tony jeter dot com

The three video clips below are from a Council meeting back in October 2009. The topic being discussed was whether or not to allow the voters to have a say on whether or not Councilpeople should be able to do business with the City.  You can read the previous post to get my thoughts on the meeting.  After you watch the clips ask yourself this question. If there is really no support for a Charter change what risk is there in taking it to the voters?

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.

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.

The Mayor, and others, have rationalized their stand against a Charter Review that might ultimately lead to the barring of elected officials being able to do business with the City by stating that such a prohibition would lead to a deficiency in both the quality and quantity of people that would be able to run for a Council seat.  They say that the 1990 Charter amendment was a good for the City because it would open the floodgates to all of the qualified people that were being excluded from public service because they “did” business with the City. Below are lists of each Council since the Charter was amended.  Give them a quick scan and see if you think the argument holds any water.  I plan to write more on this topic as the week progresses.

CITY COUNCIL - 1990
District #1                Hanes H. Brindley, Sr.    Physician
District #2                Nathaniel Mitchell          Retired Military
District #3                J.W. Perry                         Office Supplies
District #4                William J. Hardin           Physician
Mayor At-Large       Dennis Hobbs                  CPA/Investments

CITY COUNCIL - 1992
District #1                Keifer Marshall, Jr.        Insurance
District #2                Nathaniel Mitchell        Retired Military
District #3                Tommy Stone                 Driving School/ Internet-Media
District #4                Wade Matthews             CPA
Mayor At-Large       J. W. Perry                      Office Supplies

CITY COUNCIL - 1994
District #1                Keifer Marshall, Jr.       Insurance
District #2                George English              Rancher/ Retired Teacher
District #3                Tommy Stone                Driving School/ Internet-Media
District #4                Wade Matthews            CPA
Mayor At-Large       J. W. Perry                     Office Supplies

CITY COUNCIL - 1996
District #1                Keifer Marshall, Jr.        Insurance
District #2                George E. English          Rancher/Retired Teacher
District #3                Tommy Stone                 Driving School/Internet-Media
District #4                Wade Matthews             CPA
Mayor At-Large       J. W. Perry                      Office Supplies

CITY COUNCIL - 1998
District #1                Jack M. Morris                 Insurance
District #2                George E. English           Rancher/Retired Teacher
District #3                Scott Brookshire             Auto Dealer
District #4                Sally H. Myers                 Homemaker
Mayor At-Large       Keifer Marshall, Jr.        Insurance

CITY COUNCIL - 2000
District #1                Jack M. Morris                 Insurance
District #2                George E. English            Rancher/Retired Teacher
District #3                Martha Tyroch                 Nurse/Vocational Rehab
District #4                Sally H. Myers                  Homemaker
Mayor At-Large       Keifer Marshall, Jr.         Insurance

CITY COUNCIL - 2002
District #1                Tony Jeter                          Media/Marketing
District #2                Patsy E. Luna                    Medical Secretary
District #3                Martha Tyroch                  Nurse/Vocational Rehab
District #4                Sally H. Myers                  Homemaker
Mayor At-Large       Bill Jones, III                    Food Handling/Battery Equip

CITY COUNCIL - 2004
District #1                Tony Jeter                          Media/Marketing
District #2                Patsy E. Luna                    Medical Secretary
District #3                Martha Tyroch                  Nurse/Vocational Rehab
District #4                Russell T. Schneider        Road Construction
Mayor At-Large       Bill Jones, III                    Food Handling/Battery Equip/ Quarry/ Steel Supplier

CITY COUNCIL - 2005
District #1                Tony Jeter                          Media/Marketing
District #2                Patsy E. Luna                    Medical Secretary
District #3                Martha Tyroch                  Nurse/Vocational Rehab
District #4                Russell T. Schneider        Road Construction
Mayor At-Large      Bill Jones, III                   Food Handling/Battery Equip/ Quarry/ Steel Supplier/Advertising

CITY COUNCIL - 2008
District #1                Tony Jeter                         Insurance
District #2                Patsy E. Luna                   Medical Secretary
District #3                Marty Janczak                  Granite Business
District #4                Russell T. Schneider        Road Construction
Mayor At-Large      Bill Jones, III                   Food Handling/Battery Equip/ Quarry/ Steel Supplier/Advertising

Below is a sampling of questions that an enterprising talk radio host could’ve asked the Mayor in a recent show featuring the Mayor.  The purpose of the questions would’ve been in no way to impugn the Mayor’s reputation. Instead they could’ve been asked in a respectful manner giving the Mayor the opportunity to shine some light on his financial dealings with the City thus dispelling the myths that he has financially benefitted from being the Mayor. It would’ve even been appropriate to give him the questions in advance so he could be prepared. The ongoing goal is to bring transparency to the dealings of the City government and its elected leaders.

1. It has been well over 10 years since the City last had a Charter Review. It is a common practice for communities to periodically review their Charters. Why are you so adamantly opposed to a Charter review?
2. More and more cities are forming Ethics Commissions.  Why are you opposed to exploring the formation of an Ethics Commission?
3. At a Council workshop several months ago Councilman Jeter proposed letting the voters decide whether or not Council people should receive millions of dollars in City contracts.  In response to this suggestion, that you were obviously not in favor of, you stated, “the voters will approve anything”. Would you please elaborate on the meaning of this comment?
4. You purchased a quarry operation soon after you were elected Mayor. Can you tell us what your role in the day-to-day operations of the quarry was?
5. It is rumored that you recently sold the quarry operation. Can you confirm the veracity of this rumor? Do you have any sort of financial arrangement in which you are still receiving payments or royalties from the buyers?
6. Can you tell us how much revenue your company received from projects funded in all or part with taxpayer dollars.  Please differentiate between direct contracts with the City and contracts with contractors/sub-contractors working on behalf of the City.
7. During the time you owned the quarry how much revenue did the operation receive from contractors working on projects that received incentives from the City?
8. During the time you owned the quarry how much revenue did the operation receive from contractors working on State highway projects in which the City contributed tax dollars for right of way “ROW” acquisition or utilities relocations?
9. During the time you owned the quarry how much revenue did the operation receive from contractors that were working on projects on behalf of the City?
10. During the time you owned the quarry how much revenue did the operation receive from businesses owned, all or in part, by other Council members?
11. I know you have followed the letter of the law to mitigate the conflicts of interests arising from your ownership of various businesses by not voting on the awarding of contracts… But…. aren’t you at all concerned that it is a conflict of interest even to participate in discussions on projects that you knew your quarry would most likely supply materials for?

The picture below was recently taken at the new Municipal Courts building currently under construction.  As you can see one of the sub-contractors on the job was one of our very own City Councilmen. I am certain that the work will be of the highest quality and that everything is on the up-and-up…. but… don’t ya think that the taxpayers have a right to know the financial details of this job as they pertain to the financial gain of one of their elected officials? I believe that information like the value of the contract and who the competing bidders were and what they bid should be readily available to the public in the name of transparency.

To be clear, I am sure that the letter of the law and the City’s bid processes were followed by everyone involved with this project. However, I think it is the Council as a whole that needs to take the next step to add more transparency to the process.