the public, something is communicated. Everyone realizes that work crews, whether busily fixing a water leak or lazily leaning on a shovel, communicate an image of the City Hall. We must remember that every time a staff member interacts with the public, that is communications. The planning staff was in the field for considerable time studying the CG/CH rezoning. What an opportunity for communication. What would have happened if they had taken the time to hand a one or two page letter to available business and property owners while they were there. Such communications with businesses and property owners would have been a giant positive leap.

In conclusion, it is time for City Hall, and all local government organizations, to develop a communications strategy. “Failure to communicate” needs to be relegated back to movie trivia.

Easy? I don't recall

There are few things more misunderstood in the discussion on the upcoming appointed chief ballot measure than the procedure for recalling an elected official. I keep hearing that it's easier to do a recall election that it is to get an appointed chief fired. Most people don't understand or severely underestimate the effort and expense involved in a recall. It is a very high bar.

First off according to the city charter there are 60 days to collect the names, addresses, and voter registration numbers of at least 30% of the number of registered voters that voted in the last chiefs elections. Roughly 9,500 people voted in the May 2004 chiefs election. That means you have to collect at least 2850 valid signatures with addresses and voter registration number. Figure there will be some spoiled petitions, ineligible voters, etc., and the effort must collect 3000 signatures to be on the safe side. I have researched the results of many petition drives, and the cost has been from a low of about $10 per signature up to almost $100. Let's assume that we are very lucky and can do it for the $10 figure. We are talking $30,000 to get enough valid, verified signatures with addresses and voter registration information.

After they are collected, the city clerk (who does the duties of city secretary) has 30 days to certify the petitions. The official (the chief in this case) would then be notified, at which time he has 15 days to decide whether or not to resign. If he choses not to resign, then an election is scheduled by the city council not sooner then 30 days later. The city charter says that the election should be scheduled no more than 90 days from that date, but election code throws a monkey wrench into that because according to Section 41.001 of the election code, an election must be held on one of two uniform election dates. There is an exception for emergencies but an emergency election must be approved by the governor. That means that if every thing goes right it will probably take 135 days to hold the recall election. If not, it could take almost a year until you could vote the rascal out of office.

Then there is the expense of campaigning and getting the people out to vote. The election itself will cost the city significant money. If it's a close election, there will be a recount. After close to a year, after thousands of dollars in expense, you finally might get the rascal kicked out of office.

Some how that doesn't meet my definition of easy.

Free-association Sunday Ramble

My usual free-association Sunday Ramble. One thing about focusing on local items, it allows some distance from Party politics. I found myself today on the S-T site saying for the third time in a month, "a plague on both your houses" this time in reference to the SCHIP veto. Not to get too far from the local focus, basically the Democrats are deliberately asking for more than they can get, Republicans are scurrying for cover, everybody's attention is on re-election, and in the end, it is so much blatherskite and havers, by adjournment Congress will have passed, and Bush will sign, a bill insuring more children than are now covered. We pay them money for this.

SAISD is starting to appear to be genuinely concerned about a new bond measure. Workshop this Monday, but real action the next meeting. Good timing, this Monday WILL find me in front of a TV hoping Da'boys R back. New England won Sunday, but pushed on the point spread, next week, Cowboys /Patriots in big D. If Dallas can avoid looking past a badly hurt Buffalo (third string QB starting) Monday night, next week is THE gameadaweek in the NFL. If you accidentally find an end-zone ticket to that game, you can probably make the next few mortgage payments on E-Bay. Next Monday I will be at SAISD offering my usual free advice.

The Police Chief Charter Amendment is the big item on Charter amendments Nov. 6, 'nuff said there, but let us not forget the other 28 measures. Twenty-some are purely housekeeping. They will change nothing in how the city does business, we are cleaning up language, bringing Charter into compliance with state law, doing away with bodies that no longer exist, that sort of thing.

There are important issues out there aside from the Chief measure. My personal top-of-the- chart is #25, which imposes on the budget process a capital improvements presentation. Previous City Councils have ignored pipes and potholes and left us with a crumbling infrastructure. These problems obviously pre-date the tenure of anyone now serving on Council, but the steaming pile is in their laps. This year, Council and City Manager Harold Dominguez put capital improvements at the top of the budget process. Prop 25 will force any future Manager and Council to look at capital improvements first. It does not mean a future Council has to ratify whatever a future Manager gives them as a CIP report, but if we pass #25, it will mean that in the future, we will always have a five year plan for infratructure and Council will not be able to hide behind "Gee, nobody told us". If you missed the "Voices" radio program on this topic Sunday, it can be accessed on the gosanangelo website. Earned your money on that one Harold.

Prop 16 is designed to let us quit being West Texas' Police Academy. Abilene, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, etc. have shamelessly recruited our officers. Lubbock has a portable sign on south Bell, the Border patrol has a billboard just east of Bell St. and they all go internet. I am told some cities send personal e-mails to our officers trying to recruit them. We spend the training money, they offer a little more pay, our officer jumps and takes the raise. Can't blame him, he's trying to make a living. Prop 16 allows us to make a contract with officers saying "OK, we're going to pay for some valuable schooling, BUT in return, you are going to promise you will stay with for X years or repay the cost if you leave early". Governments and industry do this all the time for sound financial reasons. It doesn't mean Officer Friendly is a "wage-slave" it just says, if you take our freebie to Abilene, you, Abilene, somebody is going to repay the Angelo taxpayer for your college credits. The major problem is in the Police Dept., but this Proposition would include firemen, water treatment plant, any employee whose continuing education is taxpayer funded.

Prop 5, increasing pay for Council/Mayor. The existing compensation, roughly speaking, doodly-squat, is lost in the mists of time. It may have been addressed in 1947, may go back to 1915. Most of us have had a pay raise since then, Council members deserve one too. I argued for higher than Prop 5 allows on the grounds that realistic pay might allow a working man to run and serve without beggaring his family. What we have in Prop 5 might help on that and in the context of an $80 million budget it is revenue neutral. I know how much time these people put in, this is the right thing to do.

Prop 15 should not be controversial. It recognises we have started selling Nasworthy lots instead of leasing them, and allows the city to responsibly manage that Trust fund.

The most important thing to do Nov. 6, if you have not early-voted by then, is VOTE! This election has no Presidential, no Congresscritter, no officeholders at all. Historically, such elections run under 10% turnout and my main job as election judge is to bring a thick book to read. We can do better. You don't have to become a pain, but maybe nudge your co -worker's elbow, mention it to your neighbor, we have not done a Charter review to this extent in thirty years, may be that long doing another. It really matters, take a few minutes and vote.

Nearly forgot, happy Columbus Day. When I was in grade school we all heard the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie", and of course, Columbus discovered America. Then why aren't we Columbia? Turns out an Americus Vespucchio (optional spelling) never got around to leaving Italy, he was too busy drawing maps. If Columbus did not discover America, (and he never touched the mainland) which he obviously didn't since there were people onshore to greet him and his crew's diseases, where did the greeters come from? Was this "First Contact" a greater genocide than the holocaust or purely accidental ? Did the federal gov't establish Columbus Day to buy off politically crucial Italian immigrant voter blocs in the northeast? Does Minnesota have enough electoral votes to rate a "Lief Erickson Day"? Do I personally wish we could go back to the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie" without having to adjourn for a navel-lint introspective course in consciousness-raising?

Must be getting old and crotchety. Happy Columbus Day.

Chief misconceptions

I decided to wait on the debate Monday night sponsored by the Tom Green Democrat Club as to the elected/appointed Police Chief. Glad I did. A few minor hitches. Councilman Dwain Morrison was unable to be there, and Floyd Crider attempted to work from Dwain's notes as well he could. I point this out in case there was a slip up in communication in that process, otherwise, we have a crucial misapprehension by one of the appointed Chiefs' more prominent opponents.

One reason I was able to support this version, after going against it last time. we have clarified the appointment process, or we thought we had. The appointment itself is made by the city manager, then ratified by the City Council. Should it become necessary to remove a Chief, that is done by the City Manager on his sole authority.

If Mr. Crider's reading of the notes was accurate, Mr. Morrison seemed to believe a Chief could be removed anytime four Council members disliked him.

I suppose the case could be made, but it is a heck of a stretch. Yes, a bloc of four Council members can remove the manager, so in theory they could either threaten to exercize that authority to bend a manager to their will, or in the extremity, actually fire and replace the manager to get to the Police Chief. In practice such a move is nearly always a public relations disaster. Those of us who are old enough to recall the Nixon years can remember how well it worked for him as Nixon went through two Attorneys General in a weekend before a third finally fired Archie Cox.

I mentioned our meeting with WTOS. I do not intend to characterize their postion as a group, so I stress, these were questions from individual members. One set of questions went to the the possible process of removal/replacement under the current elected system. Well, in between four year elections, there isn't much. The recall mechanism was mentioned, but as a political reality, it is virtually undoable. A recall election would need over 5,000 valid signatures just to be scheduled and the group capable of mobilising that effort in San Angelo is non-existent.

A point that came up, what if the police dept. has become so factionalized that we might want to bring in a Chief from outside San Angelo, a qualified candidate with no ties to any group or internal candidate? Under the elected Chief system, that is not an option. While the qualifications for an elected Chief don't even mention a law enforcement background, a candidate has to be a two year resident of the city. On that, under the appointed Chief, by state law, we could hire a Chief from anywhere, but a candidate must have five years experience minimum, with at least an Intermediate Master Officer's certification.

I add, on this last, I would like it if we could "promote from within" when possible, having a new Chief familiar with the city. That would require stability in the Dept. and a process aimed at training a few promising candidates who show leadership potential. We have neither. The "house divided against itself" has been mentioned too often, by too many to be a fantasy. Under the elected system, what encouragement does any Chief have to train up a potential electoral opponent?

I think it is time to tackle this problem. The timing suits. If approved by the voters, the appointment process would take effect at the end of this term in May. We have, aside from the usually divisive election, a felony investigation of Chief Vasquez underway. However that investigation turns out, it points up a huge defect in the elected method.

I know of and understand the reluctance of many voters to yield direct elective say on any office, but in this case, I believe it's time to do so for good reason. Too few voters know the "rest of the story" well enough to make the best decision on this crucial office.

Charter Election Status

We are actively gearing up the education and information campaign on the Charter Amendments that are on the ballot in the November election. We have more information on the main ConchoInfo.org website, we have an informational PowerPoint presentation, and the city has election information here.

Most of these amendments are non-controversial housekeeping measures that update the language to comply with current state and federal laws and how we actually do business. The heavy hitters are the Appointed Chiefs amendment, the Capital Budget amendment, and the raise in allowances for the Mayor and Council Members.

You opinions, as always, are welcome here.

Chief Concerns

A recent comment on an earlier post brought up some questions that need answered about an elected vs. appointed chief.

Question 1: Who would appoint the police chief if we do appoint the chief?

• That is spelled out in LG 143.013. The City Manager (CEO) would appoint the chief with confirmation by the City Council (governing body).

Question 2: What are the qualifications for an appointed or elected chief?

• Appointed chiefs requirements from the above reference are "A person appointed as head of a police department must be eligible for certification by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer standards and Education at the intermediate level or its equivalent as determined by that commission and must have served as a bona fide law enforcement officer for at least five years." The city manager, with input from the council and public could add other requirements. These requirements don't apply to an elected chief.
• The qualifications for the elected chief start with section 61 of the City charter that says "The Chief of Police shall have been a resident of the City of San Angelo for a period of at least two years immediately prior to his election and shall possess the qualifications of electors in said city." The state adds some requirements in Occupation Code 1702.302. It says in part "in an elective office must obtain a license from the commission not later than the second anniversary of the date the officer takes office." It also states that if the elected officer (police chief in this case) fails to obtain or maintain the license within the 2 years he can be removed from office.

Question 3: Who has oversight of an appointed or elected chief?

• In the case of an appointed chief, he would serve at the will of the City Manager, who would be also be his direct supervisor. As an appointed department head he would also be subject to investigation and inquiry by city council.
  
• An elected chief has no real supervisor within the city government. The council can "adjust" the chiefs pay, and the council does control the police budget, but they have no real authority to remove or discipline the police chief. The voters can remove an appointed chief at the next regular election. In theory, the voters could petition for a recall election, but that requires a large number of signatures on petitions, and a full blown election with all the time and expense involved in that process. The council can't call a recall election. That has to start with a citizens petition with sufficient signatures.
  
• Either chief can be removed for conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. Neither chief is subject to review or oversight by the civil service commission.
  

Hope that answers some of the basic questions on the mechanics of appointed and elected chiefs.

Education Committee

Yesterday papers were filed forming a Specific-purpose PAC related to the bond issue before us on May 12. The committee is named Sensible Taxation for Educational Excellence and Reform, or STEER. The name is appropriate, everyone connected with this PAC so far is in agreement on some basics, namely that SAISD does need a bond and money for construction, renovation, and overdue maintenance; and that this notwithstanding, we cannot support the bond as proposed now. It is too late to modify the ballot measure before us, so we hope to defeat this bond and work for a better measure next election.

This is only partly about money. Some of us hope a re-examination of the bond could save significant money, but we could be persuaded to support a bond in this amount, if that's what it takes to get the best educational result. Unfortunately, this bond is far more about buildings than educational output.

Our concern lies primarily with the policy dictated by this bond. The Board is draping itself in the mantle of the three year effort of the Facilities Task Force and claiming that assures adequate public representation. Unfortunately, at the same meeting when the Board put the bond on the ballot, they effectively flushed the Task Force's efforts. The disaffection of the public members of the Task Force is so deep that Bob Paschal, a dedicated Task Force member, will take the “con” position at Tuesday's San Angelo Forum, and the Board is having difficulty finding an appropriate speaker to carry its side of the debate.

There have been options to the proposals in this bond. A few years back, Jack Cowan, editor emeritus at S-T put out the idea that perhaps we should roughly equalize the student bodies of Lakeview and Central, but acknowledged a core objection existed in that they would then have to play one another football. Another idea we have all heard before, and some of us support, was shrinking Central, and putting a new 4A school in the southwest area where much of the growth is. My sources tell me this three 4A model was the initial inclination of the Task Force, but they were told in no uncertain terms the Board would not entertain any work product not resulting in a single 5A high school, and they so modified their deliberations. See “Is the tail wagging the Dog”, this BLOG.

As to policy, the Holiman consolidation is going to be one hot item at least to Holiman families, probably Crockett as well. From what we have seen, Holiman has probably the highest percentage of students who actually walk to and from school, (at least on nice weather days). Many families based their decision to buy homes in Paulann on the Holiman school, and are not remotely happy that SAISD plans to bus those kids halfway across town.

See “Some Assembly Required”, this BLOG. Mr Turner makes a great point, that schools are more than interchangeable cogs in an educational machine. By the time kids get to high school, it is no great problem in a city our size to go to a school across town if it caters more to one's educational preference. At the elementary level, the local school is an integral part of a thriving neighborhood. Close the school, move the students, and parental involvement, already too low, goes down further. SAISD has done this once, in closing Holiman and moving Crockett out of the community it serves, they propose to compound their mistake. STEER objects more to the policy demonstrated here than to the expense.

STEER intends to stay in existence after this election, whatever the result. It is plain that SAISD needs someone paying them the sort of oversight attention Conchoinfo has paid to city and county government.

Open Government, Again

We have covered it here and here before, but open government is in the news again. Terry Bader resigned from the school board over the editing of the board meeting recording shown on channel 4. This is disturbing on a number of levels.

Texas has some fairly strong open government laws. They have specific requirements about how meetings must be conducted, what records must and can be kept. There are laws and rules about what must be disclosed to the public and how. They are an attempt to implement a government that is open to public inspection, and where the information is accurate and complete. This is called accountability.

The school district has been recording some sessions of the school board meetings for a number of years. They are then broadcast on channel 4 so that people that didn't make the meeting can see what happened. The implication is that this is a complete and accurate record of what happened at the meeting. The only expected gaps would be those for breaks or executive sessions. Everything else should be a complete and accurate, unedited record.

The government code in section 551.021 states in part that "The minutes and tape recordings of an open meeting are public records". There is an expectation that as public records, they will be accurate, complete, and available. They can't be arbitrarily edited just to avoid an embarrassing dialog. The public has a right to a complete record of what goes on in making policy for them and spending their money, not some sanitized feel good version that some administrator would like it to be. It is especially disturbing when the editing was done to keep information that might be embarrassing on a complicated and controversial bond issue obscured from the public view.

I have heard some comments saying that they should have at least labeled the tape as an edited version. I agree that it should have been labeled as an edited version, but it should not have even been aired. The broadcast on cable is there to give information about the workings of our elected school board officials and our hired administrators. It is a necessary closeup of the decision making process that we expect them to be accountable for. This broadcast shouldn't be a year book picture where you get to look your best. This should be a candid picture with no makeup and all the pimples and blemishes should be clearly visible. Open meetings are there so that citizens actually know how and why decisions are made, especially the tough ones. Any attempt to edit out the blemishes and put forward a false unified happy face is deceptive and violates at least the spirit if not the letter of all the laws relating to open government.

I have been told that the school board and staff have already had their mandatory open government training this year. I hope that next years training will have a better, more lasting affect.

Election Issues 2007

In February of last year we posted a number of articles on election issues. A quick review shows that the points we raised then are still valid today. You might want to review them before we add new questions such as capital maintenance and infrastructure needs. The school bond issue will get special attention, as you have probably noticed already.

As always, you comments are welcome. When you comment on these issues, you can add you opinion of where you think a candidate falls on a particular issue. That is welcome and encouraged. Just keep it tied to the issue. Don't just say "candidate x is the best on y". Tell us why you think X is the best on issue Y, with as much support and reason as you can. Quotes from campaign ads are probably not good supporting material though.

Try to keep comments to what can be verified, and don't try to embarrass the candidates. I am sure they are all fully capable of doing that themselves.