Report From the Eighth Seat

Well it's been an interesting week and I'm awake very early. Can't get back to sleep so I'll blog a bit and see if that doesn't help.

A lot happened at the last council meeting. Started out with a good airing of citizen concerns on the feral cat issues and a challenge to the city's sudden change of policy towards Trap, Neuter, and Release. More can be found at State of the Division. In addition during public comment, I expressed my concerns about one of the items for executive session. The third item was supposedly there "to deliberate the appointment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the San Angelo City Manager, Assistant City Managers, all the Department Directors, and Acting or Interim Department Directors". Major problems with it as stated. First off, this appears to be a direct challenge to what is in the city charter. The city manager the council can hire and fire and discipline at will. Beyond that, the council does not do the appointment, evaluation, reassignment, etc. for the rest of the city staff and work force except for the Municipal court Judge. All of that is among the duties and responsibilities of the city manager as spelled out in sections 28 & 28a of the City Charter. In addition, this item appeared to be a discussion of personnel policy and as such personnel policy has to be discussed in open session, not behind closed doors. There are several Texas Attorney General opinions on this but the simplest place to find it is in the Open Meetings Handbook, Page #43 (49 in the pdf). There ended up being quite a bit of discussion which has been covered pretty well by the SAST and State of the Division. I will be expanding on this more in a bit. Once we got into the regular agenda, Mr. Wardlaw's two items that were mishandled on the previous meetings agenda were there as requested. They dealt with Carollo engineering and the Hickory water project.

I will be among the first to say there are problems with the Hickory project. It's expensive. It probably won't supply us with nearly as much water as they claim, and there are likely some improprieties in how this has been done. There is probably a lot there that should be looked at and investigated. So what was it that was on the agenda? An item to fire and replace our current project engineer when the project is almost completely engineered. The pipeline is almost done. The treatment plant has plans. Over 90% of the engineering has been done. And all of this was done with the recommendation of city staff, the Water Advisory Board, and approving votes from past city councils. The engineering costs are high. That's right. Just like they told previous councils and previous councils voted to approve those high costs. There are problems with the single source for the filter system. True again, but approved in open session by a previous council after staff recommendation. Mr. Wardlaw said he had 14 issues with Carollo, and he well might but only a very few were ever put forward and those that were had all been discussed and argued before previous councils and approved by majority votes. For example, the concerns with treating the ground water at the current treatment plant were discussed many times in the past but council, in May of last year, voted to go forward with Carollos recommendation and put an Ion Exchange treatment system at the current treatment plant location. The rest of his issues are probably similar but it's hard to say because he refused to give anyone a copy of his 14 issues. Not a good way to get issues dealt with.

Much of the rest of the agenda was relatively routine, but the meeting was very long and the third item for the executive session was delayed until almost the very end of the meeting, and the results were not very satisfying. We did get a short briefing from the Mayor after they reconvened in open session but there is a lot more that needs to be discussed.

It's clear that many people don't quite understand that the city manager is responsible for the day to day operation and management of the city. He is, by city charter, the CEO and runs the operation on a daily basis. He doesn't need the city council bypassing him and giving conflicting direction to staff or workers.There are very few people the council should be dealing directly with and in the end, they need to make sure the city manager can do the job, is doing the job, and not get in his way. At the same time, there is a key section of the city charter that has been ignored as of late. When it comes to staff appointments the charter says the city manager "shall appoint all appointive officers or employees (who report directly to the city manager) of the City (except the Municipal Judges) with the advice and consent of the Council (such appointments to be made upon merit and fitness alone)." They have ignored the advice and consent part of the appointment process and that needs to stop. City council has the right, and the duty to give an up or down vote of approval for every appointment that reports to the city manager directly. That's all senior staff, department directors and similar positions. Our new finance director needs to be introduced to city council and voted on instead just showing up at a meeting to give a presentation after a press release to the local paper. The city manager has an obligation to ensure that the council has enough information that they can be sure that these appointments are based on merit and fitness alone. Needs to be done. No excuses. There are a number of recent appointments that have yet to be brought before council and that needs to be corrected.

There is probably more I could be reporting on but that will have to wait for later. For now, I finally think I can get a little more sleep.

Eighth Council Member

The elections are over and the results will be interesting to watch. This will be a very different council then the one we've had for the past few years.

It's been a busy couple of months for me. In addition to running for election, I've been moving into a new home. House hunting took up more time then I figured, and for a while I wasn't sure if I would still be in SMD 2. Still getting settled and I'm still in Lakeview, SMD-2.

I enjoyed my campaign although I didn't have the time to put in the effort needed to win. I enjoyed the forums and meeting voters and my supporters. I will do better if I run again. I learned a lot, especially from the news coverage, write ups and letters. I especially liked that the Standard times called me the eighth council member. Quite a compliment but it got me thinking.

It's common to refer to the press as the fourth branch of government or sometimes the fourth estate. That's because the press has the function and responsibility of keeping the public informed about the what, where, why, how and who of government and politics. It's seen as a watchdog that helps citizens keep their government under control and in check. Among the keys to open, honest, good government are the press functions information, communication, research and reporting. At the local level, that function could be called the eighth council member. I like that because the main reason I attend so many council and other local government meetings is so I can provide information and reporting. Need to do more of that then I have been lately. ConchoInfo and the other bloggers and the posters on facebook and twitter, etc. are truly an eighth council member. Wish I could say the same about our local press.

Right before early voting started the Standard Times changed the rules. With little advanced notice, SAST put up a paywall. All of a sudden content that was freely available was only available to paid subscribers. An active and popular online community of posters was effectively shutdown because even many ink on dead trees subscribers, as my fried Jim Ryan calls them, didn't have their subscription linked to their online presence for one reason or another. The online comments went from hundred each day to single digits in the middle of one of the most important local election campaigns we've ever had. This limited the access local citizens had to election information for a while until the paper move all the campaign coverage back outside the paywall. It also cut off most of the discussion and online feedback we had seen in past elections and were seeing until the paywall was erected. I realize that papers are struggling to stay in business, not to mention make a profit. I know that changes had to be made just to keep the paper in business but I do have to question the timing and wisdom of what I see from my perspective.

If I was a conspiracy buff, I could probably make a compelling case that the timing of the change was partly to influence the election. The papers editorial view point and the regular letters would still be readable but the online discussion and feedback were effectively silenced. I'm sure this change had been planned for months in advance but there is no doubt that this change directly affected the election discussion and had an impact on the outcome. Would online discussions like we had in previous elections have changed the outcomes? Would a greater participation in online discussions have affected voter turnout? Probably yes to both questions but we will never really know.

I also have to wonder about how Scripps determined what to charge for their newspaper subscriptions. I went to the scripps home page and checked the new subscriber rate for almost all the papers they have. At $15.99 for printed and $14.99 for online only, the Standard Times is the most expensive paper to subscribe to in their chain. The next highest one was Memphis, TN Commercial Appeal at $14.99 and $13.99. The rest ranged from $10.99 to $12.99 for the dead tree edition, and charged $9.99 for online only access. San Angelo has one of the lowest per-capita pay rates of any newspaper market, and yet the Standard Times charges one of the highest rates of any paper for online access. I'm afraid they are pricing themselves out of the majority of the local market. This change in subscriber model and recent price hikes could actually hurt their bottom line. I'd be willing to bet that online traffic whether measured by page views or click thru's or what ever measure you choose are down and when the traffic goes down advertiser revenue goes down and advertising dollars are still the dominate way a paper make money.Same thing applies to the printed edition.

At a more fundamental level though, it seems the paper is resigning from participation as part of the eighth council membership in favor of being mostly about marketing and entertainment. Seems to me there were many ways the paper could have derived revenue from online services and still had a free, open forum and information exchange on the political and government issues of today. Until they figure out how to do that ConchoInfo and the rest of the local bloggers and online community will be happy to fill the need for the eighth council member.

Daniel in the Lyin Den or Welcome to our new City Manager

Our new City Manager has been here not quite a month, made it through two city council meetings and hasn't snuck back to Eagle Pass yet. He hasn't said much and seems to be taking it all in waiting until he knows the local landscape. I hope that's a sign of good things and that he is just waiting for the right time because there are some major issues he has to deal with.

I'm sure he knew that water would be a major issue when he got here. Bet he thought that reliable water sources would be his number one challenge. Instead we seem to have a number of very public failures with the water department at the center. At Mr. Valenzuela's very first council meeting they tried to sneak by $100,000 for new furniture for the water department. This is in addition to the $200,000 already spent on top of what was budgeted for the city hall renovation. And it doesn't appear that this furniture was to make up for a shortfall of partitions and filing cabinets and a few needed desks. It was a major wholesale replacement with the old furniture, which was obviously still serviceable, spread hither and yon with no accountability throughout other city departments to make up for shortfalls in other offices. Sounds very much to me like staff underestimated their furniture needs several times, and the last time tried to pull a fast one with the water department paying the bill this time. On top of that, required procurement procedures were mostly ignored. This high dollar purchase went forward without required council approval and like kids on a playground, no senior staff personnel saw what happened. We still don't know who signed the purchase order or if it was ever signed. Nice start for your first council meeting wasn't it Daniel?

By the second meeting things were getting even more interesting. Seems there was (maybe still is) a problem with water quality. It's bad that they found the THM levels in our water too high, although the actual health threat is probably not that great. What's more disturbing to me is that it was outside testing that found the problem, not our own testing procedures. The problem sample was from several months ago and just recently were corrective actions taken. Add on the fact that our temporary use of chlorine instead of chloramine probably made the problem worse and we don't really know what affect it had makes me wonder just how good our in-house testing really is. Needs to be looked at closely.

A bit of a side show to the last council meeting, still tied to the water department, is just starting to surface. Seems that an engineer on city staff was relieved for cause with no option for rehire and after a bit of slight of hand to become a private company/subcontractor was back at work as an inspector on the Hickory Pipeline, the city's main long range water project. Doesn't help that the subcontractor is the son of the water department director. Sounds like a problem of ethics and a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed.

As a long term accompaniment to all this there are problems with water bills which start with the new remote reading water meters. There were a lot of advantages claimed for the remote meters including more efficient and accurate results and near real time water usage readings that could alert a customer to potential leaks or other unusual usage patterns. Looking at how well this had worked in other cities (most of which used private contractors to make the switch) we had high hopes that this would be good for our city. Instead we have heard a fairly constant drumbeat of complaints and excuses. In 2005 the city had a chance to get a remote meter system installed for free by Siemens. Their profit, if any, would have come out of operational savings. They would have been on the hook to make the system work right. Instead  our water department has been before the city council asking for big bucks to do the whole project in house. They currently have 2 or 3 years left on the projects and the results so far have been a mixture of confusion, unrealistic water bills, rate increases, excuses and terrible customer service. The much mentioned capability of flagging usage problems doesn't seem to exist yet. Many current bills seem to be "estimates." The transition from an old meter to a new one frequently leads to a usage spike that makes one believe that either meters hadn't been read for a while or that nobody noticed that the meter had been replaced so a new starting reading should have been used instead of the last reading from the old meter. What ever the cause, our citizens and water customers are not being treated right and there are systemic problems that need to be fixed.

Which brings me to another big issue. One that hurts our economic growth and prosperity. Our city government does a lousy job at customer service. The problems in water billing are making news. Look at what happens in planning, permitting, code enforcement and inspections. I've been told that the process is like being in a pinball machine, being bounced around from desk to desk and department to department. Getting close to the end of the process only to be flipped back to another round of bouncing off desks. A process that takes one to maybe two weeks in other cities in the region takes months here. And I frequently hear that projects will almost get completed and an inspector will come out and change the rules. The plans for a roof or a wall that were approved by everyone in city hall before the project even started will get changed at the last minute by some inspector in the field which causes major added expenses and delays. Cheaper to make the changes (even major ones) then to delay business too long and pay a bunch of money to lawyers. Word of this spreads around and keeps business away. And some within city hall will say that used to happen in the past but we have changed. All I can say is what I'm hearing about are recent incidents. The Friday meeting results don't seem to be filtering down to the people on the desks and in the field.

I have been rambling on a bit here and still have only brushed on some of the high points so let me finish by saying again Welcome Daniel. Enjoy your time here in San Angelo. I hope you brought your Kevlar. You just might need it.

Restraint

Animal control issues have been around San Angelo for years and every so often something will hit the local news and a new batch of ordinances will come before council, most of them ill considered. Unintended consequences usually pop up and make the ordinances look stupid, and enforcement costs (real enforcement costs) are not considered. This link shows most of the coverage we've done here at ConchoInfo.

In 2009 a series of ordinances and amendments were passed. Among them were changes that changed how a dog can be housed, and virtually eliminated the ability to tether or chain a dog out. This issue came up again and was discussed at the last council meeting. There are factual errors that need to be cleared up.

First off, it was stated that state statute HS 821.076 thru .078 doesn't allow for tethering of a dog for longer than 3 hours. It's easy to get that impression from the slides presented at council because the the definitions and exceptions were on different slides. HS 821.077 states in part “(a) An owner may not leave a dog outside and unattended by use of a restraint that unreasonably limits the dog's movement” and then goes and defines unreasonably limiting a dogs movement as

“(b)  In this section, a restraint unreasonably limits a dog's movement if the restraint:

(1)  uses a collar that is pinch-type, prong-type, or choke-type or that is not properly fitted to the dog;

(2)  is a length shorter than the greater of:

(A)  five times the length of the dog, as measured from the tip of the dog's nose to the base of the dog's tail; or

(B)  10 feet;

(3)  is in an unsafe condition; or

(4)  causes injury to the dog.”

Chains and tethering are legal under state law, they just have to not unreasonably restrain the dog. The part that everyone focused on was HS 821.078, which the list of exceptions to unreasonable restraint requirements and particularly “(3)  a dog restrained for a reasonable period, not to exceed three hours in a 24-hour period, and no longer than is necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained;” This gives exceptions such allowing a tether less then 10' long.

This confusion over what state law actually says basically derailed the logic of the discussion that was before the city council. It reduced the debate to “if the state only allows 3 hours, why bother to raise it from 2”, and then it go hung up on how hard it was to make a safe trolley system, etc.. The bad information made a rational, accurate assessment of the situation impossible. In the end, the council did the best they could under the situation.

The last point I want to make is that it is possible to safely tie out a dog. You do need to make sure that he can't get hung up on a fence or wrapped around a pole or tree or lawn furniture. That is probably taken care of by the definitions in (b)(3) “is in an unsafe condition” but we could add clarifying language to our ordinance that says “a restraint that allows a dog to get tangled or wrapped in such a way as to limit restraint length to less then 10 feet shall be unlawful”.

I saw the pictures presented at the council meeting of the case that brought this item to the agenda. It would have been helpful if those pictures and the rest of the information in the presentation had been part of the agenda packet on SlideShare (that's a rant for another day.) The dog was not restrained properly as he could easily get tangled in the fence and could still get over the fence if he had the urge to. It looked to me like was restrained in an unsafe way. There are several ways that he could have been restrained safely but as it stands now that may not be an option.

We euthanize far too many animals in San Angelo as it is. If we get more vigorous on enforcement of unrealistic ordinances such as our tethering ordinance, we won't have more dogs leading better lives, we'll just have more euthanized animals in our landfill. We need to remove our current restrictions on tethering and at most add in the clarification on a safe restraint.

Thoughts on Startups

During the City Council meeting this week, while they were discussing garage sales I came to an important realization. With the zoning restrictions we have in place, and the restrictions they want to place on garage sales, none of the top 3 computer companies in the world could start today in San Angelo. Apple, HP, and Dell all started by doing business out of a garage at home.

Fries with that?

I left the last Council meeting with a strange feeling. The discussion on the garage sale ordinance and garage sales in general made me think that I had wandered into a board meeting of McDonalds. It made me think they were trying to create the next happy meal.

There are a number of issues associated with garage sales. Parking, trash, outside storage, safety, etc.. The vast majority of these are already addressed by ordinances dealing with traffic, parking, public nuisances, signs, and the health code. Granted, these ordinances are often ineffective. They don't help with the problems created by garage sales. Of course, they also don't help with a rowdy super bowl party or family barbeque. They won't help when smoke easys start cropping up after the smoke ban goes into effect. They don't really help if you neighbor is just a slob, garage sales or not.

So why did I think happy meal? A happy meal is a standardized, commoditized, lowest common denominator set of products combined around fad based marketing. They're probably okay for an occasional meal when out shopping with the parents, but not close to balanced nutrition. It's a one size fits all solution that can pass for a meal targeted at kids and their parents.

The garage sale discussion seemed headed for a happy meal solution. A one size fits all solution to the fad issue of the day targeted against a specific group. The basic ordinances that address the real issues were talked about because they failed. On problem after problem, whether it was parking in alleys, outside storage of items, trash, etc. the refrain was that the current ordinances took too long or were ineffective. The gentle push was for a garage sale ordinance that limited the number and addressed again what the other ordinances already couldn't handle. We could easily end up with a happy meal of an ordinance. One that's not very nutritious, one size fits all, and driven mostly by the current fad issue.

Let's fix the problems with the current ordinances that don't work. I don't want to hear the council asking if we want fries with the next ordinance.

More on the Hickory Article

There was whole slew of rebuttals from city representatives and other interested parties, suggesting that I misrepresented the facts in regard to the Hickory project and WCID a few weeks ago, so I just want to clarify a few things. The Standard Times will not allow me to give a response, claiming they "don't get into back and forth rebuttals"…

First of all, I never said that WCID used 25,000 acre feet directly from Twin Buttes. I said they use twice as much water as the city of San Angelo. That would include both waste water and water taken directly from the reservoirs. I based that on a claim they made at a hearing in Washington DC that “normal” usage would be 22,000 acre feet but that they would really need 20-30% more than that to make up for evaporation. (And to address Ted’s aside, recycling waste water doesn’t necessarily mean that we would have to drink it - we could use it on golf courses, city parks, and lawns the way many communities in other arid regions do for instance…)

So, those were the numbers I was working with, even though some had suggested to me that the district actually used much more. How the water usage is actually monitored is still unclear to me since TCEQ told me that the city utilities director just tells them over the phone when they are going to release water into the canal and how much. If some one would like to provide some records on this matter that would be great. I’m just trying to get that information to the surface. 20,000 acre feet of water would cover the entire 10,000 acre district in 2 feet of water. My point was, and is, I’m not sure that this is the kind of farming that our arid region can reasonably support in our water starved world, and this is certainly quite a lot more water than most irrigating operations in this area even use. I have been told that wells are also used within the district as well, which would add additional acre feet to that estimation of annual water usage.

Tom Massey, the attorney that has represented the city in their lawsuits, said that there would be no Twin Buttes if not for WCID. I’m not an attorney, I could be wrong, but I do not think that is an accurate statement. The dam was built for flood control. Everything I wrote in my article concerning the conception of this project with the Bureau of Reclamation came from the Bureau of Reclamation’s own documentation. A Department of the Interior’s report states, and I add my emphasis: “The project provides for the integrated operation of Twin Buttes Reservoir with the existing Nasworthy Reservoir to meet the municipal water requirements of San Angelo; and permits irrigation of the project lands, provides flood protection, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits… The Bureau of Reclamation initiated investigations for developing an irrigation plan for using Concho River water in excess of the municipal and industrial needs of the area. The reservoir would yield sufficient water to meet all foreseeable municipal requirements … with irrigation releases made from Twin Buttes Reservoir only when the water in storage exceeds 50,000 acre-feet.” Those are the Bureau of Reclamation’s words, they certainly seem to suggest that the irrigation districts needs are secondary to the city's, and those are the words I used as the basis for that part of my article.

What Massey has said about the Hickory wells only supports the concern I have expressed over the Hickory project. “We have the deepest wells …we’re not going to run out.” I never said we would run out. I did say we may begin to see shallow wells dry up with municipal pumping in the deeper areas. What about the people who live above the aquifer and get their water from shallow wells who can’t afford to drill deeper? San Angelo will be the largest user of Hickory water, yet will not have to abide by the same rules as others who have used the Aquifer for years. The permitting language states that the Conservation Board may review, revise, recall, cancel, reallocate or change, in whole or part, any permits with wells contributing to a cumulative net water-level decline. But the settlement agreement exempts San Angelo from this rule. It also states that San Angelo cannot sell any of the water from the Hickory or from our surface waters, which seems to interfere with the city’s plans to become a regional water supplier. On these issues I see the potential for future litigation.

The availability rates were changed DRASTICALLY by the state as of this year, as our city manager noted in his article. Rather than just supply a newly formulated chain of data that seems to be subject to change whenever the political agendas change, I was interested in giving readers a picture of the history behind the Hickory aquifer project that would illustrate the concerns of the people living above and relying upon the Hickory, the purpose of the Conservation District, and their reaction to being sued by a distant municipality who claimed the Conservation District had no right to regulate them. All of the information I supplied in that regard came directly from the Hickory Underground Water Conservation District’s documents.

As for the cost of the Hickory project I did say that the 120 million was to build the pipeline, and that was a mistake. But, Hutch Musallam of Carollo Engineers, the firm working with the city on the project stated in the Standard Times: “The first phase is estimated to cost $120 million...” That statement does seem to imply that there will be additional funds needed to complete the project. And not one of the dissenters has addressed how much it would cost to maintain this project, to pump, treat, and monitor the radioactive water.

The irrigation district has falsely stated on their web-sight that I am a member of the Concho River Conservancy Group, an alliance suing the city, which I have NEVER been involved in. If I supported that effort, you can be sure I would have spoken out about it long ago. I think that issue could, and should, be resolved out of court. If not, as I understand it, the city could be spending many more millions (of our tax dollars) defending themselves in the Supreme Court. I do not believe ANYONE should irrigate farmland from our rivers. The resources are too scarce. I have some ideas on a solution that I think would be agreeable to all parties in that situation, if only both sides would be willing to listen and consider that a change is due. Now is the time for co-operation. More on that later.

I live on the Concho River down stream from San Angelo. I have seen it reduced to hot puddles of mud. I was told by members of the Conservancy group that the WCID had refused to release the names of the members in their irrigation district or provide reliable information regarding their water usage. I did attempt to confirm that via e-mail on 3 occasions and never received a response. Perhaps I should have made additional efforts, but I am not a professional journalist, I am a mother of four, and considered instead to write my article based information that could be obtained through documents available to any one online, day or night, from the Bureau of Reclamation, The Hickory Underground Water Conservation District, the WCID’s web-sight, the City of San Angelo, public record related to House Resolution 4910, and the Standard Times.

I think there are valid concerns that a conflict of interest could exist between the WCID and members of the city staff. A release of the names of the farmers in this irrigation district and records of the amounts of water that each member has used from Twin Buttes and the city treatment plant for the past 10 years should clear all that up.

My interest in this subject is a matter of just governance, fiscal responsibility, and the environmental integrity of our riparian area. I am firm believer in Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic, which states that: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Whether we get our water from the tap, a well, a river, or a rooftop, we will all have to begin thinking and acting holistically, and partner together to conserve and protect this precious resource.

What about the Sales Tax

If you have been following me on FaceBook lately, you probably noticed that I don't favor the approach presented at the last council meeting for removing the end date on the ½ cent 4B economic development sales tax. I have even called it pandering pork barrel politics as usual. It's time for me to explain this in more detail.

Some of you may remember I was part of the opposition to the 4B sales tax for a long time. I worked against its passage in 1999, and started the site that became ConchoInfo.org as part of the campaign against the 2004 proposal. In the end we ended up with a much better sales tax than what was originally proposed and they have done a better than expected job of sticking to what they promised the voters. Some parts have not worked out well, but it has been a useful tool in at least a few cases. We have made better use of this economic development tax than the average city does.

One of my main objections to this type of sales tax is how it frequently becomes a “ candy store”. Projects are proposed and handed out on the basis of political factors such as getting the proposal passed or returning favors instead of what is good for economic development and community needs. It frequently amounts to pandering to local special interests in exchange for support and donations. The current projects added to the proposed extension come across that way to me.

The core reason for an economic development sales tax is to aid in the creation and retention of long term good paying jobs. Without an adequate water supply, jobs will not be created or retained, and paying for all the development costs out of property taxes or the water bill is also going to hurt economic and community development. The 4B sales tax is a good way to pay for at least part of that. In those cases where primary jobs that pay above average wages are created or retained, the city has good guidelines and procedures in place for using these 4B funds. Still needs work, and needs more local focus on stage 2 companies, but overall the city has seen benefit from these economic development investments.

There are uses authorized under a 4B tax that do not create primary jobs or high paying jobs. These include sports facilities, open space development, affordable housing, and some related retail developments and infrastructure projects. These don't create good paying or primary jobs. I can see that some projects of this type should be done, but these projects need to be prioritized so that the community as a whole gets the benefits where needed. And truthfully, many of these projects could and should become self sustaining or at least help pay their way. We should look at creating a public facilities corporation to help make that possible.

Looking long term, there are legitimate uses for the 4B sales tax besides developing water resources and creating high paying primary jobs. The short term goal of picking a couple projects to help get it passed does a disservice to the voters and our community. I'm not saying these projects are unworthy of consideration. Instead these projects need to compete against other similar projects on a level playing field based on the long term benefits they bring to the community as a whole. We should fund projects that can show benefit to the city for the long term. We need to think further than just until the next election cycle.

Memorial Day Reflections

When this blog started in 2005, I posted an article with a link to Why smart people defend bad ideas. We need to keep that in mind while we honor those who have served and sacrificed and continue to serve and sacrifice in defense of freedom and our country.

We need to remember that the best and the brightest are not the only source of bad ideas. Sometimes these bad ideas are from a tyranny of the masses. History is full of examples where the majority has unfairly and unjustly taken advantage of or oppressed a minority. Much of our constitution is there to help guard against such tyranny. It is , unfortunately, still a problem at all levels of government and society.

We must guard against bad ideas, even those from very smart people or those that are popular with the majority of people. We need to do this so that those we honor today will not have served in vain.

Stormwater Surprise(s)

I recently got my first water bill with the stormwater fee included. That was a surprise in itself, I was at a few of the public hearings held prior to passing the ordinances, and I recall hearing the fee would be assessed on property owners. As it was finally passed, that is true for commercial properties, but on the residential side, the fee goes to whomever has the water meter at the property.

Take my case as one example: the property I rent (since '92) includes a detached garage/storage building I do not rent, owner uses it exclusively. The building I do NOT rent moves me from Tier Two to Tier Three based on footage of roof area.

The first thing I discover, when I called the "customer service number" on the utility bill, I was told all stormwater questions had to go to another number. I call it, and get a recorded menu and first try, I end up back with the water clerk who couldn't answer my questions to begin with. I navigate the robo-menu, get a recorded invitation to leave a message. I finally end up talking to the City Engineer, Clinton Bailey, who it turns out is the first line and only line of response to stormwater questions. Minor point I suppose, but if we are going to include the fee on the water bill, shouldn't customers be able to get answers to at least basic questions from someone at the phone number printed on the bill? If nothing else, is having Mr. Bailey as first-and-only first response a good use of the City Engineer's time? I have come to respect the man as a competent employee, but surely he has better things to do.

Here I need to digress into the enabling ordinances. These coincidentally appeared online about the time I'm getting the bill, but they are now up online. Sec. 8.1900 sets the fee itself and the different residential/commercial Tiers system of setting fees. Of more interest to the rate-payer is Sec. 11.800 which has to do with collections and billing.

Under 11.807 "Appeals" I find that all appeals will go through [cut a lot of verbiage] Clinton Bailey, and as he pointed out, burden of proof is on the rate-payer. If I appeal, and do not like his ruling, I find under 11.807(d) "any landowner..may appeal to City Council". I had to point out the landowner language to Bailey, but it's there. In short,I am priviledged to pay the bill, but have no right of appeal to Council as I rent.

In fairness, this sounds like a leftover from when City intended to bill owners. If unintentional it needs amending; if intentional it is outrageous and probably unconstitutional.

If I were to convince my landlord to appeal (why should she, it would increase her bill) the result would be the total revenue to City would go from $4/month to $5, as my bill would drop $1, but the lowest Tier is $2, her share. I will not do any such absurd thing, I'll pay the $4/month, but it is an unintended result of the ordinance.

That brings to mind billing for duplex/triplex rentals. If the renters have separate meters, how is the impervious surface divvied up? Do $4 properties end up paying $6?

One thing I recall well from the public meetings was one session where staff actually showed us overhead images of properties. It wasn't GoggleEarth, but something similar with more up to date images. These were to be used as the stormwater assessment is based on "impervious surface". Especially for residential properties roof footage is the major component. A two story house with 3,500 sqft would likely fall in the 1-2,000 Tier for stormwater purposes. Unless the city is relying completely on Tax Appraisal District records, which do not state one/two/three story. Which the City apparantly does now. What happened to the overhead views? Again, burden of proof on the rate-payer.

While I'm looking into this, one person added a concern on the commercial side. Here we change to billing the owner. Regardless of whether individual businesses in a multi-use property have meters or the whole building is on one water meter, bill goes to the owner. Many owners are now being "stuck" with $100-$500/month fees they cannot pass along to long-term lease holders.

One other beef I have with 11.800: Let's say you have an appeal, filed and in process. In the interim, you pay the rest of the utility bill, but withhold the stormwater fee. This is commonly allowed in property tax cases without foreclosure. Under Sec. 11.808 "Failure to pay promptly shall subject such user to discontinuance of any utility service". Well, it's certainly a hammer, but I would prefer to see such actions move through a Municipal Court action brought by the City against the landowner.

I have to give points to someone for dividing the ordinances. It would be a hard sell to reopen the Tiers structure addressed in Sec 8.1900, don't see that happening. However, there are inequities in the 11.800 language, I suspect unintentional, that can be addressed and amended, and they should be.

I'm not by nature a fan of unfunded mandates, and this is the "poster child" definition for that term. Reality, City has no viable option save to comply. That is covered in Sec 8.1900, I leave quibbles over fairness of the Tiers for the review down the road. The inequities of the billing portion in Sec 11.800 can be re-examined without disturbing the core issue of City's compliance with State and Federal Regulations. It should be.

San Angelo has been surprisingly tolerant of the capital improvements addition to the water bill. People assign responsibility to different sources, but after the Christmas Debacle and a few geysers around town, we are willing to pay for dependable service. A couple of things that helped acceptance was selling people the idea there was a "new sheriff in town", we would manage and maintain the system better, AND the additional billing would have some semblance of fairness to it.

While not free, (there is staff time to consider), tweaking an ordinance by amendment is an inexpensive option compared to losing trust with rate-payers. The Monday Standard-Times article (which dropped off the radar in record time) mentioned there had been about 1,000 calls on the issue. Aside from eating up the City Engineer's time, that's a lot of people with questions, and doesn't count those who shrug in resignation and write the check, mumbling imprecations under their breath. Fairness in billing is essential to trust. Council should look at amending Sec. 11.800.

Sunday Scattershot

Well, another long election day come and gone. On the SMD 4 race, congratulations really, to both candidates. Mr. Adams prevailed by 18 votes out of nearly 500. A close race, well conducted, no negatives or ad hominem employed. As I stated after my interview, Conchoinfo does not endorse, but in this case, I thought SMD 4 would be well represented by either candidate. I look forward to Mr. Adams' representation and I hope Mr. Bart continues to be politically involved.

My usual polling place being folded in to pct 144, our crew was placed elsewhere. The new system worked well beyond my expectations. Outside of a few details in start-up, this was the easiest process I have dealt with since I started doing this. Once we got the hang of it, the VoteSafe system is the most user-friendly I have ever dealt with. I hope it was as trouble free from the voters' side of the table. If there is anything good to be said of a light turnout, this happened to be an ideal election for the introduction of a new system. Come next election, we've got it cold. Thanks Vona, Rudi, everybody at elections, you made our jobs easier.

In a stunning upset, Mayor Lown retained his position. OK, I get to have fun too. I have to say, I will be disappointed if we do not see young Mr. Bryan, and his teacher Lars Nyberg, again. Mr. Bryan still has time to make the record for youngest Mayor, and shows promise. Buena suerte, both of you.

It may not be a "hot" issue, but those of us who wake up to, and drive home on KUTX, the Angelo rebroadcast of KUT National Public Radio, are justifiably worried about the likely shift to KOHM, the Lubbock and Texas Tech affiliate. It would seem natural for the ASU station to follow the affiliation with Tech, BUT...

Are we going to see the same programming? Much of what we hear on KUT will be on KHOM, but I do not see "CarTalk" or "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me". So far, no one has asked us, you know, the local listeners what we think of the change. Is there room in this deal to dicker for a locally produced, ASU originated, local affairs program? Talk about a great chance for ASU students to get their "feet wet"; a local, forgiving audience, with real time at the board or behind the mike. Been there done that in acting, all the classroom in the world doesn't mean beans until you've been "onstage". I hope someone in this process bothers to inquire as to local sentiment, but given Rallo's concern as to street closings, I'm not counting on it.

I have recently viewed a "San Angelo" DVD put out by Mayor Lown and others. I commend it to your attention. It's good, it's short enough to be used in an economic development presentation, hits the high points and makes the city look as good as I believe it to be. OK, JW Lown is in every other shot, BUT, a) he is the Mayor; and b)he paid for it. If you haven't seen it, it is available at www.jwlown.com .
No kidding, it is a good production.

Now for the weekly quibble. Surely you didn't think I would get through a Sunday ramble without beefing about something!

San Angelo Standard-Times, Friday May 8: interview with candidates Adams and Bart.
Question 4 "Which should take precedent if these conflict; the opinion of your district's constituents, or what you feel is in the best interests of the city as a whole?"

Adams: "I represent the people, and am accountable to them".

Bart: "That question is easy. If you are an elected official, the will of the people takes precedence; they got you there. You are a representative of that body, not the leader".

I genuinely respected both candidates, not my precinct, but the snout-counting is done, I can speak freely.

This country, this "Miracle of Philadelphia", as recorded by Catherine Bower, did not come to "pure democracy". We have a representative republic. We do not sit as Athenians did and vote on every jot and tittle of local law, we elect (we hope) persons who will exercize good judgement on the myriad items on Council agenda, while we go about our daily lives.

Mr. Bart; if you are not the "leader" how exactly do you know the temper of your electorate on a paticular item on agenda? Have you done polling, have you had a privately funded election? Of course not. If you are going by the phone calls you get, that is a seriously skewed self-selecting poll with the winners/losers WAY overloading the true majority, whose opinion you are at best guessing at. It might accidentally represent the true value of your constituents, or more likely, represent the opinions of those with a, pardon the gig, "Dog in the hunt".

I have heard this "I defer to the wishes of my people" line all my voting life. Makes a good sound-bite, but it's physically impossible.

Hypothetical: Six months from election, a whole new issue comes up, very urgent, a lot of quick study just to get the details of the issue. Maybe a sewer main collapse or Sherwood Way falls into a sinkhole, whatever. Are you going to study the issue in its intricacies or ask the opinion of an electorate which may or may not even know it's out there? If you are unwilling to be the "leader", you should not run to be one.

On this point, Mr Adams was correct; "I represent the people, and am accountable to them". By that standard, he will use his judgement, one hopes accepting advice, for two years, and if we are dissatisfied, we get to vote him out in 24 months, that is the "accountable to them" part.

Almost forgot, happy Mother's Day. Mother's Day was formally estabilished by President Woodrow Wilson as a national holiday, possibly the most succssful item of his "I will keep us out of War" legacy. He also established the Federal Reserve System, the League of Nations, and the Federal Trade Commission. Were that my "legacy", I'd be proud of Mother's Day and hope the audience had forgotten the rest.

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.

Super Sunday

Hard to believe, it's Superbowl again. One thing I've learned; regular season I carefully study scores, stats, injuries, etc before making my "investments": Once two teams have made it to The Game, throw all that out. To cut to the chase, at a Pittsburgh spread of 7 and 47, I like Arizona and I like the under. I anticipate a good game, and a close one. This year we have a "hot" post-season team as underdog with just the right offensive weapons to test the No. 1 defense in the league. The Cards' Warner is very good at a quick release, move the yard markers, mid-range passing game. If Pittsburgh starts getting sacks, my theory of the game goes south. Enjoy, and don't forget the guacamole. According to the avocado growers' group, Americans will consume enough green dip to fill the football field 9 ft. deep. Wonder who used what method to arrive at that number?

The city is discussing two things I encourage interest in. Sidewalks are one. I missed the public hearing at the Convention center, but others will be held. In the meantime, comments are invited on the city's website www.sanangelotexas.us look for sidewalk survey. I hope we can find a middle course that gets us sidewalks where we need them without pricing people out of their homes. I live on a three block long, 40 ft. wide street, low volume local traffic. One of my neighbors puts a basketball goal at curbside; kids have a good surface to dribble on and only have to break up the game every 15 minutes or so to let a car go by. Plenty of room for pedestrians and bikes and the low number of cars to co-exist without danger. Right around the corner is Bell St. one of the projects already in work, though on the far side of the river from me. I've tried it once, I don't advise anyone to try walking Bell St., that could be an exercise in "the quick and the dead".

At any rate, put in your two cents worth now. Don't wait until an assessment bill hits the mailbox, it will be too late. There are lots of options: surely some neighborhoods only need a sidewalk down one side of the street, do the lucky homeowners on one side get to pay the full tab, or should their "walkless" neighbors chip in? How do we provide for low income homes where the owners (or less directly renters) could be looking at the difference between "we're making it" or not, we need some way of stretching that out affordably, perhaps some income-based assistance.

Speaking of public input, I believe Council is considering doing some annual polling, an attempt to take the pulse of the electorate. I like it in general. We need some better way of measuring what the citizenry considers important than "Who's making the most noise right now". This is a problem common to any representative body allocating funds and projects. It is easier to get a highly involved group of those benefiting from a project to pack a meeting and make noise than it is to get a good read of everyone paying for it. The less-interested payers might resent the marginal impact on their taxes, but not so much they take off work and attend a Council meeting.

We might find that the school district would be interested in cooperating in such a poll. As I told one SAISD Board member last week, had SAISD done enough polling to realize the voters' commitment to neighborhood schools over economies of scale, the '07 bond might have looked enough like the more recent one to have passed instead of failing 2 to 1. The history of the school bond demonstrates the limitations of getting any "committee" small enough to actually conduct business still be large enough to represent the entire electorate. Without getting mired down in details, the size of the first bond's defeat demonstrates how wrong they got it. Additionally, that defeat in my opinion, prejudiced many voters against the successful bond. Prop One passed narrowly, Prop Two failing by 500-some votes. I heard all too often from "NO" voters who assumed Bond II was just Bond I with the deck chairs rearranged.

In my New Year's Day article I discussed the high comedic value of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich. Alas, he predictably was drummed out. His successor, Pat Quinn is a bit of a maverick, but I doubt he will provide near the comedy content of Blago. In that article I posed a double trivia question: going back to the last time we had a Prez and VP be serving Senators, it was JFK and LBJ; Who were their appointed replacements?

Easy one first, JFK arranged to have his old college roomie appointed, one Benjamin Smith. His primary job was to keep the seat warm until JFKs brother Teddy was old enough to run, which he did. Smith's subsequent political career consisted of two terms as Gloucester Selectman (think city council). Smith obediently stepped aside for Teddy, who is still there. Smith had a successful business career, cardboard boxes of all things, passing away in '95. Google him by name, I got pages of other William Smiths before I got to the right one.

More interesting is LBJ's appointed replacement, one William Arvis (Dollar Bill) Blakeley. I actually bumped into an older fellow who knew this one, he remembered Blakeley. In replacing LBJ Blakeley was accepting his SECOND Senate appointment! His first, Jan 15 1957 was to replace Gov. Price Daniels. Blakeley did not run against Ralph Yarborough in the special election, but then did run against incumbent Yarborough in '58, the next regular Senate election. Texas, unlike Mass. provides for a special election at the next open date. In his '58 run, Blakeley was supported by LBJ and what was then the segregationist wing of the Democrat Party. Yarborough had the support of Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. Rayburn is widely regarded as LBJ's mentor, but on this issue, at that time, they parted company, and Rayburn had the most IOUs. Note: Yarborough was our last "plurality" Senator, winning with less than 50% in the special election. Texas changed the law to require a run-off and majority win, something we still don't do for Governor.

"Dollar Bill" was again appointed to replace LBJ, Jan. 3, 1961. This one lasted six months. July of
that year, the Democrats were still "eating their young" over segregation and opposition to this new Yankee President Kennedy. Republican John Tower managed 50.6%, winning without a run-off by 10,443 votes and becoming the first Republican to oust an incumbent Democrat Senator in Texas in 80 years.

Blakeley was actually a fascinating figure, one of the many people who help keep students of Texas history from dying of boredom. Worth $300 million in 1956, money-wise he was the T. Boone Pickens of his day, adjusted for inflation. Oil, hotels, real estate, name it, if it made money, "Dollar Bill" was in it. An "Eisenhower Democrat", he was one of the many Democrats of that era who twenty years later would be calling themselves "Republican", but until Tower won, that wasn't a realistic option in Texas in the 50s.

See you next time, better get started on that guacamole if it's gonna be chilled by game time.

Open Government 101

Open Government is a term being bandied about quite a bit lately. Add in terms like transparency, Freedom of Information, Open Source Government, etc. and you have quite a bit of noise. Hopefully, this and future articles will help cut through the noise and get to the core of what open government is, where it's going, and why it's important.

For much of human history, most rulers thought like Bismarck "... that laws are like sausages - the less you know about how they are made the more respect you have for them." People were kept in the dark about how government worked, laws were made, and often even what the laws were. Eventually, ancient rulers figured out that a set of standard laws was useful in keeping the rabble in line so we see the emergence sets of laws like the Ten Commandments and Hammurabi's code. Government and religion were tightly interwoven at this time, so these laws were said to be divinely inspired (whether they were or not), and as such were beyond question. In reality, most people knew that laws and government had less to do with divine inspiration than power, greed, patronage, and control. Still, it was several millennia before it was safe to question how government functioned. You had the beginnings of the democratic process in ancient Greece, and republican representation in Rome, but the "divine right" of rulers wasn't really challenged until the renaissance. The sausage making process was carefully hidden from view.

By the time of our countries founding, there was a fledgling movement for more openness in government. Our founders felt that an informed electorate was necessary for a representative government to function properly. Many of them still felt the electorate should be limited to educated property owners, and that many parts of government just shouldn't be discussed in polite company. The smoke filled rooms, machine politics and patronage systems needed to be hidden from view to thrive and reach the level of power they eventually had. Scandals occurred frequently and various reforms were tried, but opening up government processes to outside scrutiny didn't really catch on until the dawn of the information age. We see the Freedom of Information Act in 1966, and a number of state laws at about the same time, that made it easier to obtain information and at least get a glimpse into the sausage factory. Add in the emergence of investigative reporting like that on Watergate and media sources like Cspan and you start to get access to the way government works. Government was getting more open. The idea of open government was in its infancy. It still needed two developments.

The whole idea of Open Government was changed forever with the birth of the internet. Not only can information be shared quickly and easily, the cost of doing so is remarkably low. Internet access is everywhere. Few businesses don't have it. Most libraries and schools do have it, and basic dial up service can be had for as low as $10 per month. You can get basic internet functions on a prepaid cell phone. There are many projects out there to make sure the poor and disadvantaged don't get left on the wrong side of an insurmountable digital divide. The potential for information exchange is tremendous and the amount of information available on the government and its day to day operation is huge. It's to the point that many are arguing that there is too much information and we need to limit the openness of government to prevent information overload, which brings us to an important development made possible by the internet: Open Source.

The term Open Source was originally coined to describe a particular way of developing and distributing software. In the earliest days of computers, software and the source code (plan) to create it was shared openly. Eventually some companies figured out that keeping their code secret and selling or licensing the resulting software might be a good way to make money and today companies like Microsoft that are making more money than automobile manufacturers. The idea of sharing software and related ideas didn't disappear, it changed and adapted. It was kept alive in universities and large computer users groups. Free projects such as Linux grew around the concept that free access to software and its source code could develop great software. They were right. The code was produced relatively quickly and remarkably bug free. This was ascribed to the " thousands of eyeballs" that could look at the code and find errors. It seems that " given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Pretty soon, people started thinking that maybe this might apply to government.

Open government advocates are realizing that not only should government be open and transparent, but information flow should be in both directions.

We are still in the early stages of truly open government, but I have great expectations. In the future, I will be commenting on how open government is working locally. Personally, I like being able to watch sausage being made. It may be a bit disgusting but at the same time you end up with fewer cigarette butts and floor sweepings in you sausage. I find the same thing true with government and laws.

Signs of our times

The discussion of the cities future sign ordinance yesterday was longer than most council meetings, but it was a good example of how governments should function. The city staff had done a lot of work trying to improve the sign ordinance but there were still some significant issues with their proposals.

San Angelo's sign ordinance has needed major work for a long time. The kindest descriptions I've heard are confusing and anti-business. It was self contradictory and inconsistent with current state law. To their credit, the city government had put a moratorium on enforcement for the last year or so while the ordinance was overhauled. After much work and some meetings with the public, staffs recommendations were officially revealed at yesterdays meeting. The bulk of the ordinance was simplified, consolidated, and brought into compliance with state law. There were three sections, though, that caused heartburn with the public and local businesses and that the council rejected.

The first bone of contention was on the sandwich-board style of signs. The staff had originally recommended that they only be allowed in the downtown area. There were a number of reasons, such as high foot traffic, zero lot lines and historical use given for allowing their use down town. There were no convincing reasons given why they shouldn't be allowed in other non-residential areas as long as they don't interfere with foot traffic and were not left out at night. It was pointed out that there are many other areas in town that already have or are trying to increase foot traffic. It was also pointed out that many businesses on Chadbourne, both north and south, have zero lot lines and could definitely make use of sandwich-board signs. The council saw no good reason to restrict them to downtown area.

Next up was the issue of the new generation of electronic signs. There are already state laws and TxDOT rules that govern some of them when they are along a state highway such as Bryant or Sherwood Way. Signs not advertising the business on the property are limited to text only animation and no flashing. There are also limits on how fast the message should change and how long it should be displayed. There are good reasons why flashing should not be allowed but no compelling reason was given for why animation should not be allowed on signs not covered by TxDOT. The possible distraction argument put forward by staff didn't have enough evidence to convince council to ban animation.

The last, and hottest, bone of contention was banners. Staff made three proposals that were universally disliked. First, they wanted a permit fee for banners. Next they wanted a 180 day per year limit on their use. Finally they wanted a 60 sq. ft. maximum on size, no matter what the size of the building or property. These proposals show a serious disconnect between planning and the business community.

Banners are a very inexpensive and flexible form of advertising. They are also very fast to produce. A banner may be free from the a manufacturer as part of a promotional deal, or it may cost as little as $50 so it doesn't make sense to spend $20 on a permit fee and another $20 or so dollars on gas and man hours to get the permit. If a business wants to use banners for weekly or monthly sales or promotions, the fees add up pretty fast. Of course, if the business wants to do promotions using banners they run smack dab into the staffs recommended time limits.

It seems that staff has a very narrow view of how banners should be used by businesses. They seem to think banners are okay for promoting a small number of special events, but most of the time businesses should be banner free. They don't seem to have heard of all the different uses banners can be put to. Then again, it might be their idea of aesthetics.

Staff recommended a flat 60 sq. ft. limit on banners, instead of the current 25% of wall space. This number was seen as unrealistic and arbitrary. On a large building or one set back a distance from the road, such a limit makes a banner useless. A business on a corner would be at a disadvantage, as the 60 sq ft would have to be divided up between the two sides facing the streets. They also wanted the requirement that it had to be attached to a building when all that is really needed is attachment to a stable structure. As was pointed out by one of the businesses an RV can be a stable structure.

In the end, council concluded that the biggest problem with banners, and signs in general was maintenance and serviceability. Banners should not be allowed to used when tattered and torn, but that should apply to any sign. There are signs that are eyesores in our city of all different types. There has been an enforcement moratorium so this should be expected, but it does show where the enforcement effort needs to focus.

Next council meeting, we will get to see how well councils direction is followed by staff. Philosophically, I agree with Councilman Morrison that we don't really need a sign ordinance beyond what is already in state law. Odessa seems to be doing fine without one. Realistically, what council told staff to bring back will be the least restrictive sign ordinance around and is probably the best we can get. The result is good but I have some problems with how we got here.

First off, public involvement was not what it should have been. They had a chart that showed a number of meetings on this issue, most with remarkably low turnout. This indicates there is a problem with how the meeting notifications were carried out. Granted, these meetings were not subject to the open meetings act, and there was no requirement for 72 hour posting etc., but many of the people I talked to after the discussion complained of short or no notice. Some even thought it might have been an attempt by staff to limit public input. I seriously doubt that was the case, but the perception is there and will linger a while.

Next, I was a bit disappointed that some bureaucratic slight of hand was used to make the banner restrictions look not quite so bad. For example, if you take a flimsy banner and attaches it to a frame (most likely of flimsy, fragile wood), it is no longer a banner and is now a permanent sign which requires no permit (although it now falls under other restrictions.) Or take your banner, turn it vertical and attach it top and bottom to a light pole and instantly it is no longer a banner and needs no permit. Attach to a pole at one end and it might just be a flag. Ignore the fact that all the objections to banners still apply, it has been magically transformed into something else. For some reason, this made staffs case weaker.

Staff further attempted to strengthen their case by stating that tighter regulations would be good for economic development. I have been looking at studies on economic development, especially with respect to small business for years and have never found a case where restrictive sign ordinances helped business. On the contrary, there are many studies showing overly restrictive ordinances hamper the growth of small businesses. You know, those businesses that provide the bulk of our jobs and economic growth.

My last point is that contrary to what staff may believe, this is not a question of council preferring commerce over aesthetics. It is very much a case of council deciding where to draw the line on governments interference in aesthetics. Councilman Morrison and others, including myself stated that the government should not be dictating aesthetics. Mr. Lewis rightly pointed out that the city already regulates litter, junk, etc. and that dictates aesthetics. We should have been clearer: Governments should NOT dictate aesthetics for aesthetics sake. The regulations he mentioned all have other goals such as public health. He also said it's a quality of life issue. Council decided that the citizens and businesses of this town should get to decide what they consider quality of life. In the end, the council decided that once basic safety and housekeeping is done, the citizens and businesses of San Angelo should be making the decisions on aesthetics and quality of life, not bureaucrats. To my way of thinking, that's how government should work.

Control Freaking

Animal control, especially dog limits, is still a hot topic. At the end of the last council meeting, they directed the Animal Services board to consider an enhanced Spay and Neuter ordinance, a possible breeders ordinance, and a look at zoning, but left limits on the table. There are better alternatives to limits.

There was some misinformation at the last council meeting, especially on zoning. It was stated that the zoning ordinance made breeding and selling dogs in a residential neighborhood illegal. This is not quite correct. Animal kennels are illegal which "includes any structure or premises where animals ordinarily considered household pets are kept, boarded, bred or trained, for commercial gain." Those are limited to commercial districts.

This is talking about when the primary use of a structure is a kennel. What about when someones pet just happens to have pups in a residence and the owner sells some? Residences fall under a category called household living. Among the allowed accessory uses are "raising of pets, hobbies, home occupations." It also states "Allowed home occupations include, but are not limited to" and gives a list. The few occupations specifically not allowed in a residential area are "Hair cutting or styling shops, nail salons or other beauty or cosmetic-related business. Tattoo parlors. Pet grooming. Any form of repair shop." No mention of breeding. There are restrictions on auxiliary buildings, traffic, etc. but those apply to any home business. It appears that small scale breeding is legal unless you violate other laws such as nuisance, public health or animal cruelty. If we want to do more about breeding with zoning, we must redo the zoning ordinance. We must define when breeding crosses the line into a business that is not suitable for residences. Change the spay and neuter laws and develop a breeders permit. Until then we must use existing tools effectively.

Texas and San Angelo laws make it illegal to "transport or confine an animal in a cruel manner." There are federal guidelines on space requirements, especially for commercial operations and laboratories. There must be adequate space for "freedom of movement and normal postural adjustment." The space must allow a dog "to turn about freely, to sit, stand and lie in a comfortable manner, to walk in a normal manner." The department of agriculture even has a formula and procedure to calculate this space based on an animals size, and whether or not there are pups. The space available for adequate housing puts a maximum limit on the number of dogs that can be properly cared for on the property. This also takes care of the case where animals are jammed into small cages, as was evidently happening in the puppy mill.

This leads into another important point. Violations of zoning and nuisance laws only allow for fines and maybe contempt of court charges. Animal cruelty laws allow for the seizure of dogs, and possible jail time for the owners. Cruelty laws need to be used more effectively. The limit should be space per dog, not the dogs per person.

Animal Limit City Council Timeline

The following is a time line of City Council meetings where a dog limit and changes to the animal control ordinance have been discussed since the first mention of limits on the number of animals in 2006.

June 20, 2006

First discussion of Animal limits.

November 7, 2006

Further discussion of Animal control issues. First discussion of a possible breeders
permit.

February 6, 2007

Further discussion of animal control, with discussion of breeders license fees and other related fees. Ross(sic) Jacoby spoke against breeders licenses or permits, and suggested using existing laws. It was noted that only 33% of owners license pets.

March 20, 2007

Discussion of draft ordinance on animal limits submitted. Motion to bring back ordinance limiting total dogs to 6 passed 4-3. Motion prohibiting sale, trade, or transfer of animals on public property passed 5-3

April 3, 2007

First public hearing to limit number of dogs to 6 failed by a 3-4 vote.

Judge Gilbert stated there were existing laws that would address the issues presented, and commented on the lengthy process to address such a complaint.

Staff was directed to bring back a comprehensive rewrite of the animal control ordinances.

July 17,2007

Revisions to the animal control ordinances were approved to be put in ordinance form for a future council meeting. This included the increasing the number of animal control officers from 3 to 5.

Mike Loving reiterated the issues are in the enforcement of the ordinances, not the number of animals.

September 4, 2007

First public hearing of a comprehensive amendment of the animal services ordinance is held and passed unanimously. No limit on the number of animals is included.

September 18, 2007

Second public hearing on the animal services ordinance amendments passes unanimously as part of the consent agenda.

Government Theater

If you pay much attention to government in action, you get to see a lot of what is called Theater. These are actions and laws done mostly for show and to make people feel a problem is being handled. Close inspection shows they are ineffective, and often make the problem they were supposed to solve worse. Security theater is probably the most common example..

The City Council will have a bit of theater on the agenda on 19th. There is a proposed ordinance to limit the number of dogs one can have on a residential property. They are proposing a limit of 6 dogs, with exemptions for "recognized rescuers" (who can have up to 9 altered dogs), and one litter for 12 weeks. This is classic Government theater. This is not the first time this has been before council. We have followed this since 2006. This started because there are inconsiderate people that don't know how to care for dogs and think that a small residential yard is the proper place to have a puppy mill.

These people are already violating noise and public nuisance ordinances. There are probably health code violations. There may be zoning violations (incompatible business), etc..

When this was brought up the first time, we did some research and found very little support for dog number limits. The AVMA, in its model ordinance, does recommend special permits for breeders and similar businesses, but recommends no hard limits for private ownership. The key part of the ordinance is under owner responsibility and says "No dog or cat shall be allowed to cause a nuisance. The owner of every dog or cat shall be held responsible for every behavior of such dog or cat under the provisions of this ordinance." There are similar recommendations from the AKC, SFSPCA, and most other animal welfare groups. If you look at the discussions on animallaw.info and nokillnow, there are cases where fixed limits have been found to be un-constitutional limits on property and due process. The city does have a legitimate right to regulate nuisances, but other cases have shown that a certain number of dogs does not necessarily create a nuisance.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, the problem this theater is supposed to address. There are people that are being denied the peaceful enjoyment of their homes because some people refuse to properly care for their animals. In some cases, it is an inconsiderate breeder just trying to make some easy money. In other cases, it is one dog that is allowed to destroy property, strew trash and garbage, and generally create havoc because the owner is lazy and irresponsible. The people that are being irresponsible and creating nuisances today will not suddenly comply with a new law. We are not effectively enforcing what's on the books today so why will that change with an additional law we still don't have the manpower to enforce. In the end, it is all for show. It's just a case of Government Theater.

Speech, Freedom, and the Internet

If you haven't noticed, the Standard Times has put their web comments on hold. I understand their reasoning and concerns, and I hope they thoroughly analyze the situation and bring the comments section back in a much improved manner. Reading the column today, though, doesn't leave me with a feeling of confidence.

First off I have to admit I have been dealing with electronic forums since before the internet was public. I was on the dial up computer bulletin boards back when a 300 baud modem was state of the art. I was on Compuserve (anyone else remember them) when they were about a year old. I have watched (and sometimes participated) in flame wars. The comments on the Standard times comments have gotten extreme sometimes, but if you really want to see how it's done you need to look at usenet (easily accessible through Groups.Google.com) and pay close attention to alt.flame and the various subgroups. I won't get in to the gritty details, but one of the groups has a subtitle "looking for the ultimate flame in return", so you can use your imagination. The interesting thing is that most usenet groups and other online forums are basically civil and manage to spread information and opinion and keep the flames, spam and other annoyances and hazards to an acceptable level. And they have done it while allowing anonymous free speech.

The key to a successful forum is a process called moderation. In its simplest definition moderation is just enforcing the rules. Moderation of forums is an ongoing process. It requires diligence and the ability to enforce rules. If you want a nice, civil, forum you have to be willing to strictly enforce the rules. You have to be willing to kill comments that break the rules, and you have to ban posters who break the rules. I normally use a 2 strikes rule. First time you break the rule, you get a warning. Next time you're banned. There are a number of tools that can be used to keep the unwanted away. Blocking emails, IP addresses, and lots of other tools can be used to keep a forum under control. You'll never get it perfect but you can make it great.

If we look at the Standard Times, and its forums, they really didn't do moderation well for quite a while. Since the comments feature came on line, there have been comments that were left on that should have been pulled. There were personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off topic posts that had nothing to do with the story that were let slide up until about half way through the last chiefs campaign. They finally started pulling some comments, and they still banned very few posters. By the time the FLDS news hit the paper, the comments were completely out of control. The genie was out of the bottle. Then, in the middle of all this, there was a poorly explained problem with their website that for about a day that disclosed the given name as well as the screen name of all of those posting comments. I still don't understand how a so called system wide change to the 19 Scripps websites only seems to have caused this problem to the Standard Times, especially when all the different websites seem to have different settings on how comments are handled. The reality is that it is time for the paper to close comments until new procedures and strategies can be put into place. They need some serious introspection.

Reading todays column over, I have a number of concerns with their approach. There have been many complaints similar to that made by aj432 long before May 22nd. Why did it take so long to react? Why have responses up until now so been ineffective? Why is it that the rest of the Scripps family of websites aren't having this many problems?

I am also very concerned that "anonymous" posting might disappear. As was shown not too long ago, the Standard times doesn't have truly anonymous posting. They still maintain a given name and an email address along with a posting history. Their current policy of keeping the given name private does give a certain amount of discreet privacy, while allowing the Standard Times to contact the poster in case of problems. If they keep the current registration procedure, they really have no way to ensure that the name the poster gave while registering is his true name. I wonder how many posters named GW Bush, M Mouse, J Davis, T Vasquez, etc. are currently signed up. There are also some much more fundamental reasons that at least some degree of anonymity should be available to the posters.

We must remember that this country has a long and proud history of anonymous commentary, especially political. Before and during the Revolution, there were numerous pamphleteers publishing articles on the injustices they saw at the time. Anonymity was important. If their identity had become known, they would have been lucky to just be hanged. Many writers in the abolitionist movement wrote anonymously for the same reasons. They were putting their life on the line to state their beliefs. Speaking out can still be dangerous today. Jobs, property, and lives can still be at stake no matter if the comments are true or not.

Then we have the history of the adoption of the constitution, with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. One of the reasons they were written under pseudonyms was so the ideas would be able to stand on their own merits, not on the reputation of the writers. Granted, many insiders knew who Publius was, but most of the audience read the papers before they knew who the author was, which gave the articles a chance at a somewhat unbiased read. This is still a meaningful goal today. There are times when an activist, official, or just well known person needs to present an idea that stands on its own merits, not on the public perception of its presenter. Anonymous speech is necessary for truly free speech and a healthy community dialog.

That doesn't mean there is little the standard times can or should do. There are some basic procedures they can implement to get their comments section back on track and still have a dynamic, healthy website.

First, limit the number of posts a day a person can do. You are already doing that in the print edition by limiting letters to the editor to one every 30 days. Between using email addresses, IP addresses, and cookies for tracking, there are ways to keep people from going overboard on the number of posts. Limit each poster to 1 post per day per topic, and 5 posts per day total, and a lot of the problems will disappear. Far too many of the current posters are using the comments section as little more than a public chat room. Some don't have a life, so are posting or responding twenty or more times a day. Limit them to one good post a day, with a response being unavailable until the next day, and the quality of the postings will improve, and the amount of vitriol will diminish significantly.

Next, enlist the web community in policing of the comments. Set the software up so that you can have posters that can moderate certain sections, and then get volunteers you can trust to help moderate the comments. Set it up so that all of their decisions can be reviewed and undone by staff if need be, but there should be plenty of people willing to help.

If you can't get help in moderating a section, set a limit on the numbers of posts per day that will be allowed. 25 to 50 might be a good starting point but flexibility will be needed to get it right.

Additionally, have staff respond to posts that are getting close to the edge within the comments section from time to time. Public explanations of how a post failed to meet the rules helps motivate all posters to play by the rules better. Remind them that free speech is not unfettered, unrestricted speech. It's your soap box and you get to decide the rules.

As I stated earlier, I have been participating in online forums for over 30 years. I know that you can run a successful forum and still have anonymous, intense, active discussions. I realize that the comments are the Standard Times soap box, and that they are a business, and they have the right to take their soap box away if they so choose, but I also know that they do want a open, healthy dialog on the issues. It contributes greatly to a healthy environment and community. I hope they consider this post and my suggestions carefully. In the mean time, we at conchoinfo will be maintaining our policy of allowing anonymous posts. It takes work, but is worth the effort. We may change how we do moderation, but anonymous speech is too important a part of free speech to be eliminated without exhausting other options.