Opinions

If you are going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

I believe in those words. I have been dishing it out since August and am now collecting it in return. I accept criticism and welcome it. I provide my opinion and my observations about Marfa government through this blog. I sign my posts and provide hyperlinks to related information. I believe that the information I post is true. I base it on things I learn first hand or from credible people. I am not a journalist. I do not have the resources to fact check everything. At times I make mistakes and I correct them when someone points them out.

I accept the recent Sentinel letter to the editor comment that I have been negative. It is true. The person is right in that negativity does not always help the situation. On the other hand, in some cases it is near impossible to be positive about the activity at city hall. I disagree with many of their comments and the editor granting anonymity. Furthermore, I don't understand how the letter writer's negative and mean-spirited public letter is going to help the problem of negativity in the city. Perhaps they can lead by example. Throwing rocks while hiding behind a tree is hardly positive leadership on their part.

Over these last six months, my goal has been to expose the activities at city hall that I think are illegal, unethical or that I simply disagree with. It is my constitutional right. Governments without vocal critics frequently run amok. It is a long and cherished part of our history to openly criticize governmental activities. Through this vigorous process, issues are identified and given more consideration. This leads to better government. Does anybody think that we would be better off if nobody criticized and discussed the actions of our leaders? Would public officials do a better job if citizens played nice and overlooked their mistakes or illegal activity?

I am proud of the way that many issues have been brought to the public's attention through this blog: budgetary fiascos, wasteful spending, poor fiscal management practices, incompetent handling of tax hikes, inability to make quorum 3 times out of 10, favoritism, retribution from public officials, ethical conflicts of interest... I don't make this stuff up.

I am deeply impressed by the reporting at the Big Bend Sentinel. It has always been professional and factual. I have said before and I will say again, it is a hard job for a journalist to put out a strong and complete paper on a regular and unforgiving deadline. They do a great job.

After attending months of city council meetings, I began to realize that there was a gap between what happens at city hall and what is reported in the paper. I realized that the articles were fair and accurate, but something was missing. What was missing was analysis and editorial. The NIMBY column by Jack McNamara is one exception that provides commentary on regional issues in the Big Bend and local issues in Alpine. Marfa commentary is slim. The business of publishing a newspaper in a small town involves walking a fine line. Editorials and analysis of city activity have not been frequent.

Let me give you an example of how I have tried to fill that gap: Sauceda's vacation sales as approved by Lanman and not council.

Here is the coverage from the Sentinel.

Here is the coverage from the MarfaGov blog before the Sentinel and after the Sentinel covered the matter.

The Sentinel published quotes from the Sauceda, including, "The mayor is the chief financial officer of the city," that are simply untrue. The Sentinel did not question or verify these false statements. By not checking or challenging false or misleading statements, the public is mislead into thinking the comments are true. In this case, the reporter presented the quotes accurately, but the paper did not follow up to see if the statements were valid. Perhaps that is not the role of the Sentinel. That is their business. [Clarification: The paper does a great job of telling us what officials say. If officials choose to say things that are not true, the paper serves an important role in documenting these statements for the record. I would like to see a column like Jack's that covered Marfa--that can be tricky in a small town.]

• [An aside note: The Sentinel wrote, "Mayor Lanman said this week that he plans to put vacation selling on a February agenda for council members to discuss. If they opt to make changes to the personnel policy, an action item on the issue will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting." Sauceda and Lanman did indeed put the matter on the agenda, but Sauceda took away council's ability to take action by phrasing agenda item IX as "Discuss and consider" and not "Discuss, consider and take appropriate action" as listed for the other agenda items. When council got to that business matter, they were unable to take action to fix the problem because Sauceda did not give them permission! You gotta keep your eye on these guys. Look at the agenda yourself to see what I mean.
  
  It is sad that the city council rolled over and accepted this self-serving manipulation by the administrator. He should have been reprimanded for playing games with the agenda, and council should have demanded the item be put on the agenda properly for the next meeting that followed later in February. Perhaps the administrator and mayor are hoping for a third vacation sale this December...]

In this digital format, bloggers have more capability than a printed media. I am unrestrained by the number of words or pages (though I am sure many of you wish I were!). In my coverage of the vacation sales, I included links to Texas Law and copies of both Sauceda's Employment Agreement and the city ordinance creating the position of administrator. The reader has the opportunity to explore further and come to their own conclusion by seeing the documents that I reference. When Lanman or Sauceda make a statement to defend their possibly unethical action, I don't take it at face value. I don't leave it up to the reader to find, read and understand state laws governing municipalities. I research and present my opinions and provide my references for you to check if you wish.

Newspapers have staff and divide reporting, analysis, and editorial among many people. In the blogging format, those roles are done by a single person and intermixed. The result is a different take on the issue. With a blog, you get a first hand account, opinions on what is happening, analysis of related events and documents, and links to reference material, all in one. My goal is not to compete with the press, but to complement their work. I only focus on issues that interest me. I provide a different perspective. Read it if you like. Disagree by commenting if you like. Or simply skip it altogether.

I would like to reply to the anonymous letter to the editor. First of all, I disagree with the paper's policy of publishing anonymous letters criticizing other citizens. The Sentinel defends this action:

• The Sentinel rarely grants anonymity and only if we know the letter writer. We do so in this case at the request of the letter writer and because Mr. Crowley's website. http://www.marfagov.blogspot.com/, grants anonymity to bloggers. -the editor.

For the record Mr. Halpern, I am the blogger and I sign every blog that I publish. People that leave anonymous comments are commenters and not bloggers. I have stated before and I will repeat here that Florencio Sauceda and David Lanman have insulted democracy by actively trying to intimidate and cause the employment termination of citizens that expressed their First Amendment right to express opinions. That is the main reason that I chose to allow anonymous comments.

I have deleted many comments that I consider inappropriate. I have requested commenters to respect this anonymous right and not make false statements. I have encouraged people to sign their name when they are not in a position to suffer retaliation from public officials.

In the Sentinel's case, the letter writer was criticizing another citizen, not a public official. Perhaps the letter writer was a public official. We do not know. Perhaps the letter writer has their own agenda. We do not know. We cannot consider the source of the criticism because the paper refused to publish that source. It is insufficient for the editor to claim he knows the person. The reader is not able to make their own decision about the writer's intentions because the writer's identity is secret.

Here is the difference: I criticize elected officials and our city's well-paid administrator, and I sign my name. The Sentinel allows a citizen to criticize another citizen without signing their name. The Sentinel allowed the situation to become more negative by publishing a negative letter without a signature. Would that person choose to be as negative if they had to stand behind their words? Anonymity breeds false bravado.

Publishing online also breeds its own form of bravado. I say things online that I might not say in public. The letter writer makes a valid point in their negative criticism of my tone, but I stand behind the content of my statements nonetheless.

Out of the nineteen sentences that the writer spent discussing the negativity of the situation, only one softball sentence was directed at this administration, "I also understand that some of the individuals involved have not conducted themselves in a manner befitting their positions." Why so easy on elected official's conduct and harsh on your neighbor? Perhaps you are a personal friend of the administration, maybe not. We do not know, although I don't believe that Mr. Halpern would publish that letter from a person with an obvious axe to grind. The paper serves readers poorly by not giving them full information. Your letter would get more respect (and perhaps be more polite) if you signed it.

I have heard other complaints that I should not complain about public action if I am not willing to run for office. That is a ridiculous statement. Only those that run for President can criticize him? I have no interest in public office. I do have an interest in public officials doing a good job. I don't need to be a candidate to express my opinions.

The writer suggests that I take Sauceda and Lanman out to lunch or cook them dinner in my home. Forgive me if I reserve my meals for people whose company I enjoy. The last meal that I shared with David Lanman (also at the Brown Recluse!) was when he asked me to rewrite a proposed permit ordinance to favor his business. This city is not served well by backroom dealings between friends. All business should be public. I return a suggestion to the writer that he or she spend more time at city council meetings than buying meals for public officials. Lanman and Sauceda have the opportunity and obligation to conduct themselves with dignity and fairness in their public service. This is not the case today.

I agree that the situation has become quite negative. I disagree that it is all my fault. I wonder how many council meetings the writer has attended to witness the mayor's bad temper while presiding over council meetings. Now, the letter writer has done their own part in adding to the negativity in Marfa. I will look for ways to describe the incompetent and illegal activities of this administration without being negative. It is not easy.

Blogging is a relatively new form of communication. The term blog (from "web log") was coined in December 1997. The Technorati web site tracks 70 million blogs! Interestingly, MarfaGov is not one of them, so you can imagine they are missing a few. According to them, over 175,000 new blogs are created each day with 1.6 million new posts per day. I appreciate comments on how to improve this blog. I firmly believe that a loud and raucous discussion of city activity is better than indifference.