From KVIA, here’s Representative Henry Rivera, addressing the leak of a draft of City Manager Tommy “Great Wolf” Gonzalez’ new contract:
“Leaking such information which was still under review is very serious,” Rivera said. “It compromises the integrity of the FOAC members, the Council and those involved. This provides misinformation to the public as well, and most importantly, its unethical.”
Wait a minute. If the City tells the citizens two words in a row that aren’t lies, it’s by accident.
Do I need to remind Rep. Rivera that the City sold the voters the 2012 Quality of Life bonds through a long litany of misrepresentations?
That the former City Attorney claimed to have discussions with Union Pacific over a proposition to put the Multipurpose Performing Arts Center at the railyard, even though the she didn’t?
That the former City Attorney made subsequent claims that locating the arena within 1,000 feet of the Civic Center would generate sales tax rebates? It won’t. (That lie was repeated by Mayor Margo this weekend.)
That the Great Wolf Lodge was a Convention Center hotel, and the City might recoup some sales tax from the West Towne Shopping Center?
And how about Mayor Margo’s campaign pledge to “Hold the line” on taxes?
Man, they can’t move their lips without lying.
God bless Representative Rivera. He was the only City Representative who voted to give money to the family of that handcuffed guy that El Paso Police Officer Jose Flores shot dead in the sallyport of the El Paso County Jail. But before he gripes about someone from the City “providing misinformation to the public,” he ought to take a look at the team he’s playing for.
Like that famous Jewish philosopher said, “Take that stick out of your own eye before you take the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Two points. First what is the rep wanting to say here?
“I placed the item on agenda due to the fact that unfortunately over a week ago, there was a confidential leaked information leaked out to the press,” said District 7 Rep. Henry Rivera.”
What is a confidential leaked information leaked????
Apparently the “confidential leaked information leaked” included a line that stated the city manager was to be reimbursed for $60,000 of taxpayer dollars for his legal fees for his defense before the Ethics Commission. Well guess what. There is a special meeting scheduled for this coming Thursday to do just that. Reimburse him for $60,000 he spent on his defense.
El que no miente, nada teme.
While Rep Rivera’s statement isn’t the most brilliant use of English, it doesn’t take all that much thought to understand that he was referring to information that is both confidential and leaked. So “confidential leaked information (that was) leaked out to the press. Omitting the “that was” isn’t incorrect but given how the rest of the sentence was structured it didn’t help make it more readable.
Given that you were an educator for so many years and how often you use Spanglish (something not always easily understood by everyone in our community) I wish that I could say I’m surprised that you would attack how someone tries to express themselves before discussing their ideas. Then again given that he defeated you in the election I suppose some amount of sour grapes is to be expected.
Secondly just because information is not currently confidential does not mean that the information wasn’t confidential when it was leaked several weeks ago. It also doesn’t mean that 100% of the information contained in the leaked material was confidential even when it was leaked.
Personally I wish that these things were public information a reasonable amount of time before council acted on them, but judging by what has happened at the City as a result of rampant open records requests (i.e. people at the City are less prone to putting things in writing or in email etc. for fear of being open recorded) I have to reluctantly acknowledge that making things like the CM’s contract public information weeks ahead of a vote would likely make it nearly impossible to get anything done since there will always be some very vocal opponents to pretty much every single thing that City Council is asked to consider.
The sad truth is that the City Manager is not a visionary, he’s not a very good city manager, he’s marginally effective, and he’s not very bright. We have, for lack of a better way to put it, a simpleton “leader” acting as City Manager whose two best attributes are that he is able to speak well and looks relatively in command. That doesn’t make him worth $350,000 per year. And it doesn’t justify the extra money being considered. Why are we investing this man? If El Paso wants to pay top dollar to its City Manager, let this one go (or low ball him on this offer and let him stay in a range he’s actually worth, which is a reduction from where he is now), and then search for someone locally or nationally who can actually bring intelligent, forceful, and coherent leadership to the pile of rubble we call City Hall. Or, just appoint someone else on staff as City Manager. I’d take one of the Deputy City Managers assigned on a random basis over the person we have now.
The debate over leaks is a sideshow to the real s###show taking our City down its pathetic path. The fact City Council wants to invest in this City Manager demonstrates that their embrace of a trajectory-less path for the City. While the City Manager pushes for random awards and business lean practices, the incoherent path we are plunging down continues. With all the scary talk about AI coming one day, I’m of the opinion we’d be better off with a smart machine in control. The sooner the better.
Time for the circus to pull stakes and leave town. Someone catch the lights on the way out.