Home of Today's Common Sense

Published Brownsville Herald 9/11/2005
This month marks one year of professional journalism as my first Op/Ed Column was published on September 19 of last year. This year the opening guns of the local political season have sounded at recent meeting of the South Texans for Good Government.
Because substantial changes are being proposed to the City Charter that provides the authority for how business is conducted, an understanding of the proposals is needed to make the right decision at the polls.
Thomas Paine once said of government in Common Sense “We furnish the means by which we suffer”; the vote and acceptance of the “party line” are where we furnish that means. “Today’s Common Sense” is looking back at 200 plus years of bureaucracy; what our public leaders have told us, and the observation that what they told us and have done are frequently in the best interest of the politician rather than the folks.
Attorney John Shergold took the point at the meeting by describing a few selected changes that he referred to as interesting and made no comments as to whether he thought they were good or bad; just interesting and worthy of being considered!
City Commissioner Ernie Hernandez was there to face the crowd and provide the point of view of the City Rulers.

Among the things that, former City Attorney Shergold called attention to were:
Proposition 8 and 9 relating to the provision of compensation of the Mayor and city commissioners as provided by the state, and City Boards and Appointed Officers to be compensated as determined by the city commission
Proposition 11 relating to the composition of, and voting on, the Public Utilities Board, which also adds another individual to the board and specifies that the Mayor can vote
Proposition 13 which provides that any board member up to 1 per Calendar year (which can equate to two in one session if both are done in December and January) can be removed without any reason specified.
Mr. Hernandez took each Proposition, and stabbed at explaining, the City’s rationale for proposing the changes, some of which were defeated in previous elections.
As I noted that the cardoid artery in his neck was bumping and bulging from time to time, I developed the perception that not all the reasons were being described and that some that were might not be totally accurate.
I read a copy of the city Ordinance, that authorized that, the Charter change proposals be put on the ballot; and became convinced that the provisions suggested by Mr. Shergold as deserving further consideration were possibly not the worst of the potential problems our “padrons” have in mind for us. I also wondered if 5% of the registered voters were legally required in this case also to place them on the ballot. That would amount to about 4,000 or about everyone that voted in the last election.
In consideration of the material currently available to the average voter or even an aggressively interested one, this has every appearance of being merely an unabashed power grab, and an even much larger attempt to reach further into our pockets.
In the available material there was no document describing what the section said previously and the listing of the propositions on the ballot were sparse on information; with some even ambiguous in there meaning.
In addition to the items cited by Mr. Shergold, I find the following additional issues “interesting”
Proposition 4: specifying that the governing body can effect any and all changes in the indebtedness of the city such as pass new bond issues without the electorate approving them at the polls.
Proposition 9; providing full authority over compensation paid to all board members and the provision that only elected officials can serve on more than one board; as well as any member can be removed by a majority plus 1 vote of the city commission. (I wonder would they get paid for all of the memberships?)
Proposition 10 which provides that the city commission have full power to make rules and regulations, governing the furnishing of electricity, water and sewage services within and without the city …..
Proposition 12: which provides that only a legal resident of the City of Brownsville, qualified to vote, may be appointed to a board. This would provide that those who must purchase services from PUB and live outside the city would not possibly have any representation.
I understood that Brownsville has a City Manager who is responsible for the operation of the city and that the Mayor and City Council are supposed to function to provide policy as to the direction the city must take; but most of all effect oversight over the City Manager, not to be full time managers.
Common Sense and a reading of the Charter Propositions just make them seem to be methods of improving their own self interests, even some of the items that indicate that that they are to bring compliance with the State government.
The fact that the election is being held at a time, that portends not to attract much voting interest, suggests an attempt to sneak things by the electorate with a minimum of voters, that historically vote the party line.
Additionally, the changes I see proposed for the City seem to be designed to defeat the oversight that is inherent in the City Manager form of government and provide for the opportunity for more patronage and the exercise of generosity to political supporters, as well as, to get paid according to “rates, that can be said to be set by the state”.
Charter changes of this magnitude should have been widely published with the dates and times of meetings, before and after documentation, and complete description of positions, so that the public could be aware of what was going on.
This did not happen!
There were only two mentions of a change in the City Charter in the The Brownsville Herald; the first on June 16 indicating the Ernie Hernandez recommended changes to resolve conflicts with state requirements and the other on August 2 when the approval of the commission was being taken. Certainly that does not indicate an attempt at complying with legal notification requirements, much less keeping the public informed.
As we are in an off election year, this is much too much!
I suggest that all voters make every effort to get all the information, consider the changes carefully as well as the kind of folks that proposed them and get out and vote.
Can the proposers really be trusted; as you can’t really tell for sure from the information currently available what the goals really are.
I also thank Attorney Shergold for facing up to the personal attacks and avoiding similar criticisms in his call to review the changes. It is nice for someone to be looking out for us. Thanks to you readers for your support in the past year!