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)
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”.
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.
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment