First Tuesday of the month was last night, so that means that our city council was in session and another chunk of unbudgeted change was approved for spending. No don't get me wrong, there are times we must spend unbudgeted money, and one of them was last night to an extent, but the rest? So here's the run down:
$48,000 in longevity bonuses for city employees. I have a couple of issues with this carte blanche bonus, though have to give Tommy Schrig props for trying to do it correctly.
This bonus is $4 a month for every month an employee has worked for the city up to 25 years. Now that includes Mr. Barnes who has worked for the city for 1 month. Councilman Schrig tried to pass it so that is applied to employees over 10 years. In my public working I've never seen one paid for any employee under 3 years. But not Gonzales. Why are we thanking those for their 'longevity' when they haven't proven any?
Additionally Councilman Hernandez asked about the handful of employees that within the last 2 years have gotten pay raises of over 25% and if they too would get the bonus. Oh yeah they will.
So why didn't the council table this motion till these issues could be sorted out? Had the city manager bring back a revised proposal that would truly benefit those who deserve something, yet not double dip those who have already benefited AND those who haven't earned it yet? I'm at a lose as to why our council is so quick to pass everything that comes before them.
Now the fire department asked for $10,000 in additional funds for unforeseen expenses, primarily due to the additional use they've gotten this year. My ONLY complaint is that we should have in our budget some of this additional repair items. We know that repair cost are never going to be what we thought they'd be. And heads up, for the next couple of years while this drought continues our fire department is going to need more money! Let's get it planned for now. I know it's not one of those expenses anyone wants to pay for, until that fire is at your house, but we've got to, and these firemen have busted their own tails raising money themselves too.
Now in one breath we heard (though I haven't seen the ytd/budgeted finances to confirm) that we have a windfall of cash from increased tax revenues and oil, and then in the next breath heard we would be going out for bonds to pay for the issuance of bonds for the money we need to make things work.
What I didn't hear is anything on the St. George debacle. Why after 2 year 4 months we still don't have finished streets.
I didn't hear one committee update from any boards / committees.
And with the exception of 2 out of 13 items, I heard NO discussion of ANY of the issues brought before council. I heard next item, motion, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, next item repeat above.
For those interested, the second item discussed was when Mr. Hernandez asked the city manager to work with the failed petition on garage sale issue to come up with a compromise even though the petition didn't hit the 400+ signatures the city is saying were needed. This will come back up in December for modifications to the garage sale ordinance. So if you're interested be there in December to speak your peace.
God Bless
It was my understanding that city attorney said at first they didnt meet it but then corrected herself in saying that they did meet the amount of signatures needed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure all that was muttered, but bottom line there were 365ish signatures and per her 400+ were needed.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm going to disagree, as the last election had 5 votes cast, those of the city council. Otherwise how would Tommy Schrig and Gary Schroder been elected? If that was the case then only 150 signatures were needed.
It will be interested in how Judge Bird handles this one.
Dennis: Can you recall a committee, appointed by the city council, that made a recommendation that was not "rubber stamped" by the council? If the council rountely "rubber stamps" committee recommendations, the committee is considered a government body and subject to the Open Meetings Act.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how the rules for committees works in most cases.
ReplyDeleteI do know that some of them, GEDC, Zoning, etc have to follow Open Meetings Act, but don't know if the Beautification, Travel, etc are required to.
The only thing I can think of that the council rejected was the GEDC Lynn Theater issue with Mr. Colins.
Dennis this is straight from The Open Meetings Handbook published by Attorney General Greg Abbott:
ReplyDeleteE. Advisory Bodies
An advisory committee that does not control or supervise public business or policy is not subject to
the Act,76 even though its membership includes some members, but less than a quorum, of a
governmental body.77 For example, the multidisciplinary team established to review offenders’
records under the Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act was not subject to the Act.78 The
team made an initial assessment of certain offenders to determine whether they should be subject to
further evaluation for civil commitment. Subsequent assessments by other persons determined
whether commitment proceedings should be filed. Thus, the team lacked ultimate supervision or
control over public business or policy.79
However, if a governmental body that has established an advisory committee routinely adopts or
“rubber stamps” the advisory committee’s recommendations, the committee probably will be
considered to be a governmental body subject to the Act.80 Thus, the fact that a committee is called
an advisory committee does not necessarily mean it is excepted from the Act.
The Legislature has, moreover, adopted statutes providing that particular advisory committees are
subject to the Act, including a board or commission established by a municipality to assist it in
developing a zoning plan or zoning regulations81 and the nursing advisory committee established by
the statewide health coordinating council.82
72
Please take notice of the "rubber stamp" comment.
ReplyDeleteThe Tourism Committee comes to mind.
Opps there goes another $575,000.
ReplyDelete