4.19.2005
I don’t know, my friends,
maybe it’s my impending retirement, but I seem to be getting more and more
long-winded each week. Forgive this
oldster as his columns grow increasingly long (and probably more crotchety) as
election day nears.
This week featured the wife
of an abuser, more election-time pandering, and two Councilors have questions
about a lawsuit.
The Brave Women Come Back
Last week, the Coalition
Against Violence Toward Women and Families at the Border asked Council to have
staff place an item on the agenda to take action against a woman beater on
Council. This week, they were back:
1. Discussion/Action to support Council vote in
Regular Agenda to (1) reaffirm the February 2004 proclamation denouncing
violence against women and (2) remove Mr. Cushing from committees and decisions
involving law enforcement and women's issues.
[Irasema Coronado, Coalition Against Violence Toward Women and Families
at the Border]
There was a small group of
women there, and they were as respectful and dignified as they were last
week. Dr. Irasema Coronado, who placed
the item on the agenda, began the discussion and read from her prepared
statement. She said, “As a society we
must require batterers and women beaters to be accountable for their actions,
whether serving prison time or paying damages.
Imagine…if the victim was your daughter, your sister, your wife or your
mother.” Pre-empting the accusation
that this was all political, which some Council members had already aired to
the media, the Coalition insisted that this is a human rights issue.
The strongest speaker,
Cheryl Baker Heller, repeated the Coalition’s desire to have Council reaffirm
the proclamation denouncing violence against women and then remove Cushing from
the relevant committees. At one point,
she put down her text and pointedly asked Susan Austin and Vivian Rojas if they
did or did not denounce violence against women.
She pointed out to Susan
Austin that she lists as one of her accomplishments her membership in the El Paso
Domestic Violence Prevention Commission and the Junior League of El Paso. And
she pointed out to Ms. Rojas that she is a social worker by profession. She reminded Council that a conflict exists
with regard to Cushing’s position on the Police and Fire Pension Fund as well
as the many Legislative Review Committees where department heads are women.
Heller said that the
Coalition “intends to push for measures in the future that would require
candidates’ disclosures of criminal arrests and court judgments relating to
violence against women.” She said
employers do it and El Pasoans deserve the same.
Who is the Weakest Link?
As expected, Council’s
response couldn’t have been more weak or offensive.
As background, over the last
two weeks, several Council members have tried to downplay Cushing’s brutish
behavior by calling the revelation of the attack “political” because it
coincides with the election.
Presi Ortega said it when
interviewed by KTSM Channel 9; Vivian Rojas said it, and Alexandro Lozano
alluded to it to the El Paso Times (http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504180334); and before the Council meeting, both
John Cook and Joe Wardy did it on the early-morning debate on KTSM Channel
9. Not one of them, however, is asking
why Cushing didn’t reveal this himself – before he was elected the first time.
In that early-morning
debate, Carmen Rodriguez and Jaime O. Perez, two other mayoral candidates, were
the only individuals who took a strong stand against Cushing’s behavior (with
Perez accurately calling Cushing “a thug”).
Kudos to both of them for their courageous responses and for failing to
yield to political expediency.
Susan Austin, responding
directly to Heller’s challenge, said, “My heart goes out to victims of all
types of violence, both women and men on this side of the border and the other
side and across the world, and yes, I am the former chair of the El Paso
Domestic Violence Prevention Commission and worked for many years with the
Junior League in its focus on public awareness about domestic violence
prevention. On this Council I am proud
to say…we like to keep focused on the city issues and the business before us…we
represent men and women in everything we do.
It is impossible for us to be taken off of representing issues about men
or women…we have early voting starting tomorrow in an election…the best way to
do what you seek is at the level of the voters…I wanna keep focused on the city
business…and I don’t believe this is an appropriate time.”
“I don’t understand that,
frankly,” responded Heller. “Because if
you claimed it in the El Paso Times
yesterday, I don’t see…how this is not that something that would affect every one
of your constituents.”
Heller was right, as
Austin’s response was unacceptable.
Wardy responded that Cushing
is a “duly elected official of the City of El Paso,” and any decisions about
Cushing should be made by the citizens of El Paso.
These women were not asking
for them to remove Cushing from office.
They never did, as far as I could tell.
All they wanted was his removal from certain boards and commissions; he
can and should be removed from those commissions and LRCs.
John Cook made a motion to
reaffirm the proclamation, and Paul Escobar seconded the item. And although Cobos surprisingly didn’t try
to derail the discussion, he did try to undercut the women’s argument by
dismissively saying, “Why don’t read the whole thing? I want you to read the whole thing ‘cause that proclamation is
specific to Cd. Juarez.”
Selling Out the Sisters
Vivian Rojas, who went out
of her way during last week’s pander-fest to point out that she is a social
worker who cares about elderly and disabled people, could have taken a strong
stand, but instead took credit for “pushing” the V Day proclamation, bragged
about having volunteered at the battered women’s shelter. Then she said, “As a social worker, yes, I
am against violence against women and any type of people.” (If you weren’t a social worker, Viv, would
you be for it?) She claimed to
“empathize” with the group and said she’d be willing to place another
proclamation on the agenda, but she agreed with Austin, that it’s up to
District 2 and they elect who gets put on committees.
Clearly, Ms. Rojas and Ms.
Austin are only against violence against women when the batterer is not a
friend or a colleague. And by the way,
Rojas’s half-hearted attempt at a compassionate response is very unlike what
she said to the Times when she
accused the women of doing this for political reasons. I guess she didn’t have the guts to repeat
that charge to the women’s faces as they stood before Council.
And as for her claim that
the voters elect who gets put on Legislative Review Committees (LRC), she knows
that is not true. Cobos, as the mayor
pro-tem, makes the LRC appointments.
And the mayor appointed Cushing to the Police and Fire Pension fund, not
the voters; so, just as it is within their power to appoint, it also within
their power to remove.
Paul Escobar, a former El
Paso Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted domestic violence cases, said,
“I know the pain it causes the victim…and the whole family.” Then, moving the discussion away from his
colleague, he spoke about the murders in Juarez and about how it’s brought a
“negative light” on El Paso and Juarez, and said, “I think we need to do more
on the local level…to see how we can solve these murders or at least prevent
them.”
As a result of her courage
on Tuesday, Lisa Turner has now risen in stature in my “Local Heroes”
book. She spoke and spoke
strongly. She very appropriately said,
“Last week these ladies came to you, seeking redress. You sat up here, while they spoke, reading email, shuffling
papers, ignoring them. You sent a very
loud message to the women in this community.
You told the women in this community that they don’t count that we don’t
care about you and we will flaunt this guy on Council. Not a single one of you stepped up to do the
right thing. Instead you cowered in
some corner, unwilling to do what’s right. I know it’s hard to do the right
thing…but you showed us that you don’t care. You can pass all the proclamations
you want, but your actions speak louder than ten tons of paper of proclamations.
You have failed to speak up, and I’m speaking to everybody but Mr. Cushing, I’m
speaking to every one of you…especially you, Ms. Austin, especially you, Ms.
Rojas, you’ve failed the women of this community…every one of you should tender
your resignation today, and if you don’t then the people of this city should
vote you out, you don’t belong there.”
I’ve said it before, and
I’ll say it again: She’s absolutely
right. The cowardly Council rightfully
deserved to be admonished in that way.
Standing By Her Man
The last woman to speak was
Cushing’s wife, Elza. She was a very
articulate and able speaker. She
described herself as a “very proud wife and an even prouder mother” and said
that “there is no human being on this earth that knows more about Robert
Cushing than I do; we’ve been married 26 years.” She also claimed that Cushing had “devoted most of his career…to
advocating for employee rights in the workplace,” and that “his life is
exemplified by his kindness and generous efforts to help his fellow man.”
Then, after her brief
description of her husband, she began hurling insults at the Coalition and the
women who had come to Council to speak on behalf of a victim who was brutalized
twice by her husband—once on the evening of his vicious attack on her, and a
second time by his blatant disregard for a court-ordered judgment.
She called the small group a
“lynch mob,” and said their action was a “revolting display of indignation
about events that happened 30 years ago.”
She also said that they in no way can “link those grievances to his
service in this body today.” In this,
as in many of her pronouncements, Elza Cushing couldn’t have been more
wrong. As I discuss below, there is a
very clear pattern of behavior by Robert Cushing that spans the assault against
Belinda Salinas to his behavior on Council.
She added, “It is patently
obvious to me that those who have spoken here today have allowed themselves to
be used as pawns in a vicious blood sport of character assassination,” and
claimed they have “inflicted incalculable damage.”
And then, in an unbelievable
display of either naïvete or callousness, she proclaimed, “What happened
between my husband and any other person 30 years ago is a very private matter
that should be resolved in a private context.”
She said the Coalition was
speaking out for “purely partisan political advantage” and that her husband
should be judged on his record that is “beyond reproach,” instead of on an
event “taken out of context, embellished and spun…by those who deeply resent
his independence and his record of success in public office.” Really.
I wondered at this point, in what possible context could Bob Cushing’s
unprovoked and vicious attack on Belinda Salinas be acceptable? Unfortunately, Mrs. Cushing didn’t elucidate
this point. But statements like this
caused her credibility to continue its downward spiral into the infinitesimal.
She then called the women’s
tone “self-righteous” and said it had a “foul odor of political
partisanship.” She said her husband was
making a “great sacrifice,” and that “his conduct of 30 years ago has no
relation to his present public service.”
She accused the women of trying to “elect your cronies…because your
candidates have nothing of substance to say . . . . In fact, you have absolutely not one word to say about his
record as a public servant, and so you try to distract the public’s attention
with your phony indignations.”
She said that the women’s
requests for Council to take action turned the meeting into a “Jerry Springer
hour” with “toxic slanders…that poison the public space of our community.”
She then called Robert
Cushing “One of the most independent and productive voices ever to serve,” and
then read a letter into the record written by her son, portraying her husband
as a gentle person.
When she was done, there was
some applause by a handful of Cushing supporters, presumably by some who live
in his district.
Dear reader, I didn’t have
any intention of going into this issue very much this week because I thought I
had said everything I needed to say about it.
However, now that Mrs. Cushing has publicly injected herself into this
issue in an effort to save her husband’s political career, it’s time to point
out some obvious and painful truths.
I understand that Mrs.
Cushing was compelled to speak on behalf of her husband out of loyalty. However, as your Concil watcher, I am
compelled to make certain observations of my own. First, I would point out that Mrs. Cushing spent a lot of time
trying to diminish his horrific attack against another human being by repeating
over and over that it happened 30 years ago.
I would further note that she attempted to defend her husband by
insulting the good women who had every right—no, every obligation—to fulfill
their mission of condemning violence against women wherever it occurs. The Coalition performed a valuable service
by helping this community understand that we cannot, like Mr. and Mrs. Robert
Cushing, become numb to violence against women. But I guess Mrs. Cushing figured the best defense is a strong
offense. And, indeed, it was offensive.
Whatever sympathy I felt for
Mrs. Cushing in the past vanished after her performance before Council. I now feel only anger and disgust. Mrs. Cushing, if any one person has caused
“incalculable damage,” and “poisoned the public space of our community,” it’s
your husband, Robert Cushing.
Mrs. Cushing might have
forgiven her husband the fact that, before she married him, he broke into her
house and repeatedly stabbed her dog and broke virtually every bone in its body
(as reported by the El Paso Times). (If that didn’t serve as a warning signal,
Mrs. Cushing, I don’t know what could.)
But her indignant criticism of those who have pointed out that her
husband has never taken responsibility or truly apologized for his brutal
attack on Belinda Salinas rings exceedingly hollow. Had her husband issued a genuine apology—to the victim, not to the
voters—and taken responsibility for his actions, then maybe she and her
family would not have had to endure such public scrutiny and criticism. If he had paid the $50,000 he owed that poor
woman who is still paying medical bills, then maybe his calculated,
lawyer-vetted, ghost-written non-apology apology (issued in one of his more
recent campaign letters, again, to the voters, not the victim) might have had
some meaning. But even that would be
stretching it.
Living in Egypt
But Elza Cushing’s calling
her husband a “good man” who exhibits “kindness” and is “independent” only
proves that Mrs. Cushing is living in a much different world than you or
I. It proves, in short, that she is
living in deep denial.
Robert Cushing is a brutal
predator—he was 30 years ago and he remains so today. From the moment I began watching him on Council, I couldn’t help
but observe (and write about) the unacceptable way he treats City staff,
particularly women. The way he treats
these women, my friends, is with deep-rooted contempt. In fact, he seems to hold women in general
in contempt. I have had many occasions
to document his aggressive misogyny in my columns over the last two years, as
he has openly displayed it at City Council.
He treats the women who appear before him on Council with the same
hatred that he held (and obviously still holds) for Belinda Salinas.
He has in public meetings
treated female department heads (including the City Manager, the Human
Resources Director, and the Deputy City Manager for Building Services) and
other female staff members with crude disrespect and has spoken to them in
insulting and abusive ways. In fact, in
one of my early columns I reported that he nearly reduced one female staff
member from the Planning Department to tears while she stood at the podium
trying to do her job. This is not a “kind”
man. And I hardly need remind my
regular readers that Cushing lacks the most basic respect for public decorum
with his spitting and gum chomping at public meetings. He is a crude bully through and through.
And as for Mrs. Cushing’s
claim that the women oppose her husband because he is “independent,” this is
simply an attempt to deflect attention from her husband’s behavior, which was
the real issue before Council.
Furthermore, the statement shows that the poor woman is living in a
dream world. Bob Cushing should be on
advertising posters for the Luther Jones and Bobby Bowling Puppet Show. In fact, at a recent public forum, Cushing
stated, with defiant pride apparently, that he has been close friends with Luther
Jones for over 20 years. He may be
proud of this, but shame would be a more appropriate emotion.
As for Mrs. Cushing, she
should be ashamed that her husband is willing to use public funds and the
hallowed halls of City Hall to do Luther Jones’s bidding—he did it on the Bus
Bench Ad monopoly early on in his tenure and he did it most recently on the
Fats, Oil and Grease issue. He did it
when he voted to violate the City Charter with the hiring of Luther’s boy Jimbo
with the Jumbo salary, and he did it when he allowed Lisa Elizondo to gut what
is arguably the most important City department—the City Attorney’s Office—so
they could outsource our legal work to make a rich fat cat richer and
fatter. Cushing has also
enthusiastically done the bidding of Bobby Bowling, another crony and string puller,
helping Bowling get rid of as much tax credit competition as possible. I could go on and on (as you, my dear
reader, know all too well), but I won’t.
Moreover, Bob Cushing has
been one of the most reliable of the Reliable Wardy Rubber Stampers. I can’t think of one major public policy
issue or crony appointment where Cushing didn’t support his fearless leader,
Joe Wardy. That’s independence? No, Madam.
It will take much more than your indignant and disingenuous rhetoric to
establish that these women had the ulterior motives you ascribe to them.
Finally, we come to Mrs.
Cushing’s contention that the women’s efforts were really designed to help
their “cronies.” This is, of course,
another attempt to obscure the real issue.
And I have to say that, as rhetorical ploys go, this statement was not
just incredibly ironic, it was laughably absurd. No one who knows what goes on at City Council could possibly be
fooled by such cheap rhetoric, Mrs. Cushing.
Try as you might, you will never be able to undo the fact that your
husband is, after Anthony Cobos, the most enthusiastic participant in crony
politics on City Council.
If Mrs. Cushing doesn’t see
it, my friends, she’s blind. But then
again, she married this guy. If women’s
organizations want to hold Bob Cushing accountable for a crime he committed and
never paid for (either in prison time or a civil judgment), then Elza Cushing
is hardly in a position to hold that against them. These good women live in 21st century America where
men can’t just commit violence and believe they can wish it away. And no, Mrs. Cushing, this is by no means a
“private matter.” The civil judgment is
public. The criminal case is
public. Your husband is a public
figure. And, while this change in
attitudes may have passed you by, trying to keep violence against women a dirty
little secret is something we just don’t do any more. You want to live with a monster, that’s your choice. But we’ll see if the people of District 2
want a monster as their City Representative.
Facilitators or Cowards?
And the fact that the mayor
and City Council members (especially Wardy, as the parliamentarian of City
Council meetings and head of the municipality, and the two women on Council)
have in the past sat idly by and allowed staff and other women to be bullied by
this abusive thug is also unacceptable.
While Wardy frequently asks Lozano to “take it easy” or pulls in the
reins, not once did I ever hear Wardy ask Cushing to restrain himself; not once
did I ever hear Wardy ask Cushing to stop spitting; not once did I ever hear a
peep out of any of them when it came to Cushing’s public abuses.
They had the opportunity, as
Lisa Turner said, to do the right thing, and predictably, sadly, and
shamefully, they again chose to turn a blind eye.
Shame, shame, shame on all
of them.
Council did unanimously
reaffirm the proclamation, but took no action on the other request. Then Wardy thanked all of them for being
there, and they walked away.
The next day, the El Paso Times reported most of Mrs. Cushing’s accusations (without giving
the Coalition an opportunity to respond), and the paper also claims that Ms.
Salinas’ judgment against Cushing is indeed null and void:
Cushing
has never paid that judgment, which would amount to more than $800,000 today
with interest. He has insisted that Salinas' case died in 2001 when she failed
to file documents to keep her claim alive.
But it appears that Salinas' claim might have died years earlier.
El Paso County District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez said Tuesday that a writ of
execution, which had to be filed by 1986 to keep the 1976 court judgment
active, is not part of the case file.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504200337
Did Ms. Salinas fail to
follow proper procedure? Did her lawyer
not help her ensure she could, some day, collect on her judgment? Or did someone doctor with the files? Who knows?
In this town, anything is possible.
But whether or not that
judgment is still “alive,” really shouldn’t matter. Bob Cushing has an obligation to pay for his crime somehow,
someway. Belinda Salinas has bills, she
has scars, and she has had to live with the consequences of that horrible night. Cushing shouldn’t let a piece of paper stand
in his way of doing what he was ordered to do by a court of law so long
ago.
Media Attention
At one point during her time
at the podium, Elza Cushing also complained that this “private” issue was being
“drug out” day after day (I presume she meant by the media). And it’s true, the media has obviously been
digging around, trying to get answers to questions about this public, horrific
event. So she’s right that is has been
dragged out. But she can thank her
husband, not the media, for that.
This issue has been dragged
out, Mrs. Cushing, because your husband has repeatedly lied about this
case. And after every lie of his was
exposed, he reluctantly acknowledged the truth but then lied about something else. And when that new lie was exposed, the whole
sorry cycle continued until he decided not to talk to the media at all. Your blaming “the media” is simply a
pathetically predictable attempt to shift the blame from where it squarely
belongs—Robert Cushing—to someone or something else.
For the record, let’s
catalogue all of Bob Cushing’s lies, shall we?
(I’ll probably miss a few, as there have been so many.) Cushing first said the entire incident
didn’t “ring a bell.” That was probably
his biggest whopper. He then said that
if the assault had really occurred, the proper course of action would have been
for Ms. Salinas to report it to the police (implying that she didn’t.). Well, we now know that she did (despite his
threat to kill her with his .44 magnum if she did). Then he said he never hit her.
We now know that’s a lie, because he sent an apology (of sorts) to his
constituents. If he didn’t assault Ms.
Salinas, what did he have to apologize to his constituents for? (In that letter he also conceded that he
had been arrested for assault—rendering his earlier implication that Ms.
Salinas hadn’t reported the assault to the police particularly hollow and
offensive.)
And in its most recent
efforts to uncover the truth that Robert Cushing is so desperate to hide, the El Paso Times documented a few lines
from an apologetic note Cushing (who had just been laid off by the railroad)
sent Salinas two days after that brutal night:
“‘I
love you -- life and its consequences got the best of me. I'm sorry -- I
couldn't imagine the rest of my life without you. RC Jr.,’ the handwritten note
read.”
http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504210344
So now, 25 years later, we
have further evidence of an admission of guilt. I’m sure, despite Mrs. Cushing’s desire to sweep this attack
under the rug, that the media will have to keep digging to get to the bottom of
why he was never prosecuted. If Cushing
would only answer that question truthfully, the media wouldn’t have to
dig. Until then, they have the
authority and the responsibility to expose the truth.
Mrs. Cushing, you’re an
enabler, nothing more, nothing less.
However, I’m much less concerned with your willingness to play this
role—Bob Cushing is your husband after all—than I am that City Council is so
willing to play this role. However,
this election will give the residents of District 2 the opportunity to take the
bull (or should I say the bully) by the horns and speak loudly and clearly with
their votes.
Moving on now.
Minutiae
Approved on the consent
agenda:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: [Municipal Clerk, Richarda
Duffy Momsen, (915) 541-4127] Approval
of Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005 and Special
City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005 (Amendment to Revised Resolution
- 2005 General Election). (Attachment) Minutes for
Special City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005
(Amendment to Revised Resolution - 2005
General Election) (Attachment) Minutes for the
Regular City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005
Anatomy of a Pander
The following item was an
issue that I thought was dead a long time ago:
22B. Discussion and Action on the issuing of permits
pertaining to the property located at 1480 Cedar Oak Drive. [Representative Vivian Rojas, (915)
541-4108]
Vivian Rojas put this item
on the agenda due to what she called “questions and concerns” she and the
neighborhood have. When this item
initially came up last summer, Rojas pulled a classic Cobos maneuver: She told the neighborhood that the
low-income housing unit would bring in undesirables, overcrowd their schools,
drive their property values down, and create “clustering” of low-income housing
units.
I don’t know if she ever
bothered to inform her community that the property was already zoned for
apartments, and that it was the City that zoned it that way, not the
TDHCA. And I wonder if she informed her
community that even if they were to kill this particular tax-credit financed
project, the apartments could still be built there anyway. Nah!
Why bother with the truth or the facts?
Vivian Rojas (and the rest of this crew) is famous for not allowing
those pesky details (the facts and the truth) get in the way of scoring cheap
political points.
So, the frightened community
enlisted the help of the person who has become a “scare tactic” expert, Miss
Viv (who, as a result, became their local hero), and of course the mayor and
Council jumped on the bandwagon, and off they went to Austin with a resolution
opposing the tax credits in one hand, and petitions from the neighborhood in
the other (sound familiar?).
You know, dear reader, call
me cynical, but I cannot help but suspect that whenever this Council moves to
kill a tax credit project—as they did with Suncrest and as they did with the
San Antonio Alternative Housing Corporation—that their goal is to cement Bobby
Bowling’s monopoly on tax credits in El Paso.
After all, if they kill his competition, he gets to remain the Tax
Credit King in his Tax Credit Kingdom.
Rojas said that because this
project has recently been approved by the TDHCA despite earlier opposition by
the City of El Paso, she said she “wanted to basically ask that the project be
stalled or delayed until further investigation is done as to whether or not
TDHCA complied with their own regulations.
And the reason I targeted permits is because I know that’s the first
step that’s needed to get this project underway, and basically that’s why I put
this item on the agenda.”
In this Chapter of the
continuing saga of Council’s irresistible impulse to play the pander, Council
has to be reminded repeatedly that if you break the law, you could get
sued. It’s a concept this Council
apparently has great difficulty grasping.
Deputy Assistant City
Attorney Terry Cullen Garney informed Council that she had discussed the item
with Rojas and added, “However, as we’ve discussed, permits cannot be
unilaterally pulled by the City. If the
property owner complies with the land use restrictions or regulations, then
they’re entitled to come get their permit.
Ms. Rojas is concerned about the funding of the project…from the TDHCA. It’s my understanding that in July when she
appeared before the board, this project was not recommended for funding…and in
November HUD…reinstituted the designation for difficult development areas, the
TDHCA re-evaluated…and the staff recommended approving.”
You heard it, my dear
reader, and this is an important detail to note: According to Cullen Garney, it seems that Rojas’s concern was
solely about the tax credits, NOT the zoning…very telling! Once the zoning allows for apartments, then
apartments go in.
Rojas wanted to know why no
one was given notice by the TDHCA that this project was going to be
reconsidered. Cullen Garney said that
she’d been talking with TDHCA and that they complied with their notice
requirements. Cullen Garney further
explained that when a project goes on a waiting list, all parties get notice,
and she added that the notice is indeed listed in the minutes from the July
meeting. So, in other words, while the
TDHCA did agree not to fund the item at that time, they did note at the July
meeting that the project was going on a waiting list.
If, said Cullen Garney, “the
City wants to get involved in tax credit requests at the state level, if there
is a complaint about how the TDHCA handled this item, then I have a number to
file a complaint with the state agency.”
And then she issued a clear message:
“However, for the items that are posted on the agenda for the building
permits, if the property owner has complied with our land use requirements,
then they are entitled to go forward.”
Cobos asked her to clarify,
so Cullen Garney explained (again) that approval for the Cedar Oaks item (which
the TDHCA denied and placed on a waiting list in July) was posted on the TDHCA
agenda for the December meeting, and she has subsequently asked the agency
which group (locally) received notice of the December meeting.
Cobos said that was critical
to know because, he said, the City is required to receive notice of that
meeting.
Cullen Garney corrected him,
and said that the City is not required to receive notice again, and the agency
complied with their open meetings requirements because the meeting had been
posted as an open meeting.
Pulling Permits to Proceed with Pleasing the
Puppetmaster
Cobos clearly didn’t get the
answer he wanted, but he equally clearly didn’t care. He announced, “We should not permit this project to move
forward!” He added, “I think that we
need to get all the facts. It’s not
fair to the developer that they proceed on something where the project could be
disrupted at a later time because they didn’t follow the law.” This made me laugh. Tony, your concern for this particular
developer is deeply touching. And then,
brushing off Terry Cullen Garney’s legal advice, he said, “I appreciate your
legal opinion, I really do, but I think we can take action today to prohibit
permits at this location.” Okay, so
much for the law.
Cullen Garney, who was being
as firm as possible, said to Cobos and the rest of Council, “Please do not
confuse the financing of a project with the land use. I just want to caution Council,” and then she asked that they
discuss it in executive session.
Cullen Garney again
explained that the public and Council concerns had already been considered by
the agency. Projects that are not
recommended for funding at the time go onto a waiting list, which is what happened
with this project, and in November, she said, there was a HUD clarification on
a definition, more tax credit money was allocated, and then TDHCA staff
approved this project.
And again, she urged,
“Please separate the financing from the land use issues, and also be aware that
if you’re concerned with the way a state agency acted, those concerns should be
voiced at the state level with that agency.”
Robert Cushing then had to
throw in his two cents. He said, “My
concern is…should the public have not been entitled to the same rights as they
were at the July hearing…and what makes this even more troubling is if we allow
this to go forward we are putting at risk the residents…and the builder and the
developer.”
I wanted to rush the podium
and yell out, “Council! The only thing
being put at risk is the poor taxpayers who will have to fund the defense
against yet another lawsuit because of your irresponsible behavior which is a
direct result of your eagerness to kill competition for your Tax Credit King
Puppetmaster!”
Council finally went into
executive session to receive legal advice (which I suspected they would
probably ignore). They were in there
for a little over an hour and when they finally emerged, they allowed the public
to speak.
Art Rivera, a resident of
the area and Las Palmas Neighborhood Association member, said it was a shame
that the residents were not informed of the pending tax credit approval, and
that Council had passed a resolution voicing its opposition to the project that
was disregarded by the TDHCA. He said
the agency did not follow procedures and all the work involved had “fallen on
deaf ears.” He said he believed there
were “irregularities and improprieties” on behalf of the TDHCA that should be looked
into by the Attorney General, he mentioned the concerns over clustering and
safety issues, and said that is why the project was initially turned down. Oh-oh.
Here we go again with the code words, dear reader. “Clustering” rears its ugly head once again.
Wardy said, “I assure you
I’m going to get some answers in writing for all of us.”
Ainsa Bad…Until Ainsa Shows Up!
Then attorney Frank Ainsa
came to the podium. It’s always a bad
sign for Council (and us taxpayers) when Mr. Ainsa has to come to the
podium. It almost always means one
thing: Council is about to do something
illegal that will get the City sued, big time.
And sure enough, noting that he was representing Investment Builders,
the company seeking to build the apartment complex, Ainsa very calmly but
firmly let Council know they were in danger of . . . being sued. He said, “I view this particular issue as
involving two different points that need to be considered.” He described the first point as the land use
issue, which is the construction of an apartment complex. He reminded Council that the building
permits and the plans had been approved “as would be the case with any building
project in the City.”
Then Ainsa added, “Injected
into that process is the political element coming through Rep. Rojas’
district…It’s a tax credit project financed by the TDHCA, and…the fact that the
financing mechanism is unappealing or disliked…should have nothing to do with
whether or not a building permit and a grading permit, which have already been issued.” He added, “Today the state agency decision
stands, it is an approved project. It
is not proper for the City Council to revoke issued permits…that is doing
nothing more than politicizing what we all have for years tried to characterize
as a non-political process…if something like this happens, then I would remind
Council that you have politicized a lawful process that is supposed to be above
politics.”
He then issued a serious
warning: “Cities that engage in delay
can be liable for a taking.” Just to
make the point crystal clear, he observed that, “The Texas Supreme Court has
announced, and I’m sure your counsel has told you, that cities that engage in
delay can be liable.” What he didn’t
have to say, but which came through loud and clear, was that Investment
Builders had every intention of suing the City if they pulled the permits.
Wardy said he agreed with
Ainsa on the issue of the permits, and agreed that there are two very different
issues, but said that Council had questions about the “due process” related to
the TDHCA and that Council would instruct the City Attorney’s Office to
investigate.
Rojas claimed that her
effort to pull the permits was not political.
(Right. This isn’t political,
but a woman’s group demanding justice is political. Uh-huh.)
Terry Cullen Garney returned
to the podium and said, “I believe the motion is that the City Manager, with
the assistance of the legal department voice concerns in writing about the lack
of notice given by the TDHCA to the City Council, the City Representative and
area residents about the December 2004 board meeting where the TDHCA
reconsidered funding for the Cedar Oaks Townhomes, LTD apartment project, and
that the City Manager file the appropriate complaints with the state if the
TDHCA did not follow the proper notice requirements when a project is
reconsidered for tax credits.”
Rojas accepted that motion.
Presi-ing On…to Lawsuit City
Using his angry voice, Presi
Ortega said, “Call it political or not, Mr. Ainsa, you don’t live in that area,
so it’s very easy for you to want to pass something like this!” (As a reminder, this is the same guy who
called the revelations about Robert Cushing “political.”) Then, implying that affordable income
housing is a bad thing, he said, “I can just imagine what’s going to be built
out there.” He went on to say, “There’s
nothing about politics here,” and said that filing a complaint is not
enough.
And then he said something
that made my jaw drop and my pandering meter begin to blink furiously while the
needle flew into the red zone: “I
believe that there’s a way that we can stall the process…and that’s what I
would do if it was something in my district.
I would stall the process any way I could.”
Well, at least Presi’s being
honest about what’s going on here. It’s
not about “due process” at the TDHCA.
It’s not about “clustering” or concern for people who need low-income
housing. And it’s certainly not about
challenging the City on its own zoning.
No way. It’s about stalling a
project that is completely legal (and, I know, much needed) to appease
neighborhood folks Miss Viv infected with NIMBY fever.
Yeah, Presi, that’s right;
let’s get the City sued -- AGAIN! After all, it’s not your personal bank
account that will be depleted with the need to defend the City against a
lawsuit brought as a result of your political pandering. No, it’s our community bank account you will
be using, isn’t it Presi? After all,
this Council has already set a PRESI-dent (I know, I know…it’s a cheap play on
words…I just couldn’t help myself…sorry, dear reader!). That’s right, the precedent was set with the Suncrest lawsuit when the developer was
forced to sue the City of El Paso. And
you and I paid for Wardy and Cobos’ legal defense, my friends.
Rojas announced that she
would be flying to Austin to get answers from the TDHCA! (I wondered if Lozano would be able to clear
the weather patterns for her from space, in order to ensure there’s no
turbulence on that flight for his good buddy.)
Trying, but failing, to sound
like a legal insider, Cobos recommended seeking an “RO”—a restraining order (he
looked very excited about using legal jargon).
He added, “Something is going on…this is just very suspicious and if we
don’t do something very dramatic now, those buildings are going to go up.”
Susan Austin pointed out
that the will of Council had already been expressed, and a strong message had
been sent to the TDHCA in July. And
then referring to the restraining order Cobos was so eager to file, she said
that if the TDHCA followed its procedures, “I don’t think that that still gives
us the right to take an action that is unlawful.”
Cobos, arguing with Austin
(who, unlike him, is a lawyer), announced authoritatively that a restraining
order was “very lawful!”
Hmmm. “Very” lawful? I didn’t realize that there were varying degrees of
lawfulness. I guess in Tony Cobos’ mind
some things are kind of legal, somewhat legal, and almost illegal. Geez.
The rest of us folks are just simpletons, I guess. Things are either legal or illegal for the
rest of us. Doesn’t surprise me,
though, that Tony is an ardent student of the many degrees of legality.
Austin reminded Cobos that a
restraining order would be lawful only if
the TDHCA violated state law. “But if
all of those things were followed then I cannot agree.”
“Let’s do something until we
get those questions answered. What’s
wrong with that?” asked Cobos.
Lisa Elizondo, staring
intently at her laptop, didn’t step in to correct the record until she was
asked specifically if Cobos was correct.
I half-expected her to look up and say, “huh?” But she didn’t. She said
that Cobos’s suggestion to file a restraining order would not be lawful. Gee, Ms. Elizondo, do you think you had an
obligation to your client (the City of El Paso) to step in and tell him that
without having to be urged to do your job?
My Lord!
Stepping up instead of
Elizondo was Cullen Garney. “The
property is zoned C-4, which means that apartments are a permitted use on this
site,” said Terri Cullen Garney, “and the owner submitted plans for an
apartment complex, and financing is not a considering in land use issues of
permits.”
She’s absolutely right. Why wasn’t Vivian Rojas challenging the C-4
zoning if she had such a problem with apartments on that property? I’ll say it again…it has nothing to do with
the apartments and everything to do with killing tax credit competition.
Cushing asked “Do you think
it’s in our best interest to send…you and a member of the City Attorney’s office
down to Austin to meet with our representatives down there and possibly our
lobbyists so we can get the answers a lot quicker?” Our lobbyists? Sheesh! Are we now going to pay our lobbyists to
kill tax credit projects that don’t belong to Bowling? Cushing then said they had to “go to the
throat” of the real issue, “which is how this funding came about.” Yikes! You
should know a lot about “getting to the throat,” eh, Bob? And Cushing couldn’t have made the bottom
line about the issue more clear: It’s
the tax credits.
Rojas accepted Cushing’s
amendment to her motion to include sending her and a City Attorney to Austin to
speak with the state representatives, the TDHCA and the Attorney General’s
office as well to get answers.
Wardy asked her to hold off
on going to the Attorney General until after a finding, and I’m glad he
did. The fewer agencies we are
embarrassed in front of, the better.
Rojas responded, “Okay, I’ll strike the Attorney General.” Oh, you will? No, Ms. Rojas, I think if anyone is going to strike him, that
would be Robert Cushing.
Cobos seconded the amendment
and told Rojas to “give ‘em all they can handle.”
Council approved the
amendment and the item unanimously. I
wonder who’s funding this little trip to Austin…the taxpayers or Miss Viv?
Stalling a Bid…again
Because the following bid
would be going to a competitor of VIVA Environmental’s (remember, the owner of
VIVA is a contributor to the Crony Crew), I knew there would be some fishy
business involved when Chief Crony Crew Commissioner Robert Cushing had a
question:
24.
ENGINEERING: [Engineering
Department, Irene Ramirez, (915) 541-4431] Discussion and action on a
resolution that the City Manager be authorized to sign a Consultant Services
Agreement by and between the CITY OF EL PASO and AMEC EARTH &
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., for environmental engineering services for a period of two
(2) years in an amount not to exceed SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($750,000.00). (Attachment)
City Engineer Rick Connor
explained that this routine consultant services agreement would allow his
department to “act quickly when additional consulting services” are
needed. He said that this contract is
“less money” and that the competitive bidding for this went through the “full
A/E [Architect and Engineer Selection Committee] process. He said it would also help the City “to
react to needs in the environmental area.”
Crony Crew Commissioner Robert
Cushing asked if staff made their selection of this company from a list or if
they went through the full-blown selection process, and Connor said it had gone
through the full-blown selection process.
Cushing, who was clearly just looking for a way to stall this bid, made
a fuss about the fact that Connor hadn’t noted that in the backup. Cushing made a motion to postpone the item
until Connor put that statement in the backup (see what I mean about being a
tool of the special interests? Where
are you now, Elza Cushing?). Cobos
quickly seconded the item.
Then Presi Ortega had to put
in his own two cents and said that from 1997-2001 he used to “enjoy” sitting on
the A&E committee when he was a City Representative. I’ll bet he did. And it’s precisely that “enjoyment” that forced El Paso (and
other Texas cities) to change the rules so that sitting representatives don’t
serve on Architect and Engineer selection committees any more.
Presi said he wants to see
staff names linked to the score sheets and the different ratings in the
future. Then he began speechifying
about the fact that he wants to make sure other companies get City money, that
the work gets spread around, and that “it’s not just going to one company.”
Hmmm. Interesting. I heard no complaints from Presi when Council approved the
following bid on the consent agenda:
17G. Solicitation No.: 2005-141 EPIA Lift
Station Renovation
Contractor: Thermodyn Contractors, Inc. El Paso, Texas
Department: El Paso International Airport
Funds Available: 62620029-PAP0032-41073-508027
Funding Source: Airport Capital
Improvement Funds
Items: Base Bid
$105,499.00
Total Award: $105,499.00
District (s): 2
The Departments of El Paso International Airport and
Engineering recommend the award of this
contract to Thermodyn Contractors, Inc., the low responsible, responsive bidder.
It is requested that the City Manager be authorized to sign the
referenced contract. Additionally, it
is requested that the City Manager be authorized to execute budget transfers
for this award and project, as necessary.
As part of the award of this contract, the City
Engineer is authorized to approve contract changes which are necessary for
proper construction of the work and carrying out the intent of the design, but
which do not increase the scope of the contract as awarded, in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 per numbered change order, and not to exceed the total of 25% of
the original contract price as awarded,
without further authorization by City Council. (Attachment) [Purchasing
Department, Byron Johnson, (915) 541-4308]
Thermodyn, the company
receiving the award in 17G just received two
large bids (one with the water utility and one with Sun Metro), but because the
owner, Albert Gamboa, is a big time contributor to the Crony Crew, Presi
apparently saw no problem with this one.
Presi, come on, buddy! You’re
becoming as transparent as your colleagues!
The item was postponed one
week, and the only no vote came from Cook.
Madame Tussaud's El Paso Museum
The following item should
have passed routinely on the consent agenda:
17F. Solicitation No.: 2005-138 Museum of
Archaeology Walking Path Repairs
Contractor: Tirayan Construction El Paso, Texas
Department: Museum
Funds Available: 31114001-PPWFA03021-27042-508027
Funding Source:
1994 Certificate of Obligation
Items: Base Bid
$47,600.00
Alternate $14,500.00
Total Award: $62,100.00
District (s): 4
The Departments of Engineering, and Museum recommend
the award of this contract to Tirayan Construction, the low responsible,
responsive bidder. It is requested that
the City Manager of the City of El Paso be authorized to sign the referenced
contract. Additionally, it is requested
that the City Manager and Staff be authorized to execute budget transfers for
this award and project, as necessary.
As part of the award of this contract, the City
Engineer is authorized to approve contract changes which are necessary for
proper construction of the work and carrying out the intent of the design, but
which do not increase the scope of the contract as awarded, in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 per numbered change order, and not to exceed the total of 25% of
the original contract price as awarded, without further authorization by City
Council. (Attachment) [Purchasing
Department, Byron Johnson, (915) 541-4308]
My friends, this little
northeast El Paso museum is a gem. The
walking paths, which are at the base of the Franklin Mountains, offer dramatic
mountain vistas and the greatest view of our beautiful springtime poppies. Leave it to Cobos to want to destroy
something good.
Ray Gilbert, who had asked
that this item be taken off the consent agenda, suggested using probationers or
members from the job corps to fix the trails and bridges that were in need of
repair.
Cobos, complaining that the
museum received only 20,000 visitors last year and pronouncing that the “real
archeological site” is at Keystone, said he wanted to relocate the
archeological museum to the west side.
He asked that the item be postponed for eight weeks to give the new
Council a chance to vote on it and made a pointed observation about the fact
that he did not know who would be on the new Council (that bizarre statement of
the obvious made me suspicious…hmmm…is election rigging also in your
repertoire, Tony?).
Cook said he didn’t disagree
about the significance of the Keystone archeological site, but reminded Cobos
that the Franklin Mountains and the poppies and the nature trails are
important, and the $62,000 from old Certificates of Obligation (that are just
“sitting there”) would repair the damage.
Austin said these old bonds
were specifically created for emergency repairs like this; and regarding the
poppies, she said that the Archeological Museum’s trails are the only official
trails available to the public.
Pat Adauto, Assistant City
Manger for Building and Planning Services, said these are 1994 CO’s and the
authorized use was for emergency rehab of city facilities, which this falls
under. Two pedestrian bridges were
damaged, she explained, and because this is a public facility, she said the
City has an obligation to keep the trails safe for visitors.
Cobos finally relented and
turned his concern to the name of the facility. “We need to build a museum of archeology at the Keystone
Wetlands,” he said, suddenly changing his tune.
He promised to “relocate the
name” of the Museum of Archaeology to the Wetlands, but only “If I’m
here!” I guess this was a veiled
threat, the implication being that if the voters of District 8 don’t do the
right thing and return him to office, this won’t get done. I found this a somewhat surprising
acknowledgement from the usually cocky Cobos that he not might not get
re-elected. From your lips to God’s
ears, Tony.
Austin made a motion to
approve and the item passed unanimously.
This item got me to thinking
about what kind of museum we should put in that building if the archeological
museum is relocated to the Keystone Wetlands.
Maybe my longtime fantasy of having one of those great wax museums where
the figures look like real-live people could finally become a reality! I’ve been
wanting a wax museum dedicated to local politicos. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
We’d of course detail the history of politics in El Paso – all the good
folks and of course, the handful of great folks, and then…the rest of ‘em!
But of course, I’d want a
special room – one that chronicles the history of the Wardy administration, and
the room would be called “Cronyville!”
In Cronyville, we’d have a wax figure of ex-District 8 Representative,
Anthony Cobos, wearing one of those cheesy Mafioso suits and that slimy smirk
of his, sitting in a smoke-filled room with a couple of Bowling boys and
exchanging contributions for votes. We
could have a recording of Cobos saying, “There is no quid pro quo! There is no quid pro quo!”
And then we could have a
figure of Joe Wardy, with that mierda-eating
grin on his face, cutting a ribbon of the new local fast-food restaurant
saying, “This is my economic development plan!
We’re thinking out of the box!
This is a new paradigm! Please
join me in this important exercise!”
And, of course, the pièce de résistance, the crowning jewel, the
quintessential wax museum piece would be none other than Luther Jones. The question is would he be dining with a
new recruit? Would he and a figure of
Martie Jobe be busily hunched over a computer, writing the campaign speeches of
their recruits? Or would he be sitting
in the City Attorney’s Office (with the Wardy administration’s blessing)
drafting an ordinance giving him final authority over all bids and
contracts? But, of course, the most
important question is would he be carrying
his man-purse?
Someone please appoint me to
that museum’s committee!
A Taste of Annexation
I perked up in my chair when
the following item was read into the record:
27B. Discussion and action on a resolution that the
City of El Paso, Texas hereby grants the petition for annexation submitted by
Ranchos Real IV, LTD., pursuant to the provisions of Section 43.028 of the
Texas Local Government Code for certain vacant property totaling approximately
16.042 acres located within Tract 2, Section 34, Block 79, Township 2, Texas
and Pacific Railway Company Surveys, El Paso County, Texas. The grant of the petition by the City of El
Paso only authorizes receipt and processing of an annexation application and in
no way infers approval of the application.
(District 5) (Attachment) [Planning,
Research & Development, Rudy Valdez, 541-4635]
Rudy Valdez from the
Planning Department explained that Ranchos Real had applied for annexation for
property a little over 16 acres in size in east El Paso between Montana,
Zaragoza and Joe Battle adjacent to other land that was annexed in 1999 (2000
acres). The developers are proposing 82
single-family residential lots and Valdez explained that “Texas Local
Government code provision requires that for areas that are half a mile or less
in width, a petition be submitted to Council for consideration.”
Rep. John Cook asked, “Are
there any implications as far as infrastructure issues that’s gonna be a cost
to the city if the annexation goes through, have we analyzed that?”
Wardy quickly intervened to
speak on behalf of staff and said that costs involved with annexation will be
shared with Council in the future and that this is simply a petition.
Austin said with some
concern that the resolution states that the annexation petition would be
granted, and she wanted clarification on what the Council would actually be
granting.
Matt Watson, Assistant City
Attorney, said that this is not a promise to annex, but only a promise to
process the application.
The item passed unanimously.
Yes, “a promise” indeed.
The “Long, Drawn Out Lawsuit”
When the following item was
first read into the record, Cushing asked that it be taken at the very end of
the meeting; so it was ordered, so it was done:
23.
Discussion and action authorizing the City Attorney or her designee to
negotiate and enter into contracts with outside counsel to represent the City
of El Paso in connection with the
City's efforts to collect from Asarco
the costs of remediating the El Paso metals site. [City Attorney's
Office, James A. Martinez, (915) 541-4550]
POSTPONED FROM 04/12/05
Jimbo with the Jumbo salary
explained that he had circulated a memo that highlighted two responses received
by law firms who want to represent the City in legal action against
ASARCO.
Scott Sumi and Carla Burke,
attorneys from Dallas law firm Baron & Budd, appeared before Council. Sumi said that his law firm’s practice was
devoted to representing cities in environmental litigation and that his firm
had been asked to submit a proposal.
He explained that his firm already represents other plaintiffs in litigation
against ASARCO, including one suit that alleges fraudulent conveyance of
property from ASARCO to Grupo Mexico.
If they win that lawsuit, he said, that could directly affect El Paso’s
litigation. He also said that his firm
has lots of experience in soil contamination cases. He said his firm is “very interested” in representing El Paso, is
qualified to sue ASARCO, and had 80 lawyers and a staff of 400.
Cushing and Cobos asked
leading questions intended to bolster Baron & Budd’s chances of getting
hired.
Susan Austin said there
would need to be local counsel involved in this, and she asked if the fee for
local counsel is part of their contingency fee. Sumi said it was.
At one point, Cobos
described the action against ASARCO as a “long, drawn out lawsuit,” and I
wanted to stand up and scream “DING, DING, DING, DING, DING! BINGO, YOU BOZO!”
When Baron & Budd was
finished, Jimbo with the Jumbo salary introduced the firm of Summerman and
Quezada, the other attorneys who were willing to take the case. Tex Quezada, who was representing the firm,
said that they are a small law firm, and if there’s a claim to be pursued,
they’d pursue it. He said Council needs
to understand that they’re in for a “long fight.”
The second firm was quite
inferior to Baron & Budd in terms of qualifications and experience; I
wondered why Summerman and Quezada bothered to make the trip to El Paso. Comparing the two firms would make the
hiring of Baron & Budd a no-brainer.
Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but was the fix in?
Jimbo with the Jumbo salary
then asked Council to act on the following motion: “That the City Attorney or her designee be authorized to
negotiate…to represent the City in its effortst to collect from ASARCO
remediating the site…”
Cobos made the motion and
selected Baron & Budd.
Before the vote on the
motion to authorize the City Attorney to execute any agreement between the City
and Baron & Budd was taken, John Cook asked, “Does this in any way
authorize the City to file a lawsuit?”
“This motion does not. That’s already been done,” replied Martinez.
“What?” asked Austin.
“When did we authorize a
lawsuit?” asked Cook
Cobos did NOT want to talk
about Cook’s question and asked, “Is that this item?” and wanted to move on to
the vote.
Jabba answered, replying
that it happened, “three or four weeks ago…some time ago.”
John Cook said, “That wasn’t
my understanding. My understanding was
that we authorized you to seek legal counsel and to come up with some law
firms, which is what’s before us today.”
“I believe Council
authorized a lawsuit,” responded Jimbo.
Cobos, eager to get to the
vote (and his eagerness always sets off my “caution signals,” dear reader!)
said, “I think we can get that clarified at a later time. I know that’s not what’s on the agenda here
today.”
I was hoping that Cook would
press the issue, because it’s kinda important, at least to me.
The motion passed, with the
only no vote coming from Cook. After
the vote was taken, Cook asked for the minutes of the meeting and Austin said
she, too, wanted the minutes as well as the tape of the executive session.
I’ll be watching!
For you candidates out there
who hope to be sitting in the mayor and Council chairs in the coming weeks,
this is coming up next week:
28. CITY
MANAGER: City Manager's report of current events and issues: Notice that
six-month mid-year budget report and FY06 budget assumptions will be presented
at the April 26, 2005 meeting.
There was nothing to report,
explained Joyce Wilson, and she placed the item on the agenda for notation
purposes only.
More Outside Counsel
Before the meeting
adjourned, Council unanimously authorized negotiating and executing a retention
agreement with outside Counsel to represent the City of El Paso as well as
Carlos Leon:
29C. George DeAngelis v. The City of El Paso, et al;
Cause No. EP-05-CA-0113-DB.
(551.071) [City Attorney's
Office, Michele Little Locke, (915) 541-4550]
On the next one, while
chewing her gum, Lisa E. asked them to make a motion to deny the settlement
proposal:
29D. David Snow v. The City of El Paso, Texas, et al;
Cause No. EP-04-CA-0460-PM In the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas (551.071) [City
Attorney's Office, James A. Martinez, (915) 541-4550]
And that was that for this
week.
In other news…
This week, El Paso Times reporter dug deeper into
an issue I first brought to light two weeks ago when I pointed out the
following:
But
what is most disturbing about Wardy’s expenditures list can be found on pages
80-82 of his expense report. On that
report, he lists expenses to SBC for “phone service at City Hall,” “Phone and
fax service at City Hall,” and “Long Distance Service for Mayor’s Office at
City Hall.”
Is
Wardy working his campaign (at least part of the time) from inside City
Hall? I don’t know if that’s legal, but
even if it is, it is clearly not ethical.
How can we taxpayers be guaranteed that our government resources (like
computers, internet service, secretarial staff and conference or meeting rooms
to name a few) are not being used by Wardy & Co. to ensure their
re-election?
Bear Walters…where are you?
http://www.thestrelz.com/shm/2005_0405.htm
Well, according to the
article in the Times, Wardy
“bristled” when David Crowder (the reporter) asked him questions about those
secret phone lines. Wardy tried to
explain those secret phones away by claiming they were for his wife’s “Green
Sweep” Committee. Uh-huh. I can see it now: A veritable tree emergency!
Those Green Sweep folks need a direct line to the mayor’s office to
report them!
Thankfully, one mayoral
hopeful (Carmen Rodriguez) has called for an investigation (http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504230347).
The Secrecy Is What Makes It Fun
The following was perhaps
the most interesting part of the article:
“Cook
cited a March legal opinion from the city attorney's office stating that, ‘City
resources ... may not be used for a personal or campaign-related purpose.’ He
contended that having a personal telephone and fax line in one's City Hall
office isn't proper.
City Attorney Lisa Elizondo said Cook should not have shared that legal advice
publicly because it came under lawyer-client privilege.”
http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504220333
Sorry, Lisa E., but that’s not a privileged attorney-client communication. That’s a re-statement of a basic rule of ethics. The poor thing doesn’t even know the difference. So, let me get this straight, Ms. Elizondo. If a City Councilor asked you, “As a general matter, can I take a bribe to vote a particular way on Council?”, would your answer be a privileged attorney-client communication? I can see it now. Council member X scolded by City Attorney Lisa Elizondo for revealing that . . . bribes are illegal! (Gotta keep that a secret at all costs, eh Lisa E.?) Good Lord, woman.