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.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
A Short Observation and Question
In my ongoing research I noticed that according to the city website, there have been no scheduled meetings of the Water Advisory Board this year. The last meeting scheduled was for August of last year and the last meeting we have minutes on is from January, 2011. This has been a very important board in the past and deeply involved in the search for new water sources and planning long range water solutions. What are they doing now? Shouldn't they be very involved with the City Councils review of drought restrictions, water use and re-use and long term policies and solutions? By ordinance, the membership has special skills and input from the Chamber of Commerce that would and should be used for any water decisions. Something for the current council to look at.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Apology ,etc
Just to lighten the moment, I have been home day hours for two days. I had been up all night, does this happen to everybody? Every twenty minutes the phone is going off!
Couple of comments there, I will at least be polite to people but the recorded voice is telling me "This is an important call for" That's about far as that conversation goes; if it were an "important call" there would be a live human on the other end. I don't talk to machines.
Mr. Turner came close to pulling my last comment, and I would not have blamed him if he had. He runs this shop, I just write once in a while. It has been our policy not to endorse candidates.
I thought the election exceptional enough to break the rules. I should not have. We discussed and agreed on those rules for good reasons.
And just for fun, vehicles used to run into one another. What is this new thing about running into buildings?
Couple of comments there, I will at least be polite to people but the recorded voice is telling me "This is an important call for" That's about far as that conversation goes; if it were an "important call" there would be a live human on the other end. I don't talk to machines.
Mr. Turner came close to pulling my last comment, and I would not have blamed him if he had. He runs this shop, I just write once in a while. It has been our policy not to endorse candidates.
I thought the election exceptional enough to break the rules. I should not have. We discussed and agreed on those rules for good reasons.
And just for fun, vehicles used to run into one another. What is this new thing about running into buildings?
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Elections
My last post, too long ago, I dodged endorsements. I had not met all candidates then.
The Standard-Times editorial committee reminds me why there is the old saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Starting with SMD 1, Mr Aguirre seems to have that. Banskter has effectively withdrawn, Richardson is not really running and Fleming is about the only candidate I have not met at one of the many forums.
SMD2; the S-T endorsement of Self puzzles me. Yes, I am a long time friend of Jim Turner, but over the last 11-12 years, he has attended more Council meetings than a good number of elected Councilmen. His current knowledge of issues is way past anyone else's. I'm not bashful about speaking to Council when my day job allows it, but Turner could move from the comment podium to the dias seamlessly. I do not recall tripping over Mr. Self at many Council meetings. Turner and I do Capital Improvements meetings, budget meetings, if ANYONE reads that raw data dump the Council Agenda Packet has turned into, it's us. I know damned well Council doesn't read 300- 500 pages of mostly crap. Possible run-off here.
SMD4; Here I part with the Tea Party. Sally has been a consistent spokesperson for an under-represented segment of San Angelo voters. I do NOT see a pinko-leftist conspiracy, I do see people who have done a lot of good, especially in home building and renovations. Sally deserves a seat at the Table.
SMD5: Here I must disclose, I have been both friend and treasurer to Pratt. Her first effort a year ago, she was a rookie, seemed to think a fresh face would carry the day. Whole new world. She has a good grasp of issues, was the first candidate to mention Street Maintenance Sales tax, which other candidates seem to be jumping on like a starving chicken on a fat Junebug. Pratt is better prepared this year and asks advice when she does not know. Pratt is retired early, and it wasn't a Lotto ticket. She offers a 24/7 Councilmember. I see this as a likely runoff in a 4 way race.
SMD6: Two years ago, I think I surprised Farmer by commending her decision to run again. We had had some disagreements, but she competently represented her District by and large. This time I have to go with Don Barnhart. The Tea Party Forum, Farmer dropped the name of "Val Verde" as a possible water source. It had been agreed in Council Executive Session that no one mention that until negotiations were concluded. That mere mention might run up the price. Farmer is odds on favorite, but I have to go with Don.
Mayor: again for disclosure Dwain Morrison is a personal friend and I attend Church with him. He is not the "oldest rat in the Council Barn" for no reason. Dwain has consistently tried to defend the "little" guy against the city staff. Yes, he has often been the only dissenter, but I view it that he is trying to manage City money as carefully as he does his own. If we get fat on the oil boom, maybe we talk about a river fountain then. Meantime, I want good streets, good pipes, maybe even moving down in our property tax ratings statewide! What a concept. I have already voted for Dwain because he shares those basics. Might get a runoff here.
The turnout for early election has been, oh disssapointing would be an understatement. Now I chewed out Shoemaker for her DOJ election suit on details, BUT one point I totally agree with: Voters should vote in the same polling place in May as they vote in November. You have them jumping from one foot to the other every 6 months, it's hard enough to get 20% when voters knew where to vote. Of course the result has been to supress the vote!
If we are very lucky and a lot of voters stir off their buns, we might, I stress MIGHT see 10,000+ votes, about 20%, and that's 20% of registered voters, not the 95,000 residents.
I confess, I am a lifelong political junkie, and I don't expect all voters to be that wrapped up in an election.
Saturday is the deal. Last chance. Even if your candidate loses, voting is your license to bitch about it. You don't bother to vote, don't even tell me about it next year.
The Standard-Times editorial committee reminds me why there is the old saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Starting with SMD 1, Mr Aguirre seems to have that. Banskter has effectively withdrawn, Richardson is not really running and Fleming is about the only candidate I have not met at one of the many forums.
SMD2; the S-T endorsement of Self puzzles me. Yes, I am a long time friend of Jim Turner, but over the last 11-12 years, he has attended more Council meetings than a good number of elected Councilmen. His current knowledge of issues is way past anyone else's. I'm not bashful about speaking to Council when my day job allows it, but Turner could move from the comment podium to the dias seamlessly. I do not recall tripping over Mr. Self at many Council meetings. Turner and I do Capital Improvements meetings, budget meetings, if ANYONE reads that raw data dump the Council Agenda Packet has turned into, it's us. I know damned well Council doesn't read 300- 500 pages of mostly crap. Possible run-off here.
SMD4; Here I part with the Tea Party. Sally has been a consistent spokesperson for an under-represented segment of San Angelo voters. I do NOT see a pinko-leftist conspiracy, I do see people who have done a lot of good, especially in home building and renovations. Sally deserves a seat at the Table.
SMD5: Here I must disclose, I have been both friend and treasurer to Pratt. Her first effort a year ago, she was a rookie, seemed to think a fresh face would carry the day. Whole new world. She has a good grasp of issues, was the first candidate to mention Street Maintenance Sales tax, which other candidates seem to be jumping on like a starving chicken on a fat Junebug. Pratt is better prepared this year and asks advice when she does not know. Pratt is retired early, and it wasn't a Lotto ticket. She offers a 24/7 Councilmember. I see this as a likely runoff in a 4 way race.
SMD6: Two years ago, I think I surprised Farmer by commending her decision to run again. We had had some disagreements, but she competently represented her District by and large. This time I have to go with Don Barnhart. The Tea Party Forum, Farmer dropped the name of "Val Verde" as a possible water source. It had been agreed in Council Executive Session that no one mention that until negotiations were concluded. That mere mention might run up the price. Farmer is odds on favorite, but I have to go with Don.
Mayor: again for disclosure Dwain Morrison is a personal friend and I attend Church with him. He is not the "oldest rat in the Council Barn" for no reason. Dwain has consistently tried to defend the "little" guy against the city staff. Yes, he has often been the only dissenter, but I view it that he is trying to manage City money as carefully as he does his own. If we get fat on the oil boom, maybe we talk about a river fountain then. Meantime, I want good streets, good pipes, maybe even moving down in our property tax ratings statewide! What a concept. I have already voted for Dwain because he shares those basics. Might get a runoff here.
The turnout for early election has been, oh disssapointing would be an understatement. Now I chewed out Shoemaker for her DOJ election suit on details, BUT one point I totally agree with: Voters should vote in the same polling place in May as they vote in November. You have them jumping from one foot to the other every 6 months, it's hard enough to get 20% when voters knew where to vote. Of course the result has been to supress the vote!
If we are very lucky and a lot of voters stir off their buns, we might, I stress MIGHT see 10,000+ votes, about 20%, and that's 20% of registered voters, not the 95,000 residents.
I confess, I am a lifelong political junkie, and I don't expect all voters to be that wrapped up in an election.
Saturday is the deal. Last chance. Even if your candidate loses, voting is your license to bitch about it. You don't bother to vote, don't even tell me about it next year.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Sunday Ramble
First I guess has to be the upcoming elections. Rather interesting don't you think? we have 19 candidates for six of the seven seats on Council. Sunday the Standard-Times will finally put about that we have a School Board race, district 4, the first time since 2007 we have even had a contestant or an election. I want to thank every candidate. I know better than most the commitment of not only money but personal time running a race requires. I am one of the locals who will have only one vote, for Mayor, I live in Johnny Silvas' SMD3 and he simply continues in office.
At this time I withhold endorsements; well you might reasonably guess I support my friend Jim Turner; but aside from the obvious, I'm just happy to see well contested races all around. I hope the usual candidate forums come up with some way to accomodate the sheer numbers, give them each a chance to speak and take questions and not last until 2:00AM!
In a rare nod to government efficiency: I just recieved my first ever passport. Never needed one before, but I applied Feb. 9 and was told it would be 6-8 weeks. It came in the mail yesterday, call it 3 weeks, a pat on the back to the State Department.
Speaking of the mail. USPS is running unsupportable deficits and has announced it will drop Saturday regular delivery. It will not be enough. I gotta ask; if it came to it could you live with 3 day a week delivery? Now think, how much of your daily mail ends up in File 13, and how much regular mail is next-day critical? The Post Office is a critical binder. Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, right under counterfeiting, "to establish Post Offices and postal roads". I believe the very first Act of an American Congress was to fund this. It's one thing to talk about private competition, and that works well in populated areas, but what Congress had in mind was the remote farmer 10 miles outside East Undershirt Kentucky; he should be served as well. One of the few "subsidies" I support. I don't want to pay that farmer to grow or not grow corn, but I'll help get the letter from USDA telling him the corn check ain't coming in his mailbox. Then he'll know it's time to start moonshining his corn. That assumes he isn't already.
The first internal military action,1794, was to supress the "Whisky Rebellion", actually in western Pennsylvania, at the time the edge of the wilderness. A cash-strapped Congress had had the temerity to impose a tax on booze! An economic reality of the time, it was more efficient for farmers on the edge of the new nation to turn corn into ethanol and ship a couple barrels east than to sack up the raw corn and pay freight for several wagonloads. They were understandably honked off. It really didn't amount to much, a few shots fired here and there, and a revenooers house burned. Still unclear whether anyone was actually killed. In the face of 13,000 Federal militia, it did not take long for the frontiersmen to realize it was cheaper to melt away, and duck the revenooer on the black market than to go to war. What it did do was establish Federal authority. Today's world, you decide whether that was a good thing or not.
As to the moonshiner/revenoorer dispute, it was the great-great-great granddaddy of a sport we call NASCAR.
Just in case you think San Angelo streets are bad (OK, they are) you should read the original specs for a postal road. No stumps higher than 14 inches left between the ruts among others. Could be a challenge for a Humvee!
Enough for now, but Coming Attractions...I hope by then to have met more candidates and in the history part I will explain something you didn't learn in high school civics: The War of 1812, the only time we have been invaded by a foreign power, was in part over marijuana. OK, hemp, but..
At this time I withhold endorsements; well you might reasonably guess I support my friend Jim Turner; but aside from the obvious, I'm just happy to see well contested races all around. I hope the usual candidate forums come up with some way to accomodate the sheer numbers, give them each a chance to speak and take questions and not last until 2:00AM!
In a rare nod to government efficiency: I just recieved my first ever passport. Never needed one before, but I applied Feb. 9 and was told it would be 6-8 weeks. It came in the mail yesterday, call it 3 weeks, a pat on the back to the State Department.
Speaking of the mail. USPS is running unsupportable deficits and has announced it will drop Saturday regular delivery. It will not be enough. I gotta ask; if it came to it could you live with 3 day a week delivery? Now think, how much of your daily mail ends up in File 13, and how much regular mail is next-day critical? The Post Office is a critical binder. Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, right under counterfeiting, "to establish Post Offices and postal roads". I believe the very first Act of an American Congress was to fund this. It's one thing to talk about private competition, and that works well in populated areas, but what Congress had in mind was the remote farmer 10 miles outside East Undershirt Kentucky; he should be served as well. One of the few "subsidies" I support. I don't want to pay that farmer to grow or not grow corn, but I'll help get the letter from USDA telling him the corn check ain't coming in his mailbox. Then he'll know it's time to start moonshining his corn. That assumes he isn't already.
The first internal military action,1794, was to supress the "Whisky Rebellion", actually in western Pennsylvania, at the time the edge of the wilderness. A cash-strapped Congress had had the temerity to impose a tax on booze! An economic reality of the time, it was more efficient for farmers on the edge of the new nation to turn corn into ethanol and ship a couple barrels east than to sack up the raw corn and pay freight for several wagonloads. They were understandably honked off. It really didn't amount to much, a few shots fired here and there, and a revenooers house burned. Still unclear whether anyone was actually killed. In the face of 13,000 Federal militia, it did not take long for the frontiersmen to realize it was cheaper to melt away, and duck the revenooer on the black market than to go to war. What it did do was establish Federal authority. Today's world, you decide whether that was a good thing or not.
As to the moonshiner/revenoorer dispute, it was the great-great-great granddaddy of a sport we call NASCAR.
Just in case you think San Angelo streets are bad (OK, they are) you should read the original specs for a postal road. No stumps higher than 14 inches left between the ruts among others. Could be a challenge for a Humvee!
Enough for now, but Coming Attractions...I hope by then to have met more candidates and in the history part I will explain something you didn't learn in high school civics: The War of 1812, the only time we have been invaded by a foreign power, was in part over marijuana. OK, hemp, but..
Sunday, January 13, 2013
A Very New Year
We are at the beginning of a brand new year and it promises to be very different. We will end up with a new Mayor and we might just have a real election in the process. Councilman Morrison is going to run for Mayor, which means someone else will have to fill the SMD 2 seat. I will be running for that seat. This blog will still be active, and I will be posting on issues from time to time but in keeping with our policy of focusing on issues not candidates I will not be using this blog for my campaign. I will set up a separate website/blog for that purpose. This blog will not endorse candidates, even me, for office. ConchoInfo will be a part of the election because the reality is my platform and issues and reasons for running have been stated on this site since 2004. What I campaign on will include what I've been saying here from the beginning. That won't change.
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Tangled Web(site)
Council meetings are usually entertaining and last Tuesday's was no exception. Sat through the morning show and left during the intermission (executive session and lunch break.) Didn't make it back before the afternoon show had started and I missed one of the most entertaining parts. An issue that I really have issues with: the City website.
The contract for the current city website was approved back in 2004. The current site is based on a proprietary system from GovOffice.com. It took a while for the site to get usable and I have several emails back and forth with city staff on problems and suggestions. Today, 8 years later there are still problems with features such as credit card information handling and keeping the agenda packets on the website. Public information staff has done a lot of work like connecting the city website with social media sites like facebook and twitter and work arounds like using slideshare to hold city council packets and information that won't fit on the website. City staff has done a lot of work to get information out and overcome the limits of the current website. I've also heard from staff members that use the system that it's a royal pain to deal with. I'd heard and seen enough problems with the site that I have been trying to get the city to change system and philosophies for several years. Earlier this year the city finally went out with an RFP for a new website.
In May, they came to council with a request to authorize a contract, not to exceed $40,000 to Vision Internet of California. From the memo in the agenda packet "Financial Impact: The costs for the website design, hosting, and training staff will be $40,000.00." A bit high but not totally unexpected. I remember this being presented to the city council as a complete, turnkey operation. Vision Internet would design and maintain the site, migrate everything from the old site to the new one, train staff to operate it, and host it on their own high availability servers. City council approved the following from the memo in the agenda packet.
The contract for the current city website was approved back in 2004. The current site is based on a proprietary system from GovOffice.com. It took a while for the site to get usable and I have several emails back and forth with city staff on problems and suggestions. Today, 8 years later there are still problems with features such as credit card information handling and keeping the agenda packets on the website. Public information staff has done a lot of work like connecting the city website with social media sites like facebook and twitter and work arounds like using slideshare to hold city council packets and information that won't fit on the website. City staff has done a lot of work to get information out and overcome the limits of the current website. I've also heard from staff members that use the system that it's a royal pain to deal with. I'd heard and seen enough problems with the site that I have been trying to get the city to change system and philosophies for several years. Earlier this year the city finally went out with an RFP for a new website.
In May, they came to council with a request to authorize a contract, not to exceed $40,000 to Vision Internet of California. From the memo in the agenda packet "Financial Impact: The costs for the website design, hosting, and training staff will be $40,000.00." A bit high but not totally unexpected. I remember this being presented to the city council as a complete, turnkey operation. Vision Internet would design and maintain the site, migrate everything from the old site to the new one, train staff to operate it, and host it on their own high availability servers. City council approved the following from the memo in the agenda packet.
- "a. Approving a recommendation from the Evaluation Team to award RFP: PI-01-
11/Website Design contract to Vision Internet, in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00
for design of a new, custom website for the City of San Angelo, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with the recommended vendor - b. Authorizing a budget amendment for the project funds in an amount not to exceed
$40,000.00 to cover costs of designing the new website, training staff, and hosting the
newly designed site."
This highlights two problems our new city manager must deal with. First, staff has developed a habit of bringing parts of projects to city council piece meal and without complete project information. This time they tried to say that what was approved in May was just a portion of the total project and it was only last Tuesday they were providing information on the rest of the project. Earlier in meeting a similar situation happened on an agreement with SAPAC. The rental/lease agreement for office space was brought forward as an isolated, stand alone item. There have been some concerns about this agreement expressed at prior council meetings, and without some big picture information on the entire auditorium/city hall renovation project and SAPAC's involvement and contribution commitments it's hard to make a good decision. As presented to the council Tuesday the agreement does look and smell like a giveaway of a major city asset to a politically connected group. Add to that the cost overruns and confusion over whether or not the HVAC plant and landscaping were included in the original package voted on as part of the city hall plaza project and it's easy see how council might be getting a bit irritable. I'm sure they feel like they would if they were buying a new car and as the sales manager is handing the keys he says "Congratulation on your new car. I think now we might want to talk about putting tires on it."
Now that I've wandered into mistakes made in handling the website contract so far, let me make a couple of suggestions. There needs to be a shift in philosophy by the city about the internet. Functionally, the city doesn't have "a" website. The main sanangelotexas.us address is effectively a portal into a series of other internet applications and sites. I could get long winded on this (actually did but erased it) but the city doesn't need a Swiss Army Knife type of website. What the city needs is a functional toolbox that allows people to exchange information and do business using those internet tools, and visible website is really just the box that keeps all these specialized tools where they can be used efficiently and effectively. This needs to be an open standards based toolbox so that as new tools are needed and developed we don't have to keep going back to a single source and hope they have an adequate tool.
Let's get ASU and their computer science department involved. They have expertise and equipment. They might be interested in doing the city's internet projects as a research and training vehicle.
Get the city involved with projects like Code For America and see what they can surprise us with.
Go with an open solution, preferably open source, that can help drive down the cost of government and give us greater flexibility to respond quickly in a fast changing world.
We need a new website for the City of San Angelo. We need an updated philosophy on how the city and its citizens use the internet. We need an honest, accurate, and complete plan for the projects that will get us where we need to be long term. What was put before council would barely serve us today and is not what we need for the future. We also need to get staff to keep up and do their homework before they come before city council and keep their story complete and straight.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Trash talk
Been a while since we posted here. Time to get back to work. Going to start off with excerpts from an email we received on the pilot program on automated trash collection.
First off, here are some key facts that are not widely known that our email writer thought were important.
1. The cans must be aligned precisely with the curb, or they will not be picked up.
2. The approach to the cans must not be blocked, or they will not be picked up.
3. you must use the cans provided by the trash company, no other cans will be picked up.
4. you will be charged a monthly "rental" of $12-15 for your can, in perpetuity, you will never pay it off, and the city keeps the profit from the fees, not the trash company. (this one really ***** me off)
Our writer goes on to say: " now in (my neighborhood) there is currently a pilot program with the automated system. The automated truck drives down the street, and picks up the cans. If there is a obstruction or the can is not aligned properly, a assistant hops out and fixes the issue, moves the can, etc.. Further, a regular trash truck FOLLOWS the automated truck, picking up odd-sized garbage, leaves, branches, etc, that does not get picked up by the automated truck. The kicker is that when the program is implemented, there will be NO ASSISTANT to the automated truck (IE there will be skipped cans) and obviously no truck following behind to pick up the leftover trash. this factor has not been announced to the general public, and the city plans to just spring it on everybody when the automated system is in place."
I think our writer is legitimately concerned. Two things stand out. First, even though this will likely save the collection company and the city a considerable amount of money, there could be a net INCREASE in your trash collection bill for the "rental" of the special trash cans. As a consumer my total bill is what matters. It does me no good that my "trash collection" bill is lower if I have to pay more for a "rental fee." This is no good for me unless my ENTIRE bill is less.
The next point that stands out is that the pilot test, as the writer reports, is not currently being done the same way it would be implemented. I can understand them gradually shifting from the current system to the fully automated system. By now, they should have made all the pilot projects as close as possible to the way they will be if and when implemented. We need several weeks, at least, of collections where there are not extra hands or trucks following on. We, the citizens of San Angelo and the people who pay for this service, need to see in these pilot projects exactly what it will be like in the future. No smoke and mirrors. No additional fine print and "adjustments" after the deal is done. I'm not saying that Trashaway and the City Council won't do that but I've watched local politics long enough to know that we, the people, need to make sure it's done.
First off, here are some key facts that are not widely known that our email writer thought were important.
1. The cans must be aligned precisely with the curb, or they will not be picked up.
2. The approach to the cans must not be blocked, or they will not be picked up.
3. you must use the cans provided by the trash company, no other cans will be picked up.
4. you will be charged a monthly "rental" of $12-15 for your can, in perpetuity, you will never pay it off, and the city keeps the profit from the fees, not the trash company. (this one really ***** me off)
Our writer goes on to say: " now in (my neighborhood) there is currently a pilot program with the automated system. The automated truck drives down the street, and picks up the cans. If there is a obstruction or the can is not aligned properly, a assistant hops out and fixes the issue, moves the can, etc.. Further, a regular trash truck FOLLOWS the automated truck, picking up odd-sized garbage, leaves, branches, etc, that does not get picked up by the automated truck. The kicker is that when the program is implemented, there will be NO ASSISTANT to the automated truck (IE there will be skipped cans) and obviously no truck following behind to pick up the leftover trash. this factor has not been announced to the general public, and the city plans to just spring it on everybody when the automated system is in place."
I think our writer is legitimately concerned. Two things stand out. First, even though this will likely save the collection company and the city a considerable amount of money, there could be a net INCREASE in your trash collection bill for the "rental" of the special trash cans. As a consumer my total bill is what matters. It does me no good that my "trash collection" bill is lower if I have to pay more for a "rental fee." This is no good for me unless my ENTIRE bill is less.
The next point that stands out is that the pilot test, as the writer reports, is not currently being done the same way it would be implemented. I can understand them gradually shifting from the current system to the fully automated system. By now, they should have made all the pilot projects as close as possible to the way they will be if and when implemented. We need several weeks, at least, of collections where there are not extra hands or trucks following on. We, the citizens of San Angelo and the people who pay for this service, need to see in these pilot projects exactly what it will be like in the future. No smoke and mirrors. No additional fine print and "adjustments" after the deal is done. I'm not saying that Trashaway and the City Council won't do that but I've watched local politics long enough to know that we, the people, need to make sure it's done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)