Radical

Been doing some house cleaning in emails, etc. and ran across something I wrote to a friend of mine that has some very different ideas on politics. Think it's time to share it with more people.

You asked me an interesting question the other day: Do I consider you to be radical? You seemed disappointed when I answered yes. I did tell you I didn't consider that a bad thing, but I want to give you a more complete answer.

I would be terribly disappointed in you if you weren't a radical. I
could bring up the fact that every one of our revered founding fathers
and the framers of our republic were radicals but you already know that.
I could point to countless mythical heroes and the founders of most
great religions and state that they were also radicals, at least for
their day and age. Lots of examples to show that it's okay to be
radical. Of course it's okay. That's not even the point. The question is
why be "radical?"

It's really simple. Progress doesn't happen in the middle. Growth and
change and innovation happen at the edges. Meaningful change is always
radical. You and I both want positive change for a better world. Radical
comes with the territory. We will seldom agree politically but don't
ever stop being radical. It's how we make a difference. It's how we
change the world.

Guess it's time to be radical.

Memorial Day Thoughts and PBR

It's memorial day and every news outlet, social media site, and most blogs rightly have something to say about the true meaning that so often gets forgotten on this weekend of Bar-B-Que and the Indie 500. It is a time to reflect on duty, honor, and country. And it's been said in many ways and many places far better than I can say it here. So I'm just going to share a memory. A thought, feeling or meme if you will from my own life.

The least expensive beer 6 packs that Wal Mart had this weekend were for PBR. It's been on sale there for a little while and I picked some up. It seemed fitting to me for this weekend.

Forty years ago I was almost finished with my tour in Okinawa. Most troops had already been withdrawn from Vietnam. Ground troops were "officially" gone. Pallets of Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer that were originally destined to support forces in Vietnam ended up in Okinawa instead. The EM club on Torrii Station where I worked and lived had a lot of specials on PBR. A cheap way to party with comrades in what I now know was a special place and time. My PBR this weekend helps me  remember the people I worked, lived, and partied with for just over 20 years. We share a common bond of an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. There's a lot more I could say here but really it's already been said, and in most cases much better than I possibly could.

So today I will drink my PBR and remember those I drank with back then. And the only thing I can add is my sincere thanks.

A pause for a look back

It's been almost a year since the last election. It seems fitting that we should review the speech that Mayor Morrison gave after he was sworn in. He made a very strong case for what needed to happen as the city moved forward during his administration. At around 3:12 in the video he emphasized the need for all decisions to be made openly and transparently before the public in the council meetings, not behind closed doors. At about 4:00 he charges staff to present complete and accurate information and be prepared to answer tough questions. At 6:34 he expresses the need for a united city to address many issues and at 9:26 he observes that there are problems that the city government doesn't have the answers to and asks for public support.

With another city election coming to an end and the half way mark of Mayor Morrison's first term fast approaching I think it is time for the citizens of San Angelo to review how well his goals and aspirations have been met. I, as my previous post probably make clear, have an opinion but this is not about my opinion. I think now is a good time for you, my friends and neighbors and your friends and neighbors to review in your own mind and your own way how well this city and its government are carrying out the vision expressed in our Mayor's speech.

The future

I've been thinking a lot about the future of ConchoInfo and my involvement in politics and issues. Here is where I am today.

I will keep the conchoinfo blog and conchoinfo.org website up for the foreseeable future. The expense is minor and it doesn't take much to keep them on the web. I will probably do more posting from time to time but really, I'm stretched pretty thin and need help. There are lots of issues out there, especially on things like school boards, county government etc. that need independent citizen coverage that I just can't do. There are a few other blogs, like State of the Division, and other online news sources like San Angelo Live that are finally covering local issues but these are spread out and do require a bit of effort to follow. I had hoped, and probably still hope, that ConchoInfo could be a source of information, analysis and institutional memory on issues in the Concho Valley. Hasn't quite worked out that way yet.

I've been very discouraged lately. About a year ago we had a major city election and we had a major changing of the guard. We have four new council members and a Mayor with a very different approach than our previous one. I thought things were about to change, and they did. Unfortunately, not all the changes have been for the better. There have been positive changes. We've had evening council meetings. The capital improvement plan is being taken seriously and starting to function like intended. We are seeing movement on the street maintenance sales tax proposal. After a slow, long start, the city's newly redesigned website is getting up to speed and they no longer have to rely on slideshare to host agenda packets and other key public information. There is a lot of hard work being done and a lot of good information is being made easily available. A lot of what is going on in the newly renovated city hall is very good. Unfortunately, there is also a lot that isn't.

It's great we have basically a new council. Good to have fresh ideas and new perspectives. Unfortunately we lost some institutional memory and picked a few previous members who seem to think that this is the same council they were on 15 or 20 years ago. For example, Mr. Fleming keeps saying that the RV/mobile home park moratorium wasn't intended to affect existing businesses and by the time he got elected and voted on it that may be the case. On the other hand it is clear that the previous City Council wanted to keep the much feared "man camps" out of the city even if that meant restricting and possibly hurting existing businesses. Many of my recent comments before council have been to try and fill in this memory hole caused by the changes in membership. There are however a lot of things that concern me about the current City Council and city staff.


My first disappointment is in how "furnituregate" was handled. (Don't you just hate it when someone adds "gate" on some supposed misconduct.) This happened at the very first meeting our new City Manager was part of and the new city manager and then Councilman Morrison, who later campaigned on this issue for Mayor promised a full and public hearing/audit/investigation of how $100,000 were improperly spent on furniture. Granted, many of the principal players in that fiasco are no longer employed by the city (retired, left for other jobs) but the only public disclosure has been by a fellow blogger over at State of the Division as a result of his public information requests. He covers most of what I would say. I was and am disappointed that if that is the complete investigation report, why were some key officials not interviewed, and where is the section about corrective actions to ensure that we don't repeat the same thing in the future? This is especially relevant because one of the people at the center of this issue is now running for city council. This lack of transparency makes it hard to trust the system.


During the last year, I've felt that the quality of many staff presentations has declined. I can sympathize with Mayor Morrison's desire to have the meetings over at a reasonable hour. Still, it seems to me that staff has been showing up missing some answers to key questions that have been asked by the public and even council members. The agenda packets are available on the city website before hand but again, on some key issues the information seems to be less complete than it used to be.


That brings us to the council meeting that happened just before my last blog post. I was terribly disappointed in the presentation made about the RFP selection process for trash collection and landfill operation. What I consider to be very basic questions such as how much the contract has been worth and how the proposals were scored what the scores were, etc. were not available. The only answer was that was the past and what we're looking at is a completely new and different contract and so anything in the past is not relevant. First of the dollar value of the contract is not going to change that much just because we have a new contract with a few new procedures. At the minimum we need to know how the cost of the new contract compares to current contract and rates and services. An estimated $400 million contract will not all of a sudden become only a $10 or $20 million contract. They did hold a news conference last week that addressed at least some of these questions but all of this information should have been available at the April 1st meeting. It would have went a long way towards establishing trust


I've also spent more time than I can afford going over the RFP and comparing it to the previous contract and the past is very relevant. Some sections of the previous contract have been copied as boilerplate into the RFP. In addition some parts such as the requirement for any new contractor to pick up the liability for faults or mistakes made the current contractor would be a huge disincentive for any new company to respond to the RFP. At least that's what addendum 1 seems to say and that was basically what was stated at the news conference the city staff held on the selection of Republic. Kind of hard to understand when the current contract says that


"The indemnity provided for in this Agreement shall survive the expiration of this Agreement and the discharge of all other obligations owed by the parties to each other hereunder and shall apply prospectively not only during the term of this Agreement but thereafter so long as any liability (including but not limited to liability for closure and post closure costs) could be asserted in regard to any acts or omissions of Contractor in performing under this Agreement."


I could be wrong but it seems the RFP wants any new contractor to let Republic off the hook for any past liability. That may not be the strictly legal interpretation of the full RFP but even in addendum 1 it says

"Section C7.2: Scope of Services: What expectation does the City have for the new operator to assume liabilities for prior violations, historical contamination, or other environmental tortuous liability claims?

Response: Proposals to assume all liabilities are requested. Proposals for such will be evaluated to determine feasibility and value and the results thereto will determine the extent of the City’s expectations for assumption of liabilities during contract negotiations."

This is also pretty much what the city manager said during the press conference. I may be reading this wrong but on its surface it looks like the city is asking any new contractor to assume the liability for any problems or issues that Republic would be on the hook for. Why would a sane bidder take on the liabilities left over from a previous contractor? I have a feeling there are other such disincentives in the RFP. Its a big document so I can't say if any such disincentives were intentional but they shouldn't be there. I also find it a bit hard to believe that staff and the selection committee were actually able to thoroughly read, let alone evaluate, the responses to this RFP in the short time they had it.


Add to this that back in August of last year, the council members that were on the selection committee either moved or seconded a motion to automatically award Republic the built in 5 year extension of the current contract and then hope we could get the changes we needed in the contract through negotiation after the fact. Fleming did have the good sense to withdraw his second when several members of the public said that no business person in his right mind would award a contract until and unless all negotiations were finished. Of course, that didn't stop Wardlaw from seconding the motion that Farmer had made and wouldn't change. Wardlaw basically said that we could trust Republic to do the right thing. Interestingly enough, as a result of the controversy dredged up by this RFP and selection process the city council will be meeting in executive session next council meeting to "to consult with attorney on pending or contemplated litigation relating to 1) alleged non-compliance with Agreement for Waste Collection and Disposal and Landfill Lease and Operation between City of San Angelo and Republic Waste Services of Texas effective August 1, 2004." Just one of those things that make you want to go Hmmmmm.


I am not a lawyer and I don't have access to all the information that city staff or council does but I have been following local politics closely for a long time. I am frustrated almost to the point of throwing in the towel because contrary to my hopes and expectations, the city government is less transparent than it used to be and much of the information that is available makes it difficult to trust what is going on. Far too much information that should be readily available at council meetings just doesn't seem to be there any more. And no, a news release that ends up behind a pay wall on the Standard Times website is not where citizens should have to go for city public information.


I'm frustrated almost to the point of giving up. I'm not making any progress by "lecturing" city council or staff. At least that's what I've been told. I've been told by city staff and council members that they appreciate what I do but recently that comes across as being patronizing. Not sure if or when I'll post again but for now I needed to vent this one last unreasonably long lecture.

The End

I'm thinking about shutting down ConchoInfo. The blog hasn't been active in a while. My last post was in November, and Jim Ryan, the other main poster hasn't posted since May. Nothing has been added to the website, and very little has been done on FaceBook or Twitter. I have still been showing up at council meetings, mostly out of habit, but not really making much of a difference.

There has been a lot going on. I'm buying a house and have several people living with me, the youngest not ready to start school yet. I have a job that's taking up a lot of time. A job I really like. A lot of irons in the fire.

I also see a lot that frustrates me in local politics. My blood pressure probably goes up a lot every time I attend a council meeting. If I start addressing the issues I see I will neglect my new, adhoc adopted family and my job. The amount of time it would take would be tremendous. I don't have the time and quite frankly my job and family will have to come first here.

Still, there is a lot left to do. I was in and out of last Tuesday's council meeting a lot because of calls I had to make to work and home. Still, I watched the video on Youtube and I was disappointed and frustrated by what I saw. (Just as a quick note, I do like that Anthony Wilson and his team keep getting more information out to the public. They still have a ways to go on the new website but it's apparent they are taking public information seriously.) I was hugely disappointed with the discussion on the landfill operation and trash collection RFP results. Staff and Council were not prepared for questions the public asked. Won't get into detail because it is hugely frustrating and disappointing and frankly if that's the way the city is going to conduct business, I don't want to wast my time dealing with them. I don't have the time, energy, or resources to waste anymore. And it would be a waste. Someone wants to discuss over a beer or good barbeque I might consider that otherwise I think I've wasted far too much time here lately and will get much more selfish in how I focus my attention. I still love San Angelo but why should I spin my wheels on the current council.

There is a lot to be done but someone else will have to do it. I am leaving the eighth seat.

Clarifying Muddy Issues

There seem to be some issues about that are pretty muddy. Some of them are recent, some are old and some of the muddiness is from confusion about the old and new issues. Probably won't clear away all the mud but can at least make a start and point to references that can help make the mud transparent.

Good place to start is with the SMD-2 City Council Seat, currently held by Marty Self. For those who haven't been paying attention I ran against Mr.Self and lost. He ran a pretty good campaign and I, for reasons not for here, didn't. I say this in the interest of full disclosure. I also need to say that when I was on the charter review committee in 2007, we looked at section 9 of the City Charter dealing with qualifications for city council and found several problems with it. The amendment that we ended up getting on the ballot was defeated so those problems are still there, which brings us to the issue at hand.

Marty Self's company, Automatic Fire Protection, is a subcontractor to another company on an airport contract. Not real surprise there. They are one of the few companies in Texas that does that type of work. This is on a contract that predates Marty's current term on council by a few years. Not likely any political favoritism was part of how Templeton selected AFP. Still, a strict interpretation of the city charter could lead one to the opinion that Mr. Self is not qualified. This brings us to the first problem with the charter section. It's very broad. There are several past council members and candidates that probably wouldn't pass such a zero tolerance interpretation. And that might be the proper interpretation, which brings us to the second problem. The one that the city attorney, among others including 3 on the charter review committee, found was that there was no real enforcement provision. No teeth. The city could, if it chose, cancel it's contract with Templeton (can't cancel a contract with AFP because the city doesn't have a contract with AFP, only with Templeton) but they didn't seem to want to start that contract over. They might even be able to force Templeton to fire AFP but that would only create delays and higher project costs. A lawsuit might be able to do it that would be expensive and divisive and divert attention from critical matters like water, etc.. An attorney generals opinion might also clarify the situation but no one within the city government can officially ask for an attorney generals opinion (here's the list of those who can). Best bet would be to convince the county or one of the district attorneys to ask for us. They would probably tell us that a local district judge could do it much quicker. In the best of circumstances OAG opinions take 3 to 6 months and will probably take a bit longer now since our current attorney general is busy getting his campaign for Governor up to speed. This approach seems unlikely to give us a timely resolution.

So what can the city do if there might be a conflict of interest or unethical conduct? Might want to look at the state law. On the AG's publications site there are pamphlets such as Traps for the Unwary, Conflict of Interest Laws Made Easy, Nepotism Laws Made Easy, and Ethics, Gifts and Honorarium Laws Made Easy. Important point is these are state level laws that all have enforcement provisions, etc. AKA TEETH. They have well defined limits and several levels of remedies. Even if our city charter had no section on ethics or qualifications Texas State law does and is enforceable.

Now I bet you're asking yourself a couple questions. You probably are wondering why the city council doesn't just put before the voters. You know, ask for a recall election. Really simple answer. The city can't. By the Texas Constitution and State election code, the city council council can't put anything before the voters unless it's specifically authorized by the US Constitution, Texas Constitution, Texas Statutes or our own City Charter. None of the allow the the city to do a recall election. Our city charter does allow for a citizen generated recall election with petitions and everything but the process is long and drawn out and the bar is set pretty high so it's unlikely that a successful recall campaign could happen before the seat is up for election again. What about a lawsuit you say? Yes, that could force the issue. Of course your tax dollars would end up paying for the lawsuit and much as I'd like another shot at that council seat real soon I'd rather San Angelo's tax dollars (my tax dollars) be spent on streets instead of lawyers. Unless Mr. Self is using his position on council to promote his business interests, I can't see wasting time on this matter. So far no such evidence has been presented.

One other point of confusion has been brought up trying to compare this situation to what we saw earlier in with Blake Wilde, son of the former head of the Water Utility. There really is no comparison. First off Mr. Wilde was not an elected official or even senior staff so the city charter rules don't apply. Second Mr. Wilde was "terminate for cause with no rehire" from working for the city. He was a direct hire of the city, not working on contract or subcontract when he was fired. We don't know if there was a conflict of interest or what caused his termination but it wasn't because he was a "subcontractor". I doubt it was because he had another, outside job. Many city employees have second (sometimes third) jobs. Normally not a problem. In fact it's often what allows some city employees to keep working for the city. We don't overpay most city workers. The questions about young Mr. Wilde were how did someone who got so totally terminated from directly working for the city end up indirectly working for the city as a subcontractor. There was, technically, no legal reason that he couldn't work for Corrallo but at the same time it kind of makes you wonder how it all happened, especially if the rumor mongers got some of  it right. Still, this is a very different situation then what we have with Mr. Self.

The other issue that seems to be a bit muddy is why SAISD didn't get their variance to water their baseball fields. From the beginning of the discussion it seemed like SAISD had chosen the losing negotiating strategy of  "Give me what I want or I'll do something you won't like." They did it with a tone deafness that came across as bullying little short of blackmail. Mr. Fleming gave the SAISD team many clues and chances to re-frame their request into something more cooperating and more sensitive to local water needs. I, in my public comments, stated I was sympathetic to the need to water the baseball fields but found their approach counterproductive and it came across to me as pretty much a poor attempt at blackmail. If they had changed there approach and reframed their request just slightly, they would have probably secured the one vote they needed to get their variance. As I've stated on another site I really think Mr. Elson from ISD needs to spend more time reading books like "How to Win Friends and Influence People" or maybe "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" and less time learning how to negotiate on school playgrounds. After all, nobody likes a bully. And the real point is we all have to make sacrifices in a drought starting with all government organizations including the city, school district, state and federal agencies, universities, etc.. Former councils may have been generous with variances but this one seems to be very serious about conserving water and doesn't respond well to poorly framed threats.

Things are probably still a bit muddy but hopefully just a little bit clearer after I've stirred things up. Or not.

Confession

I have a confession to make. An issue was on the last council meeting's agenda that makes my confession important. My name is Jim and I am a blogger. I'm sure some of you suspected this. There are clues all over the place. Being hosted by Blogger.com and having blogspot in the name probably made some of you suspicious but it's time to come clean. Yes, it's true. I am a blogger.

So why is this important? Well, at the last council meeting during discussion on press releases and the media it was made clear that blogs and bloggers aren't real media. They don't really provide quality information or news. They are after all only "a Web site on which someone writes about personal opinions, activities, and experiences" according to merriam-webster. So blogs don't need to be taken seriously and the city shouldn't waste time with simple services like emailing press releases. The fact that they acknowledge the existence of  blogs at all should be enough. After all, it's not like they're serious news or information providers. Blogs can't be taken seriously. And this is a blog and I am a blogger.

Time to correct the record here. First off, the definition that Merriam webster has online is seriously out of date. Dictionary.com's definition is much closer to current usage with "a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites". Even there it doesn't take in the diversity of blogs. Yes, many are just personal diaries or journals with random thoughts and pictures once in a while that share personal experiences with the world. That function is largely moving to social media sites like FaceBook and Twitter with the personal blog on internet now seen as quaint. Some blogs have grown into full grown activist sites with political impact and 501-c3 status. MoveOn.org, no matter what you think of their politics, shows what can grow from just a simple blog. 

This blog as never been just about our personal experiences. There is a lot of our personal observations, opinions, and analysis here but that is very much a part of standard news and journalism. We have provided significant coverage to many elections in the past and were the first to provide internet video coverage of local political campaigns. Other news sites have since started doing that. We were the first to start covering the PILOT transfer from the water fund and no, it wasn't stopped in 2004 as some current council discussions have erroneously said. Pilot and what's on the water bill was a significant issue when Ms Farmer first ran for city council in 2005. At that time just over $700,000 was being transferred  under the name of PILOT. It took a further 3 years to phase out the PILOT transfer. We  have broke a few major news stories and been influential in several elections. We helped defeat a private prison project that could have cost the county millions of dollars. We've had lively discussions, presented many sides to many issues and been involved and had an impact on the local area mostly by being just a blog.

One of the things that upsets most is that this whole issue started because the city stopped sending out emails on press releases to an online information site that really doesn't claim to be or fit the definition of a blog. They may not interact with the cities public information office like the local news paper and tv stations do and the certainly have their own "agenda" and way of providing information and reporting and they are online but that doesn't make them a blog. Much of the same criticism could be leveled against almost any site on the internet that deals in issues and politics. That doesn't automatically make them a blog. The city certainly has the right to decide who it automatically sends press releases to but to say that some online site is "just a blog" and therefore unworthy offends me as a blogger.

Let me make something very clear here. I very much appreciate the work that Anthony Wilson and the rest of the public information staff do. They are doing a great job of getting a lot of information out to the public and making the operation of the city more transparent and most information more accessible. They've managed to work around several major limitations of the current city website design and provide information on various social media sites like FaceBook, Twitter, and youtube. They have won some well deserved awards. I have been and will continue to be critical of some of the way they interact with non-traditional and citizen journalist type of news and information providers (bloggers fit in there) and I still have some questions on how and when the new website will be online and ready. Still, they are doing a good job most of the time. It's hard not to get caught up in the normal city hall type of culture of us vs. them and insiders vs. outsiders and sometimes they slip. Still, there are good people there and I just wish they would be more careful with how they try to categorize sites on the internet. Using their logic their own website could be dismissed as just a blog. Not sure I like that at all. But then again, I'm just a blogger.

About Time

I owe my readers (those of you left) an apology for not writing for so long. I could say I've been busy with moving into a new home and working on light electric vehicles but that's only part of the problem. I've been overwhelmed with topics and issues to write about recently. I've been stumped trying to figure out where to start. So today I'm just going to start writing about what I've seen and heard recently and what I feel needs to be talked about. Don't expect a lot of depth today. This will just set the groundwork for a lot more to come.

For now let me just say I'm disappointed in what's going on about water. First off, we still don't have a system or a city hall culture that keeps council in the loop on major expenditures and policy directions. First, the $100,000 cap on the Tri-Cities partnership payments should have been caught several different ways and wasn't. Next, the cap was put on there to ensure that council was briefed before expenses got too far out of hand and they're just now getting briefed. Furthermore, it looks like the San Angelo is probably going to get dragged into what seems to me to be a misguided project of Abilene's, the Cedar Ridge reservoir. I'm all for partnerships to deal with water (and other problems) in the region but what I fear will happen is that San Angelo, Midland, and Abilene will end up being seen as ganging up on the rest of the water users in the area. I also think it's a bit naive to think that any new reservoir or surface water source will help the water situation in the area. New reservoirs will just increase the surface area for evaporation losses and will also interfere with the natural flow to downstream water users and will likely make some water lawyers very wealthy while the rest of us water users see costs go through the roof.

I'm also not happy about the ground water treatment facility. I've heard them address at length and in detail the buildings and facilities they will build and I'm sure that when they are installed and started up they will produce safe water in a safe manner and there will be no problems with toxic waste or radiation today. What about the future? What happens in 10 years when our contract with WRT ends? What happens when a future council decides to cut costs and lower taxes by "deferring" maintenance on the treatment facility? What about the fact that we won't know the level of radiation and many other contaminants in the water until months after we've taken the samples. The iron and concrete and pipes and filters will do their jobs. What about the rest of the system, especially the human part of the system? That part that depends on the culture of city hall and future city councils?

It's said that the best predictor of future actions is past performance. Based on what we've seen so far how confident do you feel? Do I need to say more?

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.

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.