tony jeter dot com

The trash in the picture below has been waiting to be picked up for close to three weeks. The house in the picture is on North 3^rd – the main corridor from the industrial park, I-35, CAC and the Mayborn Center into downtown area. I am fairly confident that this mess appeared on or before September 2. I know for a fact it was there on the 3^rd – this was when I made my first note about it. The bulk pick up day for this house was supposed to be on September 8^th. This Tuesday, September 22, is the next pick up day. According to the plan approved by the Council (4 of the 5 members) the maximum amount of time garbage is supposed to sit in a front yard is nine days. So what happened here? I know, I know…. I could’ve called it in myself and gotten it picked up a long ago. But I was curious how long it would sit. Is this really the kind of curb appeal we want to be known for?

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.

For those of you that want to communicate with me via email my address is tony@tonyjeter.com

My cell phone is 541-1110.

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.

Click here to view a PDF of last week’s building permits.

Check out me, my wife and Ronnie at a Historic District swim party a few weeks ago at Lion’s Junction.

The excerpt below is from an email newsletter I occasionally read.

If given the chance, 57% of Americans would vote to remove every single member of Congress. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday gave participants two rhetorical choices: Either let ’em all stay or throw the bums out. When the dust settled, 25% said they would maintain the status quo, 57% would want a clean slate and 18% weren’t sure… or perhaps afraid they would end up on some “dissident database.”

I wonder what kind of marks Temple’s elected elites would receive if a similar survey were done of Temple residents. Would they recall some of us, all of us or leave the status quo? Hmmmm…. I wonder.

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.