Agenda Set for Tomorrow
After a bit of holiday for everybody, city employees included, the city council jumps back into things Tuesday night.
The agendas have been posted for Tuesday's Council meeting and Monday's BoA meeting.
The first action will be to fill the vacancy seat left by Lupe Devine. It is interesting that it was put on the agenda first. The agenda makers (Sauceda and Lanman) must be confident that they have a ringer. Otherwise they would have put it after the executive session for Flo that follows shortly.
The order is: new council member, tables and chair rentals, executive session, bank signers, auditor selection (with twenty days left before the audit is due!), utility accounts, visionaries in preservation, West Heights property problems, something about the attorney, and accounts payable.
The attorney item is "TRANSFER OF LEGAL CITY ATTORNEY FILES AND REPRESENTATION TO AKERS AND BULLWARE-WELLS FIRM." Who writes these things? Are we changing attorney firms? It seems that Monte is moving to another firm. Surprise, surprise Flo wants to follow him. Flo pays Monte to do the work that we pay Flo to do, and we end up paying twice.
I can't even comment on the sorry state of municipal management that we are one hundred days into the new fiscal year; we are required by law to complete the audit in 120 days, and we have not even selected an auditor!
I have heard only one name, Susan Wright, that has put in a letter of interest for the council seat. It would be nice if Council could appoint somebody with experience on Marfa committees or boards or at least regular attendance of council meetings, but I appreciate anybody tossing their hat into the ring. It seems that Council has shunned voices of experience and reason such as Carl Robinson's. It is a sorry state of affairs at the city these days. The mayor has created a divisive and argumentative mood in council meetings with four resignations in 13 months. And the council has had a tough time getting anything done with the dysfunctional meetings and the bumbling administrator from Robstown.
This brings me to my favorite subject of course, our city administrator. He has been without contract for almost a year. That old contract defines his terms of employment (pay and benefits and duties etc.), but without a contract, he is not entitled to that big old cherry on top, five months severance pay if the city dumps him. I understand that this idea was initiated by Curtis Schrader. Council should delete that benefit. He does not deserve it after two years of part-time service. He does not live here so would suffer no undue hardship for leaving. And the city and citizens can hardly afford this generosity for a man that has taken advantage of every possibility to milk the city of funds (unauthorized travel time on the clock, selling vacation time back to the city but not using vacation time for his twice weekly drives across Texas, billing the city for mileage in his car when he and the mayor take separate cars to Austin, unauthorized pay raise, etc etc etc).
It is no secret that I think Marfa is poorly served by this administrator. It is nothing personal. He is not working full time. He has not and will not live here. He has bungled the elections, budgets and taxes two years in a row. His pat response to every request by council is "staff is working on it," followed by absolutely nothing. I have challenged people to tell me one thing that he has done well. No replies. Name one thing that he has done that has made a difference that was not started by another administrator. Can't be done.
The sad thing is to think about how much better Marfa would have been if we had a competent administrator for the last two years. You cannot put a value on lost opportunity. We deserve better. He does not like Marfa enough to move here. We are nothing but a meal ticket to him. He is not doing the job. It is time to buy him a tank of fuel and bid him farewell.
We know Rivera likes him as a fellow "Mexican" in her words. We don't know why Martinez likes him but he does, overlooking all of his shortcomings with a shrug. Lanman of course is dependent on him to keep his house of cards from collapsing. Salgado has made no secret of his desire to find a new administrator. Williams could go either way, but seems to seek solutions that are a compromise. The new council member has no business voting on this issue and should abstain. I don't care if they are pro or con Sauceda, they should not participate in his review. I agree that they might have an opinion on his continuing to serve council as administrator in the future.
Unfortunately, this new person will be given a very important decision in the first meeting. But this person will not be an elected person and may not run again in a few months. For that reason, it is my opinion that the new council member should abstain.
That would of course give David Lanman his treasured tie-breaking vote if we get a Rivera-Martinez versus Williams-Salgado split. May elections will be here soon enough. If elected officials are not in line with the wishes of the citizens, things will get corrected in May. I cannot understand why any councilmember supports Sauceda. I would love to hear the reasons. If he is offered a contract, it should not be signed until he has moved here with his family. The job is too important to be done on a part-time basis by somebody who does not want to live in this part of Texas.
The agendas have been posted for Tuesday's Council meeting and Monday's BoA meeting.
The first action will be to fill the vacancy seat left by Lupe Devine. It is interesting that it was put on the agenda first. The agenda makers (Sauceda and Lanman) must be confident that they have a ringer. Otherwise they would have put it after the executive session for Flo that follows shortly.
The order is: new council member, tables and chair rentals, executive session, bank signers, auditor selection (with twenty days left before the audit is due!), utility accounts, visionaries in preservation, West Heights property problems, something about the attorney, and accounts payable.
The attorney item is "TRANSFER OF LEGAL CITY ATTORNEY FILES AND REPRESENTATION TO AKERS AND BULLWARE-WELLS FIRM." Who writes these things? Are we changing attorney firms? It seems that Monte is moving to another firm. Surprise, surprise Flo wants to follow him. Flo pays Monte to do the work that we pay Flo to do, and we end up paying twice.
I can't even comment on the sorry state of municipal management that we are one hundred days into the new fiscal year; we are required by law to complete the audit in 120 days, and we have not even selected an auditor!
I have heard only one name, Susan Wright, that has put in a letter of interest for the council seat. It would be nice if Council could appoint somebody with experience on Marfa committees or boards or at least regular attendance of council meetings, but I appreciate anybody tossing their hat into the ring. It seems that Council has shunned voices of experience and reason such as Carl Robinson's. It is a sorry state of affairs at the city these days. The mayor has created a divisive and argumentative mood in council meetings with four resignations in 13 months. And the council has had a tough time getting anything done with the dysfunctional meetings and the bumbling administrator from Robstown.
This brings me to my favorite subject of course, our city administrator. He has been without contract for almost a year. That old contract defines his terms of employment (pay and benefits and duties etc.), but without a contract, he is not entitled to that big old cherry on top, five months severance pay if the city dumps him. I understand that this idea was initiated by Curtis Schrader. Council should delete that benefit. He does not deserve it after two years of part-time service. He does not live here so would suffer no undue hardship for leaving. And the city and citizens can hardly afford this generosity for a man that has taken advantage of every possibility to milk the city of funds (unauthorized travel time on the clock, selling vacation time back to the city but not using vacation time for his twice weekly drives across Texas, billing the city for mileage in his car when he and the mayor take separate cars to Austin, unauthorized pay raise, etc etc etc).
It is no secret that I think Marfa is poorly served by this administrator. It is nothing personal. He is not working full time. He has not and will not live here. He has bungled the elections, budgets and taxes two years in a row. His pat response to every request by council is "staff is working on it," followed by absolutely nothing. I have challenged people to tell me one thing that he has done well. No replies. Name one thing that he has done that has made a difference that was not started by another administrator. Can't be done.
The sad thing is to think about how much better Marfa would have been if we had a competent administrator for the last two years. You cannot put a value on lost opportunity. We deserve better. He does not like Marfa enough to move here. We are nothing but a meal ticket to him. He is not doing the job. It is time to buy him a tank of fuel and bid him farewell.
We know Rivera likes him as a fellow "Mexican" in her words. We don't know why Martinez likes him but he does, overlooking all of his shortcomings with a shrug. Lanman of course is dependent on him to keep his house of cards from collapsing. Salgado has made no secret of his desire to find a new administrator. Williams could go either way, but seems to seek solutions that are a compromise. The new council member has no business voting on this issue and should abstain. I don't care if they are pro or con Sauceda, they should not participate in his review. I agree that they might have an opinion on his continuing to serve council as administrator in the future.
Unfortunately, this new person will be given a very important decision in the first meeting. But this person will not be an elected person and may not run again in a few months. For that reason, it is my opinion that the new council member should abstain.
That would of course give David Lanman his treasured tie-breaking vote if we get a Rivera-Martinez versus Williams-Salgado split. May elections will be here soon enough. If elected officials are not in line with the wishes of the citizens, things will get corrected in May. I cannot understand why any councilmember supports Sauceda. I would love to hear the reasons. If he is offered a contract, it should not be signed until he has moved here with his family. The job is too important to be done on a part-time basis by somebody who does not want to live in this part of Texas.
posted by RobC at 11:28 AM
2 Comments:
Rob, as usual you are right on.
Monte Akers was a partner with the firm we were using, Bovey Akers and Boroquez. Barbara Boulware-Wells was an associate of that firm. It appears Monte and Barbara have formed their own firm. Business must be good! I can't find the firm listed but it does have a phone number.
Would it be too much to ask the council to use this as an opportunity to solicit other bids or look at other options? Is Marfa's contract with Monte or his old firm? When did he move? Who are we paying now?
Post a Comment
<< Home