UPDATE: No Meeting Thursday
Reports indicate that the only council member that was unable to attend the regular meeting was Gloria Rivera. As many know, Gloria Rivera has sold her only home in Marfa and was contemplating a move to El Paso. Ordinarily, a person's home is not public business. In this case, a council member that moves out of the city is automatically off the council by state law. I don't know if she has established another residency out of Marfa or is claiming another Marfa residence as her official home. I do know that she missed the previous meeting. So another absence seems a bit irrelevant at this point. I also know that the current administration has been strangely silent on this issue in general.
Mr. Sauceda claimed that he could not reach Oscar Martinez and that Dan Petrosky's attendance was in question. In fact, Oscar Martinez is back in town today. Here's what we have: Gloria Rivera told Flo she could not make the meeting; Flo could not reach Martinez; so he cancelled the regular meeting. This is highly irregular, and illegal according to a blog contributor. Sauceda cancelled a regular meeting of the city council because one member who has moved away from Marfa is unavailable!
[CORRECTION] I removed the comments about TOMA. The AG says that polling council members about attendance is not a TOMA matter.
If Sauceda did not have specific statements from three council members that they would not be able to attend the meeting, then the meeting should not be cancelled because quorum would be likely. In fact, he polled council members and was still unable to find three unavailable members. It appears he was hoping to get a cancellation. When he was unable to get three confirmed absences, he cancelled on speculation. Why?
I understand that our auditor was prepared to share a preliminary financial statement with the city in advance of Thursday's meeting and planned to attend the meeting. His statement was to be delivered two days before the meeting, shy of the normal three day council packet, but sufficient for council to review it ahead of time. Sauceda told the auditor that the meeting was cancelled due to quorum problems. Excuse me? You do not have a quorum problem until you call the meeting to order. Did Sauceda cancel the meeting on his own in order to delay the audit report?
Perhaps some council members can tell us what happened. If Sauceda is acting on his own to cancel a regular meeting, he should be reprimanded. If council members went on record as being unavailable, then those records should be shared with the public. Who cancelled the meeting and under what authority and for what real reason? Sauceda's concern that a quorum might not happen is a smoke screen and not a real reason.
This type of behavior from the administrator is in bad faith. His job is to facilitate regular and productive meetings of the council, not to undermine the meetings. The solution for a questionable quorum is to post the meeting and take attendance. Let the records indicate who was able to fulfill their sworn responsibilities. Political games like this create suspicion. Given the state of the city's operations, we have no room for suspect behavior.
I understand that Sauceda has proposed a special meeting for Monday night. Perhaps Gloria Rivera will be able to make that meeting. Perhaps he is depending on her support for agenda items that might not have broad support of council. We are left to guess at his motives. When the administrator plays games with council through manipulation of the agenda or the meeting schedule, council becomes less effective.
I offer two suggestions for eliminating this trouble in the future. 1) Council members might clarify who was truly unavailable for Thursday night. The public has a right to know if this cancellation was legitimate or contrived. 2) Council should clarify the rules for this sort of situation.
Mr. Sauceda claimed that he could not reach Oscar Martinez and that Dan Petrosky's attendance was in question. In fact, Oscar Martinez is back in town today. Here's what we have: Gloria Rivera told Flo she could not make the meeting; Flo could not reach Martinez; so he cancelled the regular meeting. This is highly irregular, and illegal according to a blog contributor. Sauceda cancelled a regular meeting of the city council because one member who has moved away from Marfa is unavailable!
[CORRECTION] I removed the comments about TOMA. The AG says that polling council members about attendance is not a TOMA matter.
If Sauceda did not have specific statements from three council members that they would not be able to attend the meeting, then the meeting should not be cancelled because quorum would be likely. In fact, he polled council members and was still unable to find three unavailable members. It appears he was hoping to get a cancellation. When he was unable to get three confirmed absences, he cancelled on speculation. Why?
I understand that our auditor was prepared to share a preliminary financial statement with the city in advance of Thursday's meeting and planned to attend the meeting. His statement was to be delivered two days before the meeting, shy of the normal three day council packet, but sufficient for council to review it ahead of time. Sauceda told the auditor that the meeting was cancelled due to quorum problems. Excuse me? You do not have a quorum problem until you call the meeting to order. Did Sauceda cancel the meeting on his own in order to delay the audit report?
Perhaps some council members can tell us what happened. If Sauceda is acting on his own to cancel a regular meeting, he should be reprimanded. If council members went on record as being unavailable, then those records should be shared with the public. Who cancelled the meeting and under what authority and for what real reason? Sauceda's concern that a quorum might not happen is a smoke screen and not a real reason.
This type of behavior from the administrator is in bad faith. His job is to facilitate regular and productive meetings of the council, not to undermine the meetings. The solution for a questionable quorum is to post the meeting and take attendance. Let the records indicate who was able to fulfill their sworn responsibilities. Political games like this create suspicion. Given the state of the city's operations, we have no room for suspect behavior.
I understand that Sauceda has proposed a special meeting for Monday night. Perhaps Gloria Rivera will be able to make that meeting. Perhaps he is depending on her support for agenda items that might not have broad support of council. We are left to guess at his motives. When the administrator plays games with council through manipulation of the agenda or the meeting schedule, council becomes less effective.
I offer two suggestions for eliminating this trouble in the future. 1) Council members might clarify who was truly unavailable for Thursday night. The public has a right to know if this cancellation was legitimate or contrived. 2) Council should clarify the rules for this sort of situation.
posted by RobC at 6:08 PM
6 Comments:
Too bad the auditor cannot publicly (as on this forum) release the preliminary report so 'the public' can review it before a meeting as Council will/should be.
Actually, Sauceda HAS been reprimanded for this practice before. As usual, he does not listen. He should be arrested.
The audit consists of a few parts. The financial statement, a cover letter from the auditor, and a management discussion & analysis (MD&A) written by the city based on the preliminary financial statement. A preliminary financial statement was promised for yesterday. The auditor will review the MD&A for accuracy and then the final audit will be compiled. The goal is to present the full audit to council by the meeting on May 8th. The preliminary audit should be an open record available for review or copy by any citizen. If someone has a PDF of the document, I would be happy to post it.
Reckon Sauceda wanted to go home for the weekend therefore he did not have time for a meeting????
Haven't you noticed? He's turned a new leaf. His sugar daddies ran out of sugar. No more three day work weeks. He's a new man. Two years into the job and he's ready to start working.
Sauceda start working? where did you get that notion? he still has everyone else doing the work for him, while he takes the credit. he hasn't changed and never will.
Post a Comment
<< Home