Really? Oklahoma beat Texas? How pathetic!!

Open Carry that is.

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-governor-signs-open-carry-gun-bill-004158634.html

I think I’ve mentioned on this blog that I used to live in Arizona, which has Open Carry.  It was rather a shock the first couple of times I saw people just carrying around pistols.  However, I quickly got over that and really came to appreciate this.

The last legislative session, there were efforts to get Texas to pass an Open Carry provision too.  Governor Perry said that if it passed, that he would veto it.   How despicable.  I just spent about 20 minutes trying to find where I had read that, but was unable to locate anything to actually back that up.

I do remember that one of the main reasons that he had said that he would veto it was because the Police Union (I don’t remember the actual name of the union and I don’t know if there are more than one in the state) claimed that it would endanger officers.  What a crock.  I wish I could find that article.

Here’s the last paragraph in the article from Yahoo!

“Businesses in Oklahoma may continue to ban firearms from their premises under the new law, which also prohibits the carrying of firearms on properties owned or leased by the city, state or federal government, at corrections facilities, in schools or college campuses, liquor stores and at sports arenas during sporting events.”

Although I’m largely in favor of the bill, I wonder why it is that a resident is to be denied the right to defend themselves in these locations?  Corrections facilities I can see.  But schools and college campuses?  I’d think that would the be first place that people, especially women should be carrying.  When my daughter goes to college, you can bet your butt she’ll be carrying a gun.  I also wonder why it is that one should not have the ability to defend one’s self on properties owned or leased by the city, state or federal government?  Trusting government at any level with a monopoly on force is a terrible idea.  If residents are prohibited from carrying there, then EVERYONE should be.  Liquor stores?  Sports arenas?  I’m sure I’ll be castigated for it, but I’ve never seen a drunk in a liquor store.  Usually people buy liquor while they’re sober and then leave to consume it.  Isn’t it against the law to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk? Sports arenas?  Is this because the legislature thinks fans from opposing teams will shoot it out in the stands?

Such exceptions are always interesting to me.

So much of these debates comes back to one’s view of God.  If there is a God, and He wrote the Bible, and in the Bible he called his people out of Egypt expressly “armed for battle”; if there are provisions in His law for killing someone else in self-defense; if there are examples of Jews rebuilding their city wall with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other; where does one get the mistaken notion that government would have the ability to take that God-given right to self-defense away?  I just don’t get it.  If it was good enough for God, it should be good enough for us.

However, if one believes that man is continually evolving and improving and that man is inherently good and kind and obeys the laws of society, then one may be willing to surrender one’s gun rights to keep everyone else from having one and then live at peace with everyone.

History has shown that when defenders are deprived of the ability to resist the efforts of aggressors to impose their will on the defender, the defender will always lose.  Aggressors can be not good and not kind and many are deterred when repelled by force from a defender.

Here’s another of my radical notions.  I think the Federal government and all of their agencies should be deprived of the use of firearms while in their official capacity.  They should be forced to work with State and Local government officials who may be armed.  I think that would be a great incentive for Feds to play nice.

Is there an equivalent to a smack on the hand for a City Manager?

At the last Council meeting, there was quite a bit of fuss made about the $26,000 remodel that Dr. Neils did on his office.  I’ve already posted my take on that situation, so I’ll not rehash it here.

One of the items proposed at the last Council meeting was a policy to limit discretionary spending on amounts over $25,000.  One of my concerns about this was that it was a fairly draconian measure that would have unintended consequences that may well be worse than the “abuse” the measure purports to resolve.

I think in Congress, they have something called a censure, or something like that.  The point of it is to say “Hey, that’s not something that we’re willing to tolerate and you’re a punk for having done that.”  I wonder if that would not take care of the issue at hand without creating a bunch of red tape for the management of the city.

My take on the City Charter

There was much discussion during the charter review commission about who should have what powers.

I was fairly disappointed by this discussion.  I think it showed a failure to comprehend even the most basic principles of such a document.

The idea is not to give either party the power to run the city.  The objective is to make sure that there is a system of checks and balances, so that there are balancing forces which keep the city on an even keel.

The point is that the City Council have enough power that they can correct an errant City Manager.  The City Manager should have the flexibility to implement the direction as specified by the City Council.  Neither should “control” the city.  Both should work in concert to facilitate the management of the city.  Each should be powerful enough to “check” the work of the other.

I think the city is doing fairly well in this regard.  The proposed transfers will push too much power into the hands of the City Manager.  I think part of the momentum behind this desire is that Dr. Neils has proven to be quite competent and reasonable.  I would also concur with those sentiments.  I can’t help but think of the last city City Manager that has left in his wake a slew of stupidity because he was not prevented from aggregated too much control.   Weak, lazy and pathetic City Councils were complicit in allowing him to take it.  Both City Council and the City Manager still have to do their job and the residents have to enforce it by being informed and voting intelligently.

Meeting of the Charter Review Commission

This was a fascinating experience.  I’m not sure that it would be entertaining for anyone not really interested in politics, but I found it to be quite enjoyable.

Besides the Mayor and the City Secretary, there were two other residents and two other councilmen (besides Pat Shelbourne, the Council Liason).  Not a big crowd, but certainly an interested crowd.

One of the “unintended consequences” of the Open Meetings Act is that neither I, nor the other councilmember would be allowed to say anything about the content of the meeting as that might be a violation of the Act since the meeting had not been posted as a meeting of the City Council.  We each sat there quietly and listened.

If you don’t know, there are many proposed changes to the Charter.  The last meeting I went to had 27 agenda items.  This time they had the list down to 9 (if I remember correctly) on the unfinished business and two on the New Business.

I was disappointed that the city failed to put the proposed changes on the documents that were available from the website agenda.  I’ve emailed the staff to request that the same documents be available to the public as are available to the committee members.  If the public chooses not to download them, that’s fine, but at least they should be available.

One of the most interesting provisions that was proposed has been that a councilmember could be subject to a recall for “any reason”.  I’ve heard that this had been shot down, but it was in the language last night.

There are also a large number of transfers of responsibility from the City Council to the City Manager.  These proposals have been made by the City Manager and a committee of City Staff to make the city more efficient.

I’m sure the proposed changes would do that.  They would also remove a great deal of the purpose behind having a council there for oversight.

I was quite interested to hear the debate about whether or not City Council members should be paid.  I’ve come down against this and will vote against it if it comes up.  I think it is something that would be counter to the principles of volunteerism which are hopefully what is driving Watauga politics now.  I think anytime you put money into a mix like that, you’re asking for trouble.

At least one of the commission members was of the same mindset.  One other made the comment that City Council shouldn’t be paid because they knew when they signed up that it was a volunteer position, but then said that the Mayor should be paid something for his time.  I was rather dumb-founded by this proposition since the Mayor also knows that the gig is a volunteer thing.  There seemed to be a lack of rationality by at least this one commission member.

I was also quite interested to see that this same commission member thought that the City Manager should be in charge of everything since he was a paid professional and the City Council was just a bunch of volunteers.  I couldn’t help but wonder how the management of the City Charter should be entrusted to someone of that opinion, since she was also “just a volunteer.”

This same committee member was quite adamant that one of the residents NOT be allowed to speak.  When the resident pointed out that the Mayor was not on the committee and had been allowed to speak, there was quite a flutter as that had to be sorted out.  (Also, Pat Shelbourne had been allowed to make comments and is supposed to be a passive observer.)  Such double-standards are the standard of people in power who think they are better than everyone else.  I was interested to see that this committee member was very interested in sticking to the agenda when she thought it could be used to keep someone from making an intelligent argument against her position.  I think the phrase for such nit-wittery is “a political hack”.  I’m repulsed by such behavior.

In the end, they got through the agenda and will keep the process moving forward.  Eventually, the proposed changes will make it to City Council and then be sent back to committee and then back to City Council and then out to the voters to approve.  It should be an interesting process.

The final item was a decision for the Committee to meet again on June 20.  I had to leave before the meeting was over, so check the website to confirm that the date was final.  I’ll be interested to attend that meeting too. Perhaps, if you have an interest, you can see the process yourself next time.

Workshops are not online – Why not?

!!Hey, great question!!   I asked the City Manager that when I talked to him last time.  They are not online because the service that the City subscribes to has a limit of 100G (If my memory serves me correctly).  Those sessions were long, 8 hours over two days for one, and I think 3-4 hours for another.  We’d have to bump up our subscription level to be able to get them hosted.  I think these are great sessions and very revealing to see what it takes to run the City.

I’ve asked the City Manager what it would take to upgrade our subscription as I think these are a very valuable resource for the residents that care about what’s going on it the city.  In the mean time, the City Manager made clear that the meetings were recorded and the recordings can be made available on DVD if you have any interest in them.

I’m curious if any of you would watch them or listen to them.  If so, I’d be interested to hear about it.  I find that listening to the audio of such things on something like Windows Media Player, it is possible to double the playback speed and still catch the vast majority of what’s going on.  It cuts down the amount of time these things can suck out of your life and still lets the listener get the material.

Teacher whining about the educational system

Sometimes I listen to the radio while I’m working.  Today, I thought I might listen to Rush Limbaugh since I’ve not for quite a while.  I flipped over to the radio station in Austin that I usually use (because it’s a lot easier to ignore the commercials when it’s for a city I don’t live in). Besides that, the website is easy to remember kLBJ (like the president).  They had a comment from a teacher who was addressing the school board for Austin.  http://www.newsradioklbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1707570  After listening to the clip, I posted this comment and a link to my blog.

“If this is an example of a “highly qualified teacher” no wonder our country is in such chaos.  If she’s afraid to exercise her constitutional rights, and thinks she’s under paid, under represented , under insured, I’d say to her:  !!! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!! Get the government out of the education business.  Quit forcing me to pay for the education of someone else’s children through this broken, unaccountable, excessively expensive and  irresponsible system. Let parents pay for the education of their children directly and almost every one of these problems will disappear overnight.”

As much as the City of Watauga and the way it’s been run for far too long as though I exist to serve the government and not the other way around just chaps my hide, the school board is even more annoying.  That I’m forced to pay for the education of other people’s children in such a pathetic system as we have and at a price tag of almost $1,000 per year (almost exactlly DOUBLE what the city gets from me in Property Taxes) is even more of a sore spot for me.

I tend to get in enough trouble talking about local stuff, but this one just really irked me.

 

Sometimes, I really hate “The Golden Rule”

During the last council meeting, there was quite some hubbub about the City Manager having spent $27,000 to remodel an office.  Well, not just an office, but the office he was moving into. I understand the Public Information Act request data is out there, or at least was, on Mike Steele’s Facebook page.

I can understand the furor over this.  I myself was quite taken aback by the price tag.  Several people mentioned it to me and when I had my last meeting with the City Manager, we spoke of it.

In my day job  I have oftentimes been amazed at the price tags for “commercial grade” chairs, desks and other stuff.  I have been told that the chair that I sit in cost several hundreds of dollars.  It’s got handles for adjusting the armrests, the lumbar support, the leg support, and a wide array of levers that I still don’t know what they do.  A commercial bookshelf costs WAY more than the bookshelves I have at home.  Commercial desks cost FAR more than anything I’ve ever paid to have put in my home.

When the City Manager started listing off the prices of things that had been put in the office and the charges for the remodel, I was fairly stunned by the prices.  However, I’m also quite certain that they were within the realm of what is reasonable for an office remodel and the furniture that was acquired.

Technically, the City Council does not need to be addressed on expenditures under $50,000.  This office remodel was significantly under that.  The City Manager “found” the money from other savings in his department and chose to remodel an office that would more readily suit his needs.

As a tightwad myself, and a fairly radical one at that, $27,000 seems pretty stunning to me.  However, I can say that I’ve seen the office and I think it is not ostentatious or even as nice as most of the C level executives that I’ve had the opportunity to support as an IT guy over the years.  The computer linked white board, (at $7,000 if I recall correctly) was the thing that struck me most significantly.  However, as I’ve had the opportunity to think about it, I’ve often wished for the ability to capture my brain storming sessions at a whiteboard with others to my computer for email to be referenced later.   Although I still choke at the cost, I’m less and less reluctant to judge this expenditure as lunacy.

However, the single biggest challenge to me has been “The Golden Rule”.  If I had just been selected for the position of City Manager, had money that I had saved from other areas under my control and anticipated a 10-year tenure as the previous city manager had, and was well under the limit for City Council authorization, would I want the flexibility to spend that money to refit an office to fit my needs as I anticipated them?  I have to say that I would want the flexibility to do so.

That doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be political consequences, but I most certainly would want the flexibility to do so.

Although the Scrooge in me desperately wants to condemn the City Manager for this expenditure,  I just can’t bring myself to do it and believe I’m being consistent with the Golden Rule. Thus the title of the post.  I’m sure there will be some passionate discussion on the topic and I welcome it.  Please feel free to post your comments below – I read them all and respond to them all.  If you’d prefer to send me an email, you can do so at my city email address at rclements@cowtx.org.  My cell phone number is 214-796-5915.  Call me and leave a message.  I’ll get back to you when I can.