6.14.2005
My friends, what a wonderful
sight it was to see the new Mayor surrounded by his (mostly) new Council on a
Tuesday morning. The new crew, most of
whom campaigned on ethics and progressive government, signaled a new beginning
for El Paso.
My heart was beating and
Council Chambers was buzzing (…or was that just my hearing aid on “high”?) and
there was a great energy in the room unlike any I’ve felt in a long, long time.
I was very hopeful that the
ugly, divisive, negative, corrupt and fear-mongering tactics of the past
administration would soon simply feel like a bad dream. And the long, painful meetings…well, this
week, they were replaced by a brief 2-hour- and-20 minute meeting. This week featured two- or four-years terms
for Council reps, the election of mayor pro tem and deputy mayor pro tem, new
rules regarding public participation in Council meetings, and a slight delay in
Sid’s retirement. Read on.
Public Comment
The new Council heard
various public items this week:
1. Discussion and action: DOT permit after being recognized in 1999 by Federal DOT
officials and City Transportation officials, is suddenly being cancelled
without notice by City Inspectors. [H. van den Bogaard]
2. Noah's ark served as the basis for concept of
zoos. El Paso's elephants are a living
example of the past. Therefore, they
should be contained in their preservations here. [Jorge Artalejo]
3. Presentation to welcome new crew. [Wally Cech]
4. Discussion and action on continued police
corruption and abuse of citizens and request for Police Oversight Board. [Jesus Luna]
5. Discussion
and action on concerns of construction sites and signal stops on Joe Battle and
Tierra Este. [Isaac Hernandez]
Items 1, 2, 3 and 5 didn’t
require any action or real discussion; item 4 was more of the same complaints
issued throughout the previous administration about police brutality. Mr. Luna, who spoke on that item, expressed
hope that the new mayor and Council would take a genuine look at the police
brutality complaints and create a Police Oversight Board. Mayor Cook asked Mr. Luna to contact his
office and promised that a Legislative Review Committee meeting would be
called.
Doing Time
One of the first items to be
dealt with was the following:
6A. Drawing of lots for the terms of office for the
District Representatives, per City Charter Section 2.1B. (Attachment)
I held my breath…and
waited. The first to draw was Presi
Ortega, who, after a sight gag involving Johnny Carson’s Carnak the Magnificent
character, drew a two-year term. So far
so good. The next person up and the one
representative whose term I prayed would a four-year term was Steve
Ortega. As you know, Vivian “I’m bitter
and I Want the World to Know It” Rojas has stated publicly that she will run
against Steve Ortega once his term is up.
Thankfully, I was able to exhale once he drew his four-year term. See ya in four, Viv, although I hope to not
see you at all ever again.
Here’s
how the rest of them stacked up.
Two-year
terms: Ann Lilly, Eddie Holguin and
Beto O’Rourke
Four-year terms: Susie Byrd, Alexandro Lozano and Melina
Castro
You win some and you lose
some (big losses: Four years of Lasagna
and Castro), but I was generally pleased.
The United Front
Although there was much
discussion about the tug-of-war regarding the powerful position of Mayor Pro
Tem (“MPT”) (powerful because of the MPT’s ability to appoint Councilors to
legislative review committees), Council selected someone else:
6B. Election of Mayor Pro Tempore and Alternate Mayor
Pro Tempore. (Attachment)
Presi Ortega said that the
“talk about unity, the talk about vision” during the previous evening’s
swearing in ceremony was an indication of the direction this Council would be
moving in. He then made the motion to
elect Beto O’Rourke as Mayor Pro Tem and it was seconded by Alexandro
Lozano. The vote was unanimous. The crowd applauded. Can you feel the real love, Tony? Or are you wallowing in bitterness and
recrimination like your buddy, Viv?
O’Rourke said he was honored
by the responsibility and said he hoped he would serve all of them well. I’m absolutely certain he will. He then suggested that the position be
re-evaluated in a year.
Presi Ortega suggested that
the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem also be a rotating office and nominated Alexandro Lozano
as Deputy MPT; the motion was seconded by Eddie Holguin, who is related to
Lasagna by marriage. It was another
unanimous vote.
Although I am delighted with
the appointment of Beto O’Rourke as Mayor Pro Tem, I was saddened and
disappointed that with so many ethical and wonderful new Council members this
group couldn’t get someone more fitting of the honor to assume the position of
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. Lozano has been
under investigation for misusing his City Hall credit card and claiming
ignorance once he was caught (http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=b7bca36b36de4b9b&mc=b3e4007e8fe741b9#2). Gee…I guess it wasn’t in the rules that you
can’t use our tax dollars for a cruise, eh, Lasagna?
I was also disappointed that
a woman hadn’t assumed any positions of power in the Tower of Testosterone on
the Tenth Floor. Hey, I’m a thoroughly
modern oldster.
“I would like to point out
that all the predictions that there was going to be dissension on Council have
proven to be . . . false,” said Mayor Cook (I like that…”Mayor Cook”…it’s got a
nice ring to it!) before moving on to the next item.
Order in the Court: The Verdict is In
The next item, which was a
discussion of how this Council would accept public comment, was the most
controversial issue in this short meeting:
6C. Discussion and action on a Resolution adopting
the Rules of Order for City Council meetings. (Attachment)
Elaine Hengen, Assistant
City Attorney, explained that the new Council has to adopt rules of order, so
staff had prepared a draft of revisions to the rules of order used by the prior
administration (otherwise known as the reign of terror). The changes being recommended would amend
the rules of order in two ways.
The first change concerned
public items. She explained that the
original rules really only allow for thirty minutes before the start of the
meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act
calls for the adoption of a public comment section. Council would have a section of the meeting that simply calls for
public comment during that half-hour period at the beginning of each meeting,
and the public would sign up and list what their item for discussion was.
John Cook said this change
was very important because “The intention is to put less of a burden on staff
to try to come up with documentation and research at the last minute and also
allow us to respond to constituent complaints, so I’m in total support of this
issue.”
Hengen explained that folks
would sign up prior to the City Council meeting (the deadline was 9:00 a.m. the
day of the meeting), and the City Clerk would determine how many individuals
were signed up and divide the time among the number of speakers. In order to manage the speakers’ time, the
light system would be activated (there are green, yellow and red lights at the
podium).
City Manager Joyce Wilson,
responding to a question from Cook, said that members of Council would be able
to ask for an extension of the time if they saw fit. Then, based on the significance of the public item, Council could
send the issue to a Legislative Review Committee (“LRC”) meeting or a regular
Council meeting for further, more detailed discussion.
The second change to the
rules of order would prohibit members of the public from removing items from
the consent agenda. The consent agenda
is where routine items that would probably receive unanimous support are
placed. Instead, the member of the
public would sign up to ask his/her questions of that item. When the consent agenda is being considered,
the member of the public could ask his/her question, but if the item needed
further discussion, the Mayor Pro Tem (and any Council member) could pull the
item off the consent agenda.
Wilson explained that City
staff members have had to (in the past) sit through lengthy meetings waiting to
answer questions on items taken off the consent agenda by the public. Very often, though not always, these
questions are very basic, and forcing staff to sit through long Council
meetings to answer straightforward questions is a colossal waste of time. To be fair, one of the worst practitioners
of this unfair and inefficient exercise was the absent and un-lamented Vivian
Rojas (a former Council member, and now, much to my relief, an embittered
member of the public).
Hengen also explained that
Council could do away with the absolute rule (created by Susan Austin) that
would require Council to vote on an amendment before voting on an amended
motion, and Cook agreed with the removal, saying the removal of that rule would
streamline the process and would still leave available the option to vote on
amendments.
Ortega²
At
that point, Cook turned to his left and said, “Mr. Ortega, you had a
comment?”
Presi
Ortega responded, “No, I didn’t have a comment.”
Cook
pointed at Steve Ortega and said, “Steve?”
“Oh, I’m sorry,” said Presi,
who (along with everyone else) will have to get used to having two
representatives named Ortega on Council.
“Should we call you guys
Ortega One and Ortega Two,” asked Cook as the audience and Council laughed.
Steve Ortega said, “I’d like
to make a motion. There had been some
concern about members of Council, previous Council, taking phone calls and
receiving electronic messaging, and I’d like to make a motion for amendment, to
limit the use of electronic devices, and I had the City Attorney’s office draw
up some language, and I’d like to read it into the record if I may.”
Cook allowed the amendment,
and I wanted to stand up and applaud when Steve Ortega read his amendment
prohibiting Councilors from making or receiving phone calls or viewing any
electronic messaging while in Council Chambers when a Council meeting has been
called to order. He also said that
audience members would be required to abide by the same rules.
The changes suggested (and
accepted) to Ortega’s motion included allowing communications from the City
Representatives to their staff upstairs and for emergencies.
Lisa Turner was not happy
with the changes regarding public comment.
After congratulating the new Council, she said she was “greatly
distressed” by the fact that the rules were not posted on the internet. “What I see is you’re trying to limit public
input,” she said, and added that the local folks who ask questions frequently
ask questions that are on the minds of the public. I agree with the second part of her statement.
She pointed out that the
previous administration applied the rules arbitrarily and used to allow the
folks who agreed with them ample time, while Wardy & Co. limited the
opponents’ time. She’s right.
She also said that she’s
been at public hearings and budget meetings where the officials “bemoan” the
fact that the public wasn’t involved.
She added that any steps
they take to limit public input are wrong, and said she also disagreed with the
prohibition on the public from moving items off the consent agenda.
Although I usually agree with
Ms. Turner, on one point I respectfully but firmly disagree: I do not believe that the public should have
unlimited time and unlimited abilities to hijack a meeting. As I have observed repeatedly in these
notes, Lisa Turner, Ric Schecter, Stuart Mitchell and a few others often make
good, sometimes excellent, contributions to the discussion of issues and,
collectively, they are vital to our democracy and the progress of our
City. Frankly, it’s not Ms. Turner and
the others I mentioned that I worry about.
There are other visitors to Council I do worry about who are more than
willing to abuse the public’s privilege to move items off the regular agenda
and to speak before Council (and, yes, whether you like it or not, both are a
privilege, not a right). Moreover, it
is not a bad thing to streamline Council discussion, as long as Council and the Mayor still have the discretion to
lengthen the time if needed.
Cook said that her point was
well-taken, and he apologized for the fact that the backup was not on the
internet. However, he said that moving
items off the consent agenda would require staff to sit for hours, waiting for
the item back up. The change in rules
allows the staff to immediately address the question and get back to work.
Ray Gilbert also questioned
the fact that the rules weren’t on the internet, but said he didn’t see
problems with the changes. Gilbert (who
must be suffering from dementia) claimed that the previous administration under
Wardy didn’t have a problem enforcing the time rules equally. I guess Ray Gilbert’s watch must have been
broken over the last two years. Of
course, Gilbert always received as much time as he wanted when he came before
Council under Wardy, so it’s no surprise he found Wardy a fair
parliamentarian. Gilbert, who is fast
becoming a Wardy apologist, loses more credibility with me every time he
speaks.
Municipal Clerk Richarda
Momsen said that the sign up forms for public comment could be sent
electronically, but the cut off time is 9:00 a.m. the day of the meeting.
Ric Schecter was just as
outraged as Lisa Turner was, and said that Council members work for the public
and should be prepared to sit and listen to the public as long as it
takes. He called the changes
“outrageous,” and he said this irritated him no end. “Most of the long sessions we’ve had at City Council are a result
of mismanagement by the person sitting previously in your chair, Mayor Cook,”
he said adding that discussion should be cut off and regulated.
Well, he is right about
that. But I would argue that if we want
efficient government, we need to walk the walk, too. Schecter then went on for a few more minutes, making the same
point over and over and relaying his displeasure more than once. Schechter’s impassioned complaint illustrated
perfectly why it is appropriate to limit, in a reasonable way, the amount of
time the public can speak at Council meetings.
I’m sorry, Mr. Schecter, but you cannot and should not be able to speak
for as long as you like before Council.
For you to assert otherwise is just a tad arrogant. While I admire your passion for and
commitment to local issues, very few of us, I suspect, like to hear you talk as
much as you do.
Schecter did make an
excellent suggestion: Any member of the
public wishing to introduce, discuss or resolve an issue should first go to
his/her City Representative. I
completely agree. I hope more folks at
home will email or call their City Representative when they have questions,
concerns or comments, instead of waiting for others to do it for them. Our elected officials need to hear from all
of, and that’s why they have telephones, offices and email.
Council approved the new
rules, which included the excellent amendment by Steve Ortega. I agree with the rules, especially because
they can be suspended if necessary.
Preview of Coming Attractions
City Manager Joyce Wilson
explained that the following item would allow for new Council members to sit in
on an explanation of issues the day before Council meeting;
6D. Discussion and action on authorizing a standing,
weekly Special City Council meeting for City Council agenda review. (Attachment)
The meetings will be held
every Monday at 4:00 p.m. on the 10th floor and will be open to the
public.
The Last of the Old Guard Minutes
Like the tolling of a
bell…or the passing of a kidney stone, we are finally rid of the last remnants
of the previous administration:
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: [Municipal Clerk, Richarda
Duffy Momsen, (915) 541-4127] Approval of Minutes for Regular City Council
Meeting of June 7, 2005. (Attachment)
Halleluiah!
Appointments
The following items (on the
additions to the agenda) were approved without discussion on the consent
agenda:
1. That the salary of Matthew Briones for the
position of Executive Assistant to Mayor be set at an annual salary of $50,000,
prorated for six months, effective June 15, 2005. (Attachment) [Mayor John F.
Cook, (915) 541-4015]
2. That the salary of Diana Nuñez for the position of
Executive Secretary to the Mayor, be set at $42,000 effective June 15, 2005. (Attachment) [Mayor John F.
Cook, (915) 541-4015]
Diana Nuñez was the Deputy
City Clerk who sat in on Council meetings when Richarda Momsen was
unavailable. She will now be Mayor
Cook’s executive secretary. Matthew
Briones was John Cook’s campaign manager, and while I don’t know enough about
him to make a judgment one way or the other yet, I hope Mr. Briones serves Cook
well in this very vital position.
Also approved was the need
for a replacement for Ms. Nuñez:
3. Request for provisional appointment(s) in
accordance with Article VI, Section 6.6-2, of the Civil Service Charter
Provisions:
Deputy City Clerk (1)
Fund Source:
11010009-01101-02000
(Attachment) [Municipal Clerk,
Richarda Duffy Momsen, (915) 541-4127]
More Coming Attractions
The following items (the
last of this beautifully short meeting) were listed under the City Manager’s
report:
19. CITY MANAGER: [City Manager, Joyce A. Wilson, (915)
541-4844]
City Manager's report of current events and issues:
El Paso Electric Franchise Agreement
Palo Verde Rewards
City's debt instruments
FY05-06 Budget
City Employee Health Insurance
Pension and Unfunded Liability Study
Deferred Compensation
Report from the Arroyo Committee
City Manager Joyce Wilson
said she had to work with the City Attorney’s Office to figure out another way
to get all these briefings done, which she wants to happen during Council
meetings so the public can stay informed.
Wilson explained that staff has been working on these issues for several
months and there are deadlines on some of these issues, like the Electric
Company franchise agreement. She said
that particular item would be introduced next week and two weeks after that,
staff would give a very detailed briefing.
The Palo Verde awards would
come back at the end of June, as would budget hearings in July and the other
issues.
And then, after a brief and
relatively pleasant two hours, it was over…the first exciting meeting!
The Recurring Nightmare
If watching the new Council
in action was like a dream come true, the pending hiring of Jaime O. Perez is
like a recurring nightmare.
According to KVIA, Eddie
Holguin has hired (or is planning on hiring) Jaime O. Perez to “handle
administrative affairs” for District 7.
This is the same thing Alexandro Lozano did when he was first elected to
office in 2003.
Can’t
anyone learn from past mistakes?
In
case we need a history lesson, your old friend Sid will provide it.
For a good background on
Perez, you must read Debbie Nathan’s Texas
Observer article about Jaime O. from her chronicle of the 2003 election:
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1314
Perez has a long history of
wheedling his way into public agencies and accessing public funds. He did this with the Housing Authority, (see
“Anatomy of a Contract: Venegas, Sun
Circle & Perez”
http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=e85104668ef04d57&mc=1b640de13e74466e) and he’s done that with the City.
A Long History
Here’s an excerpt from my
1.27.04 notes about Mr. Perez (I’ve heavily edited the full version in order to
be efficient…I’m takin’ a cue from Council!):
Perez, still heddy from his newfound
power, decided to keep going. His next step was to initiate a (failed) recall
effort against then District #3 Representative Larry Medina. Perez went around
Medina's district, getting folks to sign the recall petition because - gasp! -
Medina had the gall to support the Tax Increment Finance District that could
help lure businesses to create this medical health campus near Thomason. I
mean, really, what nerve. Didn't Medina understand we're a low-wage town that
wants minimum-wage mall jobs, not lucrative health care jobs with benefits and
a future? Didn't Medina understand that compared to campesinos in little
pueblitos in Mexico, we live like kings in El Paso, and that we shouldn't
aspire to anything more than what we have always had?
As it turned out, Medina
successfully completed his term in office, but when it was time for
re-election, he faced a challenger: Jose Alexandro Lozano. Lozano, whose campaign, many
believe, was orchestrated by troika member Luther Jones, went on to beat Medina
in the regular election, and then, once in office, he hired none other than
Jaime O. Perez, the man who riled up the citizens of district #3 in the first place. Not only did Lozano hire
Mr. Perez so he could earn a City salary, but he also paid him outright from
his campaign funds.
In all, Lozano listed payment to Perez in his last campaign finance report that
totaled a little more than $3,000 (there may be more, who knows?). This money
came directly out of his campaign funds, and those funds in turn had come
directly from contributions made by the likes of Luther Jones, Martie Jobe, the
Jobe PAC, the Bowling family (who own Tropicana Homes and who gave him $2,500
in a single reporting period alone) and others.
What a
sad, vicious cycle, eh, dear reader? The Jobes, Jones and the Bowlings contribute
big money to elected hirelings like Lozano and significant amounts of that
money gets funneled to the likes of Jaime O. Perez, chaos creator.
Ironically,
the only proclamation read this week was one for "Financial Freedom
Week." Jaime Perez's desire for financial freedom is what causes this
community the most chaos.
http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=9ad24fcebc9941b6&mc=48555ec5a8354235
As I pointed out back then,
Jaime Perez is very good at tearing down projects and is infamous for his
recalls. For more information, see http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=bb897fcb64b04df7&mc=85bf414abc784fc0
and “Initiative & Recall: The Jaime
O. Perez Archive”
http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=c65baba124240589&mc=1b640de13e74466e).
When Alexandro Lozano later
beat Larry Medina in 2003 for the seat of District 3 City Representative,
Lozano decided to hire Jaime O. Perez (big surprise) to work in his City Hall
office. When Perez’s appointment was
placed on the 8.26.03 agenda by Lozano, there was quite a bit of discussion; in
the end, three Council members had the courage to vote against giving such a
destructive force entrée to City Hall:
John Cook, Dan Power, and Paul Escobar.
At that meeting, some very brave City Hall secretaries talked about the
low morale that was coming as a result of contracts like Perez’s, but
nevertheless, the item passed
(http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=23c2200984514c37&mc=1b640de13e74466e).
Perez was instrumental in
placing items like a tax freeze and other issues (that Eddie Holguin recently
had on his platform as city Council candidate) on the City Council agenda and
ensuring that other Councilors looked like merciless and callous politicians if
they didn’t agree with his fiscally irresponsible (but guaranteed
crowd-pleasing) proposals.
When Perez’s contract with
the City was finally terminated (apparently for misusing city computers),
Lasagna gave him a volunteer position.
Here’s what I wrote about that discussion on 10.7.03:
Repeal the 13th Amendment?
Representative
Lozano placed an item on the agenda asking that the Human Resources Department
develop a customer service policy for all city employees and to incorporate it
in the employee handbook. Once he introduced the item, he said "thank you
for the staff" and mentioned that City personnel are just great. This from
one of the representatives who reportedly admonished his civil service
employees; asked them not to come back to his office; and hired Jaime O. Perez,
former mayoral candidate, recall mastermind, and co-creator of a local
hate-mongering website, to do his office work. Speaking of Mr. Perez, he is no
longer a paid employee of the City's and when his volunteer contract came up
for approval by Council, Representative Austin inquired, "I presume a
volunteer services contract can be terminated?" No, Ms. Austin, we can
force him to work for free for the duration of the contract…of course it can.
Aren't you one of the lawyers on Council? A more significant question that went
unasked is: Can the City be held liable for any of the hate-mongering on Perez'
website since he represents a City representative and, thus, the City?
http://www.newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=8a734cd3738746e0&mc=ccacfa91da53407b
And when that didn’t pan out either,
Lasagna placed him on the Airport Board:
http://www.elpasotexas.gov/city_clerk/agenda/10-14-03/10140310a.pdf
(John Cook abstained on that
vote).
I
believe (although I could be wrong) that the item calling for the approval of
Jaime O. Perez’s contract must go before Council. If it does, it is my hope that the rest of Council takes a long,
thoughtful look at Mr. Perez’s destructive history before casting their
vote. I understand that they may be
reluctant to thwart one of their colleague’s hires, but if one of them wanted
to hire someone as crooked as Perez, I would be making the same recommendation. I’m extremely disappointed that Mr. Holguin
would even consider hiring Perez. His
hiring will taint Mr. Holguin and every Council member who supports the hire.
The Need to Remove Elizondo
Folks, in case you missed
this morning’s El Paso Times, you
missed an article about John Cook following through on his promise to this
community to get rid of the last of the crony crew: Lisa Elizondo and Jim Martinez (http://www.elpasotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005506180331). It is my understanding that one of the
reasons John Cook, and many of the new representatives, ran for office because
they were not happy with the rampant cronyism and incompetence of the previous
administration (among having their own specific issues).
Perhaps the most egregious
example of that cronyism and incompetence was Wardy’s firing of Rita Rodriguez
(who was only allowed to walk away with her vacation time) and the hiring of
Lisa Elizondo, an unqualified and thoroughly mediocre attorney, as the
replacement for Rodriguez at a whopping $155,000 per year.
Just in case any folks at
home or on Council are having any second thoughts about the necessity of
removing Ms. Elizondo, I thought I’d provide the long list of reasons for you. And as always, I will (very immodestly, I
admit) quote myself in the process (although I will be heavily editing from the
original notes).
The Chronicles of Lisa
As a reminder, Joe Wardy
wanted to clean out the City Attorney’s Office and he did just that. After ousting Charlie McNabb, a seasoned
City Attorney and CAO, and an ethical professional with decades of municipal
experience, Wardy replaced him with Jim Martinez, a young, local attorney with
zero municipal experience, at $165,000 per year in direct violation of the
charter.
The next step in Wardy’s
scheme was to install another young attorney from the private sector with a
rather limited (and, in fact, checkered) professional past who had absolutely
no experience with municipal law. Despite
her lack of experience, he gave her an enormous salary as well ($155,000 per
year) and a big axe. In order to ensure
that my readers at home get the big picture as it relates to these two last
Luther Jones/David Escobar/Joe Wardy cronies, I’ve decided that the best way to
chronicle all of the issues that relate to Lisa Elizondo and Jim Martinez, I
should just categorize them. So, here
they are.
1. The Redecorating Extravaganza
One of the first acts by
Lisa E. was to spend thousands of dollars redecorating her office without the
consent of the purchasing department (http://newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=2c0eae8c6ae24893). That set the stage for Lisa’s lack of
concern for our tax dollars and the rules that govern the City.
2. Ousting Experience and Ethics
She then began to rid the
City of veteran Assistant City Attorneys who would stand in the way of corrupt
governance. One of those attorneys was
Laura Gordon (http://newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=a4f8e0e0d8b475ab),
and here’s what I wrote when Elizondo placed an item on the agenda to hire a
replacement for Ms. Gordon, Mike Moffeit at $91,000 per year:
Nightmare in Wardyland OR So the Blind Can Lead the Really
Blind
Why am
I so interested in the hiring of Mr. Moffeit? Before I explain, I'd like you to
imagine for a moment, dear reader, that you are a highly-experienced and well-respected
City employee who has committed most of your professional career to public
service. It's just two days before Christmas. You go out to lunch; you come
back and you are told that you have to retire or be fired and you are not
allowed to take any of your personal belongings home . . . not even your
Christmas presents.
You are
not told why, you are simply told to leave. Well, this isn't simply a Wardyland
fantasy; unfortunately, this is reality and it's exactly what happened to Laura
Gordon. Gordon is a 17-year city veteran and the talented attorney who crafted
the sexually-oriented business ordinance. (It so happened that Gordon had an
item on this week's executive session: 24A. "Discussion and action on El Paso Entertainment, Inc. City
Attorney's Office, Laura P. Gordon, (915) 541-4550").
Lisa
Elizondo, Wardy's $150,000 per year city Attorney fired Ms. Gordon last week.
Elizondo, a woman who is being sued for malpractice, who was hired despite the
fact that she had absolutely no municipal experience, who is incapable of
answering the most basic legal questions that arise at Council, and who
blithely spent at least $13,000 of our tax money to redecorate her office, has
apparently been given carte blanche to treat people this way with impunity.
http://newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=a4f8e0e0d8b475ab
But Mr. Moffeit didn’t last
long. Lisa E. fired him, too! According to an email Moffeit sent to the
Mayor and Council, Lisa E. was asking him to violate the law, so in exchange
for leaving quietly, he signed a confidentiality agreement, took a small sum of
money and left. And because Lisa E.
ousted good folks and some of the folks even she hired left, she was left to
figure out how to handle cases that were pending.
And instead of hiring other
competent, experienced attorneys to fill the void in that office (the void that
starts with her), she hired inexperienced attorneys, including a few who were
recently out of law school:
Young Lawyers Unite
Also on the consent agenda was the following new hire:
10.
Appointment of Jorge Villegas as Assistant City Attorney. (Attachment) [City Attorney's
Office, Lisa A. Elizondo, (915) 541-4550]
Lisa
Elizondo has hired yet another relatively inexperienced attorney to add to her
staff because Mr. Villegas, according to his resume (attached), became a lawyer
only two years ago. My readers will recall that several weeks ago (when
Elizondo asked Council to give her a blank check to pay Carl Green to provide
legal services), I documented that Elizondo admitted to Council that her staff
is neither "competent" nor "experienced" enough to handle
the City's heavy caseload.
Why,
then, I wanted to ask, would she hire a baby lawyer – again?
Maybe,
In LisaWorld (which is a wealthy suburb of Wardyland), the only way for our
City Attorney to feel good about herself as a lawyer—to feel like she's smarter
and more experienced than others—is to hire newly-minted lawyers.
They're so non-threatening. Ah. Yes. Must be it. But
why Council wouldn't challenge her about the issue was also beyond me. http://www.thestrelz.com/shm/2004_1102.htm
Villegas, like other Lisa E. hires, had a
starting salary of $75,000. This is
extremely unusual. Very few lawyers
with only two years of experience under their belts can get jobs in the public
sector paying $75,000 per year. In
preparation for this column, I did some research and made some inquiries and I
was informed by knowledgeable attorneys that, currently, journeyman lawyers—not
lawyers with just two years of experience—are typically hired by the federal
government at an annual salary of $60,576 (this is categorized in
federal-speak as a GS-12). Gee
whiz! (In cities with high costs of
living, the starting salary is slightly higher.) http://www.opm.gov/oca/05tables/html/RUS.asp
So, you have to ask yourself: 1) Where does Lisa E. get off hiring a
lawyer with two years of experience at $75 K per year, $15,000 more than the
salary at which the federal government hires more experienced lawyers? And 2) Why would Lisa E. hire a lawyer with just two years of experience at
that salary?
As a further aside, I did some additional
research and consulting and I learned another interesting thing when comparing
Lisa Elizondo’s salary to federal salaries.
I learned that the federal government has something called the Senior
Executive Service. This is a pay scale
for senior professionals (including lawyers) who rank just below cabinet
secretaries and under-secretaries, etc.
In other words, these are very senior people; typically, I am told, they
have 20 years or more of experience in their fields and recognized
expertise. For example, the general
counsel (i.e., the highest ranking lawyer) for a cabinet-level department like the State Department would be in the
SES. Senior Executives’ pay scale
ranges from $121,600 to $166,700. (http://www.opm.gov/oca/02tables/ex.htm). Our own Ms. Elizondo makes a salary that
would put her at an SES II, the second highest SES rank. (Jimbo with the Jumbo salary is at an SES I,
the highest rank.)
Just think about this for a moment. Lisa Elizondo, the woman with no previous
municipal law experience, who has to this date failed to come close to learning
let alone mastering municipal law, and who is being sued for incompetence,
makes the same amount of money as the general counsel of a federal cabinet
department. What is wrong here? And Jimbo with the Jumbo salary makes even
more than she does! Am I the only one
who is deeply offended by this slap in the face to hard-working folks who work their way up the professional
ladder?
Anyway, as a result of
Elizondo’s bad decisions to hire new, young lawyers and because of the newly
hired attorneys’ inexperience, her department couldn’t handle the work. Enter Carl Green. Here’s a long (but informative) entry from my August 17, 2004
notes chronicling the outsourcing that has cost us hundreds of thousands of
dollars and the blank check that Council approved:
Payday for Carl Green
I
referenced the following item in last week’s notes:
6A.
That the City Attorney be authorized to negotiate and sign retention agreements
with outside counsel for the representation of the City in lawsuits. (Attachment) [City Attorney's Office, Lisa A. Elizondo,
(915) 541-4550]
Defending
her actions, Lisa Elizondo replied that “This is a somewhat unique situation…we
expect this to be very temporary in nature,” and she said her ultimate goal
would be to hire a candidate who would take over the litigation for a position.
What position? She didn’t say, but she later mentioned a “Full Time Trial
Supervisor” position.
Elizondo
further recommended that “any and all litigation that we have received to date
be referred to outside counsel.” She admitted that a list of all the lawsuits
against the City she provided on August 9th wasn’t up to date, so
outside counsel (Carl Green) would be receiving even more cases than Council
was originally told. How many? Well, she gave the classic Elizondo response:
she didn’t know. “I don’t have an active list for you of those cases,” she
further admitted.
Should
the City Attorney have such a list, dear reader? What do you think? Do you
think it would be important to know just what cases the City is litigating? Do
you think it would be a good idea to know, just approximately, how much of our
tax money Ms. Elizondo is paying outside attorneys for litigation? Particularly
since, by Ms. Elizondo’s own admission, her staff is not competent to handle
it? Do you think the fact that she has fired every chief litigator she’s ever
had (including one she herself hired) might have been a factor in placing her
office in the dire straits she claims it’s in?
When
asked if the litigator currently on staff (an individual hired by Elizondo)
[Michele Little Locke] would be doing any litigating, Elizondo’s response was
“If the determination was made either because of her workload or her experience level
[emphasis added] it was appropriate to send it out to outside counsel, we could
do the new cases under the existing authority.”
The
meaning of Ms. Elizondo’s non-answer, as I interpret it (pardon me, Mr. “Only
the Author Can Interpret His or Her Own Words” Cushing) is this: No. But Elizondo doesn’t have the guts to give
Council a straight, non-tortuous answer. And Council lets her get away with
this. Shame on Council.
The
bottom line is all cases will be outsourced, and the City Attorney will
continue to send out new cases because she has the authority to do so (courtesy
of City Council) and because the staff she herself has hired is not competent
to do it. Beautiful.
But her
current authority to spend up to $5,000 per case just isn’t good enough, she
argued, stating that “I have authority for a $5,000 cap on each case…the
problem is that several of the cases are set for trial…and they [Carl Green]
have raised some concern that they will exceed that cap and they’re feeling
restricted by that monetary amount...I need the authority to be able to approve
these [retention agreement] invoices in excess of $5,000.”
Well,
of course they’re feeling restricted! When there’s a bottomless pit of money is
being dangled before your eyes, wouldn’t you, too, feel restricted by a measly
five grand per case?
Just
how much money this blank check would end up costing us (the taxpayer) in
total, no one asked. I guess it’s not important. I’m sure, though, the answer
would be Elizondo’s classic “I don’t know.” Or probably something like this:
“If the determination was made either because of the dollar amounts involved or
the amount of work required, we would make a decision on expending fees to
outside counsel to perform litigation work.”
John
Cook asked how many cases had been sent to outside counsel (Carl Green), and
the answer was that it was between 35-40 cases. Cook asked why she couldn’t
bring those cases to Council on a weekly basis for approval (which would limit
her power). I couldn’t document the non-answer quickly enough in my notes, but
it didn’t matter as her response was meaningless. And unfortunately, Cook had
no support from Council.
I did
some quick math when I heard Elizondo report the number of cases that needed an
excess of $5,000. If you multiply 40 cases times the $5,000 cap, the initial
total is $200,000. Wow. That $200,000 is just for the first three weeks and
doesn’t even include bills for September and October yet. That Carl Green is
one lucky guy.
I’d
like to remind folks at home that the chief litigator Elizondo fired was making
$90,000; the litigator currently on staff is said to be paid around $70,000 a
year. So the City was paying two staff members $160,000 a year to handle these
cases. We’ve already exceeded that number and Carl Green has just gotten
started, folks.
Susan
Austin wanted an updated amount of what this legal work was costing so far, and
Elizondo said she wasn’t sure about that. Austin then asked Elizondo if she had
any idea as to what cases are currently set for trial; Elizondo said no.
When
Austin probed further and asked if she has “any idea if any [of the cases] are
going to trial this week,” her reply was “No, I don’t.”
And this is our City Attorney?
Cobos asked, “Can we handle all these
cases internally?”
Elizondo replied, “Absolutely not.” [emphasis added]
Hmmm…interesting.
The City was able to handle these cases internally for the last three decades
at least. Suddenly, under Elizondo’s leadership, the City cannot and must expend
hundreds of thousands of extra taxpayer dollars to boot. Has there ever been a
more clear-cut case of incompetence that demands immediate termination? Opps. I
forgot. Emma Acosta. The beat goes on.
To sum
up: because of inexperience and the loss of competent and seasoned litigators
from the City Attorney’s office, someone outside the office now has to be paid
enormous amounts of taxpayer money to represent us (on an hourly basis) because
the staff inside the City Attorney’s office cannot.
Got it. Back to the meeting.
Elizondo admitted that she’s doing
this because “We do not have the experience” on staff to handle these cases. [emphasis added]
Despite
what appeared to be dissatisfaction, Representative Austin made a motion to
allow Elizondo to do this through November 10th or until the time
that the Trial Supervisor (read: Jim Martinez) is hired, whichever comes first.
That means that for the next three months, Carl Green (Jim Martinez’s former
partner, Lisa Elizondo’s former employer) will be charging us – the taxpayer –
for work previously done by a salaried employee.
In
November, once the contract with Green is over, Elizondo will then ask Council
to allow her to hire and pay an unemployed Jim Martinez $165,000-$185,000 a
year to take over the job. I’ll be keeping a close watch on that Council vote
for you when it comes up.
As if
she were providing Council with any consolation, Elizondo promised to provide
Council with reports “to keep you apprised of what’s going on with outside
counsel.” Austin complained that the reports Elizondo is currently sending
Council have a “considerable lag time between the time that work was actually
done” and the time that the bill was paid. She said the reports aren’t
representative of the costs being racked up by that outside law firm because
“That doesn’t tell us a whole lot about how much work is being done as we
speak,” she said.
Wow. Where can I get a sweetheart deal like that?
http://www.thestrelz.com/shm/2004_0817.htm
3. Keeping Secrets
Both Lisa Elizondo and Jim
Martinez have done a great job of keeping information from the City
Council. If you ask me, that’s the same
thing as being dishonest. Here are some
examples:
Ø
When Dan Power was still
a member of the previous administration, he and other Council members
questioned the need for long, protracted executive sessions Lisa E. was hosting
where discussion that should be happening in open session and out in the public
were being held.
Ø
And because she and
Jimbo with the Jumbo salary love keeping secrets, they also authorized payment
of hush money and confidentiality agreements to Mike Moffeit and Emma Acosta
(former Director of Solid Waste Management) without
informing Council.
Ø
On January 11, 2005
Elizondo also lied to Council about her office:
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
I’d like to revisit something that came up at the January 11th
Council meeting. It’s an important
issue because it goes to the deceptive and dishonest nature of this administration. Those of you who are loyal readers of mine
will remember the following details from those notes when a discussion about
the City Attorney’s Office came up:
“Lobbing a friendly softball question at her, Paul Escobar
then asked [Lisa Elizondo], ‘You’ve also cut down on staff attorneys, is that
right?’ Responding, Elizondo bragged:
‘By a significant number. We’ve
reduced the office from 27 [attorneys] down to currently 17 [attorneys] if you
approve this appointment.’”
http://www.thestrelz.com/shm/2005_0111.htm
I said it then, and I’ll say it again. She was lying, and here’s the proof. The following is a specific breakdown of
City Attorney Office staff before and after Elizondo’s reign of terror and
incompetence came to City Hall (my thanks to a helpful alert reader…gotta love
those alert readers!):
City Attorney’s
Office Before Lisa E City Attorney 1)
Rita Rodriguez RESIGNED/REMOVED Litigation Attorneys 2) Laura Gordon RESIGNED/REMOVED 3) John Gates RESIGNED 4) Perry Piñon RESIGNED/REMOVED Transactional
Attorneys 5) Lupe Cuellar 6) Kevin Elkins RESIGNED 7) Sylvia Borunda Firth
(Airport) 8) Marvin Foust 9) Terri Garcia 10) Elaine Hengen 11) Lee Ann Koehler RESIGNED 12) Lupe Martinez 13) John Nance 14) Ruth Reyes RESIGNED 15) Raymond Telles RESIGNED 16) Matt Watson Municipal Court
Attorneys 17) Al Avila (City Prosecutor) RESIGNED 18) Luz Walker RESIGNED 19) Reginald Bussey RESIGNED 20) Stephanie
Osborn RESIGNED After Lisa E City Attorney 1)
Lisa Elizondo Litigation Attorneys 2) Jim Martinez 3) Michelle Little Locke X) Michael Moffeit RESIGNED/REMOVED Transactional
Attorneys 4) Jennifer Farleo Callan 5) Lupe Cuellar 6) Sylvia Borunda Firth
(Airport) 7) Theresa Cullen Garney 8) Lisa Hayes 9) Elaine Hengen 10) Lupe Martinez X) Jeff McElroy RESIGNED 11) John Nance 12) Ernie Rodriguez 13) Jorge Villegas 14) Matt Watson Municipal Court
Attorneys 15) Mark Briggs (Part-Time
Municipal Prosecutor – never went to Council for approval) 16) Terri Garcia 17) Marvin Foust
As my alert reader pointed out, there were not
27 attorneys in the office when she “took over.” A recent addition to the City Attorney’s Office is Mark Briggs,
who is now the Municipal Prosecutor.
But guess what, folks? Mr.
Briggs’ appointment never went to Council for approval…AND…he only has to serve
the citizens for half a day because Lisa E. allowed him to retain his private
practice. Wonder how much Mr. Briggs is
being paid for half a day’s work.
Also, please note that only 8 attorneys from the
original group remain – and that means (yes, yes, I know I sound like a broken
record) that valuable and significant institutional memory and legal expertise
is gone.