tony jeter dot com

Click here to download Councilman Schneider’s abstention form and the “schedule of values” for the Airport Business Park project.

Click here to download the Councilman Schneider’s abstention form and the “schedule of values” he often refers to.

Click here to download the Councilman Schneider’s abstention form and the “schedule of values” he often refers to.

Well the vote went as expected tonight. The opposition played it just like I thought they would.  My thoughts on how the vote went are below.

There is a group that seeks as much control as possible over this City. This is this same group that continually seeks to maintain tight control over all aspects of what goes on in this City. It is this same group that I have butted heads on a regular basis over the last 7+ years on numerous issues. This is the group that wants to control the City, the Council, its staff and City Boards and anything else that might impact the direction of this City.This is the group that won today.

It is a sad day for the citizens of Temple when their elected representatives shut down the chance for the very people that elected them to have a say on this important issue.  They rationalize their votes with a myriad of reasons all ultimately rooted in the truth that they know best and that the voters are not qualified or intelligent enough to decide this issue. This vote was not about doing business with the City. It was all about keeping the status quo.

It was obvious to me during the discussions that the Mayor and Councilmen Janczak and Schneider knew full well that if the proposed amendment would have passed had it gone to the voters. Both the Mayor and Councilman Janczak commented that this was not an appropriate way to amend the Charter. The vote was not about amending it, the vote was to sending to the voters.  “If there was really a groundswell of voter support for this issue it should be easy enough to mount a petition drive” Janczak stated.  Schneider commented that he had only had one call and two emails in support of the change.  Logically, one would assume that if there was no support for the amendment it would fail at the ballot box. So why not put the issue to bed once and for all and let the citizens vote it down?  Why sully a reputation over a non-issue that has no public support? Because everyone knew that the amendment would pass in a landslide - that’s why.

This brings us to the future. I have taken this as far as I am comfortable with. I do not think it would be appropriate for a sitting Councilman to launch a petition drive. I am also not going to beat a dead horse and keep harping on this issue.  I will support any effort to take it to the next level but I will not be leading the charge.  I will make one more post to this blog and then retire from blogging on City affairs. It has served its purpose and is the main reason I got as far as I did and I will leave it up for people to educate themselves on my thoughts on this conflict of interest issue. My last post will be a video of the discussion tonight for everyone’s viewing pleasure.

….the article in Sunday’s Telegram struck a nerve with the voters or the Pro Selfers?

….phone calls can make a difference? Notice Mayor Pro-Tem’s comments in the article referenced above.

….supporters of the status quo will come up with all kinds of reasons why the voters should not be allowed to vote on this “silly” Charter amendment?

….that any sensible person really believes that a prohibition against elected officials doing business with the City will eliminate qualified people from running for office?  I mean really!  We live in a city of 60,000+ people - surely there must be one or two people that could run for office. FYI, only five elected officials have done business with the City since the ban was lifted 20 years ago. Three of the five are currently on the Council; the Mayor (quarry and steel), Councilman Schneider (dirt pushing and road paving) and yours truly (design services). How did we survive all those years pre-1989?

….that saving the City a couple hundred grand is really the issue here?  If it is really about what’s good for the City why not resign from the Council and remove the entire conflict of interest cloud from our midst? You know - that, “it may not look good but it’s legal”, grey mass that casts a long and dark shadow on the credibility of the Council.

….that practical politics consists of ignoring facts?

….the two members of the Council actually doing business with the City will vote no on the proposed Charter amendment thus depriving the citizens from having a say on this issue?

….that the “voters will approve anything”?

….that those that vote no will rationalize away their vote by stating that “if the public really had a problem with this, then they would’ve done a petition drive”?

We’ll have the answers to these questions soon enough.

Yesterday was a good day!  The article in the Telegram was well done and I got stopped by folks everywhere I went.  When you combine that with the calls and emails I got it was a good day indeed. BTW, there are a whole lot more people that read the newspaper than one would think in these days of the Internet.

I have had several people question me on one of the revisions I made to my proposed Charter amendment.  They were wondering why I deleted “appointive officer” from the draft.  It’s pretty simple really - I don’t think it is wise to exclude people that do business with the City from serving on our City boards.  While it is no secret that I think our appointment process is somewhat flawed I don’t think this prohibition should be added to that mix. In truth it is up to the Council to vet its appointments and work diligently to choose the right people for the right boards.  In the instances that there is a conflict of interest on one of these boards the party(s) involved will just follow the rules as stated in our Charter.  So is this a double standard?  I think not.  When it comes to conflicts of interest I believe that elected officials should be held (or hold themselves) to a much higher standard than our City board volunteers.

More revisions… stuff in italics is new. I think it’s ready for prime time.  Where to from here?

No member of the City Council shall, during his term of office, hold any public office or employment, compensation for which is paid out of public funds. Nor shall any member of the City Council appointive officer or employee of the City have a direct financial interest in any contract for goods or services, including public works contracts, let by the City, nor in any matter wherein its rights or liabilities are involved.

Any member of the City Council appointive officer or employee of the City who shall violate this provision shall forthwith forfiet his office or position, and any such contract which any member of said board, or appointive officer or employee of the City is or may become directly financially interested in may be declared null and void by the City Council.

For purposes of this section, a direct financial interest exists when a person contracts with the City as an individual, or when they own an interest in  business that contracts with the City, or when they own an interest in  business that sub-contracts with a Contractor doing business with the City, or is a subcontractor to an individual or a business contracting with the City, or when someone related to them in the first degree contracts with the City or has an ownership entity in a business that contracts with the City.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

After taking feedback on my first draft and spending a considerable amount on the Internet researching other community Charters I humbly present a new and improved proposed Charter amendment for your viewing pleasure.

No member of the City Council shall, during his term of office, hold any public office or employment, compensation for which is paid out of public funds. Nor shall any member of the City Council, appointive officer or employee of the City have a direct financial interest in any contract for goods or services, including public works contracts, let by the City, nor in any matter wherein its rights or liabilities are involved.

Any member of the City Council, appointive officer or employee of the City who shall violate this provision shall forthwith forfiet his office or position, and any such contract which any member of said board, or appointive officer or employee of the City is or may become directly financially interested in may be declared null and void by the City Council.

For purposes of this section, a direct financial interest exists when a person contracts with the City as an individual, or when they own an interest in  business that contracts with the City, or when they own an interest in  business that sub-contracts with a Contractor doing business with the City, or when someone related to them in the first degree contracts with the City or has an ownership entity in a business that contracts with the City.

Is it legal for our elected representatives in Congress to exempt themselves from just about every law that they pass for our benefit? Legal, yes – right, no. Just being legal doesn’t really cut the mustard these days. The good old “it has to be OK if it’s legal” argument is just another rationalization for those that support elected Council people juggling their responsibilities to the taxpayers with their own self interests. There are lots of Pro Self Politicians out there. They are all over the place. It’s really good for them that the there are very low hurdles that have to be cleared to stay within the law. Incredibly, even lawyers are supposed to abide by higher ethical requirements than our City Charter requires of its elected officials. BTW, I think the taxpayers (the people who pay the bills) would get a much deal better on healthcare reform if our elected representatives and their staff handlers were required to participate in the same program.