Do you remember the city commission meeting on August 9 when City Attorney Mark Sossi slapped democracy in the face with his bogus pie chart attempting to prove that a "greater diversity" of speakers participated AFTER the ban of public comment broadcast than before? As we stated that night: " Had not Sossi himself even thought through that argument enough to realize that the greater "diversity" was in large part do to those speaking out FOR the broadcast of public comment?" Have you noticed that since that time public comment has shriveled down to near zero? No diversity, no participation, no broadcast. That's what Tony wanted anyway as he stated at the time: "I'd like to continue doing things the way the previous administration did them. It's been working pretty good so far. I don't want to change that."
Whoever thought back on May 14 at the time of Tony's landslide election from among 5 candidates without a runoff that the most significant accomplishment of his administration would be a continuance of an anti-democratic policy initiated by Pat Ahumada, induced by a Mark Sossi hissy fit? What a waste of blue campaign signs and chicken plates! Brownsville needed, no REQUIRED a dynamic point man who would hit the ground running with a plan, with ideas, carefully strategized and thought out. What we got was a do-nothing, status quo plodder, a ceremonial figure like England's Queen Elizabeth. Officiating a tomato contest at the farmer's market, witnessing the sprinkling of holy water on the Juarez Mercadito is acceptable mayoral behavior, but it's not enough for a city hurting, watching its most precious resource, the historic downtown disintegrate into nothingness. The sad thing is Tony knew he was going to be mayor, WANTED the job, but so far hasn't gotten off his ass.
Of course, it's not all Tony's fault. Brownsville has a "weak mayor" city commission. That refers to a style of governance, not a character flaw. The mayor has one vote, as do each of the commissioners. The mayor has the added responsibility of chairing commission meetings. Right now there is a leadership vacuum on the commission, but hopefully someone will be assertive and stand up for our city. When an agenda item comes up for discussion, it is a disservice to the electorate when elected officials have NOTHING to say or ASK. The goal is not to finish a commission meeting as quickly as possible so Tony can get home in time for Boston Legal. He can TiVo it! The discussion of the item takes place right there at the meeting in front of the 2nd floor audience and the viewers at home on public access channel 12. Prior discussion of agenda items is illegal. So, does this mean that important agenda items involving thousands of dollars of taxpayer money are being rushed through WITHOUT discussion? Yes, for the most part.
I'm told that the mayor and commissioners get a voluminous printout, with details salaried city officials have prepared about agenda items. It may seem like more than a commissioner can digest between the release of the agenda on Friday and the commission meeting on Tuesday. But the minutiae should not distract commissioners or even the mayor from basic principles that need to be addressed with EVERY contract Robert C. Luna brings before them. Remember Luna is simply a purchasing AGENT. The commission makes the final decision based on what is best for our city. Don't worry in the least about irritating Robert Luna. He simply needs to understand his role in relation to the commission. Here are questions that need answering with every contract recommended by purchasing:
Why does the city need this? Is it absolutely needed NOW? How many bidders were there? What was the highest bid? What was the lowest bid? How were bids advertised? Why are you doing business with a sole source?
These are not complicated questions. If the city's purchasing department needs more time to provide answers, the item can be tabled. Once the commission establishes a modus operandi that protects the city's interests against inflated contracts, unnecessary purchases, improper sole source bidding and other abuses, the purchasing department will adjust to the new environment. Contrary to the quote from the mayor above, we do not need to do things the way they've always been done.
I missed the 9/19/11 city commission meeting raising taxes nor could I find a video. I understand that Robert Uresti presented some pertinent facts and there was an exchange with Commissioner Longoria. Yet, surprisingly, Longoria voted against the tax increase. If that was a change of heart based on the facts presented, I applaud that. I understand Commissioner Chavez-Vasquez abstained. * Why? The whole handling of this tax increase, that was represented as not an increase left a lot to be desired. As Letty Perez-Garzoria stated so simply. The city's salaried and elected officials lack "creativity". Do you really think Ms. Garzoria or Robert Uresti couldn't have found 6% to cut from the city's budget? Please! Finance Director Pete Gonzalez is obviously good with numbers, but we need someone who is capable of thinking outside the proverbial box. So far, no one has stepped up.
*After this article went to press, I learned that the vote to increase taxes eventually became unanimous.
.jpg)