League City, Welcome to Special Interests Good Old Boy Politics

Background

On Valentine's Day the council voted 5-3 to endorse a plan for government assisted income-controlled age-restricted projects apartments in the middle of League City.  So much for putting League City first!  The Green Team, and the waffler in chief (Keith Gross) voiced support for the item.  Remember back in the day when Mr. Gross said he would not support any more multi-family units in League City, due to the fact that they create a greater burden on the city than the tax revenue they generate?  Now all of a sudden, he votes to show the city has endorsed one.  So let's look at the reasons that were given in support of this vote by the Democrats Green Team (Hallisey, Dugie, Gripon, and Millican) and Mr. FlipFlop (Gross).  

1.  Supporting the elderly  
2. We can always say no later in planning and zoning and other approvals 
3.  We need to be a city that says yes to getting things done

And the rationale given by the true conservatives left on council (Kinsey, Long, and Becker)

1. The city is already being burned with other multi-family units on costs vs revenue (This facility will be an income-controlled project, so it will result in even lower tax revenue than the latest high-end apartment complexes) and the number of units in the amount of land they’ll be going in is way beyond the number that is viewed as sustainable by the city

Now let’s break these points down.  

Supporting the Elderly

This was feel-good pandering identity politics at it’s finest.  Emperor Hallisey went on a tirade about compassion and the increasing number of elderly folks, but he ALSO stated something that identified his true motive.  This is the Emperor throwing a bone to one of the founding families of League City (he even said as much, then backpedaled saying he would do this for any family).  This is a guy who ran as someone who promised to fight the developers.  This is the Green Team that said they would work to have zoning to create sustainable development in League City.  Now he wants this to be a city that says yes.  You can’t have it both ways.  And if there’s anything disingenuous that was said at tonight’s council meeting, it’s when the Mayor presented this as concern for the elderly and the poor.  So this amounts to enabling a redistribution of wealth and good old boy politics where we play favoritism with the old families of League City.  EXACTLY what this blog warned would happen with the Green Team in power.

We Can Say No Later (Dugie’s “Nugget”)

We know that Mr. Dugie and the rest of the Green Team have no respect for the City Attorney; however, it was fully on display tonight.  The CA made it very clear that if the city wants to resist this development, the time was now, as we will only be able to deny them later for very specific reasons.  I highly doubt that Mr. Dugie didn’t believe the CA, he was simply seeking to stifle argument and insist that he was only trying to move this along and could be decided later, when in reality he knew that the approval tonight is essentially saying yes to this burden on the taxpayers of League City.  But since the Green Team is good old boy liberal identity politics at it’s finest, he’s going to play his role.

We Need to Be a City That Says Yes to Getting Things Done

So now the mayor wants to get things done?  You mean like with downtown revitalization?  Or is it only when it benefits the people who the Mayor likes?  Remember when Mr. Edelman complained about some poorly written article that seemed to say the Economic Development director is playing some sort of picking-and-choosing pet projects, and that the city shouldn’t do this?  Well, now the Green Team is doing JUST that.  How do you feel about your candidates now Mr. Edelman?  Enjoy that victory party!

The Cost Burden vs the Tax Revenue

Todd Kinsey, Nick Long, and Dan Becker have consistently voted the way they said they would – to cut debt and vote for items that would serve to lower our taxes.  Keith Gross said he’d do the same, but he didn’t.  Instead, he voted for the sentimental speech from Mr. Hallisey.  We don’t have the exact numbers just yet, but the planning director said he would try to pull those together showing the break-even cost on services provided vs. taxed value of each rental unit.   The council has, numerous times in the last year, deferred vote on issues to get the facts.  Why wasn’t that suggested for this item?  Oh right, because for the Green Team and Keith “Chicken and Waffles” Gross  wanted to do a favor for one of the “founding families”.  But we’re told this isn’t good-old-boy politics.  Sure.

Summary

I expected votes like this out of the Green Team.  The writing was on the wall when they were campaigning.  They’re Democrats who want a return to the good old boy system, where they take care of them and theirs with no concern for the tax burden for all the homeowners of League City.  All the misguided self-professed conservatives who endorsed the Green Team – get ready, this is just the beginning of what we’re in store for!   I’m sure you Edelmans, Bowens, and Wankowiczes are still going to keep excusing this behavior.  How many more votes like this until you admit you backed the liberals with your unholy Green Team alliance?  But the REAL shame here is on you, Mr. Gross.  I’m not sure what your motivation is, if you’re just turning into a bleeding heart softie, or if you somehow feel the tide has turned in League City so now you’re going to suck up to the Green Team (you know, the ones that backed your opponent the last time you were elected) in hopes of retaining some sort of relevance in Galveston County politics.  Honestly, I hope it’s the former, at the very least you can turn into an honest liberal like Bernie Sanders, because NOBODY loves a waffler.  But I’m guessing it’s the latter.  Hopefully you don’t actually expect this will help you have any sort of a political career once you’re term-limited out of council.  You’ve abandoned the promises you made to the people who actually did vote for you, and there’s no amount of groveling you can do that would make the Green Team back you over one of their people in the future.

Side Notes & Chuckles

Mr. Mallios – Ask me any questions you like, that have nothing to do with my identity.  We’ve already beaten that topic off of Facebook.  You say I won’t answer questions, yet you’re the one who won’t engage in dialogue with me.  Ask away, or are you too busy worrying about who I am to put your two brain cells together to form a question for me.  

Emperor Hallisey – I put the odds at about 2% that someone from TxDOT actually told you that LC shouldn’t consider building a parking garage, because in 5-10 years we’ll all have automated drones and hyperloops.  For one thing, even the eternal optimist and king of over-promise under-deliver Elon Musk claims we’re at least 5 years away from having widespread availability of autonomous cars.  The insurance industry is thinking we’re 15+ years from that.  And the IEEE thinks it’ll be 2040 before 75% of cars will be autonomous.  In other words, I’m not sure which dreamer you talked to in Austin, but I’m guessing your whole story was a fabrication to try and get a dig in on the downtown revitalization plan. 

Proposed Changes to League City's City Council Governance Policy & Rules of Procedure

Background

So the Mayor and his puppet Millican (who I had hoped would remain somewhat independent despite pandering to the Green Team during the election, consider those hopes dashed) have experienced frustration as they attempt to cement Emperor Hallisey's grip (or is it the First Lady of League City's grip, who wears the pants there?) on our fair city.  They've determined the rules governing city council that were adopted as a means to ensure the will of the people, as demonstrated by the vote to transition to a council-manager form of government, is carried out are the cause of their frustrations.  And so, here we have on this week's Agenda an attempt to revise the rules.  Sure, some of the changes are harmless (particularly changing the word "the" to "a" in one instance.  However, let's look deeper into the questionable changes being proposed by the Emperor and his lackey.  I will retain the formatting as shown on League City’s Agenda listing which can be found here: https://leaguecity.legistar.com/calendar.aspx, wherein Hallisey’s changes are in red, and Millican’s in green.

Questionable Edits to the Document

 Questionable Change 1 – Article II, Section 3(c)  

 Each new member of Council shall be offered an opportunity at any time by the City Manager to tour various City facilities (i.e., City Hall, Police/Fire stations, Park facilities, Public Works facilities, etc.)

JR Commentary: Seems harmless, right?  Our elected officials SHOULD have access to city facilities.  But think this one through just a bit – this is the Mayor attempting to exert day-to-day control over the activities of city staff, a role specifically defined as belonging to the City Manager given our form of government.  Of particular concern is the wording “at any time” – this means our elected officials can completely disrupt the work cycle of any city staff to pursue any issue down any rabbit hole they choose.  This could cause serious issues with progress and productivity of our already over-burdened staff.  And this is the Mayor who promised he was campaigning in the interest of our city staff.  Say one thing and do another, but that isn’t new to Pat Hallisey, is it?

Questionable Change 2 – Article II, Section 4 

(a) three (3) two (2) parking spaces designated “Council” immediately outside the rear doors of City Hall, available for use by any member of Council on a first come, first served basis; the mayor will have a parking space labeled “Mayor”.

(a) three (3) parking spaces designated “Council” immediately outside the rear doors of City Hall, available for use by any member of Council on a first come, first served basis; and

(b) an office designated “City Council” on the first floor of City Hall, equipped with a telephone, computer, desk, small conference table, and chairs, for use by any member of Council solely to conduct City business. Members may reserve the use of the Council office in advance by contacting the City Secretary’s Office, or may use the office on a first come, first served basis if it is not reserved or being used by another member of Council at that time.   

JR Commentary: Again, seems harmless.  The interim city manager has already provided an office for the Mayor upstairs at City Hall (because the one mentioned in item (b) apparently wasn’t fancy enough for His Royal Pompousness; however, completely eliminating item (b) now means the rest of council will have no designated area to operate.  Admittedly, this was probably rarely ever used, as most of our council realizes that this is a part-time effort and they’re able to handle business without a designated office.  But it’s interesting to note that this has been completely eliminated while the Mayor (who is really just the lead council member in a council-manager form of government) has been elevated to a higher level.  It’s also interesting to note that this revision is in black, who proposed this change?   Furthermore, let’s analyze the change to parking – notice that it was the lackey who proposed designating one of the three council spots for the Mayor.  Mr. Millican, you need to wipe your nose, you got something brown on it.  Ultimately the main concern here, however, is the waste of money changing out signs.  Mr. Mayor – have you ever had trouble finding parking at City Hall?  I highly doubt it.  How high will the bill for Pat Hallisey’s ego go, is there no limit?

Questionable Change 3 – Article IV, Section 1(d)

The members of Council acknowledge that: (i) under the City’s Charter, the City Manager is responsible to the Council for the administration of all the affairs of the City; and (ii) the City Manager is only able to address issues that may exist in any part of the City’s operations if he/she is aware of them. Therefore, it is unethical for any member of Council to publicly criticize any perceived deficiencies in the City’s operations without first notifying the City Manager of the issue(s) and allowing him/her a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action to address the member’s concern. Should the a member of Council be dissatisfied with the City Manager’s response, the member may raise his/her concern in whatever manner he/she believes most efficient and effective to achieve the best interests of the City.

Therefore, it is unethical for any member of Council to publicly criticize any perceived deficiencies in the City’s operations without first notifying the City Manager of the issue(s) and allowing him/her a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action to address the member’s concern.

JR Commentary: It’s unclear exactly what Hallisey’s Puppet is proposing here, as there seems to be some issues utilizing technology.  I’m guessing that the goal was to strike out the struck through wording from the paragraph preceding it, since it’s duplicated wording.  Why would the council member have a problem with a requirement that the elected officials attempt to resolve perceived deficiencies through the professional staff of the city prior to making public criticisms?  Perhaps his goal is to allow more politicized grandstanding?  After all, the point of this rule is to enable the city to resolve issues without them turning into bigger issues.   This is essentially a formalized way of stating “praise in public, criticize in private”.  What is the point of airing dirty laundry without first attempting to clean it?  It’s so the Mayor and his cronies can make mountains out of molehills to pander to the public in an attempt to gain votes for future reelection campaigns.  Again, this is from the “Green Team” that campaigned on promises to end politics as usual in League City.  This isn’t putting League City first, this is putting the Green Team first, and it’s absolutely shameful and disgusting.

Questionable Change 4 – Article IV, Section 2

Interference with staff prohibited.

Under the Council-Manager form of government as adopted by the City Charter, interference by members of Council in the city’s administrative service, including the hiring, firing, and work of City staff (except those positions appointed by the City Council pursuant to the Charter or an ordinance) is strictly prohibited.

JR Commentary: Is it really worth our time to change the heading (without changing the intent of the section)?  Changing the heading now makes it seem as though this ordinance specifies the means to go about interfering with staff, but the wording is to prevent interference.  But a name is nothing but a name, and this change isn’t the issue, the issue is with removing the descriptive word strictly.  I’m not a lawyer, but is Mr. Millican attempting to create a loophole to avoid complaints about violating this rule?

Questionable Change 5 – Article IV, Section 3

Members of Council shall should not contact or visit directors, department heads, or individual departments to discuss or inquire about any City-related matter without advance knowledge being provided to the City Manager or his/her principal assistants (Deputy City Manager and Assistant City Manager).

JR Commentary:  As was discussed during the firing of Mr. Rohr, there seems to be some sort of legal weight to the word “shall” that the word “should” does not carry.  This was the loophole whereby the Council felt they were able to avoid mediation with Mr. Rohr (the contract stated should, instead of shall).  As such, any rules or requirements that are intended to actually be followed utilize the word SHALL.  If this proposed change doesn’t seem shady to you, then you clearly haven’t been following League City politics.  Mr. Millican is attempting to create his get-out-of-jail-free card for violating this rule, while trying to hide it.  If he was being honest, he would propose deleting this entire section.  Instead, he’s pulling the snake move of what seems a harmless edit by turning the word shall into should.  Be honest, Mr. Millican.  If you don’t like this rule, propose deletion of it.  Otherwise, leave the word “shall” that actually carries weight.  If you don’t believe that Mr. Millican knows what he is doing here in trying to establish this loophole – look at his proposed change to Article V, Section 5, item renumbered to (e) where he wants to change the word “will” to “shall” to add teeth to a rule regarding use of cell phones and other devices for communication during Council meetings.

Questionable Change 6 – Article V, Section 2

A Council addition to a meeting agenda can only be made by the written request, directed to the City Manager or City Secretary, of by the Mayor or any two members of the City Council, that is received by noon on Monday of the week before the meeting on the agenda of which the item is requested to be placed.

JR Commentary:  Yet again, Mr. Millican has some explaining to do for this obvious brown-nosing of the Mayor.  Is this payback for the Mayor’s support of your wife’s new animal shelter?  This attempt to essentially establish the Mayor as twice as important in adding an item to the Agenda constitutes a de facto attempt to circumvent the will of the people when we voted to establish a council-manager form of government.  We do NOT have a strong-mayor, and we do not want one.  Please stop trying to crown Mr. Hallisey the King of League City.

Questionable Change 6 – Article V, Section 5(a)

(a) A member of Council may participate remotely in any meeting of the City Council by means of a videoconference call, provided that: (i) all relevant provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act are met; (ii) no member of Council may participate by videoconference call in more than two (2) consecutive meetings of the Council; and (iii) a member of Council intending to participate remotely provides written notice of such intent to the City Manager not less than 24 hours prior to the posted start time of the meeting.

JR Commentary:  This proposed addition is nothing more than a direct attack on Mr. Becker and Mr. Long (two council members who recognize that city government is intended to be a part-time task and are forced for their 9-5 to be away from town frequently).  If the intent is that our elected officials be involved and concerned about League City, then why a limit on the number of meetings which are attended via videoconferencing?  Attendance is attendance, and there is nothing magical about physical presence versus video presence, unless Mr. Millican hopes to engage in physical interaction (are we attempting to enable fistfights and chair throwing?).  How does this rule benefit League City?

Most Interesting Edit

But the most questionable change of all, both Emperor Hallisey and his lackey are proposing to remove from the Enforcement section (Article VI) all wording regarding investigations and sanctions available.  In other words, they are seeking to make this a useless “guide”, that has no ability to be enforced.  At that point, they are essentially seeking to eliminate it entirely, without having the integrity to do so (probably because their first attempt at doing just that failed and the issue was delayed a month).  Please show up at Council on Tuesday, the 14^th of February to hold your government accountable.  This is NOT what the Green Team campaigned on, and this is not going to help create a more responsive, fair, non-partisan government.  This is the new faction, same as the old faction.