Former armed forces member Michael D. Hayes launched a new recall effort against Mayor John Cook on April 5, 2012. He provides information about his effort here.
It is an interesting read.
Tag Archives: domestic partners
New Cook recall effort launched
Posted by Martín Paredes on April 11, 2012
Comments Off
Citizen Power Alive and Well in El Paso: Unfortunately, the three amigos not riding off into the sunset, yet
Posted by Martín Paredes on September 23, 2011
Comments Off
As hard as it is to believe for the powers-that-be in El Paso, the fact is that the citizens of the community have a voice and know exactly what it is that they want. As much as Susie Byrd, John Cook and Steve Ortega try to conceal the truth, the reality is that the electorate of the city knows exactly what they want and are willingly to demand it, no matter what it takes.
Yesterday, Municipal Clerk Richarda Momsen declared that the signatures submitted for a recall election of three members of council are valid. Momsen rightfully stopped validating the signature at the point where the required number, plus a comfortable cushion, had been validated in order to expedite the process. Therefore, it can be assumed that the actual number demanding the recall of the three politicians, who think they can ignore the electorate, is much higher than the 7,000 signatures verified.
There is no hiding the truth; over 7,000 registered voters demanded that the three politicians, who assumed that they could obfuscate the will of the voter through voter apathy, need to explain themselves before the electorate in order to keep their office.
It cannot be any clearer than that!
Unfortunately, the three compadres aren’t about to listen to the constituency, after all, they feel that they know better and will now attempt to stop the recall process through legal challenges to it. That’s right, unfortunately, the three-amigos aren’t about to start listening to the electorate because they know that when it comes down to it, the truth is that the electorate has been clear from the beginning about the whole episode; it is they who determines the road the city takes and not the three amigos.
Although the certification of the recall signatures is clear as daylight, unfortunately, the shenanigans from the three-amigos will continue.
Led by self-anointed ruler of El Paso, John Cook, the recall process and the electorate’s control of the city will have to wait for more legal maneuvering intending to slow it down long enough to allow them the ability to survive their terms in office. After all, they know full well that in an election, the message will be clear to them as they are shown the door back into the obscurity of nothingness for them.
The unmentioned factor in this whole episode is that the process has been thwarted from the very beginning through legal maneuvering designed to silence the electorate. The question is who is the legal mind strategizing the legal maneuvering and why? Is there a financial benefit to the protagonist by thwarting the electorate’s will?
The trouble with politicians is their actions: Beto O’Rourke exemplifies
Posted by Martín Paredes on September 8, 2011
Comments Off
Former city representative Beto O’Rourke recently confirmed that he will be challenging US Representative Silvestre Reyes in the March Democratic Primary. Although recently confirmed, there have been months of speculation on his intent to seek the 16th Congressional seat. Both the incumbent and the challenger have plenty of actions to create the necessary record for the electorate to make a decision on Election Day.
Local bloggers have fallen over themselves trying to garner attention of the upcoming bruising battle by focusing on the controversy of O’Rourke’s use of a nickname rather than his given name. Funny how politics can be, the use of a nickname becomes the central issue rather than the policy decisions and the actions of the politicians.
In the case of Beto O’Rourke, although portrayed as a newcomer looking to unseat the incumbent, the fact is that Beto O’Rourke has cemented a record that will be hard to overcome for the typical El Paso voter, regardless of the nickname he runs under.
Issue: Conflict of Interest
In early 2006, the Paso del Norte Group comprised of Beto O’Rourke, his father-in-law – William Sanders, and various other powerful businessmen secretly crafted a plan to modernize downtown El Paso. The plan called for relocating people out of their homes under the auspice of rebuilding a historical part of downtown to a more palatable format for economic revitalization. As the plan trickled into the community’s consciousness an unmistakable truth materialized: eminent domain had to be used in order to accomplish the goals of the project.
The issue of eminent domain comes down to one simple truth; the government targets a house and determines that it will take it regardless of the owner’s wishes. It does not matter that the home has been in the family for generations nor does it matter that the owner does not want to move. Under eminent domain the government has a right to take your home for a price determined by the government and supported by the court systems, whether you want to sell it or not.
Coincidently the El Paso downtown, both commercial and residential, is comprised mostly of Mexican and Korean residents and shop owners. Its culture is thus something they have developed and honed over generations to fit their needs and not the needs of others. Therefore you are more likely to find a panaderia selling Mexican sweet bread rather than a Starubucks, selling coffee.
Generally I refrain from commenting on racial divides because, frankly, racial divides exist all over the world and are not unique to Americans. In this case, the racial divide must be pointed out because the Paso del Norte Group made it so with a study commissioned by them that made racial comments about the area. The GlassBeach study, a city rebranding study, was funded by El Paso City Council of which Beto O’Roruke is a member.
GlassBeach Study
The GlassBeach study purported to study how downtown El Paso is perceived in order to develop a branding campaign to make it more palatable for redevelopment. In complete ignorance of the makeup of the existing demographic of the target area, or perhaps based on the assumption that the demographic does not vote, the study proceeded to denigrate the community that makes up downtown El Paso through culturally insensitive imagery and perpetuating racist stereotypes of the population. Beto O’Rourke supported the study financially through his vote at City Council and vocally in public commentary.
The conflict of interest
As a city representative Beto O’Rourke voted and participated in multiple actions of City Council in regards to downtown redevelopment. Although O’Roruke has continuously taken the position that he does not have a conflict of interest in the downtown redevelopment effort, he finally submitted a signed affidavit that he does, in fact, have a conflict of interest, but not before participating in multiple votes, that in at least one case, was instrumental in moving the plan forward as the vote was affirmed by one vote over the others.
As a matter of fact, according to O’Rourke’s conflict of interest affidavit, the conflict did not come about from his relationship with his father-in-law, William Sanders but rather his wife, who is employed by someone who owns property in the area. This goes against those who have consistently pointed out that the guiding force behind the downtown redevelopment plan is, William Sanders, O’Roruke’s father-in-law.
According to Tanny Berg, a well-respected businessman with significant ties to El Paso downtown, William Sanders, Beto O’Rourke’s father-in-law is the driving force behind the downtown redevelopment effort. Not only that, but Sanders is a founding member of the Paso del Norte Group who developed the downtown redevelopment plan and is the founder of the Borderplex Community Trust, a REIT designed to acquire investment property in downtown El Paso.
Although Sanders, at first, stated that in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest for O’Rourke that any monies he made from his participation in the project would be donated to charity. Sanders backtracked from that promise a short time later.
In the meantime, O’Rourke continued to participate on votes directly related to the downtown redevelopment effort.
Ethics Complaints Filed
Because of the apparent ethical conflicts, opponents of the downtown redevelopment effort filed ethics complaints against Beto O’Rourke in 2006.
According to the complaint, O’Rourke’s conflict stems from two issues in relation to the downtown redevelopment efforts. The first one was his company’s alleged financial benefit from providing services to the Paso del Norte Group.
Although, no longer a member of the Paso del Norte Group, O’Rourke’s mother and wife were members of the group spearheading the revitalization efforts while O’Rourke was voting on the plan’s requests before City Council. William Sanders “is a highly influential member” of the group, according to the complaint.
The complaint was amended later to add the following allegation against O’Rourke. According to the amended complaint, O’Rourke received favors from his father-in-law that according to the complaint rise above “normal familial benefits”. The complaint alleges that Beto O’Rourke took his financial records to be analyzed by Verde’s company accountant “three days before the public unveiling of PDNG’s Revitalization Plan”. Verde Group, LLC. is owned by Sanders. According to the complaint, this points to a “troubling impression that Sanders unduly enjoys his favor in the performance of his official duties”.
Unfortunately for the community, but seemingly fortunate for Beto O’Rourke, the ethics complaints never got the opportunity to be reviewed and acted upon by the city’s Ethics Commission because the City Attorney, Charles McNabb, decided that the complaint could not move forward to the Ethics Commission. Charles McNabb, the city attorney under Ray Caballero, one of O’Rourke’s allies in the divided Democratic Party of El Paso, left the position after Caballero’s loss to the new mayor, Joe Wardy. McNabb was brought back from Chicago by the current mayor, John Cook. O’Rourke is on the record stating that McNabb advised him on whether he had a conflict or not before an actual complaint was filed.
Under the city’s municipal code, it is the city attorney that determines whether a complaint is forwarded to the ethics commission, or not. It is a classic case of the wolf guarding the hen-house. In this case, McNabb counsels O’Rourke on whether there is potential for an ethical violation while at the same time being the gatekeeper of the commission that is tasked with hearing evidence of possible ethical violations.
The city’s ethics commission never got the opportunity to hear the evidence levied against O’Rourke.
Issue: The Drug War
There is no doubt that the drug war in Mexico has been center stage for years now with El Paso and Cd. Juárez being the nexus to the death and destruction of its affects upon society. Plain and simple, people are dying in the ongoing battle for control of the lucrative drug trade.
As an elected official, Beto O’Rourke is tasked with making policy for the community. Although outside of the purview of his elected office, Beto O’Rourke nonetheless has taken the controversial stance that legalizing drugs will somehow placate the drug dealers. Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, the problem is that the community has sacrificed, continues to sacrifice to control drug proliferation and has made it clear it is not interested in drug legalization.
Drug Legalization
In 2009, Beto O’Rourke on the other hand has publically and nationally called for an “honest open national debate on ending the prohibition of drugs”. He made his position clear on the issue as a city representative when he added those specific words to a City Council resolution in support of Cd. Juárez, El Paso’s sister city on the Mexican side of the border and arguable the citizens that have suffered the most in the going struggle against the drug cartels. O’Rourke’s amendment was killed by Mayor Cook who vetoed it.
Beto O’Rourke had nonetheless made his position clear, both personally and under the auspice of his official capacity as a city councilman. Clearly and from a policy perspective, O’Rourke wants to explore the legalization of drugs.
Is this really representative of the will of the people of El Paso?
Money laundering
Money laundering has been identified by governments as one of the major tools drug dealers use to fund their murders and continue to traffic in their drugs. This is the reason why the governments of both Mexico and the United States have setup rules related to dealing in cash. The laws are designed to allow government agencies to monitor and identify money laundering by criminals.
In May, 2010, Charlotte’s, Inc., owned by Beto O’Rourke’s mother, pled guilty to “structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements”. In other words, the company handled cash in a way that allowed it to avoid reporting where the large cash transactions were coming from, as required by federal law. The company was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000 with $250,000 probated and the remaining $250,000 to be paid in annual installments of $50,000.
According to the plea agreement, “Charlotte’s employees structured approximately $630,745.28 in cash payments in excess of $10,000 received from the ‘particular customer’”. The plea agreement shows that Charlotte’s also accepted additional cash payments totaling an additional $1,071,934.00. Charlotte’s plead guilty to “structuring” the cash payments in order to avoid reporting them to the government as required.
There are two very troubling aspects to this issue. The first is that the mount, over $1.5 million came from a small group of individuals with a majority being attributed to a “particular customer”. Even more troubling is the fact that although over one million dollars in cash was handled by the company, not one individual, much less the owner, was ever charged, much less convicted of a crime. Since when does a company commit a crime without the help of an individual?
Even more troubling is that the only reason someone “structures” cash transactions is to avoid reporting them to the government, something that only benefits people engaged in criminal behavior.
On one hand, O’Rourke advocates drug legalization while at the same time his mother’s company pleads guilty to structuring large cash transactions to avoid reporting requirements.
Issue: The will of the voter; trustee versus delegate
Beto O’Rourke is not shy about taking the position that he is elected as a “trustee” whose job is to make a decision on what he thinks is better for the community, rather than what the constituency demands.
The domestic partners issue is the first example of O’Rourke’s stance that he is better suited to make decisions for the community rather than to express the will of the community. Although Beto O’Rourke has vainly tried to wrap this issue under the cloak of a civil rights issue right out of the 60’s, the reality is that it has nothing to do with civil rights, but rather about how the community wants its money spent. The community is clear that it is against extending benefits coverage, at the expense of the taxpayer, to unmarried couples. Beto O’Rourke, on the other hand feels that his position, although contrary to the will of the people, should be the official policy of the community.
Eminent domain
During the debacle and the continued threat to people’s homes under the city’s power of eminent domain, Beto O’Rourke has consistently supported the use of eminent domain, as supported by the Paso del Norte Group, while his father-in-law leads the endeavour, notwithstanding what his constituency, those under threat of losing their homes, have demanded of him.
In other words, Beto O’Rourke has taken the position, through words and actions, that he represents the interests of what he believes is better for the community, even though it might benefit his family and friends while being detrimental to those that he represents. He votes for his needs, rather than the needs of those he purports to represent.
Delegate versus Representative
Posted by Martín Paredes on June 20, 2011
Comments Off
There are two schools of thought when it comes to American Democracy, one is that representatives, whether city, county or national; are elected as “delegates” to represent the constituency or as “trustees” to speak for the constituency. As the domestic benefits issue continues to manifest itself in the community collective, it is important that El Paso voters examine what type of representative it is that they elect.
A “delegate” type of representative is one that is elected to by the voters to represent the voters’ views before the legislative body. For example, in the domestic benefits issue, the vocal majority of voters have stated numerous times that their wish is that unmarried couples should not be allowed to receive city sponsored benefits. A “delegate” votes in favor of this point of view.
On the other hand, in the “trustee” type of representative, the representative is elected by the voters’ to listen to the constituency and then formulate their own opinion as to what is best for the community. Clearly, John Cook ascribes to the notion that he is a “trustee” when it comes to the domestic benefits issue. A “trustee” makes a decision based on their own opinion of what is good for the community, not what the vocal majority wants.
Each type of representative would argue that American democracy is best served by their notion of what type of representative it is that they are. In the domestic benefits issue, the “trustees’’ argue that they know what it is the community truly wants and needs regardless of the vocal majority’s stated wishes.
On the other hand, the “delegates” argue that they represent the will of the people, regardless of how it is they personally feel about it. City Representative Eddie Holguin best exemplifies this when he states that although he is against the citizen’s drive to do away with the domestic benefits, he nonetheless, is compelled to vote what the constituency has demanded.
There are many arguments for and against each type of representation most notably the issue of slavery in America. Those that ascribe to the notion of a “trustee”, like to point to this instance in history as an example of where the majority is wrong and it takes a “trustee” to represent the will of the downtrodden. Unfortunately this argument ignores the basis by which freedom finally came for the American slaves.
War and many years of challenges against the vocal majority in the community was the reason that slavery was eventually deemed wrong in the community. A “trustee” did not make the change, although it can be argued that a “trustee” finally forced the issue that led to war. Although this may be true, the change did not come about until the silent majority finally rose and forced a public discussion on the issue.
That is the nexus to the problem for the minority if they are intent on making a change in the community, they must rise from being a silent minority to a vocal majority. This is first accomplished by organizing and participating in the process of government. If the silent minority feels discriminated against by the vocal majority then the solution is as simple as voting.
To rely on a “trustee” to right a wrong, ignores the fundamentals of a democracy, one in which people express their wants and needs through the electoral process by participating and electing representatives to represent their wants via “delegates” instead of “trustees”. To do otherwise only exacerbates a problem by changing the direction of the community each and every time another majority of likeminded “trustees” are elected.
To those supporting Byrd, Cook and Ortega for their actions in regards to the domestic benefits issue better note that their victory is subject to change in the next round of elections as a new slate of “delegates” may actually make their victory a bitter defeat that they may have to live with. For the El Paso voter, the most important question they can ask of their candidate is whether they are a “delegate” or a “trustee” representative. For Democracy to flourish in El Paso, “delegates” need not apply.
Epitome of Arrogance: Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega
Posted by Martín Paredes on June 17, 2011
Comments Off
On, Tuesday, June 14, 2011 Mayor John Cook, Representatives Susie Byrd, Rachel Quintana, Beto O’Rourke and Steve Ortega have decided that there is no place for Democracy in El Paso. In 2009, city council decided to extend domestic health benefits to unmarried couples. Shortly after that, a citizen driven referendum was initiated whereby citizens of El Paso demanded the city change its position. First they asked council, then they gathered the necessary voter signatures to force city council to vote on the matter via a citizen presented ordinance.
Unable to overcome the majority of the city representatives’ insistence on extending health benefits to unmarried couples, the citizens forced a referendum via signatures for the voters of the community to vote on. The measure passed and the city council was forced to take the matter to court in order to attempt to prevail against the wishes of those who voted. The citizens once again prevailed when the court found that the citizen driven referendum, although not perfect, was constitutionally valid.
Not content with the court’s ruling, the city council, through Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega decided that not the citizens, those that vote and not the court who found the referendum to be valid – but they, and only they know what is good for the community and forced the matter back to where it all begun.
Notwithstanding the arrogance of the four, greater than thou politicians, their actions smack of a serious threat to citizen participation in El Paso. Wrapping themselves around a false cloak of defending the minority in the community, the four have created a situation whereby they dictate what is right for the community. This is a serious offense to democracy and it must not stand.
It is dangerous to allow four individuals to set a precedent whereby four individuals decide what direction the community should take. Their actions are not one of defenders of the downtrodden but of a few individuals who feel that their arrogance supersedes the will of the voting community and the dictum of a court ruling stating that the citizens have adhered to the constitutional requirement to implement their choice for the community.
Today it is an additional cost to the taxpayers of the community, however small, for something the community clearly does not want. Tomorrow, four politicians might decide that city elections are just too expensive and maybe even, too inconvenient, and decide that El Paso should have elections every ten years. Once allowed a measure of unchecked power, a politician might decide that they want more.
The citizens of El Paso cannot and should not allow Byrd, Cook, Quintana, O’Rourke and Ortega to go unchecked. For Quintana and O’Rourke there is nothing the voters can do, other than publically chastise them as their terms are over, but for Byrd, Cook and Ortega a challenged in the form of recall petition is not only warranted but required.
Commentary: Fearless leader John Cook makes matters worse
Posted by Martín Paredes on June 10, 2011
Comments Off
Regardless of one’s stance on the issue of the partner benefits for the city of El Paso, the important thing to note is that the ultimate decision lies with the electorate of El Paso and not the mayor. Last Tuesday, Cook decided that he knows what is right. Unfortunately in his quest for sainthood, Cook forgot that in a democracy it is the voter that determines what is right or what is wrong, not him.
Cook put on the city’s agenda an introduction to an ordinance designed to overturn the voter’s law pushed forth by the city electorate in November 2010. Cook’s introduction passed on a vote of 6 to 2.
Judge Montalvo wrote in his response to the city’s challenge of the electorate’s ordinance that electorate ordinance was constitutional. He added that it had the unintended consequence of removing other beneficiaries of the health benefits. Rather than fix the problem, omnipotent Cook has just made it worse.
After first ignoring the electorate’s will to not extend health benefits to unmarried couples, the city, forced by an electorate driven referendum, forced itself into litigation in order to circumvent the will of the people. Unfortunately for city, the judiciary found for the electorate and forced the city to accept the will of the people. Undeterred, John Cook has the unmitigated audacity to tell the community; “I think it’s important to do what’s right”.
Wow! The mayor has now decided that the citizens of El Paso are wrong! And, he, the royal highness of El Paso, as the omnipotent protectorate of the community has taken it upon himself to make things right. Funny thing is that the mayor, in his quest of becoming the community’s protectorate, has created the very thing that Judge Montalvo said would have led to a successful challenge to the community driven ordinance. Cook has now created a “class” of citizens that he is now going to exclude from the ordinance he has introduced.
Cook’s ordinance states; “That health benefits shall be available to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children and all other persons who are within an eligible class under a City Health Benefits Plan to receive health benefits or who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10, 2010, the effective date Ordinance No. 017456; provided however, that all persons who were previously approved for health benefits for the reason that they were in a ‘related agency’ shall be reevaluated to determine their eligibility under the states law enumerated classification of an ‘affiliated service contractor’ and shall be approved to re-approve for eligibility by the City Manager, as appropriate.” [emphasis author]
Note the first line that clearly states; “legal spouse”. Towards the third line, the proposed ordinance adds; “or who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10”.
In his self-centered “almighty” persona, John Cook has created the very thing Judge Montalvo said would invalidate the ordinance, a “class” of individuals. On one hand, Cook’s ordinance states that only “legal” spouses are entitled to benefits. The State of Texas does not extend marriage benefits to gay couples.
At the same time, Cook’s ordinance states that the 19 unmarried couples that were extended benefits before November 10, 2010 would continue to receive benefits.
In other words, those gay couples that want to benefit from the city’s health plan after November 10, 2010 are excluded because they are not “legally” married in Texas and were not on the plan prior to November 10, 2010. Omnipotent Cook just created an excluded “class” of individuals that makes his proposed ordinance subject to a legal challenge and one whose outcome has already been decided by a federal judge who warned against it.
In conclusion, our fearless leader John Cook, who knows better than the electorate, has put the city in a position of having to once again defend itself in court. As if that’s not enough, our self-proclaimed righteous leader not only thumbed his nose at the very people who elect him but, unsatisfied in his quest to do “right”, has also created an excluded “class” of people, the gay community he purports to help. Wow, John Cook, the omnipotent leader has no clue!
Analysis: Political Posturing in the mayoral race
Posted by Martín Paredes on June 8, 2011
1 comment
Although still a couple of years to go until the city’s next mayoral race, political posturing is starting to materialize as to whom the contenders might be. The nexus driving the posturing within the city’s political circles is the perceived re-materialization of the Ray Caballero centric politics of the “progressive” mentality of reinventing the city for economic prosperity. Although not directly in the limelight, at this time, Ray Caballero has left a legacy in the policy mantra of city district representatives Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega.
Although unable to generally muster the necessary votes to continue the Ray Caballero re-invention of the city, Byrd and Ortega have been helped in their quest by the ineffectual leadership of Mayor John Cook, the undying support of Byrd by District One Representative Ann Morgan Lilly and the occasional voting support from Representative Beto O’Rourke.
The possible reappearance of Ray Caballero in the city’s political landscape is driven by recent political realities. The first, obvious one is Caballero’s silencing of his greatest nemesis, Luther Jones. Jones is facing long-term incarceration therefore keeping him from further antagonizing Caballero’s implementation of his political agenda on the city. The recent elections of County Judge Veronica Escobar and State Representative Jose Rodriguez have further empowered the Caballero political faction in their perceived quest to implement their political agenda.
Against this backdrop is the June 11, 2011 run-off election between Ann Morgan Lilly and Lyda Ness-Garcia. Should Morgan Lilly result victorious then the balance of power will continue to favor Byrd and Ortega as they can continue to count on Morgan Lilly’s undying support of Byrd. Unfortunately for them, even a Morgan Lilly victory is tempered by their inability to garner a majority on city council in relation to their most controversial proposals as Acosta and Robinson generally do not side with them.
The other districts generally continue to vote independent, favoring their own political agendas. At the same time, the district five office holder is yet to be determined. District eight Representative-elect Courtney Niland seems to be business centric therefore her possible support of the Byrd-Ortega block is lackluster at best.
Should Ness-Garcia prove to be victorious in the run-off election, the Byrd-Ortega voting block is expected to be further eroded when it comes to the Caballero driven political agenda. Regardless of the election results on June 11, the Caballero led political agenda would likely manifest itself in a run for the mayoral office by Steve Ortega.
Although numerous rumors of a mayoral race by Steve Ortega have been played out in the city’s political circles, Ortega has not officially announced a run for higher office. As outlined above, though a mayoral run by Ortega seems to be in the making as a furtherance of the Caballero doctrine. At first glance, the mayor’s office no longer holds much political muscle since the city elected to go with a city-representative form of government, but the reality is that the office allows for political “muscle” to be leveraged upon the council. Although outwardly a “figurehead”, the mayor has the ability to leverage power in different sectors of the city in order to force specific votes on an issue.
More importantly, Ortega has begun to temper his public persona in an attempt to make himself more palatable to a larger electoral base while at the same time taking leadership roles in controversial policy issues such as the partner benefits controversy. Recently, city representatives Susie Byrd and Beto O’Rourke, along with Steve Ortega publically endorsed a measure to legalize marihuana. Although Steve Ortega was at the official announcement, he, for the most part, let Byrd and O’Rourke, take the public leadership role on the issue. Both Byrd and O’Rourke have announced they are leaving political life. Ortega has not ruled out a run for the mayoral race.
In these and other controversial community issues, Ortega seems intent on keeping a “reasonable” public stance on the controversies in an apparent attempt to appear to be a “leader” while tempering his public posture as to not antagonize the electorate. This appears to reinforce a concerted effort on his part to seek the mayor’s office in the next election.
In these and other controversial community issues, Ortega
seems intent on keeping a “reasonable” public stance on the controversies in an
apparent attempt to appear to be a “leader” while tempering his public posture
as to not antagonize the electorate. This appears to reinforce a concerted
effort on his part to seek the mayor’s office in the next election.
Domestic Partner Benefits back on Agenda: Possible city subterfuge?
Posted by Martín Paredes on June 6, 2011
Comments Off
The partner benefits issue is back at city council. On tomorrow’s city council (June 7, 2011) agenda, item 8F, “an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 017456”, was put on the agenda by Mayor John Cook. Ordinance No. 017456 is the result of a November 2, 2010 election where El Paso voters voted to eliminate health care benefits to spouses of city employees that are not legally married.
The electorate driven ordinance states; “That the City of El Paso endorses traditional family values by making health benefits available only to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children”. The ordinance became effective on November 2, 2010, and according to the city’s legal counsel had the unintended consequence of excluding city retirees, non-employees and service contractors from receiving health benefits.
The leadership of the movement to limit city benefits to legally married spouses continuously stated that the object of the movement was to deny coverage to unmarried couples and that they had no intention of changing the benefits package for retirees and other groups that were receiving them. The city, through its legal counsel, on the other hand claimed that the ordinance, as written, effectively excluded all others that were not actual city employees. Thus the initial intent of the ordinance was obscured in a legal logjam effectively neutralizing it and forcing it into court’s jurisdiction.
Prior to this, District five City Representative Rachel Quintana, attempted to correct the ordinance’s wording that, according to the city’s legal team, denied benefits to an unintended group by asking, first on November 16, 2010 and then on December 8, 2010 for council’s support to amend the ordinance to address the unintended consequence.
During the November 16 motion, city representative Susie Byrd moved to ask that the city attorney not help Quintana in writing the appropriate amendment. The majority of council approved the Byrd motion.
On May 20, 2011, Judge Montalvo ruled that the ordinance does not violate the United States Constitution as alleged and therefore must stand. The judge reaffirmed that the ordinance, as written, did in fact limit the benefits to city employees and their legal spouses.
The proposed amendment to the ordinance seems to clarify the intent of the voter by rewording the ordinance as follows: “That health benefits shall be available to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children and all other persons who are within an eligible class under a City Health Benefits Plan to receive health benefits or who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10, 2010, the effective date Ordinance No. 017456; provided however, that all persons who were previously approved for health benefits for the reason that they were in a ‘related agency’ shall be reevaluated to determine their eligibility under the sates states [corrected on June 8, 2011] law enumerated classification of an ‘affiliated service contractor’ and shall be approved to re-approve for eligibility by the City Manager, as appropriate.”
City Subterfuge?
A possible point of contention on the ordinance revision lies in the section that states; “who are in a class that actually received health benefits from the City prior to November 10, 2010”. [emphasizes by the author]
In 2009, City Council extended domestic partner benefits that included unmarried couples. As of November 2010, when the current citizen driven ordinance was adopted, unmarried couples were included in the city’s health plan. Cook’s proposed amendment to the citizen driven ordinance, on the other hand, clearly states that only “legal” spouses of city employees are now eligible, thus appearing to eliminate unmarried couples from the city’s benefit plan.
On one hand, the proposed amendment to the ordinance states that those that were covered prior to the November 10, 2010 date, which includes unmarried couples, are still included under the new ordinance. At the same time, the proposed ordinance makes it clear that only “legal spouses” are to be included.
The proposed amended ordinance is expected to be voted on June 14, 2011, as this is only an introduction. Although no public comment is normally allowed during the introduction, the wording of the proposed amendment might force public discussion on the proposed ordinance change. As the city has relied on the legal interpretation of the wording and the “intent” of the voter, the wording of the proposed ordinance amendment will most likely be challenged based on its own wording. If the “intent” of the voter is to be adhered to, the coverage date should be prior to the 2009 City Council addition of the domestic partners clause. Clearly that would satisfy the “intent” of the voter.
Commentary: Judge Montalvo rules city expanded intent of voters
Posted by Martín Paredes on May 25, 2011
Comments Off
On May 20, 2011, Judge Montalvo ruled that the citizen mounted petition denying taxpayer funded health benefits to domestic partners must be honored. In his ruling, Montalvo wrote that the city took it upon itself to expand the intent of the voter. Montalvo wrote, “[o]nce the Ordinance passed, the City, however interpreted the statue to remove health benefit coverage to retirees, elected officials, affiliated service contractors, domestic partners of employees, and certain dependent children, all of whom were previously covered”.
Montalvo goes on to write that it is impossible to state exactly what each voter intended when casting their vote therefore the intent must be derived from the local law that most closely addresses the issue, in this case the Texas Local Government Code. Therefore when applied to this standard, the Ordinance thus excludes retirees and elected officials. In his written opinion, Montalvo quotes The Federalists Papers (No. 10); “direct democracy can have unexpected consequences”, when noting the exclusion of the retirees and elected officials.
Our current city council needs to understand that El Paso expects a “representative form of government” as opposed to a “trustee form of government” that some in council have advocated. In their “representative” function, city council would not have voted to add domestic partners to the city’s health plan after the community told them not to. Instead, the majority of city council took it upon themselves to proclaim themselves “trustees” of the city and ignored the constituency.
The constituency rebelled and demanded representation by forcing a public vote on the issue. And won.
Had city council listened to what their constituency was demanding, not once, not twice but multiple times the “unexpected” consequences would never had happened. The community’s demand was simple; we don’t want to pay for “domestic partners”. Instead city council cost retirees and elected officials their taxpayer funded health plan because they ignored their mandate. Retirees have only one group to blame for their loss of benefits – city council who ignored their mandate.
The El Paso Forum is Back!
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, todays amigos are tomorrow’s enemies. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. My enemy’s enemy is my friend. I could go on and on with clichés that all end up with the fact that politics is just about the dirtiest and grimiest endeavor anyone can get involved in. Tie that with the fact that sensational headlines sell newspapers and accepting that The El Paso Times is the slimiest newspaper in the world all leads to one indisputable fact; that El Paso’s corruption is enabled by an entrenched political machine allowed to operate by a news media that trips all over itself trying to make news rather than to report it.
With that in mind plus the frustration that is El Paso corruption I have brought back the El Paso Forum for political discussion, dissection and outright dissention. I fully expect all of the political operatives to attempt to make the El Paso Forum their own platform for their message, it is par for the course, but what I really want and what I crave is for the frustrated and disenfranchised masses to have a sounding board to quickly get their anger off their chests with quick drive-by messages to the world.
Will it solve the political crisis? No. Will it server a greater good, probably not. But it should at least give the oppressed a small outlet to work through the morass of political shenanigans in the community.
It is no secret that I believe the El Paso Times is corrupt and easily manipulated. My comments aren’t directed at the majority of the reporters because they are hampered by the corporate bureaucracy that sees El Paso as an insignificant little corner in world that generates no real revenues for the corporate owners. It also doesn’t help that print media revenues are under continuous assault by the new media that is the Internet. That is why it is no surprise that Bob Moore has once again been directed to run the El Paso operation as his shenanigans have no real impact on the corporate owners and it keeps them from having to fire him and deal with the legal ramifications of that.
It is incredulous to me that all major institutional organizations in the world, including political and security operators universally agree that the El Paso-Cd. Juárez corridor is a major transit point for the majority of illicit drugs that enter the American market, yet El Paso is a ‘safe’ city. Yet, the death merchants are waging a bloody war on the Mexican side of the border and the politicians on the American side of the border proclaim that it is one of the ‘safest’ cities in the United States. They would have us believe that once the drugs get past the border they magically disappear and no one knows how.
Of course, if that were my only argument then it would be just a crazy notion on my part. But we also have a former city representative, now running for Congress, Beto O’Rourke, who not only has publically advocated for drug legalization but has also written a book in support of it. Some of you would probably argue that it’s his opinion and he should be entitled to it. Sure, but like everything else follow the money.
O’Rourke doesn’t only advocate drug legalization but his mother pleaded guilty on behalf of her company to illegally hiding money from the government. Why would someone want to structure cash? The only people looking to structure large amounts of cash and thus hiding it from government oversight are those looking to avoid taxes or most likely, avoid having to explain to the government where the money came from. Hmmm, sounds to me like money laundering.
Let’s see, money laundering and a politician looking to take office at the federal level where drug legislation can be manipulated. Oh yea, let’s not forget that the local police department had to be put on probation because its drug laboratory failed basic standards and a police department that currently has officers being indicted for falsifying public records and the same police department that had a former high-ranking administrator accuse the department of colluding with drug dealers. Yes, that is the department that trumpets the loudest how safe the city is.
Oh, and I almost forgot, a former director of the local FBI incarcerated for hiding a friendship and receiving economic benefits from a businessman from Mexico without properly documenting it to the authorities. As if that wasn’t enough, a former County Judge, Dolores Briones, pleading guilty to corruption, a former El Paso Chamber of Commerce and non-profit darling, Bob Jones in jail for defrauding the federal government and thus the taxpayers. And the list goes on and on.
And through all this, the local political shenanigans involves an advocate of legalizing drugs, funded by big money with everything to gain and O’Rourke groupies; a sitting city representative, Susie Byrd, who co-wrote the book on drug legalization with O’Rourke, another sitting representative, Steve Ortega who has no business in Mexico documenting how long it takes to cross the border on the only day of the week that city representatives are required to meet and a married county judge who sees nothing wrong with getting drunk with Beto O’Rourke on a night out on the town and slapping him on the ass all tripping themselves trying to ingratiate themselves into O’Rourke’s friend circle.
And, we are expected to believe that drug dealers are so afraid of the local policing and government efforts of El Paso that they dare not bring their violence across the border? Please!
Or, as is more likely, the city of El Paso is so corrupt that the drug dealers don’t even have to bother to pay extortion fees on the US side, they just put the people friendly to them in office. With friendlies in government there is just no need to bring violence across the border as their drugs just mysteriously disappear into the rest of the United States. Why create a problem if there is no need to do so?
Through all this, and I’ve only mentioned a very small portion of the evidence of corruption rampant within the community, where has the El Paso Times been? When Bob Jones was the darling of the city, his corrupt money trickled down to the advertising sold in the paper and now that he’s in jail, what does the local paper need? Another benefactor to feed it. Would proper investigative journalism do the trick? Hmmm, no that might bite the hand that doles out the little money for advertising in a city where corruption rules.
Follow the money! Who’s vying for office and who’s funding campaigns? Who benefits the drug dealers? Who advocates for drug dealers? And, who does the local paper support? It can’t be plainer than that.
And what about the Diario de Juárez? The Diario is so inept that news is nothing more than skimpily dressed women gracing its pages. Its El Paso operation is a disgrace to its Juárez counterpart because the local leader is too afraid to aggravate anyone lest he’s ignored by the powers-that-be at the local country clubs. He’s too busy ingratiating himself with the PDNG that he’ll throw his own father under the bridge if it means he’ll get a smile at the club house.
For those just tired of the political diatribe but too busy to get involved to make the community better or too afraid to mess with a hornet’s nest of corruption, the El Paso Forum is for you. Enjoy and make the best of it, at worst it just becomes another gripe outlet or at best it shines a light on the cockroaches that hide in the darkness enabled by the El Paso Times. It’s your playground. Enjoy!
http://www.elpasoforum.com