As I write, it is beginning to rain after a beautiful February full moon Saturday. I know it is virtually illegal to cuss rain in West Texas, but working construction, I'm on the verge of it. I suspect the folk tearing down the Carnival tonight would share my opinion, just cold enough to be miserable work in the wet. BTW, did I read it wrong or did a Grand Champion goat get a better bid than "Rock Star" the Grand Champion Steer? I know which I'd rather have in my freezer.
I have not seen much of the Olympics, but I took time to watch the hockey finals. Worth it on several levels. The IOC couldn't have scripted a better match-up, underdog USA v Canada, ratings must have been through the roof. Great game, surpisingly few penalty minutes, overtime game, Canada won, and good sportsmanship post-game by both teams. Perhaps next Winter Olympics the IOC will choose a location where they don't have to truck in snow.
I won't trouble City Council this Tuesday, I will be busy at the primary elections, been in the election-judging business for a long time. I do read Council Agenda. Conspicuous in its absence is an agenda item Accepting the Smoke-Free San Angelo petition. I was at last meeting, Council and City staff were assuming this pro-forma bit of business would be done March 2. I have to assume the item was pulled at request of the initiating committee, I also have to wonder why.
Two Agenda items that are there: #19 would give Council members access to the City's insurance plan as a Charter Amendment, subject to voter approval. There is a rather tangled history here. I was on Charter Review Committee a bit over two years ago, Prop 5 would have modestly increased Council pay, but it failed, by a small margin. Only then did it occur to City Legal staff that an obscure provision of state statute made it illegal for us to give Council members the same health insurance all other employees get, something they had received since the memory of man runneth not. I hope we can correct that error, if it takes another Charter Election, so be it. The vote will be on a regular election date, not much extra expense to City.
Since there is a two year period between Charter elections, if we are to have one, let's cover any other Charter items while we are at it. One that comes to mind would be amending Sec 47 on Initiative and Referendum to comply with case law we recently had pointed out to us so as to avoid future confusion.
I also look forward to #18, Work Session Criteria for Council and Boards. San Angelo has over 20 Boards and commissions, a good thing. These bodies range from Animal Services to Zoning, and give the average citizen a means to be heard. Over time they have grown without much oversight. All of these are volunteer appointees, and they are to be commended for their service. Still, City ought to look in on what they are doing every couple of years, just to stay in touch.
Some Boards are doing a great job, some are not doing much at all. Most of them could improve their accessibility by brushing up the website provided by the City. A list of who is on a board would be a good start, a clear statement of long-term goals wouldn't hurt. Most of these boards could benefit by regularly looking back and re-focusing on the original mission of the Board and how well they are doing in that mission.
No one wants to make it hard on Board volunteers. A once every two year joint session with Council would help both bodies understand one another, and what is expected and what has been done. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but that is what agenda item 18 hopes to start doing.
Remember to vote Tuesday, if you're really interested, don't forget the precinct convention at 7:15 after the polls close. If you don't vote, a five dollar fine for whining about the results. Voting, win or lose is your license to bitch about it.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tell the Government
I was reading some of the anti-smoking stories from around the state and I kept coming across the same theme. It is captured in this quote I found in the Standard Times: "They can't say that the government is telling them what to do because they are telling them what to do, the voters themselves, its by the people. The people are the ones that are going to say whether it goes smoke free. Its the voters of San Angelo," by Carol Kahutek of Smoke Free San Angelo. This is a total misrepresentation of this petition and the governments roll here.
To begin with, this initiative is a request from a small committee for the local government to regulate smoking city wide. The signed petitions are the procedure needed to put the measure on the ballot of an election so the city government can get voter reaction. If a majority of those voters favor the petition, the government will turn the proposal into an ordinance and assume the authority and responsibility for this new law, just like they do with every other ordinance on the books. They will use the new law to tell people what to do.
At every step in this process, the government has been at the center. This is not the government not telling us what to do. This is one small group of people trying to convince a majority of voters to force the government to impose their will on another group of people. This is all about trying to force the government to tell an unpopular minority what to do.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Lotta "Smoke" over Smoking Proposal (Updated)
There has been, and continues to be, considerable confusion over the process and fate of the "No Smoking" petition. One thing is certain, it will not be on the May 8 ballot as supporters had hoped for. Another is nearly certain; the petition itself is not "dead", just delayed until the November election. Despite some confusion over controlling legal language, petitioners had sufficient case law to override black-letter Charter and State Statute language: the signatures were legally validated and sufficient in number.
The "Special agenda" raised some Council hackles. It was legal, but it was also "irregular". No one I spoke to recalls the last special agenda. More importantly, as City Manager Dominguez explained today, with the procedural steps involved, it was simply too late, even had Council taken delivery of petition today, to get it on the May ballot.
A nit-picky procedural point, but of importance; success of the petition does NOT mean voters will ever see the issue. Under Charter rules (so far unchallenged) there are two other possible outcomes. After acceptance of the petition, publication in the newspaper, and a regular agenda hearing for public comment, Council can look at the whole 12 page proposal, agree with it, approve it as submitted, then it is law.
Council can also offer amendments, after which the referring committee (NOT the 4421 signers, just the 5 committee members) can agree to the amended version, Council approves, then it is law. No frisky, unpredictable voters involved in either scenario. If any media outlet in town has mentioned this point, I missed it.
I would like to "clear the air", metaphorically on a point many people seem to be confused on. The use of the term "public place" is defined in petition, but few people appear to have read the 12 pages of proposal. Some have mentioned "not wanting to be subjected to smoke while waiting to renew my license", or buying groceries, or going to the Mall, at the movies, one even included going to church! I want to know about this church which allows smoking in the pews, I may start attending!
Point is, I don't know if they are going by old memories or just don't get out much, but all these places already prohibit smoking. No gov't office allows smoking. Most of these bans have been in place for 10-20 years. I won't claim numbers, but a "doorway" survey, looks like about half of restaurants are completely smoke-free, and that number is growing by the owners' free choice. While most bars still allow smoking, we have at least three that are smoke-free, and seem to be thriving. That success may encourage more bars to follow suit, depending on the owners' judgement of what the customers want.
I could see supporting some form of this law if there were an actual problem avoiding second-hand smoke. Truth is, a body can live a long and full life in San Angelo without ever entering an establishment which allows smoking.
The parts of this proposal I object are: it unneccessarily overrides the right of a PRIVATE business owner; it fails to make the public health case, as the smoke is easily avoided; and if one reads all of it, it imposes uncalled for burdens even on businesses which already prohibit smoking.
It doesn't take 12 pages to say "no smoking". The proposed ordinance requires new record keeping and continuing education by Board of Health, all places would have to post "no smoking" signs and remove all ashtrays. Better pull that "paraphenalia" off the shelves, Wal-Mart! The Colonels Pipe Shop can just close, he's not allowed to "share a common wall", nor is he allowed to move! Sports venues; can't smoke in the "seating area", but presumably the coach and players can indulge on the field. Forget that they petition a "San Angelo City Commission" which doesn't exist, hasn't since at least 1917. My guess, this will take a bit of amending.
This has not been defeated or undone. Petitioners' errors and the set-back to Nov. will allow for a clearer understanding of the details, amendment, perhaps reasonable exceptions, possibly defeat at the polls. To be sure, everyone has time to step back, take a deep breath, maybe even look at the particulars.
P.S. Link to proposed ordinance on Standard Times or on ConchoInfo. City charter and code of ordinances can be found here and chapter 47 on I&R here.
The "Special agenda" raised some Council hackles. It was legal, but it was also "irregular". No one I spoke to recalls the last special agenda. More importantly, as City Manager Dominguez explained today, with the procedural steps involved, it was simply too late, even had Council taken delivery of petition today, to get it on the May ballot.
A nit-picky procedural point, but of importance; success of the petition does NOT mean voters will ever see the issue. Under Charter rules (so far unchallenged) there are two other possible outcomes. After acceptance of the petition, publication in the newspaper, and a regular agenda hearing for public comment, Council can look at the whole 12 page proposal, agree with it, approve it as submitted, then it is law.
Council can also offer amendments, after which the referring committee (NOT the 4421 signers, just the 5 committee members) can agree to the amended version, Council approves, then it is law. No frisky, unpredictable voters involved in either scenario. If any media outlet in town has mentioned this point, I missed it.
I would like to "clear the air", metaphorically on a point many people seem to be confused on. The use of the term "public place" is defined in petition, but few people appear to have read the 12 pages of proposal. Some have mentioned "not wanting to be subjected to smoke while waiting to renew my license", or buying groceries, or going to the Mall, at the movies, one even included going to church! I want to know about this church which allows smoking in the pews, I may start attending!
Point is, I don't know if they are going by old memories or just don't get out much, but all these places already prohibit smoking. No gov't office allows smoking. Most of these bans have been in place for 10-20 years. I won't claim numbers, but a "doorway" survey, looks like about half of restaurants are completely smoke-free, and that number is growing by the owners' free choice. While most bars still allow smoking, we have at least three that are smoke-free, and seem to be thriving. That success may encourage more bars to follow suit, depending on the owners' judgement of what the customers want.
I could see supporting some form of this law if there were an actual problem avoiding second-hand smoke. Truth is, a body can live a long and full life in San Angelo without ever entering an establishment which allows smoking.
The parts of this proposal I object are: it unneccessarily overrides the right of a PRIVATE business owner; it fails to make the public health case, as the smoke is easily avoided; and if one reads all of it, it imposes uncalled for burdens even on businesses which already prohibit smoking.
It doesn't take 12 pages to say "no smoking". The proposed ordinance requires new record keeping and continuing education by Board of Health, all places would have to post "no smoking" signs and remove all ashtrays. Better pull that "paraphenalia" off the shelves, Wal-Mart! The Colonels Pipe Shop can just close, he's not allowed to "share a common wall", nor is he allowed to move! Sports venues; can't smoke in the "seating area", but presumably the coach and players can indulge on the field. Forget that they petition a "San Angelo City Commission" which doesn't exist, hasn't since at least 1917. My guess, this will take a bit of amending.
This has not been defeated or undone. Petitioners' errors and the set-back to Nov. will allow for a clearer understanding of the details, amendment, perhaps reasonable exceptions, possibly defeat at the polls. To be sure, everyone has time to step back, take a deep breath, maybe even look at the particulars.
P.S. Link to proposed ordinance on Standard Times or on ConchoInfo. City charter and code of ordinances can be found here and chapter 47 on I&R here.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Minimal
I read a column by Bonnie Erbe today on the school lunch program that really got me thinking. I wasn't surprised by her support of steps by the federal government to dictate the contents of school meals. It was pretty much what I expected. What got me thinking was her claim to be a government minimalist.
She said "I am a government minimalist in the sense that I believe government should do only that which individuals cannot do for themselves." I had to stop and think about this. How many things do you and I do on a daily basis that we can't do as an individual. Most of these things don't require government action or interference (although it is all too frequently there), and yet somehow they keep getting done. Maybe that's because over the generations humankind has been around, we have developed organizations and mechanisms such as families, teams, clubs, churches, companies, charities, associations, corporations, etc.. to do what an individual can't do alone. We have used the strategy of coming together in groups to solve most of the problems of life and civilization, little to no government required.
Far too many people today think that once a problem is too big for them to solve as an individual it's automatically a government problem. They forget what families, churches, clubs, charities and companies do on a daily basis. Governments show over and over again they are good at very few things. Governments exist for a very limited number of functions, and once they go beyond those functions they tend to make a royal mess of things and they always reduce freedoms. Let's stop using the Erbe definition of minimal government.
She said "I am a government minimalist in the sense that I believe government should do only that which individuals cannot do for themselves." I had to stop and think about this. How many things do you and I do on a daily basis that we can't do as an individual. Most of these things don't require government action or interference (although it is all too frequently there), and yet somehow they keep getting done. Maybe that's because over the generations humankind has been around, we have developed organizations and mechanisms such as families, teams, clubs, churches, companies, charities, associations, corporations, etc.. to do what an individual can't do alone. We have used the strategy of coming together in groups to solve most of the problems of life and civilization, little to no government required.
Far too many people today think that once a problem is too big for them to solve as an individual it's automatically a government problem. They forget what families, churches, clubs, charities and companies do on a daily basis. Governments show over and over again they are good at very few things. Governments exist for a very limited number of functions, and once they go beyond those functions they tend to make a royal mess of things and they always reduce freedoms. Let's stop using the Erbe definition of minimal government.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Review of Advisory Committees
San Angelo has a remarkably open government. We have 20 advisory committees, from Airport Advisory Board to Zoning Board of Adjustment. In between the alphabetic listing, we have everything from Ft Concho to a Fairmount Cemetary Board to a Senior Citizens Advisory Board.
For comparison, I had a correspondent in Coleman a few years back who related to me that Coleman City meetings were held at a more convenient time of 7:00 PM. Meetings were open to the public, but no comments from mere citizens were allowed. Made for shorter meetings I'm sure, but brevity and transparency are not co-equal goals.
We will see a discussion on instituting a Council review of existing advisory committees, one such board called out at each Council meeting. The result of such a review might range from sunsetting some which have outlived their usefulness, to a pat on the back for useful advice, to "so what have you done for us lately".
I have served on one such, a City Charter Review Committee. Let me make clear, I commend anyone willing to serve as an unpaid volunteer on any committee the city creates. I promise you, every hour of attendance requires 3-4 hours minimum of homework and constituent phone calls. Maybe you think your single vote doesn't count much, but all these advisory committees are open to public comment, and any voter can expand on his/her voting issue by being heard.
The idea of having Council review a committees' work is not to second guess the work product so much as to assure that there has BEEN a product. Council is always free to accept or reject any committees' recommendations. The proposed review might abolish some committees which seldom meet for lack of business. It might insist that others become more efficient at doing the work assigned them. A review might even point up the need for a new committee not hitherto found to be useful.
I would not want to see the review process limit citizen input; quite the opposite, I want the doors of local gov't open. I would hope a review by Council would hand out deserved pats on the back, provide committees with advice on how better to serve their stated functions, and further the notion of opening gov't to input by encouraging input from individual voters.
One thing I intend to press for: City has a really good website, gobs of little known info available online at 3:00 AM online. Each advisory board has, or should have, its own website page. The individual members should be listed with contact info. I welcomed my neighbors' input. Some I argued against one on one; some I incorporated into my arguements before the committee I served on. I thought it part of the job I had volunteered for to listen to all.
Groundhogs Day people, February 2, that's the next Council meeting. See you there if you care.
Oh and almost forgot to mention; GO NAWLINS! Confess, I backed the "old man" and Minn, but still won that by a half point. Superbowl, I have to go with New Orleans.
For comparison, I had a correspondent in Coleman a few years back who related to me that Coleman City meetings were held at a more convenient time of 7:00 PM. Meetings were open to the public, but no comments from mere citizens were allowed. Made for shorter meetings I'm sure, but brevity and transparency are not co-equal goals.
We will see a discussion on instituting a Council review of existing advisory committees, one such board called out at each Council meeting. The result of such a review might range from sunsetting some which have outlived their usefulness, to a pat on the back for useful advice, to "so what have you done for us lately".
I have served on one such, a City Charter Review Committee. Let me make clear, I commend anyone willing to serve as an unpaid volunteer on any committee the city creates. I promise you, every hour of attendance requires 3-4 hours minimum of homework and constituent phone calls. Maybe you think your single vote doesn't count much, but all these advisory committees are open to public comment, and any voter can expand on his/her voting issue by being heard.
The idea of having Council review a committees' work is not to second guess the work product so much as to assure that there has BEEN a product. Council is always free to accept or reject any committees' recommendations. The proposed review might abolish some committees which seldom meet for lack of business. It might insist that others become more efficient at doing the work assigned them. A review might even point up the need for a new committee not hitherto found to be useful.
I would not want to see the review process limit citizen input; quite the opposite, I want the doors of local gov't open. I would hope a review by Council would hand out deserved pats on the back, provide committees with advice on how better to serve their stated functions, and further the notion of opening gov't to input by encouraging input from individual voters.
One thing I intend to press for: City has a really good website, gobs of little known info available online at 3:00 AM online. Each advisory board has, or should have, its own website page. The individual members should be listed with contact info. I welcomed my neighbors' input. Some I argued against one on one; some I incorporated into my arguements before the committee I served on. I thought it part of the job I had volunteered for to listen to all.
Groundhogs Day people, February 2, that's the next Council meeting. See you there if you care.
Oh and almost forgot to mention; GO NAWLINS! Confess, I backed the "old man" and Minn, but still won that by a half point. Superbowl, I have to go with New Orleans.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Census Time
The ten year census is upon us. With it come employment opportunities, always a plus. Also comes the decennial deluge of questions and misinformation.
The Census has Constitutional roots in Article 1, Sec. 2. Crafted in a time with slavery, and exempting "untaxed Indians", the Constitutional language is hardly an exact guide. Its original purpose was to apportion the members of the House of Representatives in Congress according to reasonably accurate population the members represented.
The debate over what this Constitutional "enumeration" ought to contain goes back to the beginning. The Census was Statute 2 of the very first Congress in 1790. This gives us a clue it is of great importance. Even then, the questions to be asked were debated. Livermore of New Hampshire complained that questions as to "profession" would be hard on his constituents, as many held more than one, changing seasonally. Sedgewick, of the more industrial Connecticut, wanted the questions to "extend further" and give a better picture of the economy.
I actually worked evenings on the 1980 Census in North Carolina, so though a bit dated, I have seen both sides. I hear the complaints of the right wing as to intrusive none-of-your-business questions. I understand the fear of residents whose legal status may be questionable. I strongly advise both: Fill out the form!
As to the first question, if you get the "long form" it will have questions about bathrooms, vehicles, all sorts of nonsense that you might consider none of the government's concern. The cover letter will tell you it must be completed under penalties of 13 USC 221. PLEASE go ahead and respond to the first ten or so questions (I have not seen the current questionaire) and if you choose, leave the nosy questions blank. It may well be a violation, but I have been unable to find any case where failure to complete everything resulted in criminal or even civil action. The Census Bureau itself describes the penalty section as "psychological encouragement".
On the second, one part of the Federal Government I trust is Census in this respect. They want numbers. The information, the names and addresses will be bundled into district info, but NOTHING you send Census will be shared with Homeland Security, ICE, INS, La Migra, whatever you want to call it.
It is very important that everyone gets counted. This Census result will determine each state's number of Congressmen, for instance, Texas will gain 2-3; California will lose at least that many. Also, the Census numbers will be used in determining grants and federal aid for all sorts of programs, everything from housing to education to health care, to public safety, to libraries, ad infinitum.
We know from reasonable "eyeball surveys" that San Angelo was under-counted in 2000. We lost tens of millions of dollars over a decade due to that undercount. We will not get another chance for ten years, we must make the best of this one. We want to count EVERYONE! You live under a bridge; I want you counted. You are "undocumented?"; on this I don't care, if you live here, I want you counted. Folks, on this states and even intrastate districts go to court and fight over which body gets to count prisoners, one group claiming they count where sentenced, another that they count where they serve the sentence!
Census has been a nuisance of some degree for at least as long as one forced the baby Jesus to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. Ours is considerably less troublesome than that of Mary and Joseph. Please follow their biblical example and respond to this Census. It is good for our city, and long run, good for you.
The Census has Constitutional roots in Article 1, Sec. 2. Crafted in a time with slavery, and exempting "untaxed Indians", the Constitutional language is hardly an exact guide. Its original purpose was to apportion the members of the House of Representatives in Congress according to reasonably accurate population the members represented.
The debate over what this Constitutional "enumeration" ought to contain goes back to the beginning. The Census was Statute 2 of the very first Congress in 1790. This gives us a clue it is of great importance. Even then, the questions to be asked were debated. Livermore of New Hampshire complained that questions as to "profession" would be hard on his constituents, as many held more than one, changing seasonally. Sedgewick, of the more industrial Connecticut, wanted the questions to "extend further" and give a better picture of the economy.
I actually worked evenings on the 1980 Census in North Carolina, so though a bit dated, I have seen both sides. I hear the complaints of the right wing as to intrusive none-of-your-business questions. I understand the fear of residents whose legal status may be questionable. I strongly advise both: Fill out the form!
As to the first question, if you get the "long form" it will have questions about bathrooms, vehicles, all sorts of nonsense that you might consider none of the government's concern. The cover letter will tell you it must be completed under penalties of 13 USC 221. PLEASE go ahead and respond to the first ten or so questions (I have not seen the current questionaire) and if you choose, leave the nosy questions blank. It may well be a violation, but I have been unable to find any case where failure to complete everything resulted in criminal or even civil action. The Census Bureau itself describes the penalty section as "psychological encouragement".
On the second, one part of the Federal Government I trust is Census in this respect. They want numbers. The information, the names and addresses will be bundled into district info, but NOTHING you send Census will be shared with Homeland Security, ICE, INS, La Migra, whatever you want to call it.
It is very important that everyone gets counted. This Census result will determine each state's number of Congressmen, for instance, Texas will gain 2-3; California will lose at least that many. Also, the Census numbers will be used in determining grants and federal aid for all sorts of programs, everything from housing to education to health care, to public safety, to libraries, ad infinitum.
We know from reasonable "eyeball surveys" that San Angelo was under-counted in 2000. We lost tens of millions of dollars over a decade due to that undercount. We will not get another chance for ten years, we must make the best of this one. We want to count EVERYONE! You live under a bridge; I want you counted. You are "undocumented?"; on this I don't care, if you live here, I want you counted. Folks, on this states and even intrastate districts go to court and fight over which body gets to count prisoners, one group claiming they count where sentenced, another that they count where they serve the sentence!
Census has been a nuisance of some degree for at least as long as one forced the baby Jesus to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. Ours is considerably less troublesome than that of Mary and Joseph. Please follow their biblical example and respond to this Census. It is good for our city, and long run, good for you.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Crystal Ball Time
ConchoInfo has been up and operational for just over 5 years. At this time of year we seem to have too much time on our hands and attend too many festivities so we have a habit of firing up the crystal balls to see what we can see from the past and maybe the future.
Five years ago, water rates and sources were definitely major concerns. Water rates were going up. No way to stop it. Luckily, the City Council managed to eliminate a roughly $1,000,000 drain from the water fund to the general fund called Pilot. They also implemented a tiered meter fee which more equitably spread the cost across all the users. The major search for long term water was still in the future, but one of the few justifiable parts of the half cent sales tax was money for a long term water source. Water has been pretty constantly in the news since then and will continue to be as far as we can see in the future. We have started a capital improvement plan that prevented a recent 16” main break from being a major catastrophe like it was in 2006. This time instead of killing 2/3rds of the city's water and the majority of retail businesses, we mostly heard complaints that a mostly precautionary boil notice wasn't seen by absolutely everyone in the area. The outage was confined to a smaller area for about half a day. Infrastructure is still a major problem, and the city still needs to improve, but we are much better today than we were 3 years ago. Our city will have to keep spending major money to fix our infrastructure. Besides water, most of the utility services in the city, including those of private utilities, need work. Lots of work.
Our searches for water sources have made major progress in the last few years. Probably a million dollars of sales tax money has been spent testing various well fields and possible drilling sites. The ones west of here are not usable so far. Everyone expected the water to be brackish (i.e. salty) but no one expected the very fine sand/silt that makes pumping this water in any volume infeasible today. We are moving forward with the Hickory field but I don't see this a complete long term solution. Hickory already has a number of other users and is likely being lusted after by San Antonio. In addition, the recharge rate of Hickory is not all that fast. Hickory is a good resource but not a complete solution. We need to keep looking. We also need to work on area partnerships. Water is not just a San Angelo problem. All of our neighbors are in the same boat, and if they are hurt by water shortages so are we.
Elections have changed a lot in the last few years. In 2006 we got a new elections administrator and new equipment. Problems started early and continued for the rest of the year. After some bad international publicity over a poorly run election and recount, the election administrator resigned under fire. The new one, Vona McKerley started with basically a clean slate and a new year. She provided leadership and sought outside help from a number of citizens of all parties and political persuasions. The improvements have been steady, impressive, and largely taken for granted. She has recruited a wonderful staff, improved procedures for all election workers, and recruited a citizens committee that grew up to be the Tom Green County Elections Support Association, a one of a kind advisory committee with members of all political persuasions that work together for great elections. The process is now working so well and people are working so hard that from the outsides the elections look easy. I have heard several reporters praising the fact they could get the results in time for the 10:00pm New broadcasts. The last complaint I heard was that the early results cut the election night party too short. Watch closely or you won't notice the incremental upgrades that are being made to the system. In the future expect to be able to cast your vote at any polling place.
The lack of problems in the election system has been made up for by recent elections themselves. Voters turned down the first school bond in the history of the city. Wasn't even close. The boards campaign that focused on maintenance failures was the best campaign material the opposition could have hoped for. The major shift from the beloved downtown campus to a southern site that no one seemed to like or understand. It took about a year to get a plan that the voters could support, and even there only one of the two issues passed. I will have much more to say on this in the future but quite frankly I have been frustrated by the current board. I'm waiting for some new blood to show up, but it will likely be a long wait.
We had a successful charter review and most of the needed changes were passed. The appointed chief proposal was defeated again and I am happy with that result. The previous attempt at an appointed chief hadn't even been pushed by the people that put it on the ballot. It was, in reality, a maneuver to delay charter review. After we presented the information to the voters on the various needed changes they made their decisions with much better information than was available before, including a televised debate. There was an unintentional side effect of one of the defeated measures that council members lost insurance coverage but for the most part we passed needed updates to the charter. Best part: We made capital improvements a permanent part of the budget process. They can still ignore capital maintenance, but it will be much harder now.
The last chiefs election was very interesting. If you like politics as theater, then this was your election. There were a large number of candidates, strong language, flame wars on the Standard Times readers comments, and various hints of scandal including one minor ethics violation fine. In the end, Chief Vasquez won the race without needing a recount. A case for study in grass roots politcs.
The last Mayors race continued the trend. The election itself was almost a non-event with neither of his opponents a serious threat. The count was done early, the process was going along smoothly until JW resigned from Mexico instead of showing up to take the oath of office. Still don't understand what he was thinking, but the special election it caused gave us the longest, most expensive Mayors race this city has ever had. Thankfully we will be able to start the new year with a full council. We will wait and see how this Christmas present to the city plays out in the long run.
Public safety has been in constant motion over the past few years. When ConchoInfo started, a faith based prison was being proposed. We still think that Faith Based programs and Prison Industry have a significant place programs that reduce recidivism and prison crowding. We still don't understand why we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet. On the other hand we were smart not to buy into the snake oil that was being peddled by CCI. Our community is better off for dodging that bullet.
There is one trend in public safety we need to take a close look at. Tom Green County had 9 murders in 2009, up from 5 in 2008 and 1 in 2007. I have to agree with Chief Vasquez: this is not a failure of law enforcement and the police department. There little the police could do except cleanup the mess after the fact and help bring the guilty to justice. At the same time, these crimes are the canaries in the coal mine. There is something problematic in the social atmosphere. Most were senseless acts. There were warnings of a sort for some of the cases. A history of erratic or nasty behavior that wasn't seen as more than annoying and slightly crazy. Nothing that police or courts could act on. It's not illegal to be crazy, thank God. Still, we need to really stop and sample the community atmosphere. There is something in the air. We need to find out what it is.
There is much more on the Crystal Ball, but the low battery signal is flashing so I need to stop here. These are my observations for this time of year. Jim Ryans are already up as well. We both agree that it will be an interesting future and San Angelo is a great place to spend it.
Sundry Solstice Subjects
I hope you had a good Christmas. Myself, I got my best present early, Dec. 17th. Animal Services Board finally voted unanimously to forward to Council an amendment to ordinance limiting a city property to one mature rooster. Should Council agree, and I believe they will, my rude neighbor's fighting cock factory will have to be moved out of town. Or eaten, I really don't care, so long as I don't hear it at 3:00 AM.
San Angelo has 20-some advisory Boards and Commissions. These bodies of unpaid citizen volunteers look at specific areas of interest, ranging from animals to parks to the airport, to historic downtown, etc. Functioning properly, they serve to advise Council of problems, either existing or potential, and suggest appropriate action to avert or correct such problems.
I really don't want to be hard on Animal Services Board. I caught them at a time of flux, we had a new Shelter Director and a new Chair of the Board. That said, a fairly simple bit of work took 4 months. I would hate to discourage volunteers to advisory committees, but if one does volunteer, one should take the time to learn the job. Oh yeah, and showing up for meetings, that helps too.
Councilman Morrison has given me a new nickname of Rooster Ryan, and congratulated me on my patience. Mr. Turner and I will be suggesting a Board review process. If approved, this would have Council taking by turns each Board, one at a time, to be "audited" by Council, so that each comes before Council about every 18 months. What I discovered was that I had individually had more communication with Council and city staff than the Animal Services Board had bothered with.
In a similar vein, I have been at this long enough to pre-date internet access. San Angelo is really very good on this, and improving all the time. Information I'd have had to take the day off to dig up in the mid-90s, I can now get at 3:00 AM in bathrobe and slippers. I would suggest that each advisory Board include contact info for its members on its city website.
This holiday season is a good time to pass out some attaboys. We have as good a staff as I have ever dealt with. I don't agree with them all the time, heck I don't agree with ME all the time, but we do have truly competent people on staff. Mindy Ward as City Atty will be missed, but a well-deserved retirement and that office is in competent hands. Ditto Kathy Keane for Economic Development. Best wishes to both ladies.
The new Library is coming along nicely. Congratulations to everyone involved in making this a reality at minimal taxpayer expense. Ralph Hoelscher gets a special "feather-in-the-cap" for bringing city/county together to make this happen.
I have worked as election judge/alt. judge since 1992. Lots of changes in law and administrators over that time. Vona McKerly gets a special attaboy for dealing with extraordinary difficulties efficiently. From the poll-workers' point of view, the job has been simplified in the face of ever more complex legal requirements without busting the budget. Elections has gone from making national headlines over a seemingly interminable recount, to smooth results rendered promptly.
I see a bright future in troubled times for San Angelo. We are setting the mark for low unemployment, we have new construction and new jobs. I turned down a better paying job in Lubbock, I can't see leaving this town. Born here, and grown to love it.
I hope you had a great Christmas, may the New Year treat you well. Oh and "GO UT Longhorns" (but I wouldn't bet the farm on it).
San Angelo has 20-some advisory Boards and Commissions. These bodies of unpaid citizen volunteers look at specific areas of interest, ranging from animals to parks to the airport, to historic downtown, etc. Functioning properly, they serve to advise Council of problems, either existing or potential, and suggest appropriate action to avert or correct such problems.
I really don't want to be hard on Animal Services Board. I caught them at a time of flux, we had a new Shelter Director and a new Chair of the Board. That said, a fairly simple bit of work took 4 months. I would hate to discourage volunteers to advisory committees, but if one does volunteer, one should take the time to learn the job. Oh yeah, and showing up for meetings, that helps too.
Councilman Morrison has given me a new nickname of Rooster Ryan, and congratulated me on my patience. Mr. Turner and I will be suggesting a Board review process. If approved, this would have Council taking by turns each Board, one at a time, to be "audited" by Council, so that each comes before Council about every 18 months. What I discovered was that I had individually had more communication with Council and city staff than the Animal Services Board had bothered with.
In a similar vein, I have been at this long enough to pre-date internet access. San Angelo is really very good on this, and improving all the time. Information I'd have had to take the day off to dig up in the mid-90s, I can now get at 3:00 AM in bathrobe and slippers. I would suggest that each advisory Board include contact info for its members on its city website.
This holiday season is a good time to pass out some attaboys. We have as good a staff as I have ever dealt with. I don't agree with them all the time, heck I don't agree with ME all the time, but we do have truly competent people on staff. Mindy Ward as City Atty will be missed, but a well-deserved retirement and that office is in competent hands. Ditto Kathy Keane for Economic Development. Best wishes to both ladies.
The new Library is coming along nicely. Congratulations to everyone involved in making this a reality at minimal taxpayer expense. Ralph Hoelscher gets a special "feather-in-the-cap" for bringing city/county together to make this happen.
I have worked as election judge/alt. judge since 1992. Lots of changes in law and administrators over that time. Vona McKerly gets a special attaboy for dealing with extraordinary difficulties efficiently. From the poll-workers' point of view, the job has been simplified in the face of ever more complex legal requirements without busting the budget. Elections has gone from making national headlines over a seemingly interminable recount, to smooth results rendered promptly.
I see a bright future in troubled times for San Angelo. We are setting the mark for low unemployment, we have new construction and new jobs. I turned down a better paying job in Lubbock, I can't see leaving this town. Born here, and grown to love it.
I hope you had a great Christmas, may the New Year treat you well. Oh and "GO UT Longhorns" (but I wouldn't bet the farm on it).
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why?
Tomorrow is the runoff election that will decide who is our next mayor. We had a relatively strong turn out for the special election, and it looks like a good but much smaller turn out for the runoff. I would love to see an 80% to 95% turnout, but we will be lucky to get 15%. When the final tally is in, our next Mayor will have been elected by the minority of eligible voters that put out the effort to make a difference.
As some of you probably know, I have been involved with the TGC Election Support Association from its beginning. Greater voter turnout and participation is one of our major goals, and I have been doing a lot of reading, researching, and thinking on the problem. There are lots of theories and opinions on why people don't vote. If you look at it from an individual perspective with tools like game theory or cost benefit analysis, it's a wonder anyone votes at all. The question that needs to be answered is "Why do people vote?" As a society, we do need people to vote, but really why do individuals vote? I would really like your thoughts on this. It can be as simple as why you vote (or don't) or a broader philosophical answer or whatever you think might help. I would appreciate you ideas and input.
Tell me Why.
As some of you probably know, I have been involved with the TGC Election Support Association from its beginning. Greater voter turnout and participation is one of our major goals, and I have been doing a lot of reading, researching, and thinking on the problem. There are lots of theories and opinions on why people don't vote. If you look at it from an individual perspective with tools like game theory or cost benefit analysis, it's a wonder anyone votes at all. The question that needs to be answered is "Why do people vote?" As a society, we do need people to vote, but really why do individuals vote? I would really like your thoughts on this. It can be as simple as why you vote (or don't) or a broader philosophical answer or whatever you think might help. I would appreciate you ideas and input.
Tell me Why.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Onward Through the Fog
City, County and school taxes attract a lot of voter attention. City has managed to reduce its core ad valorem tax rate at least one cent a year five years running, County has held the line against costs and unfunded mandates, and SAISD had to try twice to get part of its bond proposal passed.
A recurring complaint is that "tax rates be damned, my bill is (same/higher) those nasty Appraisers keep pumping up my bill". Posters on the Standard-Times' e-site accuse the city and county of manipulating appraisals as a disguised tax increase. For sure, the Tom Green County Appraisal District is the least understood government entity in the county, and this is likely true statewide.
I'm going to try to de-mystify the District and its functions. For background, the statutory guide is primarily Chapter Six of the Texas Property Tax Code. I also interviewed Bill Benson, our Chief Appraiser. A most forthcoming gentleman, if anything he seemed tickled pink that someone was interested in his usually obscure office.
There is a Board of Directors and a Review Board, each composed of local citizens. Can you name one of them? December 15 is not only the run-off date for Mayor, it is election day for the Appraisal Board of Directors, I'm guessing you didn't know that. Don't feel ignorant, until State Constitutional Amendment Three spurred me to nose around, I didn't have a clue either.
As to the election, don't look for a ballot. The Directors are elected by the taxing entities in a county. In Tom Green, there are 5,000 votes divvied up between the city, county and school districts according to each entity's percentage of the "take". This year's election is based on last year's revenue, so SAISD does not yet get the increase from the bond they will vote next time. The ballots have already been sent, must be returned by Dec. 15. The votes are cast cumulatively by each body and there is no rule against getting together on voting strategy. the voting strength this year is as follows:
San Angelo Independent School District: 1,839 votes
City of San Angelo: 1,521 votes
Tom Green County: 1,180 votes
Wall Independent School District: 130 votes
Grape Creek Independent School District: 93 votes
Christoval Independent School District: 89 votes
Water Valley Independent School District: 84 votes
Veribest Independent School District: 48 votes
Miles Independent School District: 16 votes
Note that next election SAISD's bond issue will count. SAISD will get more votes, the others correspondingly fewer. Rough estimate depending on tax rates; SAISD will have nearly as many votes as City and County combined, increasing its plurality to 40%+. And yes, Miles is in Runnels County, but part of its school district takes in a small chunk of northeast Tom Green. Many years ago I lived north of Orient, my kids and my mail went to Miles. Similarly, Water Valley takes in a small part of Coke County.
OK, now we have a Board, what does that Board do? Ours typically meets 6-8 times a year at the call of the Chair, they must meet once a quarter. The Board hires the Chief Appraiser (who is a non-voting member of the Board); it sets the budget; it appoints the Review Board which rules on taxpayer appeals of evaluation; and every two years they develop and approve a written plan for periodic re-appraisal and approve said plan no later than Sept. 15 of each even-numbered year.
All meetimgs are subject to Open Meetings Act and are posted at the County Courthouse. Under 6.05(i), the biennial plan must follow a public hearing advertized in the local paper of record (Standard-Times). It really was posted, I suspect I paid it as much mind as everyone else, to wit: none.
There are a bunch more details, but I don't want to spend time parsing the difference between the second degree of affinity and the third degree of consanguinity as regards allowable employees.
What is of interest is the appraisal method selected, possibly demanded with Amendment Three. Tom Green uses "highest and best use". Not to wade too far in the weeds in accounting practises I don't follow, h&bu means a property can be valued not for existing use, but the value of the new business a block or two away. The real horror story example is a third generation home a couple blocks from the new Jerry Jones Tax-Payer Ripoff Stadium. {Full disclosure; I am a huge Cowboys fan, but Jerry has plenty of money, he needs mine because...?}
Amendment Two would cover it now, but a $60,000 home was re-valued at $600,000, a not unrealistic value as parking lot. Result: a loss of homestead similar to the infamous Kelo decision without the inconvenience of an eminent domain hearing; taxpayer could not afford a bill ten times higher, and loses property in foreclosure.
Now the "budget" is that of the Appraisal District, building lease, salaries, etc. Board has nothing to do with the budgets of the taxing authorities.
Frankly, I wish I had looked at Amendment Three more closely. I supported 3, which will set a single state-wide standard for appraisal accounting, but upon further review; No. I don't like "highest & best use", but I also realize, metro areas have different requirements than our more residential use property. A standard appropriate to a highly commercial district might over-charge a largely residential district. God's honest, I would prefer a system of gov't revenue that did not rely on "quit-rents" or property taxes, but tarrifs don't seem to be making a big comeback.
I tend to the Libertarian side of government. That is not so much reflexive anti-tax, as anti-gov't spending on silly stuff. Example; the money ($240,000) spent on skinny trees on the Bryant/Harte interchange might have bought synchronized traffic lights.
Really not the point: the Appraisal District is only responsible for raising money. As such it is easily characterized as the black-hooded fellow in the Hagar the Horrible comic strip. Truth is; services must be paid for. The Appraisal District is not the door to knock on for waste or fraud, it is solely charged with raising the money to fund that which we and our elected officials deem necessary.
I'm sure the next complainant about appraisals will have attended an Appraisal Board meeting. Just kidding, but... Also in Chapter Six; we are not only allowed, but once County hits 125,000 population, required to have a Taxpayer Liason officer whose job is making these mysteries public.
On the one hand, Appraisal Districts are the under-appreciated, necessary functionaries of revenue raising, and I have some sympathy for that view. Other hand, a rising view is rather than fight issues one by one, choke off the income and force the gov't to live within its means.
A recurring complaint is that "tax rates be damned, my bill is (same/higher) those nasty Appraisers keep pumping up my bill". Posters on the Standard-Times' e-site accuse the city and county of manipulating appraisals as a disguised tax increase. For sure, the Tom Green County Appraisal District is the least understood government entity in the county, and this is likely true statewide.
I'm going to try to de-mystify the District and its functions. For background, the statutory guide is primarily Chapter Six of the Texas Property Tax Code. I also interviewed Bill Benson, our Chief Appraiser. A most forthcoming gentleman, if anything he seemed tickled pink that someone was interested in his usually obscure office.
There is a Board of Directors and a Review Board, each composed of local citizens. Can you name one of them? December 15 is not only the run-off date for Mayor, it is election day for the Appraisal Board of Directors, I'm guessing you didn't know that. Don't feel ignorant, until State Constitutional Amendment Three spurred me to nose around, I didn't have a clue either.
As to the election, don't look for a ballot. The Directors are elected by the taxing entities in a county. In Tom Green, there are 5,000 votes divvied up between the city, county and school districts according to each entity's percentage of the "take". This year's election is based on last year's revenue, so SAISD does not yet get the increase from the bond they will vote next time. The ballots have already been sent, must be returned by Dec. 15. The votes are cast cumulatively by each body and there is no rule against getting together on voting strategy. the voting strength this year is as follows:
San Angelo Independent School District: 1,839 votes
City of San Angelo: 1,521 votes
Tom Green County: 1,180 votes
Wall Independent School District: 130 votes
Grape Creek Independent School District: 93 votes
Christoval Independent School District: 89 votes
Water Valley Independent School District: 84 votes
Veribest Independent School District: 48 votes
Miles Independent School District: 16 votes
Note that next election SAISD's bond issue will count. SAISD will get more votes, the others correspondingly fewer. Rough estimate depending on tax rates; SAISD will have nearly as many votes as City and County combined, increasing its plurality to 40%+. And yes, Miles is in Runnels County, but part of its school district takes in a small chunk of northeast Tom Green. Many years ago I lived north of Orient, my kids and my mail went to Miles. Similarly, Water Valley takes in a small part of Coke County.
OK, now we have a Board, what does that Board do? Ours typically meets 6-8 times a year at the call of the Chair, they must meet once a quarter. The Board hires the Chief Appraiser (who is a non-voting member of the Board); it sets the budget; it appoints the Review Board which rules on taxpayer appeals of evaluation; and every two years they develop and approve a written plan for periodic re-appraisal and approve said plan no later than Sept. 15 of each even-numbered year.
All meetimgs are subject to Open Meetings Act and are posted at the County Courthouse. Under 6.05(i), the biennial plan must follow a public hearing advertized in the local paper of record (Standard-Times). It really was posted, I suspect I paid it as much mind as everyone else, to wit: none.
There are a bunch more details, but I don't want to spend time parsing the difference between the second degree of affinity and the third degree of consanguinity as regards allowable employees.
What is of interest is the appraisal method selected, possibly demanded with Amendment Three. Tom Green uses "highest and best use". Not to wade too far in the weeds in accounting practises I don't follow, h&bu means a property can be valued not for existing use, but the value of the new business a block or two away. The real horror story example is a third generation home a couple blocks from the new Jerry Jones Tax-Payer Ripoff Stadium. {Full disclosure; I am a huge Cowboys fan, but Jerry has plenty of money, he needs mine because...?}
Amendment Two would cover it now, but a $60,000 home was re-valued at $600,000, a not unrealistic value as parking lot. Result: a loss of homestead similar to the infamous Kelo decision without the inconvenience of an eminent domain hearing; taxpayer could not afford a bill ten times higher, and loses property in foreclosure.
Now the "budget" is that of the Appraisal District, building lease, salaries, etc. Board has nothing to do with the budgets of the taxing authorities.
Frankly, I wish I had looked at Amendment Three more closely. I supported 3, which will set a single state-wide standard for appraisal accounting, but upon further review; No. I don't like "highest & best use", but I also realize, metro areas have different requirements than our more residential use property. A standard appropriate to a highly commercial district might over-charge a largely residential district. God's honest, I would prefer a system of gov't revenue that did not rely on "quit-rents" or property taxes, but tarrifs don't seem to be making a big comeback.
I tend to the Libertarian side of government. That is not so much reflexive anti-tax, as anti-gov't spending on silly stuff. Example; the money ($240,000) spent on skinny trees on the Bryant/Harte interchange might have bought synchronized traffic lights.
Really not the point: the Appraisal District is only responsible for raising money. As such it is easily characterized as the black-hooded fellow in the Hagar the Horrible comic strip. Truth is; services must be paid for. The Appraisal District is not the door to knock on for waste or fraud, it is solely charged with raising the money to fund that which we and our elected officials deem necessary.
I'm sure the next complainant about appraisals will have attended an Appraisal Board meeting. Just kidding, but... Also in Chapter Six; we are not only allowed, but once County hits 125,000 population, required to have a Taxpayer Liason officer whose job is making these mysteries public.
On the one hand, Appraisal Districts are the under-appreciated, necessary functionaries of revenue raising, and I have some sympathy for that view. Other hand, a rising view is rather than fight issues one by one, choke off the income and force the gov't to live within its means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)