Committee Wordsmiths Communications Policy

The First Amendment rights of press and speech were the themes of today's Communications Committee meeting. That theme was loudly heard from Mayor Leeser and Dr. Bonart and most particularly from the conscience of El Paso, Lisa Turner. David Crowder, a reporter for the El Paso Inc., also spoke out about the nuances of speech and press. The meeting did not go well for Chairman Shoephoerster who turned beet red and got darker and darker as Lisa Turner spoke eloquently about the first amendment. Bob Andron was remarkably silent and seemed to fumble about when asked for opinions. 

3 critical changes were made to the document: first, rather than saying members shall direct questions to PSB/EPWU officials, it was agreed to say that they are encouraged to direct inquiries to the CEO, Chairman of the Board and/or VP of Communications and Marketing. Second, Bonart's sentence that members, as representatives of the public, the utility and the ratepayers, have every right to express opinions was added. Third, another sentence (at Bonart's suggestion) makes clear that at all meetings members of the public shall be allowed to speak to any agenda item. 

Shoephoerster failed to allow a vote on one motion that had a second. Mayor Leeser thought that the policy should just be torn up. Dr. Bonart seconded. The Chairman said that they were there to wordsmith - I guess wordsmithing doesn't mean just saying nothing.

The fact is that Shoephoerster had a bad day. At the tail end of the meeting a gentleman formerly a member of the City Plan Commission spoke that only the Chairman of the Board could speak after a vote and, after a vote, everyone just shuts up and board members are different from elected officials - a matter already impeached earlier in the meeting. Of course, after he spoke, Chairman Shoephoerster said that he couldn't agree more. Also earlier the Chair said that City Council members giving public meetings was self-serving to get re-elected. One is reminded of his earlier wisdom that a vacant lot with a paved parking lot is a natural arroyo. I think it is time for us to publish "The Sayings of Chairman S". They are so rich.

I'll have more to say about this matter in the next post or two especially about the eloquent words of Ms. Turner. Keep in mind that the matter of a policy is not over. I suspect that Shoephoerster will try to rally the more reactionary members of the PSB to change the document yet again at the next PSB meeting. I would prefer that the PSB just tear up the document and let it go. At this point, it may be better to go ahead with the communications policy thus drafted today. At least it makes it clear that there is a First Amendment, board members do have a duty to the citizens of El Paso, and public interaction is desireable.

More on the Proposed PSB Gag Rule

To refresh your memory read the draft of the proposed PSB gag rule communications policy found embedded in an earlier post.

Remember that the gag rule communications policy is the result of the failure to approve a water project for UTEP that was to be largely subsidized by rate payers. Keep in mind that the project was in essence a gift from the utility to UTEP - a violation of rules governing a utility. As a result of that failure Engineering Dean and Chairman of the PSB, Richard Schoephoerster wanted board approval of a "communications" policy drawn up by previous Chair, Ed Escudero, but never ratified by the PSB. The attempt to ramrod the UTEP project through the board had been preempted by another board member, Dr. Rick Bonart, who alerted the press. The gag order is meant to keep board members from preventing "official", "in-house", "good old boys" from getting their way.

At the November meeting of the PSB, both EPWU Attorney Bob Andron and Chairman Schoephoerster claimed that there is a distinction between elected officials and appointed officials. They were attempting to rebut the argument that, since any City Council representative can speak to the press at any time, their appointments can do the same. Unfortunately, the interpretation of law says quite the opposite.

First, the IRS makes no distinction between elected and appointed officials. In their document on classification of elected and appointed officials they give this list of examples:

"Examples of public officers are: the President and the Vice President; a governor or mayor; the secretary of state; a member of a legislative body, such as a state legislature, county commission, city counsel, school board, utility or hospital district; a judge, a justice of the peace, a county or city attorney, a marshal, a sheriff, a constable and a registrar of deeds; tax collectors and assessors; and members of advisory boards and committees."

The emphases are mine but you get the point.

Now read about municipal judges in Texas here. It reveals: "Most municipal judges are appointed by the governing body of the municipality (e.g., a city council), although a few are elected." In El Paso County we elect our municipal judges; but we are the exception not the rule. Whether appointed or elected, municipal judges have the same duties and responsibilities and are held to the same standards.

It is ridiculous to believe that PSB members, because they are appointed, should have a different relationship and interface with the public and the media. The real issue here is a little thing called the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which guarantees freedom of speech and press. 

There is still one final reason why we must make sure that our PSB members are not gagged by the Shoephoerster-Andron Gag Rule (which I will henceforth call it). The PSB has a unique relationship with the citizens and City of El Paso. They are not just in charge of water and stormwater utilities. We have empowered them with the management of our land. Our Land - not anyone else's land and they are fiduciaries of it. In and of itself, this managerial responsibility of our land means that they are directly responsible not just to City Council but to you and to me, citizens of the City of El Paso. We should expect our land managers to have every right to speak out to the press and to us and not to be hampered by a gag rule.

Dr. Bonart has written a more positive policy - a real communications policy. Read it. It needs some tweaking but it is will lead to transparent governance and land management and not to good-old-boy style of internal control such as the one that has long been in place at the PSB/EPWU. One that operates behind closed doors in total disregard of the public and operates in a paternalistic, oligarchic style.

The Communications Committee will meet this Monday, December 2, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. at the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board Meeting Room, 1154 Hawkins Boulevard, El Paso, Texas to deliberate on the proposed Shoephoerster-Andron Gag Rule or to serve the public and recommend one more like Bonart's. This is a public meeting. Please attend if you can.

Give Me a Break!

EPWU/PSB is not a private company and it is more than just a utility. We El Pasoans have asked them to manage land and stormwater as well as water and sewage. We understand that there are tough political decisions to be made about water scarcity and conservation, urban sprawl and groundwater. In other words, they are not just responsible to us for delivering a product that is safe and clean, but helping us with far greater issues of conservation and sustainability - issues that are political. Debate, doubt, discussion and dissent must be out in the open and must include the public. This is not a bad thing but a healthy thing. It is, of course, detrimental to those who like to use power without accountability.

On the Eve of the Televised Blue Ribbon

Briefly, here are a couple of points I'd like to make before tomorrow's blue ribbon committee meeting:

First, Dr. Rick Bonart, a PSB member, proposes a Water Use Budget. Currently, a department such as Parks and Recreation can buy all of the water it can with the budget that it has. Instead, they (and others) should be limited to a certain percentage of the water supply - that and no more. A water use budget. 

Second, I'm not sure that I made myself clear in the e-letter yesterday posted on this blog. Some interpreted what I had to say in #2 of that letter was a call to end the 10% of the stormwater fee for purchasing open space. What I was trying to say is that 100% of that 10% should go for purchasing natural open space. As it is now, City Council plays politics with it and spends it on popular shrubs and turf for park ponds for each district. Here we are trying to conserve water which can be done by preserving natural open space in perpetuity but instead we are buying more turf to water! We need to stop that policy now and, in fact, reverse it. Make Parks and Recreation (which already has a bloated budget via the Quality of Life bond) pay it back. Let OSAB and PSB work directly together.

Please read Dr. Bonart's response to Dr. Goodell's letter. It's a comment that he made about that letter. I call your attention to these words:

". . . the Far West Texas 50-year water plan identifies 141k acre feet of water as our sustainable supply (combined from all sources). Last year we used 114k acre feet. In order to achieve the 141k a lot of expensive infrastructure to recycle and distribute will be required.

"Regardless, if the service area population increases at 5%/year as projected, the difference of 27k acre feet will be consumed in 5 to 6 years."

Sustainable supply is what it is all about. Thus, the need for a Water Use Budget and the need to use 100% of the 10% of the stormwater fee to purchase natural open space not more grass to water!

PSB Recommends Access and Animal Corridor into State Park

They've got to stop it. The PSB I mean. They are going to ruin my reputation - or theirs. We are agreeing too much. I was delighted when they endorsed a conservation easement. Today they recommended an access to the State Park that makes sense to me. 


Some background: With the widening of Transmountain, the current entrance and exit from the Tom Mays Unit of the Franklin Mountains State Park will become even more dangerous than it is today. Although the TxDOT plan to widen Transmountain does not address this danger, most people are reasonably concerned. Some alternative plans have been proposed.


Dr. Richard Bonart DVM, a member of the PSB recently gave a presentation with his suggestions:
Bonart Plan for Access to Tom Mays

His suggestion puts an access road alongside Transmountain to the north and takes into account planned hike and bike trails. (Slide 4) It also makes mention of existing culverts just to the east of the current entrance that could be retrofitted to become solely an animal corridor with use by hikers and mountain bikers as well. (Slide 5) The model for the corridor would be those used in Oregon (Slide 6). 

The alternative proposed today in a presentation given by Pat Adauto is similar to Dr. Bonart's. It provides an access road off of Paseo del Norte (as does Dr. Bonart's) and enters the park a bit to the north of Bonart's - using an existing trail that is the beginning of the southern route of the current Lower Sunset Trail. That alternative also has the advantage of following a road to be built to a "resort" as approved earlier by City Council. Indeed this route was also mentioned years ago by Dr. Bonart to TxDOT.


Too often some people see those of us in the conservation/environmental community as in lock-step singular agreement on all things. For example, I don't always agree with the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coaltion and vice versa. I don't write for the Open Space Board nor am I affiliated in any fashion with Frontera Land Alliance, a non-political/non-profit land trust organization. I recently encouraged members of a neighborhood association to oppose a recommendation for a zoning change given by OSAB to the City Plan Commission. I was one of only two votes against this egregious recommendation - enough said at least for now. Obviously some in the conservation community take quite an exception to my views about the ballpark (more on that later). And the recent election put many of us in the O'Rourke camp and many in the Reyes camp. We have our differences and we aren't all the same though we share common goals.


One proposal from the conservation community for access to the State Park would build an interchange off of Transmountain about where there is an existing runnaway lane. That interchange would provide an underpass for safe entrance to and exit from the park. It could also be utilized by animals for nocturnal passage. Although this plan would provide safe access and egress for motorized vehicles and human beings, I have two serious reservations about it. First, the interchange would be a mini-spaghetti bowl blocking the view shed of the mountain. Second, I really don't want to mix vehicles with animals even if you expect no cars after 10 p.m. and animals only from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. (Animals can be rather sloppy about their time keeping.) I've seen Mule Deer out during the day - many in those parts.

Dr. Rick Bonart (in red) explains his plan to (counter-clockwise from foreground) Dave Wilson, Borderland Mountain Bike Association, Ed Escudero, Chairman of the PSB, Brent Sanders, BMBA, and Dr. Cesar Mendez, Park Superintendent standing in culvert.

The PSB's Alternative 1 also means that a resort can become a grand entryway into the park - an encouragement to get people outdoors and an opportunity for eco-tourism and eco-tourist dollars for the City as well as places for retreats, strategic planning, museum space. Think of a place like Indian  Lodge in the Davis Mountains State Park. A mini-spaghetti bowl only eats up more natural open space. A simple access road tied into an Indian Lodge-type resort provides an opening into natural open space.


Not only did the PSB recommend Alterantive 1 but they recommended the Bonart animal corridor at the place where the culverts are now.


So stop it, PSB! You're ruining my reputation!


Actually, keep it up!