Controling Deja Vu

As I mentioned in my last post, last weeks council meeting seemed like a case of Deja Vu.

Animal control is once again on the radar. The stated reason is  that Animal control can't keep straight what to call their officers in court or before a judge. I guess it can be hard to keep the less than half a dozen titles straight so they can actually show that the person that issued a citation can legally do it. We expect city employees to remember a lot and they're just asking council to make their life easier. The reality is probably something different. There is a lot of turbulence in animal control. Always has been. At the last council meeting it was mentioned that there are 6 control officers in the city government. 3 are fully qualified, 2 are in training, and 1, who didn't get qualified within the allotted time after training is doing a "work around."  Think about that for a second. In 2006, council was told that a minimum of 9 officers were needed for a city our size. Here it is 11 years later, and we only have 6 on the payroll of which only 3 have certification and we've grown enough we need 10. This is the real problem.

There are still two big problems that were the same in 2006. First off, the animal enforcement is understaffed and under performing. New laws and ordinance changes won't make much difference. They haven't in the past.  You have to have enough experienced people on board to do the job right. And you have to verify they are doing it.

Another problem is that the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee needs to be put in the game. I and other observers have noticed no real input from the advisory committee on the recent issues brought before council. The minutes of the meetings seem to focus an extraordinary amount of time on feral cat's and not much time on issues like the recent distemper outbreak. Of course it's hard to tell because only four agendas and one set of minutes are on the cities web site. The bylaws are on the website, as well as a set of goals and objectives that look to be very expensive to implement. Still, not much information is there to suggest any solutions beyond an expensive new centrally located building. It's not on the Capital Improvement Plan yet but they have it on their goals to be there by 2021. Instead of the 285,000 listed in they  CIP for the next 5 years, it seems they want to go with a multi-million bond issue right in the middle of tackling all the basic infrastructure problems the city is already paying for. And personally, I think I'd much rather have a quality affordable  shelter on the edge of town than pay the much higher price for a "centrally located" (is that downtown or out by the mall?) with poor parking that takes valuable property off the tax roles.

Today, as it was in 2006, dogs and cats out number people in this city. Less that half (probably less than a quarter) of pet owners have them licensed/registered. Few have them spayed or neutered.  Many, like me are still trying to figure out why we need to pay for both a micro-chip and a metal tag. Most pet owners have little use for Animal Control/Services. They mostly ignore the laws unless they are adopting from the animal shelter or a rescue group. I have seen nothing to indicate that breeders or multi-pet owners permits have done anything positive for the health and safety of San Angelo or the quality of life of pets and their families. The same core laws and regulations we had in 2005 are still the ones that work best when applied in the field. New laws have had little affect. The formula today is the same as it has been.

Hire enough good people. Train them well. Lead them well. Provide them with the tools they need. Connect them to the public. Don't try to make their job a revenue stream or nothing but control issues. Respect the rights and freedoms of those living in the city. Fix the problems, don't make excuses or pass the buck.. Again, get the basics right and don't worry about image or popularity. Put health and safety first and leave the frills and self promotion for later.

Bored with boards

There is a lot of talk lately about boards and commissions. State of the Division has posted a couple articles that are critical of the board member selection process and the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee. I have to agree with much of what he says. I also think I understand what's at the root of the problem with boards.

It's hard for the city government to create effective boards when they're not clear on why we have boards in the first place. Here are some of the main reasons I think we need them.

The first reason we have boards is to connect the citizens with the city government. It's important that the city government not be isolated from the community as a whole. Governments need constant feedback. Feedback is need to prevent and correct errors and identify problems.  With a properly functioning board the city government and the community will connect on issues and work together to shared, supportable goals and avoid a significant number of problems. This helps reducee the "us vs. them" mindset that is so common.

The second reason to have a board is to bring a fresh perspective from outside the walls of City Hall. This is in reality a part of the first reason but it's purpose is to keep the government from being isolated. Far too often there is a traditional, legalistic, governmental rule book way of dealing with issues. A government staff that isn't connected to the community will also act defensively. A good board is a balance to traditions and power centers in City Hall. You have to balance the inside with the outside.

Another reason you need boards is to act as representatives of the city council at the working level so council has an independent view of what is going in city hall from a citizens perspective. Council can't be everywhere. That's why we have boards.

 The last reason you need a good board is you need groups that can take a long view independent of the day to day operations. City governments get in trouble when all the solutions are tied to short-term goals with little longer than an election cycle. We've had some local progress such as a capital budget we put in the charter to force planning for some stuff at least 5 years into the future. City officials still have problems thinking beyond a budget cycle or the next election. A good board has the luxury to think long range. What will our grand kids be doing? What will happen to San Angelo in a hundred or thousand years? Will it be a thriving community or just an archaeological dig? That should be part of the mission of every board.

.

Right now we have many boards that are probably unnecessary. We have many boards where attendance is so low they have a hard time making a quorum. Some only meet a couple times a year and really they don't have much work to do. Many have vacancies that haven't been filled for years. Many of the board members I've talked to don't know what's expected of them or what they can do or what role they play in the city government.

Four years ago I submitted a plan to the City Council. They looked at it. They voted on and approved it and then promptly forgot about it. They did make changes to the boards and commissions some of the changes were actually steps backwards. The council pretty much abandoned the selection process to city staff who does all live review and screening. It's tough for anyone with fresh perspective or a different opinion from staff to even get before Council unless they can convince a council member or the Mayor to push for them.even though or just post to be picked and selected by city council and serve at the pleasure of City Council. Boards are not staff. They don't do day to day operations. They are there to advise council and staff on policy and the future. 

Things need to change. Here are my recommendations.

1. Every board and commission should should face a review every 2 years. This review should happen at a joint session where the board should be able to tell the council why it should continue and what it has done for the past few years. Council should give feedback on how useful the board has been and what it expects in the future. Special requirements and qualifications for membership should be part of the review. If the board needs expertise, they need to have a plan on how to get it. A list of future goals should also be part of the review. At the end of the session, the council should either say "Good job. Keep it up.", "Here are changes we expect from you in the future." or "Thanks but we don't really need this board anymore."

 2. Every application for board membership should be forwarded to the appropriate council member. Staff should verify that the applicant meets the requirements for the position. If the applicant meets the requirements, the packet should go forward. If there are any staff considerations besides qualifications, those should be forwarded as part of the packet but if the person meets the qualifications their name should forwarded. The decision is for the council, not staff, to make.

3. Attendance should be monitored and reported to the council, probably at least quarterly. Any meeting that is canceled because of lack of quorum should be brought before council at the next meeting it can be put on the agenda, probably during public comments and made part of the public record.

4. Every board should have a clear, action oriented mission statement. One I particularly like is this one from the Airport Advisory Board: "The board shall act as an advisory board to the airport manager, and the city council, and is expressly directed and empowered to make a complete study of all phases of the airport operations and make recommendations from time to time for the most efficient operation of said airport." Not perfect but not bad. We need similar mission statements for all the boards. And they need to be taken seriously.

5.  Board members don't work for staff, they work for council. They do, of course, have to work with staff and and they should be supporting, not fighting staff. That being said, one of the most important functions board members should do is as a devils advocate. They should ask tough questions and not be just an echo chamber for staff. They need to have an unfiltered connection to council. They should be self governing and independent from staff in decisions and questioning.

6. A properly functioning could be part of the hiring process, especially for liaisons. They should work closely enough with staff and be knowledgeable enough in their area they can offer independent advice up the supervisory chain. They might be able to serve part of a screening committee during a job search. They should be another a set of  eyes that know the city's needs. Not sure any of them are ready for that yet but in the future I could see the water advisory board giving advice on hiring a water utilities director or engineer.

These are our thoughts today. You can see they haven't changed much over the last few years. Hope to see some of the changes soon.

Engage

You probably have noticed that the city government is going to try to encourage citizens to be more engaged with their city government. They've announced programs they are calling COSA university, Citizens 101, and lunch and learn. Looks like they will be spending lots of time of on what city government does and how it does it. This is good and probably necessary. The stated goals are to train people for membership on the various boards and commissions the city has and to "cultivate some well informed community ambassadors for municipal government." I think they are overlooking something very critical to achieving these goals. Why should citizens even bother to engage?

I could get very long winded here but the simple answer is that people engage with the city government because of beliefs, values, and feelings. They engage because they are emotional, even passionate about community beliefs and values. They engage because they feel it's the right thing to do. They believe they can make a difference. Frequently, it's not very logical. It takes time, energy, and resources to be engaged. It won't pay the bills or put food on the table. Without an emotional connection it's hard for someone to justify the tradeoffs necessary to get engaged and stay engaged. Why be on a board or commission instead of working extra hours, going back to school, or volunteering in church?  People engage where they feel they can make a difference. They engage with others they trust to achieve shared goals.

Right now I think the city government has a couple problems getting citizens engaged. First off, they don't do a very good job explaining the why of most decisions. They will have slides and spreadsheets and dollars and cents comparisons. They will explain what they want to do and how they plan to do it often in great detail. They have problems when they try to explain the why. The why is what connects the what and how to community beliefs and values. That creates trust, which is key to engagement.

Our city government needs to work on building trust. They haven't been very good at it lately. We could start with the lack of transparency on "furnituregate." Yes, an internal investigation was done and it was finally sort of  made public but it hasn't been publicly discussed or explained. It falls far short of what was promised. Throw in how the Hickory Aquifer project, especially radiation and cost concerns, has been handled. Add in the hiccoughs with the new "smart" water meters. We could mention recent budget workshops which have had council and senior staff backs to citizens/observers. What about the budget workshop that was taken completely out of the county and no video recording was made. The public information office routinely records meetings, like CIP hearings etc., for broadcast later so why not this budget session?  I've heard it said this was because the citizens could be distracting. Truth is the citizens aren't a distraction, they are the reason you are there to do the budget. What about the disconnect between the planning and zoning process and the concerns of the residents close to Lamar elementary. The real issue was not zoning. It was growth and its affect on traffic and safety. And do we need to go into how the bidding and review process on the landfill contract damaged public trust? Do I need to say that failure to answer basic, obvious questions (like what are our current costs/expenses) that would not have given any side a competitive advantage made it look like the city was trying to hide something? I could go on but I don't need to because this is just a list of missed opportunities for the city government to build trust and connect with the citizens of San Angelo. There will be plenty more where these came from.

I know I said I wasn't going to get long winded. Sorry. Could have been worse. In the end I welcome the city managers attempt to get citizens engaged. Hope he and the rest of the city government will do what it takes to get positive citizen engagement. Frankly, I'm not optimistic. If I was a betting man like my friend Jim Ryan, I would probably place the odds at 10 to 1.

Advisory Boards

It has been almost a year since Council agreed it would be a nifty idea to exercise some oversight as to the 20-plus advisory Boards/committees/commissions we have here. As I recall, we were going to start with Civic Events and move forward about one per month.

The idea was that each Board would be reviewed at least once every two years or so (surprisingly co-incidental with Council terms) for: let's short-circuit this; What have you Done for Us Lately.

I have served on one Committee, testified before several. I applaud the theory of opening access, I am all for Open Government / Open Records. San Angelo is ahead of the pack there. Nonetheless, comes a time we need to look back and see what is or is not actually working. We have Boards which routinely post cancellations due to lack of business; we have boards with overlapping areas of interest; (how many Downtown/Hysterical District Boards do we have: 6-8, a dozen?)

It is not a huge budget item. No Board member is paid; some meetings provide maybe pizza or finger sandwiches for a mid-day meet, BUT as to city staff support, someone has to open the door, record the minutes, provide staff advice and lock up after the puppies get done meeting. Not a huge item per meeting, but we have mid-twenties, 12 times a year times a few bucks per? Doesn't take long to move into 6 figures. Not saying Staff is overpaid, but they get paid more to supervise than I miss in pay when I show up.

I am a patient man, but a persistent one. I'm not going anywhere, when do we start Board Review?

Animals, Boards, Commissions, and Communications

I was pleasantly surprised Friday to find that once again, the city website has the agenda packet online and usable. Last meetings packet is also still up. Progress. Thanks Alicia and the staff that helped you get this done. It's appreciated. 

A quick scan of the packet shows a couple of items that really interest me. They are revising the Animal Services Board ordinance, and they are discussing city boards and commissions again, hopefully so we can have the first review in the near future.

We've known for a while that the Animal Services Board ordinance, 2.3800, and the ASB Bylaws were in need of revision. At the minimum, they were out of sync with each other. There questions about how well it tracked Texas Health and Safety code chapter 823, which governs animal shelter advisory commissions, which is one of the major functions of the ASB. There were questions about whether health director and animal services director should be voting members. The Bylaws were last approved in 2000, while the Ordinance was last updated in 2007.

A workshop was held by the ASB on March 10th 2010 to address these issues. I was invited to that workshop (which was, of course, an open meeting) to help with the discussion. It was requested that City Legal have a representative at the meeting, but none were present. The meeting lasted a couple hours, and at the end, they had a good revised set of documents the hoped were ready to go before City Council. Just needed legal review and possibly some tweaking before becoming an ordinance.

That was 7 months ago. Tuesday a new ordinance is finally on the agenda. Unfortunately, this is a mostly new ordinance to replace the one we currently have. First off, it changes the name to Animal Shelter Advisory Commission (although the new 2.3810 still uses “members of the animal service board”.) Then it reduces the number of members from 9 to 5*, all of which now have to be involved in some animal related business or activity. No plain citizen or property owners are on the board. It requires 2 veterinarians even though we've had trouble getting even one to serve. It limits the scope of the commission to just the animal shelter, ignoring the larger question of animal welfare throughout the city.

I have a number of problems with this. First, why did it take 7months for this to come before council. As far as I knew, outside of some minor tweaking, the only open question was whether or not the staff members on the board should be voting members. The proposed ordinance doesn't make it any clearer. Next, this is a very major change to the duties and the responsibilities of the board/commission members. Staff, in their briefing to council in the agenda packet, states that the ASB has "historically been called upon to provide advice beyond  the scope of the law authorizing their creation and duties." If they are referring to the Health Code, section 823, then that might be the case. The ASB was not created by section 823, but to be in compliance with section 823. It was created by a city ordinance that gives them the animal shelter advisory role as just one of its duties. A review of several other Texas cities animal commissions finds that several of them use their commission for general animal issue advice. Lubbock specifically requires their ASAC to "advise on the city's animal services program." Midland requires their Animal Control Advisory Commission to "advise on animal control issues referred by council." This pattern is common.

The proposed ordinance changes the make up of this board/commission significantly. Any change this large should be addressed as part of the board and commission review process that has still to get off the ground. At the minimum, it should be done during a joint session.

This brings us to a problem that goes to the fundamental reason we have boards and commissions. Boards and commissions work for the City Council, not city staff. They are appointed and removed by Council. They are accountable to Council. They are subject to Council guidance and limitations. They are supposed to be the expert advisers to Council, and in many cases they are councils representatives. They are an extension of City Council into many areas because there just aren't enough council people to be everywhere. They are not just auxiliary, unpaid staff.

Unfortunately, our boards and commissions are being used and treated like low level staff. They are isolated from council, their boss, by staff. With the exception of statutory appeal boards like the planning commission and the zoning board of adjustments, you never hear about a boards input on an item before council. Many board members, especially on the animal services board, don't know who appointed them. Start and end dates for their term in office are often unclear. Boards have almost no contact with the council, and are often left to fend for themselves on critical issues. What guidance they get doesn't come directly from council. Instead, it's filtered through several layers of staff. Some times staff does a great job of getting the word down to boards. More often than not, it's like the old game of telephone where the message to the boards bears little resemblance to the guidance from the council.

Boards and commissions need to have good, unfiltered lines of communication with the city council. Their recommendations should be heard unedited by the council. Staff needs to be in the loop, and the staff representative needs to make sure that the council is given staffs input on the issues. The city legal department need to be in the loop to make sure that the city stays in compliance with the law, but that is no reason to delay input to the council by half a year. If nothing else, all board decisions should be presented to the city council for discussion as a draft work in process. Even if staff has concerns, and needs to do further research the council should always know when a board votes to send something forward. That's just basic communication.

The board and commission review process the council adopted last spring will help address these problems. I think it is very premature to do a major restructuring of a state required commission before the council has done a fair review of that commission using the process they approved.

*Made a mistake on the number earlier. Was caught by a sharp eyed reader.  Sorry for the error.

Thoughts for when I'm on the Jury

Because of jury duty, it's unlikely that I will be able to be at Tuesday's City Council Meeting. If I'm not selected, I will be at the meeting but the selection starts at 9:00am. These are some of the issues I would like to address to council if I were there.

First, during the public comments, I would like to know when the Board and Commission review process will start. The process was adopted in March, and here it is half past August and we have yet to do any of the boards or commissions. This was seen as very important by the council at the time, and was supposed to start shortly after the election. I realize that there have been some complex problems surface since then, such as problems with the Anti-Smoking initiative, and a $2.3 million budget short fall that has since been addressed. Still, this is important and needs to be started very soon.

I would also take back an atta boy we gave the city in May for putting agenda packets online. They still don't have it quite right. First, they only leave the agenda packets up until the next council meeting, second they have missed getting some of the packets online. Third, some of the packets are not readable with the free Adobe reader. They are somehow getting corrupted. Last, but not least they are not put up in a timely manner. They should be there on Friday the same time as the agenda is. This is something the School Board does much better.

I am sure I would have some comments on the discussion on Hillside Drive/Gun Club road pedestrian use. There needs to be a balance of all traffic needs whether pedestrian or motorized. At the same time, the regulations need to be limited to only those necessary for the safe flow of traffic, public safety, and protection of property owners rights. We need to be careful not to go overboard.

There are 16 deals for easements for the Hickory Pipeline. Total $75,546.00 if my spreadsheet is right. Not an outrageous amount of money, but this looks like this is most of the easements in Tom Green and Concho Counties. Somehow I got the impression from earlier council meetings that most of these easements were already acquired. I guess we will have to wait for more information, but it makes me want to go Hmmm.

We follow this with easements for the 50 ^th street extension project. This project started shortly after the last ½ cent sales tax election in 2004, with the actual full plan approved about 2 years ago. We need to be very careful that construction doesn't end up going on during the main money making months for the Fair Grounds and Colosseum complex. Bull riding through road construction is not an approved rodeo event. Why did it take this long to get here?

Next, the old Edgewater Inn property is being bought by the city. What are they buying it for? What is the reason we are taking it off the tax roles? What kind of project do they have in mind, and is it likely the master developer will agree? Inquiring minds want to know.

Getting to the end of the agenda, we come to the final hearing and adoption on the two special elections for November. There is nothing more to talk about on the Smoke Free Initiative. The process was extremely rocky and not handled very well, but the initiative will be on the ballot in the form Smoke Free San Angelo put before the petition signers. It will be an interesting campaign. Vote for Freedom - Speak Out San Angelo.

At last we come to an item I wish I could support – the extension of the 4B sales tax. I really wish I could support this. In truth, there are parts of it I do. I support using the sales tax money to spread out the burden of developing long term water resources. I can support using it to finish cleaning up the Concho River, which should be the jewel of this city. When done right, the job creation projects have shown their worth. Don't need to waste more money on the industrial park but there have been more successes than failures. The affordable housing projects are off to a good start, and the cost is minimal and support probably should be continued till the program is self supporting. If the extension only authorized these uses, I could support it. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.

There are 5 additional projects included in the 4B sales tax extension. At the last council meeting, I critiqued the process by which these additional projects were selected. In response, the Mayor made the following assertions. First, he stated that these projects complied with or were in the comprehensive plan. To some extent, that's true. The comprehensive plan, and its updates in the strategic plan, is 123 pages of long range goals for twenty years in the future. It is a view from orbit of what we would like the city to look like in 2030. Dozens of projects and possibilities are in the comprehensive plan, including, in a very broad and inclusive sense, these. There is no ranking or priorities of projects there. There are almost no specifics. It is, for the most part, guidance on land use so that you have balanced communities, a strong economy, and a high quality of life. The first line of the Vision Statement from the current plan states “By the year 2027, San Angelo will be acknowledged as the most livable mid-sized city in Texas.” A wonderful goal, but the plan is very general and takes a very broad, long view. It talks about the types of projects and the areas where they would be suitable. It does not give guidance or sufficient detail to select between projects such as the City Auditorium or the Texas Theater or a water park or a new recreation center. Any tax funded project should fit in within the framework of the comprehensive plan, but that framework is pretty broad and hundreds of projects could fit the plan. It can't be used to get us down to these 5. Any process or plan that can fairly and objectively decide between the multiple quality of life projects this city deserves needs to come down from orbit and do a real comparison at ground level. We need a criteria based rating and planning process like we are using for capital projects. Which brings me to the next statement the Mayor made.

It was stated that these projects were in the CIP. Looking over the proposed CIP and the CIP's from the beginning these projects for the most part aren't covered. None of them are in the ½ cent sales tax section, although you might be able to say that the little league field improvements fall under “ sports consolidation”. There are plenty of projects for Ft. Concho listed but all of them are listed under general fund. There are no additional projects listed for the City Hall or Auditorium Plaza beyond those currently funded and under construction. Phase 3 fairground projects don't exist at all in the CIP. And no airport projects show no projects that fit the description of the proposed airport project. The Mayor is right that they will have to go on a future CIP, but they aren't there today, so the CIP can't be used to justify them.

Much was made of the fact that some of these projects could be seen as continuations of existing projects, and that does have at least some merit. Still you have to ask at least three questions. First, aren't some of these projects really new projects next to old projects? Second aren't some of the projects that we are “continuing” at a natural break point where they have met the original project goals and we should see if there aren't other projects that might be better? And last, aren't there other, probably better ways we can pay for some of theses projects instead of using tax dollars? Isn't the fairgrounds complex successful enough that at least part of phase 3 can be paid for out of gate receipts and merchandising? Isn't there potential for a revenue stream there that could pay for most, if not all, of several of these projects?

One last point that the Mayor made causes me great concern. He stated that some of these projects may have been impacted because some of them are related to executive discussions about real estate. Real estate considerations for any QoL type project, as in most projects, should come after the basics of the project have already been discussed, priorities assigned and the project given the go ahead. It should not interfere with those project discussions not dealing directly with acquiring real estate for the project. I trust that the Mayor misspoke or I misunderstood, but I would hate to think that the city in executive session proposed a project just to support a land deal. The city already owns a lot of land that it has no use for. We need to be very careful here. We have been getting better at transparency and openness.

So if we take everything that was said in response to my comments, I still see no process here. We need to have a Quality of life project planning, prioritizing, and selection process that is comparable to the CIP. Until then, I will wait for them to bring back a better sales tax extension proposal. The next election opportunity is in May. Maybe they'll be ready by then.

Get involved

I have written on this before, but Independence Day brings it up again.

I spoke to the Tea Party group Saturday, following a lady who suggested going to Council or County Commissioners or SAISD meetings. As a "been there done that" person, I reminded the audience, ALL these bodies are open meetings. Anyone can address them in favor of or in opposition to whatever is on the agenda, in fact if your topic is not on agenda, there is a "Public Comment" opening where any citizen can suggest a new topic for the next meeting.

Texas may still have a "redneck" image, but it is perhaps the most open state in the Union. Things that twenty years ago I would have had to take a day off, physically walk from office to office, file Freedom of Information forms and wait for the beauracracy to find a reason to deny my request: I get that now at 3:00 AM in my bathrobe and slippers: literally.

You need to look at an ordinance or city Charter? Online, two clicks of a mouse. You want Texas Statutes, same thing. You want Federal Statutes, well it may take a while to download unless you have the bill number handy, but it's there. A Supreme Court decision you heard about, it's there. Maybe you don't trust the press as it reports the new Arizona immigration statute; it's there.

Recently, San Angelo even started posting what is called the "Agenda Packet", in short, all that stuff the Councilmembers have on their laptops, you can have it too, before the meeting. It's a lot of reading, tomorrow's is 360 pages+, last week was only 297 pages, BUT if you want it, it's there. Someone, I suspect Alicia Ramirez, went in to put that up today on a holiday, it was not there yesterday.

I mentioned to our Tea Party crowd, San Angelo has at least 20 Boards and Commissions advising Council and they are all open to the public. Some of them are so seldom used they might be slightly shocked to see an actual citizen, but they will also give you a hearing, probably feel complimented someone bothered to show up!

Last but not least, check any agenda lately for Council. There are ALWAYS open spots on advisory boards. Doesn't pay anything, some of them buy you lunch, but toward bottom of agenda we always have "appointment of soandso to board xyz" which in my memory is always unanimously approved.

Don't sit and bitch, get in there and make your case. You won't always win, God knows I haven't, but if you don't play you sure won't win.

Me, in a world full of wolves, I'd rather be a shepherd than a sheep.

Review of Advisory Committees

San Angelo has a remarkably open government. We have 20 advisory committees, from Airport Advisory Board to Zoning Board of Adjustment. In between the alphabetic listing, we have everything from Ft Concho to a Fairmount Cemetary Board to a Senior Citizens Advisory Board.

For comparison, I had a correspondent in Coleman a few years back who related to me that Coleman City meetings were held at a more convenient time of 7:00 PM. Meetings were open to the public, but no comments from mere citizens were allowed. Made for shorter meetings I'm sure, but brevity and transparency are not co-equal goals.

We will see a discussion on instituting a Council review of existing advisory committees, one such board called out at each Council meeting. The result of such a review might range from sunsetting some which have outlived their usefulness, to a pat on the back for useful advice, to "so what have you done for us lately".

I have served on one such, a City Charter Review Committee. Let me make clear, I commend anyone willing to serve as an unpaid volunteer on any committee the city creates. I promise you, every hour of attendance requires 3-4 hours minimum of homework and constituent phone calls. Maybe you think your single vote doesn't count much, but all these advisory committees are open to public comment, and any voter can expand on his/her voting issue by being heard.

The idea of having Council review a committees' work is not to second guess the work product so much as to assure that there has BEEN a product. Council is always free to accept or reject any committees' recommendations. The proposed review might abolish some committees which seldom meet for lack of business. It might insist that others become more efficient at doing the work assigned them. A review might even point up the need for a new committee not hitherto found to be useful.

I would not want to see the review process limit citizen input; quite the opposite, I want the doors of local gov't open. I would hope a review by Council would hand out deserved pats on the back, provide committees with advice on how better to serve their stated functions, and further the notion of opening gov't to input by encouraging input from individual voters.

One thing I intend to press for: City has a really good website, gobs of little known info available online at 3:00 AM online. Each advisory board has, or should have, its own website page. The individual members should be listed with contact info. I welcomed my neighbors' input. Some I argued against one on one; some I incorporated into my arguements before the committee I served on. I thought it part of the job I had volunteered for to listen to all.

Groundhogs Day people, February 2, that's the next Council meeting. See you there if you care.

Oh and almost forgot to mention; GO NAWLINS! Confess, I backed the "old man" and Minn, but still won that by a half point. Superbowl, I have to go with New Orleans.

Sundry Solstice Subjects

I hope you had a good Christmas. Myself, I got my best present early, Dec. 17th. Animal Services Board finally voted unanimously to forward to Council an amendment to ordinance limiting a city property to one mature rooster. Should Council agree, and I believe they will, my rude neighbor's fighting cock factory will have to be moved out of town. Or eaten, I really don't care, so long as I don't hear it at 3:00 AM.

San Angelo has 20-some advisory Boards and Commissions. These bodies of unpaid citizen volunteers look at specific areas of interest, ranging from animals to parks to the airport, to historic downtown, etc. Functioning properly, they serve to advise Council of problems, either existing or potential, and suggest appropriate action to avert or correct such problems.

I really don't want to be hard on Animal Services Board. I caught them at a time of flux, we had a new Shelter Director and a new Chair of the Board. That said, a fairly simple bit of work took 4 months. I would hate to discourage volunteers to advisory committees, but if one does volunteer, one should take the time to learn the job. Oh yeah, and showing up for meetings, that helps too.

Councilman Morrison has given me a new nickname of Rooster Ryan, and congratulated me on my patience. Mr. Turner and I will be suggesting a Board review process. If approved, this would have Council taking by turns each Board, one at a time, to be "audited" by Council, so that each comes before Council about every 18 months. What I discovered was that I had individually had more communication with Council and city staff than the Animal Services Board had bothered with.

In a similar vein, I have been at this long enough to pre-date internet access. San Angelo is really very good on this, and improving all the time. Information I'd have had to take the day off to dig up in the mid-90s, I can now get at 3:00 AM in bathrobe and slippers. I would suggest that each advisory Board include contact info for its members on its city website.

This holiday season is a good time to pass out some attaboys. We have as good a staff as I have ever dealt with. I don't agree with them all the time, heck I don't agree with ME all the time, but we do have truly competent people on staff. Mindy Ward as City Atty will be missed, but a well-deserved retirement and that office is in competent hands. Ditto Kathy Keane for Economic Development. Best wishes to both ladies.

The new Library is coming along nicely. Congratulations to everyone involved in making this a reality at minimal taxpayer expense. Ralph Hoelscher gets a special "feather-in-the-cap" for bringing city/county together to make this happen.

I have worked as election judge/alt. judge since 1992. Lots of changes in law and administrators over that time. Vona McKerly gets a special attaboy for dealing with extraordinary difficulties efficiently. From the poll-workers' point of view, the job has been simplified in the face of ever more complex legal requirements without busting the budget. Elections has gone from making national headlines over a seemingly interminable recount, to smooth results rendered promptly.

I see a bright future in troubled times for San Angelo. We are setting the mark for low unemployment, we have new construction and new jobs. I turned down a better paying job in Lubbock, I can't see leaving this town. Born here, and grown to love it.

I hope you had a great Christmas, may the New Year treat you well. Oh and "GO UT Longhorns" (but I wouldn't bet the farm on it).

Anatomy of a Failure

Animal control in San Angelo is operating in failure mode. We have had 2 high profile puppy mill cases in the last 4 years, which took way to long to be resolved (if they are.) That is not even the tip of the iceberg.

Our best estimates show that cats and dogs outnumber humans in San Angelo. With approximately 58,000 dogs and 68,000 cats, there are about 126,000 animals to maybe 88,000 people here. Approximately 37,000 of these animals have owners. That means less than a third of these animals have a home. A total of 8,254 of these animals are licensed. Thats about 6.6% of the total or 22% of those with owners and homes. We adopt out about 1,200 animals from the shelter, or about 1% of the total animal population. Given the average life of a pet, it is likely that most of the licensed pets in this town were adopted. We euthanize over 9,000 animals a year, which is more than the number of animals licensed and about 7.2% of the animals in town. These numbers show a system that doesn't work.

There are a number of reasons that the system isn't working. There is a built in personnel shortage. The sources I have found recommend an average 1 animal control officer per 10,000 population which means we need 9 officers, while we only are authorized 5 and normally only have 3 or 4, and the turn over is very high. It's a tough, thankless job.

Lack of personnel is not the only, or probably the biggest, problem. There are several systemic problems that hurt our animal welfare and control efforts. At the top of the list has to be the Animal services board.

The Animal Services Board is supposed to be the main provider of advice to the city on animal control and welfare issues. The board has no authority to act for the city, but they are tasked with making recommendations to the City Council on City Policy and the Code of Ordinances. They are tasked to hold evidentiary hearings and appoint special committees as needed. For the most part they have been missing in action.

Way too many meetings in the past couple of years have been canceled because of a lack of a quorum. They are having a hard time getting 4 out of 7 members to attend scheduled meetings. When a meeting is canceled due to lack of quorum, they have not been calling a special meeting within 7 days as is required by city ordinance (section 2.3804.) They just let it slide. Of all the meetings scheduled last year, only 4 of them had a quorum show up. I have been told that some of the less than quorum gatherings did discuss some issues, but without a quorum no official business or discussion can happen. A member can be removed from the board for too many unexcused absences, but they have to miss 2/3rds of the meetings for this to happen. This means there is effectively no requirement to even show up. I know it's hard to get people to volunteer for these boards, but the goal here is more than just having a name on the board. If these volunteers miss more than a couple meetings without a good excuse, what are they doing that benefits the community?

The structure of the board is a another problem. There appears to be a conflict between what is in the code of ordinances and what is in the boards bylaws. The ordinance calls for 9 members with 2 of them staff members (health director and animal services director.) It says they are full members. The bylaws says they are not voting members. This is a problem. They need to bring the ordinances into sync with the bylaws. I know that both of them are approved by the City Council, but if you want to get real picky ordinances trump bylaws.

These problems have led to more problems. The last special committee created for animal issues further illustrates these problems. Council sent the last attempt to get an animal limit back to the board with the instructions to form a committee to create a new ordinances. Council asked some of the people who had spoken before it to get with the animal services board and possibly serve on the special committee. The committee that was formed suffered from a number of defects. First, it was not representative of the city either geographically or by those that have an interest in animal issues. There were 2 animal rescuers and a member of the humane society while the rest of the members were residents of the neighborhood where the last puppy mill was located. There were no breeders, either amateur or professional were on the committee. There were no representatives from poor or minority sections of town. Trainers and providers of professional animal services were also not involved.

During the formation of this committee, no effort was made to balance this committee and make it representative of the city as a whole. Contrary to standard city practice, no information sheets were filled out or collected. I can't find that the committee was even officially voted on by the Animal Services Board. The board in September of 2008 just seemed to accept everyone that showed up as a member of the committee and told them to come back when they were done. They just kind of left it to fend for itself until its next meeting. Members seemed to be added to the committee even after it was formed. One of the committee members seems to have appointed himself as chairman and railroaded through his personal agenda. In February 2009 (six months later) when the next meeting was held, the board voted to forward the output of the committee to the city council with minor changes after calling around for 20 minutes to finally get someone to show up so they could have a quorum. The resulting proposals had significant problems, mostly with basics like the definition of a breeder and the definition of enclosure and they narrowly passed the council after significant changes and much heated debate. The resulting ordinances still have problems that will need to be addressed in the future. These problems shouldn't take long to show up in higher rates of euthanizations and an even worse level of licensing of animals.

The Animal Services Board needs some significant changes. The Health Director or the Animal Services Director (probably not both) should be there as an ex-officio member, staff advisors, and the point of contact between the city and the board. This change needs to make it into the ordinances.

All boards should required to pass their proposals by a majority of the membership, not the quorum. We already require this of some boards and commission such as the SADC. It needs to be expanded to all boards and committees.

Board members should only be allowed 2 unexcused absences a year. If they can't make it most of the time they are not really that committed and need to be replaced. If you want the prestige of being on a board, you have to accept the responsibility of at least showing up.

There need to be guidelines for the formation of special committees. They must be balanced as much as feasible geographically and among the major stakeholders in that particular area. The presence of trainers and legitimate breeders on the committee would have prevented many problems. There also need to be guidelines on the election of a chairman and other officers as needed. An official policy on attendance and voting should be part of these guidelines. A quick review of some other city boards and committees show that there are more of these type of problems out there. They just haven't made the news yet.

There are major problems in the animal control and animal welfare area. I am hopeful that they will be properly addressed in the near future. We have a new chairman of the Animal Services Board, and I am hopeful that she will get things moving in the right direction.

Animal control recommendations

As I promised, I will make recommendations for animal control and related ordinances but first we need a quick review of some facts and problems.

We have a large number of stray and abandoned animals. The number euthanized each year is heartbreaking. We don't want to make this problem worse.

We probably have only 20% to 30% of the pets in town licensed and vaccinated. This leads to other problems, especially with health and public safety. What are we actually using this licensing information for? We really need to examine our whole approach to licensing.

This ongoing interest in ordinance changes was triggered by cases of irresponsible people running puppy mills in residential areas. The problem surfaced because of complaints from neighbors, and is still an issue because of the poor initial response. Part of the problem may be from poor ordinances and regulations but much of it is due to inadequate resources used ineffectively and not in a timely manner.

The pictures from the puppy mill raids show cases of animal cruelty. They were caught because they were in residential areas and neighbors were fed up dealing with it. I am concerned that this problem would not have been detected or dealt with if the puppy mill had not been in a residential district.

Animal control is limited in personnel and resources. We don't need to divert resources with unnecessary paperwork.

We do need increased community involvement on all animal related issues. Anything we do should enlist responsible pet owners, animal rescuers, and hobby breeders. We must not alienate them.

Public health and safety is the first concern. Health and safety of the animals is next in line.

We already have an ordinance covering Animal Kennels, which covers keeping, breeding, boarding, or training animals for commercial gain. These are limited to non-residential areas. The conditional use matrix only lists overnight boarding, which may cause confusion on what is meant. This section of the zoning ordinance does not allow a puppy mill in a residential area.

There are no space requirements for animals in the current code of ordinances. The animal control section on pens, yards, and enclosures does cover sanitation. The quality or size of the enclosure is not addressed.

So what are my recommendations? Lets start with breeders and pet sales.

Pet sales are already somewhat restricted by the zoning ordinance. Those for commercial gain are restricted to some commercial and manufacturing districts. The animal control ordinance needs to state that offering for sale or trade of pets is not allowed in a residential area with 3 exceptions: The hobby breeder, the animal rescuer, and the accidental breeder.

The hobby breeder and the animal rescuer must have permits issued by animal services after an inspection is done of the facility. Qualification and inspection guidelines will be developed by the ASB and approved by Council.

An accidental breeder would be allowed to sell one litter over the life of the pet, as long as proof that the pet was neutered is presented to Animal Services with 60 days. The accidental breeder would also have the option of qualifying as either a hobby breeder or rescuer. If none of those 3 happen, then they are subject to a fine.

Now on to enclosures. The ordinances already cover sanitation, so we need to add that the enclosures need to be securely built. They need to be built so they do not injure the animal. They need to be built so they are easily cleaned, and they need to be sized appropriately for the animal. They must provide shelter from the weather and access to water. Rather than require measurements and calculations like the APHIS standards for commercial breeders do, we can go with small, medium, and large sizes. For animals that share their living space with their owner (house pets) only 25% of the living space should be allowed for the animal space calculations. Enclosure and space regulations will limit the number of animals on a property based on what that property can realistically handle.

There need to be guidelines on tethering. A minimum tether length (8' for a small dog, 10' for a medium dog, 12' for a large dog?) is needed. The dog should not be tethered where he can get tangled. Shade, shelter, and water must be available for the tethered dog. Any method of tethering likely to cause pain or injury to an animal should not be allowed. Examples include choke, pinch, or prong collars.

We need to redo our licensing fee schedule. At the minimum we need to put the pot bellied pig on the list. I recommend that we also set a higher fee for non-sterile animals. Not a punitive fee, but a difference that is enough that a pet owner gets a long term break for altering their pet. Significant work for animal services is a result of the offspring of unaltered pets, so paying more for that privilege seems appropriate. We can also use the license fee to promote positive goals for animal control. For example: Get your pet neutered, get that years license free. Get your pet vaccinated, discount on the license fee. Adopt a pet from the shelter, get a discount on a lifetime license. Eliminate the lifetime license for most unaltered pets (exceptions for show dogs and working dogs.) I would also make the License term the same length as the vaccination term (there are 3 year vaccinations, so have the license coincide with the vaccination.)

I recommend we make the animal license database available to first responders. When the fire trucks roll up, it would be good if they knew how many pets were in the building, if there were any special assistance animals inside, etc.. This would be valuable to first responders and the general public.

Last recommendation is that the city start a "Know your seller" information and education campaign. We need to let the people know the problems that puppy mills and irresponsible owners cause.

This is not quite ready for an ordinance yet, but it is where we need to start. We don't need to do all of it right now, but we need to settle the breeder and enclosure issues soon.

Political Numerology

I have been following issues on this blog for a while and have come to the conclusion there is a connection between politics and numerology- a mystical belief in the power of numbers. I have observed many cases of the belief that just picking the right numbers is all that's needed to solve a difficult problem. Our school system provided a good example.

Early in the discussion on the last bond, there seemed to be a belief that a $99mil bond would pass no matter what was in the package. A package tailored to that exact amount was the initial proposal. Toward the end of the decision making cycle, it was felt that two was a better number of propositions than one so a second proposition based on major new main building at Central was added. They were careful not to disturb the magic $99mil of the first proposition.. A necessary, last minute recalculation of construction costs and inflation estimates raised the cost of both propositions. They made the decision to keep prop 1 the same despite the price now being $117mil.. Prop 2 was another story. The new price was felt to be too high. Rather than completely abandon the power of the number two, prop 2 was completely redone. Prop 1 had coherence, and the original prop 2 had a vision of a much revitalized central campus. The new prop 2 had neither of these characteristics. It had little in the way of coherence or vision – coming across as a mixture of unrelated leftovers. In the end, the numerology didn't work and prop 2 failed.

Numerology seemed to drive at least part of the decision making process. One of the first items the new facilities committee announced was the $99mil figure. This was well before they announced the schools or projects involved. Prop 2 was added toward the end of process because it was felt that 2 bonds might have a better chance of success. The second proposition was kept even when the original vision no longer applied. In the end it seems the mystique of magic numbers drove a large part of decision making process, if only at a subconscious level.

There are many more examples where just picking the right number is counted on to solve a problem. Forget the studies, logic, analysis, etc.. The magic number will solve the problem. Mandatory minimums aren't working? We just need a better number. Teen drunk driving a problem? Pick a number. Economy collapsing? A few magic interest numbers will save the day. Puppy mills a problem? Just choose a number of dogs. Don't worry about studies or history or precedent or inconvenient evidence. The power of numerology will magically provide the solution and if the resulting solution doesn't work, don't worry. Forget studies. Just pick another number.

In January, a proposal for a numerical limit on dogs will be back before Animal Services Board. It will be put before the City Council in early February. We need to make sure this doesn't end up being just another case of political numerology.

Indecision As Art Form

I deeply regret I was unable to attend last Thursday's School Board meeting. Bearing in mind that Board trustees are unpaid, they seem to be dedicated to proving the old saying, “You get what you pay for.”

In particular, there was a list of summer projects to get done at Central presented by Asst. Superintendent Jeff Bright. It caught my eye because after the defeat of the bond, I had, in an online reply to a gosanangelo article, suggested nearly the exact list of obviously needed, and very doable tasks at Central as a possible demonstration that someone in SAISD understands the word “maintenance”. No rocket science here, things like fix some broken plumbing, chip rust and repaint, take care of a few ADA access problems. Basically the sort of projects Hi from the comics might find in Lois' Job Jar.

In truth, every project on the list should have been taken care of years ago. As has been mentioned here and elsewhere by many others, the fact that SAISD has been so poor a custodian of that which we have already bought them helped many voters decide not to give them another gob of money until we had some assurance they could take better care of the toys they already have. In truth, Bright's list of jobs should have been given a unanimous “go” the first meeting after the bond went down. By last meeting it really should have been a no-brainer, and instead it failed 6- 1. There was doubt expressed that local contractors might not have been given a fair shot, or there was not enough time to complete all the jobs by school opening. By putting off the possible start date until late July, Board has guaranteed the latter concern.

Quibbles, details, draffsack and havers! This was one time the need to get something done and possibly convince some voters that maintenance matters outweighed the ever-so-cautious dotting of “i's”. By failing to gather their collective courage and make so basic a decision, the Board has in essence made a decision, a decision to accomplish nothing this summer. That seems to be the thing they do best, that is dither until it is too late, then do the wrong thing for no better reason than an unavoidable deadline. The bond itself was a prime example, not until the final meeting before the legal deadline did Board approve placing the bond on the ballot, then publicly drove a stake through it by spending two hours wrangling over the Crockett site and alienating their own task force. Considering I have been told Board had really wanted the bond on the Nov. '06 ballot, that's not exactly warp speed.

Shortly after the May defeat of the bond I met with Superintendent Bonds. I came away well impressed, in fact she made the point that maintenance was high on her list of priorities. Dr. Bonds is not free to do anything she desires, by design, she is charged with implementing policy passed by the Board. So long as the Board insists on punting the ball on first down, Dr. Bonds' options are somewhat limited.

I cannot read minds, I do not know whether Board thinks some electoral miracle will pass the bond we recently thumped come November. Matters not, even if they are that delusional, under any circumstances the Central campus will be in use for several years to come if nothing else serving during new construction. The $500,000 in overdue projects would have directly improved the campus for student and teacher alike. Looking back at the last couple meetings the word “postponed” comes up on more agenda items than not. If this is the best this lot can do, we the voters need to start thinking of new faces to put in those seats.

Charter Review

The charter review committee had their first meeting on Wednesday, Mar 14th. We're off to a good start

Most of the meeting was devoted to setting meeting ground rules, and looking through the 3" binder of information supplied by Mindy Ward and her legal staff. Lots of good information including charters from other cities, model charters, and information from the Texas Municipal League.

We decided that the meetings will be open, but that comment will not be taken from from the public except when specifically scheduled. We will also be meeting the first and third Wednesday of the month at 8:30 am.

I expect good things from this committee (not just because I am on it.) We plan on being open about the process and what we are doing. We will be seeking public input, but not until we are better prepared to handle it. This will not be a total charter rewrite, but a needed look at what changes should be made. The charter is the fundamental law of the city, its constitution if you will, so changes should not be taken lightly. We want the voters to be confident in the amendments they will vote on. The only agenda is a better San Angelo.

There will be a special E-mail address set up for comments and feedback to the committee, and you can also leave me comments here which I will forward to the rest of the committee.