Save El Paso's Christmas Tree

It's insane but true. The City of El Paso is planning to cut down the tall Mondel Pine in San Jacinto Plaza which has served for years as the annual Christmas tree. As everyone knows the Plaza is being completely re-done. Rumors first surfaced that Rep. Cortney Niland wanted the tree pruned and re-shaped to resemble a more triangular tree. Now it seems that the City is looking for a company to take down the tree. Only problem is that the City (its, Manager, Mayor, City Council representatives) are violating city ordinances regarding the removal of such trees.

When the pine was trans-planted at the park, Texas State Urban Forester, Oscar Mestas, wrote about it:

"The new 50’ tall Christmas tree, a Mondel Pine (Pinus eldarica), was transplanted by Environmental Designs of Tomball, Texas. Mrs.Corrine Boyce of El Paso provided the tree in memory of her late husband Chuck Boyce. It was moved from her front yard in the Upper Rio Grande Valley of El Paso to San Jacinto Plaza in Downtown El Paso. The tree was moved on the 9th of September 1998 at a cost of $19,000. In the past the El Paso Parks Department used to send a crew each year to harvest five trees where they would use the branches to construct a 70’ tall artificial Christmas tree at the plaza. This new tree should save the City of El Paso approximately $60,000.00 a year, in labor, equipment costs, travel, materials and supplies, according to Richard Garcia Parks, Maintenance Supervisor. The new living tree is decorated with 3500 lights, and 1000 new ornaments donated by the El Paso Community Foundation. The old artificial tree was flocked, so it is taking a little time for El Pasoans to adjust to the natural green color. The tree is only 25 years old, so it is expected to add on another 20+ feet in height and should live at least another 50+ years. Let’s not forget to mention the other benefits of shade, oxygen, beauty, and pollution control, that this tree will be providing during the rest of the year. If you haven’t seen the tree, take a trip downtown it is worth the trip.The new 50’ tall Christmas tree, a Mondel Pine (Pinus eldarica), was transplanted by Environmental Designs of Tomball, Texas. Mrs.Corrine Boyce of El Paso provided the tree in memory of her late husband Chuck Boyce. It was moved from her front yard in the Upper Rio Grande Valley of El Paso to San Jacinto Plaza in Downtown El Paso. The tree was moved on the 9th of September 1998 at a cost of $19,000. In the past the El Paso Parks Department used to send a crew each year to harvest five trees where they would use the branches to construct a 70’ tall artificial Christmas tree at the plaza. This new tree should save the City of El Paso approximately $60,000.00 a year, in labor, equipment costs, travel, materials and supplies, according to Richard Garcia Parks, Maintenance Supervisor. The new living tree is decorated with 3500 lights, and 1000 new ornaments donated by the El Paso Community Foundation. The old artificial tree was flocked, so it is taking a little time for El Pasoans to adjust to the natural green color. The tree is only 25 years old, so it is expected to add on another 20+ feet in height and should live at least another 50+ years. Let’s not forget to mention the other benefits of shade, oxygen, beauty, and pollution control, that this tree will be providing during the rest of the year. If you haven’t seen the tree, take a trip downtown it is worth the trip."

Mestas wrote the above in 1998. Based on his expertise that tree should have another 34 years of life and service to El Paso. 

It's a beautiful tree.

Please sign the online petition to save the tree.

What Was Really Insulting at Yesterday's PSB Meeting

In a statement to the El Paso Times, Mayor Leeser explained his "no" vote to the new El Paso Water Utilities proposed budget and rate hikes: "It was insulting to see that type of presentation . . ." Huh? Apparently he objected to a presentation about the budget given a few weeks ago in a public budget hearing and given again yesterday for a vote. At issues seems to be the fact that your water utility will begin showing on your bill in March the amount you pay (10%) that goes back to the city (not counting the amount businesses now pay for the City Council directed tax aka fee). His resposes to Times reporter Vic Kolenc were vague.

Here's the deal: the Mayor's was the only nay vote because he said that he was "insulted". Six other members of the Board - all smart, professional people - were not insulted. Apparently only one person, the Mayor, found the budget presentations "insulting". Word on the street is that the Mayor was engaged in political posturing. He has said on more than one occasion to various people that he believes that the utility should be run by the city not the PSB. In other words, his "nay" vote and his suggestion that he was insulted are, at the least, clear indications of his lack of support for the PSB if not a means to undermine the PSB. 

More proof: the Mayor chairs the PSB selection committee. He did not attend and did not take part in the nearly unanimous highest rating of current board member, David Nemir. When the matter went before Council, he was silent allowing the selection of Brad Roe who has ties with the El Paso Builders Association. One keen observer of El Paso politics commented: "You can bet the Bowlings got the votes [for Roe] from Council." 

You might also want to peruse Oscar Leeser's campaign finance reports of 2013. See how many sprawlers you see listed as giving the big bucks. These are the very people who want to get their hands on all of that PSB land and a shortsighted Council wants to sell off as fast as they can to make up budget shortfalls. (And once you've spent all that you have on bloated credit card expenses, you find that you can't pay for the extravagant purchases you keep making. Imagine the city running the water utility. Just how fast do you think that we will run out of water?)

What was insulting at yesterday's PSB meeting was how the Mayor voted and how he left the meeting with important agenda items still pending and how he does not do his duty to communicate what the PSB is doing to City Council. That is what is insulting and every single El Pasoan should be insulted.

By the way, even with the rate increases, El Paso Water Utilities' rates are still the lowest or second lowest when compared to other Texas cities and to other regional cities in the southwest. Here are the charts:




Save our water. Save our land. Save our PSB.

The Gloves Are Off

City Council's land grab is becoming more and more obvious. It entails destroying your Public Service Board, the very people who have made sure that all of us who live in this desert city even in the midst of drought have water. Why the land grab? So that they can sell off land in little bits at a time to the sprawlers who are funding their campaign coffers and pulling their strings. What we have now is no longer a representation of us, but an autocracy of a very few people with the greedy intent of getting richer and richer. Damn our children and grandchildren and their children. Let them thirst, they say. Their profit now is all that matters.

Let me give you four examples of the land grab. Pay attention El Paso Times, El Paso Inc., El Paso Diario, KVIA, KTSM, et. al. especially to this first one:

First, Council's most egregious and covert attempt occurred at last Tuesday's City Council meeting. There was a strategic effort made by Rep. Cortney Niland to put control of all PSB managed land under the control of City Council by amending the language in a bond issuance proposed by the PSB. PSB bonds are backed by the assets of the utility pledged as collateral. In the bond language the PSB is referred to as the "system". Niland wants the land NOT to be part of the system but under the control of City Council. The problem with that is the fact that bondholders could then sue the city because there would no longer be collateral backing the bonds. The solution proposed was to alter the language in the bond issuance to prevent bondholders from having grounds to sue. 

24 hours before Council Sylvia Firth, who works directly under the Mayor, announced this new language. In executive session, the Bond Counsel, Paul Braden convinced City Council that it was impossible to make this change with only 24 hours notice. The language was dropped and the usual language remained. HOWEVER, we can expect Niland, et. al. to be better prepared in 6 or 8 months when more bond issuances go to Council.

Know that Niland has been heard in public that she does not care about EPWU's prestige for being one of the best water utilities in the country, she wants the utility to be under the direct control of Council so that our land can be sold for revenue. Her shortsighted plan is completely contrary to the vision for having an independent PSB/EPWU in the first place - a vision that has led successfully to our having water and water at a very low rate. (Those rates will still be lower than the average rates across the country even if it should go up another 8 percent or so. And remember, businesses, that it was Council not the PSB who levied that exorbitant franchise tax - I mean "fee" - on you and not the PSB.)

Second, Council's most egregious and overt action to destroy the PSB and grab land for their sprawler masters occurred just two hours ago. They appointed the third-rated candidate (Bradley Roe) over the first-rated and current PSB member, David Nemir. Why? Refuse the Juice said it the best in a post just minutes after the vote: "[Roe is] clearly a pick that will vote to sell all of the PSB land to home builders in tiny parcels so that parks don't have to be included . . . among other amenities. Smart code is out the door with this guy."

"The fix was in" as Refuse the Juice explained. As soon as the candidates were introduced, Lilly Limon moved to accept Roe. She did her part. It was all orchestrated beforehand. Only Rep. Robinson and Rep. Ordaz voted against the motion for Roe.

Thirdly, last March 18th City Council seemed poised to jettison smart development from the Northwest Master Plan - a plan forged by the efforts of so many El Pasoans. Their efforts were thwarted by an outcry by many of us and they reaffirmed (at least for now) that Master Plan. It bears vigilant watching however.

And finally, the recent attempt to take money from that portion of the stormwater fee dedicated to buying and preserving natural open space for flood control projects was a means of undermining not just the PSB but the Open Space Advisory Board. As an OSAB member I took the position that we could afford to be part of the City's efforts to help flood control. I was wrong. Many of you told me before that I was wrong and now you hear me saying it. It was an attempt to undermine the PSB by taking that decision away from them. It was an attempt to undermine the Open Space Advisory Board by setting the precedent that open space money is merely a slush fund. Hopefully the matter is dead as I posted last week. I can tell you that, when several of us were first invited by the Mayor to his office to discuss his proposal, I asked whether he had spoken to John Balliew about the proposal. Surprisingly he hadn't and he seemed to be caught off guard by my question. He promised to do so but I bet he wouldn't have had I never asked the question. I'll use another post to relate how we were sold a car. For now, know that I will ask that the matter be put back on the OSAB agenda so that we can rescind our recommendation.

I like to get along and always give the other side the benefit of the doubt and believe that win-win solutions are always best. I believe that there is good in each and every person. However, the beliefs, habits and practices of the El Paso autocracy (and the fact that they are an autocracy) - the sprawlers and their Council lackeys (who I will stop referring to as "representatives" because they don't represent the people) - are shortsighted and simply bad for our future. I will for awhile be posting daily about this land grab and the machinations of the autocracy. I can't be nice any longer. 

The gloves are off. It's time to fight back. El Pasoans are about to step up. Save our water. Save our land. Save our PSB.

Diversion of Open Space Funds May Now Be Dead Except for Park Ponds

Prior to the Mayor's deletion of item 13.2 from yesterday's City Council agenda, substantial pushback to the proposal began to show up especially from some members of City Council who either felt uninformed or feared the loss of money that they could tap into for future park ponds. There must have been considerable emailing back and forth among members during an discussion of an earlier agenda item. I'm privy to some of that.

Just a few minutes ago I sent an email message to the Mayor and Ms. Niland. Here is what I wrote:

"Mr. Mayor and Ms. Niland,

"It appears that there is substantial pushback to the proposal to divert up to $3.2 Million from open space funds for flood issues. I certainly understand your need to delete the item yesterday, Mr. Mayor. Given the pushback from some on City Council and substantial opposition to the proposal among many in the public, it may be best to just let this one die. I like "creative financing" but know that there are funds elsewhere to accomplish the same tasks. Additionally, the current PSB rate increase now just makes more sense. 

"I have been concerned that some see open space funds as just a means of buying "pretty" land. As you know, those funds are to purchase natural open space land that has stormwater function. In other words, those funds are meant for the health, safety and welfare of all persons in the City of El Paso. I have also been concerned that the open space funds will become just a "slush" fund for other projects. I know that you both do not want that to happen and I appreciated your willingness to place restrictions on the proposal. But given the failure of some to see that the funds are meant for the safety of El Pasoans and instead see them as a frivolous means of purchasing and conserving land for being simply "pretty", then the use of this money as a slush fund may become the rule and not the exception in spite of our best intentions.

"Of course, conserving land is critical given the scarcity of our most precious and needed commodity: water. Moreover, such conservation prevents the burden of higher property taxes for additional infrastructure, maintenance and services. Too much development on the edges of a town does not pay for itself but creates additional expenses for the city and the taxpayers. Infill projects such as the Northgate project which you approved yesterday and called "incredible for the city" do more than pay for themselves - they are indeed a boon for jobs.

"I certainly value and appreciate the leadership both of you are giving the city. Your theme that El Paso is open for business is so exciting and it is working. Jobs mean more revenue from sales tax and thus a way to alleviate the increasingly unbearable burden of property taxes. I am grateful to you for seeking my input. I hope that we can continue to work together on many other items. "Green" and "prosperity" go hand in hand. A resilient city needs both. You know that you can call on me at any time. 

"Sincerely and with all best wishes,


Jim Tolbert"

Let us hope that this is now a dead issue and move on to the more critical issues of water scarcity and land conservation. There is much to be done here and park ponds are not part of the solution. Those on Council who wish to take open fund money for park ponds are doing so against ordinance.

Let me quote Charlie Wakeem from an email he recently sent:

"No where in the Municipal Drainage System Ordinance of June 19, 2007 does it state that the 10% money could go for park ponds.  If that was the intent of council while you were there, Susie, then it should have been stated in the ordinance.  The ordinance specifically states, Section III (C) "Notwithstanding anything herein to be contrary and even to the extent such operation may constitute storm water maintenance, the city shall continue to be responsible for ... (iv) parks"."  Section III (D) "The Capital Plan shall identify stormwater infrastructure projects (including land acquisitions) which have the potential dual purposes of storm water management and preservation of the City’s open spaces, greenways, arroyos and wilderness areas in their natural state in accordance with the City’s Open Space Master Plan and the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“Green Projects”).  The Board shall allocate an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the System’s annual drainage utility revenues for such Green Projects". [emphasis added]  There is nothing ambiguous about the ordinance.  If council wants to change the ordinance to include park ponds, they have the power to do so, but it wasn't what the community voted for when it endorsed the ordinance which established the Municipal Drainage System.


"I've always been in favor of park ponds where they are safe (i.e. shallow in grade and depth), but it's a Parks budget item, not the Storm Water Utility's.  Also, ponding areas should be planted with the use of native vegetation, which do not require watering and manicuring, as recommended in both the Parks and Open Space Master Plans."

I'll write more about all of this later.

So what happened?

Yesterday by a vote of 6-1 OSAB recommended to City Council that the 10% of the stormwater fee for open space/stormwater projects be diverted to immediate flood control projects. Two points: the key words in the recommendation (and in the Mayor's proposal) are "up to $3.2 million". That is the amount that, under the current stormwater fee, will be collected over the next two years for open space. In our conversations with the Mayor and again at yesterday's OSAB meeting, I wanted to make it clear that we were only talking about the $3.2 million and not more revenue expected because the stormwater fee is most certainly going to be raised. The Mayor was on hand to give his presentation (a first as far as I know for a Mayor to come to the Board) and he personally stated that his request was for what will be collected in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 under the current rate. The rest he assured us goes into the open space coffers. 

The second point is this: much of what OSAB has sought to preserve as natural open space with stormwater function has now closed or soon will close. There is money on hand. Making this so is largely the result of EPWU attorney Lupe Cuellar's efforts for which she is to be showered with kudos. Here is her report from yesterday:


Click on the icon with the 4 arrows at bottom right to enlarge and scroll.

How to Help Save Cement Lake

Last Thursday I posted that TxDOT recently purchased land that includes the natural lake and wildlife habitat known as (Portland) Cement Lake. The Lake was one of the top priorities for acquisition in the City's Open Space Master Plan. In the end, TxDOT's dollars were more attractive to Cemex.

The good news in all of this is that Bob Bielek, TxDOT's Regional Engineer, has let it be known that TxDOT would like to Master Plan the area which includes the lake and work with the City and PSB. He has made it clear that all he needs is an official letter from the City or PSB (or a Councilwoman perhaps?) in order to get the ball rolling on master planning.

Here's how youcan help now:

As a wildlife expert, open space advocate, conservationist, outdoor enthusiast or someone like me who just cares: please urge city officials to work with TxDOT and involve the conservation/wildlife/open space community at all stages of the discussion and in all phases of the planning. 

Cement Lake should not be destroyed and it should not become a public, recreational park. It should be preserved as an unusual ecosystem and habitat - a place to visit, view and study - and treasure.

Please urge the Mayor and others to work with TxDOT to preserve the lake as a wildlife habitat and a place for visiting and viewing.

I have discovered that the best way to contact Mayor Leeser is to email his Assistant, Taylor Moreno at MorenoTL@elpasotexas.gov. Mr. Balliew's email is better known: jeballiew@epwu.org. Rep. Niland's is nilandcc@elpasotexas.gov. (Cement Lake is in her district. I spoke to her briefly and she is interested.) 

Please keep your messages positive. There is no itch at this point to scratch. Please make your title or position known whether it is Urban Biologist, Curator, former Curator, Secretary of FMWC, President of Audubon, OSAB member, Outdoor Enthusiast, Birder, Concerned Citizen - whatever. 

Please share this post with others and forward to your groups, friends, colleagues, etc.. This is a wildlife issue not a political one.  Let's be heard now and get the ball rolling and make sure that those of us who know about development, wetlands, wildlife, open space, conservation or those who simply love our outdoors are very much involved. Cement Lake is an El Paso Regional treasure. 

Let's save Cement Lake!

What's Next with the NW Master Plan

After a discussion in City Council last week I voiced the concern that the NW Master Plan could be in danger of becoming a conventional development and its arroyos just a memory once the bulldozers started up. I wondered whether Council was ready to jettison their agreement with the 2011 petitioners, the PSB, city staff and many others who worked for about a year to forge the Plan as part of a win-win solution.

This past Sunday, the El Paso Times published a story about the same concern by investigative reporter, Cindy Ramirez. 

Mayor Leeser invited me to a meeting at his office yesterday. Also in attendance were John Balliew, Lupe Cuellar, Kristen Hamilton and Taylor Moreno. The Mayor said that he had no intention of changing the plan. His main concern was to sell some land. He stated and Balliew confirmed that Balliew had said that the Plan must not be violated. I told the group that I was delighted but that it would be good for the City Council to follow the Mayor's lead and reaffirm the NW Plan and its use of smartcode.

A number of us had met at my home on Sunday evening and agreed that I should ask Council to place on its agenda an item reaffirming the NW Plan and its use of smart code. In addition, we agreed that Council should show good faith by placing PSB Open Space in the NW Master Plan under a conservation easement.

With a large group behind me, I made these requests at Council this morning. Rep. Ann Morgan Lilly said that she would place our requests on the City Council agenda.

Here is the text of my words to Council this morning:

I was the author of and principal organizer for the 2011 initiative petition to save 900 acres of natural open space associated with the Transmountain scenic corridor.

We successfully gathered the necessary signatures from over 1600 people. 

Rather than voting on the petition wording, City Council members, along with petitioners, agreed on a process which culminated in a new NW Master Plan. During that process a vote on the petition was routinely postponed and then finally deleted when we agreed on the compromise. 

Approximately a year of work went into forging a deal. Dover Kohl conducted well-attended workshops, charrettes, and meetings with the community, the PSB, City Planning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation and other staff.

This plan, which cost $600,000, included smart code, state-of-the-art Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater conveyance, and infrastructure designed to maximize arroyo preservation, open space, and the scenic corridor.  The PSB approved the plan and City Council adopted the NW Master Plan.  It was an example of a true collaborative ‎effort. 

The NW Master plan was and is an expression of the will of the people as was Plan El Paso that took two years and 2 million dollars and the input of thousands of El Pasoans.

 

‎I was shocked and dismayed when I watched this City Council at its March 17th meeting take action seemingly to begin to dismantle the agreement by removing smart code as well as  other agreed upon development  restrictions, and explore the sale of the land in small parcels for conventional style development.   Along with many others I noted with dismay that there are similar intentions with the NE Master Plan including Painted Dunes. There seems to be a material breach of all of our prior agreements and promises. 

If carried forward, action that would in effect scuttle the NW Master Plan would overturn the real, democratic, grassroots decision-making we did with Plan El Paso, the 2011 Transmountain petition and the NW Master Plan. 

 

I want to thank the Mayor who has given me his personal assurances that no changes to the NW Master Plan will be made. I ask for the same assurance from City Council. It would go a long way toward restoring trust and good will if City Council will put on its agenda an action item reaffirming the NW Master Plan. We would like the City Council to affirm the following at next week’s meeting:

1. First, that you are still committed to the NW master plan as adopted, and

2. Second, that you support the current smart code zoning and will not try to remove it, and finally

3. That as a sign of that reaffirmation, you direct staff to place a conservation easement over all of the Public Utility Open Space in the NW Master Plan.  

Without assurances, we may have no other choice except to get more signatures for a ballot referendum and/or pursue other legal means.

Sprawlers' Agenda Revealed

Sprawl results in blight such as this in Central El Paso and burdensome property taxes but not prosperity.

City Council voted unanimously today to postpone raising impact fees for a year. Their vote followed a revelation by the Mayor that he had spoken with the CEO of the EPWU, John Balliew, and builders. Balliew apparently indicated in private conversations what he stated today: the EPWU's budget is set for the year and funding for the water plants would not be necessary for a year. Balliew also stated that there would not be a rate increase as the result of postponing the impact fees. There was some discussion at Council that perhaps the recent passage of Proposition 6 in the State of Texas might mean some money for water infrastructure here in El Paso.

Certainly I appreciate the Mayor's efforts behind the scenes so to speak. On the other hand, he (and El Paso) would benefit more from the expertise from City Planning. The introduction of the ordinance should have come from Planning Director, Matthew McElroy. Instead, the Mayor interrupted Mr. McElroy and had Mr. Balliew come to the podium in order to circumvent (and I'm not using this word pejoratively) the original proposal to raise the fees and, instead, to explore postponing the fees.

Dr. Noe stated that he understood that impact fees is a matter of fairness: you use something, you pay for it; you don't, you don't. However, he also stated that to have infill there had to be incentives. When I addressed Council I agreed with him about incentivizing infill projects. What concerns me is that by  "incentives" he and others mean doing away with Smart Growth and shelving Plan El Paso - the very Master Plan that sprawlers hate. (I would look for incentives in terms of reducing permit fees and hook-up fees from EPWU.) In fact, as I expressed to Council, I hope that, during this coming year, that the City will pay for an independent study to verify whether we have grown and can continue to grow ourselves to prosperity. Study after study across the nation shows that sprawling does not pay for itself but rather is a drag on the economy of a municipality. In the case of El Paso, sprawl puts the burden on the property owner with burdensome property taxes - especially the low to middle/low income families who are in a majority in El Paso. It wouldn't hurt for the City to find out for sure about growth, sprawl and prosperity.

By the 1950's El Paso was the leading city in the southwest. It occupied just 25 square miles of land - a modest growth from its beginnings with 8 square miles. With the advent of the automobile, the freeway, and the suburban model of development, El Paso today occupies 260 square miles and is one of the poorest cities in the country. Certainly, it is not the leader in the southwest or Texas. Sprawl has not brought prosperity. It has brought burdensome property taxes and increasing blight.

The agenda of the sprawlers became obvious today. They loathe impact fees and hope that a State proposition will soothe the unfairness of putting the burden on ratepayers. They want no impact fees. Moreover, they want to abolish Smart Growth and they want to rezone the Northwest and Northeast master plans so that there are no smart growth requirements. Unfortunately they own this current City Council and may succeed with their agenda.

I do hope that a study about sprawl and prosperity can be conducted during this coming year. The downside to my proposal is that the Council can always cherry pick a consultant who will tell them what they want to hear - sprawl makes us more prosperous; build, build, build to your greedy heart's content, Mr. Sprawler. The builders control CIAC which will continue to advise against impact fees. Surprise. Surprise.

One hopes that the Mayor will listen to good scientific data about sustainable growth. There are very knowledgeable people here in El Paso who can help him: people from Eco El Paso, people already in city government in Planning and Sustainability. They need a place at the table as well. My guess is that, just like the stakeholder meetings that were held for selecting a new City Manager, there will be no one with environmental engineering and planning expertise and what gets done will be mere window dressing. The real decisions will be behind closed doors - Mayor with John Balliew and with builders and the chit chat of Representatives outside of City Council.

It's not good.

Eco El Paso Eyewitness Report

Judy Ackerman sent me this eyewitness summary of the first day of the Eco El Paso Symposium yesterday:

Download the Environmental App Please Mayor Leeser

Mayor Leeser is a great guy but he has got to begin valuing environmentalism more.

Open Letter to Mayor Leeser on City Manager Search

Read HERE today's El Paso Time's story about those meeting with Affion Public as part of the search for a new city manager. What's missing in those meetings is the green community of El Paso. Here is a letter that I wrote Mayor Leeser and hand delivered to his office today:

January 28, 2014

The Honorable Oscar Leeser
Mayor of the City of El Paso
300 N. Campbell
El Paso, TX 79901

Dear Mayor Leeser,

After reading the El Paso Time’s front page story this morning about the search for our next City Manager, it became clear to me that a very important part of El Paso stakeholders are not part of the search process. My hope is that you can help correct this oversight. There are no representatives from El Paso’s open space/conservation/environmental community.

It is essential that a City Manager possesses good business and financial sense, education and experience and has strong, well-honed administrative and managerial skills. So it is a good thing that Affion Public is visiting with our Chambers of Commerce and that the successful business community is well-represented by the Council members’ appointees to the advisory committee. On the other hand, a City Manager also helps to shape the culture throughout city government and participates in the formation and implementation of a City’s vision based on [all of] our City’s values.

El Pasoans do care about issues related to the environment, sustainability, open space and natural areas. El Pasoans have a deep sense of family and generations and want to see precious resources such as water and open space conserved for their great-grandchildren and beyond. 

We reflect these values in many ways. You yourself will be an introductory speaker at the Eco-El Paso Symposium next week. The El Paso Convention and Visitor’s Bureau regularly promotes outdoor recreation in our natural open spaces. Through the Office of Economic Adjustment our City received a grant to develop a forward-thinking Master Plan, Plan El Paso. Senator Rodriguez has a citizen’s advisory committee on sustainable energy and another on the environment. The Master Gardeners have a new community garden at Ascarate and the Columban Fathers have a community garden on Magoffin. El Paso has important and involved organizations such as the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition, the West Texas Urban Forestry Council and the Borderland Mountain Bike Association to name just three. Celebration of Our Mountains had a very successful 19th annual schedule of fall events in 2013.

Please consider inviting one or two members of El Paso’s conservation community to meet with Affion on Thursday. May I suggest that you invite persons who are not only successful business people but who also  highly value our outdoors? Charlie Wakeem has the most city expertise. Don Baumgardt does the official El Paso visitor’s guide. Robert Ardovino is someone with great business and “green” sense. There are others.

Thank you for considering this proposal. Thank you for your great leadership in bringing El Paso together.

Sincerely,


Jim Tolbert

More Musings about the Communications Committee Meeting

Here are some more thoughts about this past Monday's PSB Communications Meeting and not necessarily in order of importance or whatever:

First, more and more and more I am liking Mayor Oscar Leeser. It's not just that he defended freedom of speech which, in the context of the PSB/EPWU, was the anti-institutional thing to do, he defended it charmingly. In fact, every time that I observe him I appreciate his attempts to make sure that everyone saves face and that a consensus is reached happily more often than not. He likes people and that shows. He's obviously very, very bright but keeps the common touch. I could go on and on. Paraphrasing Roberta: My Mayor is such a good Mayor.

On the other hand, Chairman S is supercilious, condescending, dismissive of others and their opinions - well - enough said for now except to let him know that the other adults at the table are not graduate students for him to ... enough said.

The PSB needs their own attorney. Andron is the attorney for the EPWU. In fact, the EPWU really needs a huge changeover - get the Archuleta people out of there now. Hand out those gold watches.

Lisa Turner has been my hero many times at City Council. I was surprised and delighted to see her at the PSB meeting the other day. She spoke eloquently about the freedom of speech and against prior restraint of that freedom. Err in favor of transparency, she said. (It was fun to watch Chairman S turn beet red and redder.) But she made two other very important points:

When institutions forge such policies, they raise the questions: What are they hiding? What's the cover-up? Elpasonaturally has been speaking about this from the beginning. Policies such as the one that Chairman S has attempted to foist on the board is always written at a time of losing control and power. It is a means to shut up any opposing views so that policy is actually formulated behind closed doors, cotton candied, and fed to boards of people who don't think through issues well enough because they trust the institutional authorities to do their thinking for them. Ms. Turner didn't say all of this - I'm elaborating.

The other great point she brought up was one I will probably return to again and again from now on. She mentioned Attorney General Mattox's Opinion JM-1071 regarding executive sessions and freedom of speech. Read the opinion.

Here are the salient points:

"We interpret subsection 2A(h) as applying only to the records of executive sessions which governmental bodies are required to keep pursuant to section 2A of the act. It does not prohibit persons who are present at the executive session from afterwards talking about the subject matter of the session. Accordingly, we need not reach the first amendment issue."

"Members of a governmental body may not participate in a closed meeting knowing that a certified agenda is not being kept or a tape recording is not being made. Id. s 2A(g). These requirements cannot be rationally applied to speech occurring after the meeting."

"In our opinion, subsection 2A(h) bars the release of such records, and does not prevent members of the governmental body from talking about their recollections of the subject matter of the executive session."

And the summary:

"Subsection 2A(h) of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., the Texas Open Meetings Act, applies to the certified agenda or tape recording kept as a record of an executive session. It does not prohibit members of a governmental body or other persons in attendance at an executive session from making public statements about the subject matter of that session."

Emphases mine. Victory for the freedom of speech. Take your official spokespeople and shove it in my humble opinion. One wants all the good information that the VP of Communications has to give out. Much of what the EPWU is doing is great and I value Ms. Montoya spreading the good news. But we must have balance. We forget that, when we were engaged in a debate about land to be preserved in the scenic corridor, then CEO Ed Archuleta had a PR video made that was full of disinformation about the PSB and its role as land manager. Anyone - a citizen or a board member - should fearlessly refute anything that the "officials" put out that is not true. That is a fiduciary responsiblitly. That is the moral thing to do. 

Read more about executive sessions and the pertinent rules for conducting those sessions.

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.

Now Leeser Is the Giant Pothole for El Paso Bicyclers

It's confusing why Mayor Leeser was so concerned about spending federal money on a new bike share program that he deleted an item discussing that new program from yesterday's City Council meeting. Read KVIA's report. 

One city staffer with the Sustainability department said that the "Mayor may have been confused about the deletion and then addition of the $100,000 for the feasibility study which was the only difference in the presentation from the last time he saw it (per direction from the City Manager). He wanted more information about why we are providing funding for the start-up operation and maintenance (O & M), though I’m a little confused because he saw the entire presentation yesterday.

"He believed that the larger system ($1.9 million) did not budget for any O & M, though the MPO had presented that proposal and had intended to cover a year of O & M costs. Seems the item was deleted from today’s agenda because he wanted more discussion on it before action was taken."

The question is why does the Mayor want more discussion? We've been over this issue now many times. Perhaps pitching a bike share program to a car dealer is just doomed to failure from the get go.

Here's Sustainability's presentation:

Bike Share Presentation 102913.pdf by jimhtolbert434

The smaller bike share program is on the agenda of this Friday's Transportation Policy Board meeting. However, it's unlikely to be discussed until the El Paso City Council decides what it will do.

More and more communities across the country are becoming bike friendly including Fort Worth with its bike share program.