Can You See The Light?
For the past several months the Council has has various discussions and votes concerning the application for a special financing arrangement with TxDot for the expansion of loop 363. The expansion of the loop is necessary before I-35 reconstruction can continue through town. Click here to see the preliminary cost estimates for this project. Have a seat because the numbers are REALLY large. Click here if you would to see a map of the proposed expansion. Take a few seconds and digest the sheer size of this scale, scope and cost of this project. Now ask yourself this question what is remotely right about a Councilperson working diligently to help make this project a reality when they stand to POSSIBLY financially benefit from the project. It wouldn’t matter if we had a Councilperson that sold concrete, asphalt or aggregate. It wouldn’t matter if they were a utility contractor, dirt pusher or road paver. It wouldn’t matter because they would all most likely bid on some piece of the work whether as a supplier, contractor or sub-contractor. It is the very fact that they would be participating in the discussions and voting on the various details that would by default be creating opportunities for their business(s). This, by definition, is a conflict of interest.
Tags: City Charter, Conflict of Interest, Ethics
June 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am
As a resident and homeowner in your district, I am more concerned with the dollars of the contracts awarded by the City remaining in the local economy than whether or not the contract was awarded to a Councilmember. The profit a councilmember makes is secondary to the economic benefit the central Texas and Temple economy reaps as a result of the contract remaining here instead of being awarded to a company out of Waco, Austin, or Dallas. Temple citizens earn livings from these employers and spend their dollars in Temple on taxable items which then increases the sales tax rebate to the city of Temple. It is within the boundaries of the charter for them to bid on these jobs and the sealed bid process prevents them from “cheating” on the bid. Any other contractor can attend Council meetings and have most of the same knowledge they have as to the discussions of expansion and upcoming projects.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I don’t see a problem with the contractors submitting “sealed” bids. That’s their livelihood and it keeps the Temple economy alive…BUT…if there is a chance they MIGHT submit a bid, they should abstain from all discussions and not vote on any part of the project.
It’s pretty black and white to me…
If they abstain, they are not doing the job they were appointed by the taxpayers to do.
I think they need to make a choice, do the job that we voted them in to do, or, do the job that puts money in their pockets and resign from the council. It’s kind of hard to do both…. That’s why they call it a conflict of interest.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Thanks for your thoughts. I will respond to the “keep the money local” argument in a post next week.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I’ll request a “keep it local” response as well. It is a little frustrating at times to compete with business that are outside the city that do not pay city taxes or OR DO NOT HAVE TO BUILD MASONRY BUILDINGS. It is also frustrating that sometimes the general is local, but the subs are not. It doesn’t do that much for the community since the general doesn’t hire as many people. Just a friendly jab about the masonry ordinance.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
NO one has argued that the Councilmembers have improperly voted when they should have abstained under our existing rules. I think the point is that our rules are not good enough - they don’t require a Councilmember to refrain from participating in discussions and votes on bigger picture, long range items that will “trickle down” to their clear benefit.
Masonry standards have nothing to do with this. Its not as if a local contractor has to adhere to them in Temple and a non-local doesn’t in Temple. They all have to.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Jim Bob, a clarification please.
“long range items that WILL “trickle down” to their clear benefits”.
do you mean to say that THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL to “trickle down” or do you think it is a guarantee they will profit? do they have a guarantee to get the work they bid on?
thanks-jb
July 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The masonry standards actually do have to do with the local contractor issue. I as a local business owner have to pay more for my real estate because I operate in Temple. This makes my overhead more. If I am to compete with business outside of Temple, I must cut costs or profit to remain competitive.