Keller Citizen Legislature

Agenda item #8 of last Tuesday’s council meeting was a resolution adopting a Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy for the City of Keller.

Here’s the long and boring story made short and boring:

---

Dallas/Fort Worth is a “non-attainment” area according to the EPA, which means we fail to meet EPA’s standards for air quality. The State of Texas is required to perform a State Implementation Plan, designed to reduce pollutants—mostly nitrogen oxides or NOx—and thus bring DFW and other metro areas into “attainment.” The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is an ostensibly voluntary association of the municipal and county governments, and independent school districts in the sixteen-county metroplex. One of its tasks is to work with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to reduce NOx in the area.

The North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) spends some of the toll money it has accumulated on building and improving roads. It does this by letting NCTCOG decide which road projects are most deserving. The current balance to be allocated is about $59 million, I think. In keeping with its efforts to reduce NOx, NCTCOG mandates that any municipality seeking a piece of that $59 million action adopt a Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy.

Keller is seeking about $800,000 for improvements to the 377/1709 intersection, specifically the addition of another left turn lane from westbound 1709 to southbound 377. Thus the need for a Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy.

---

So by now you’re thinking, “OK Carson, which of your precious little principles is violated by this innocuous action?” But a better question is “which principles aren’t violated by this action?”

Let’s start with the intersection itself. Yes, it’s getting congested, and is therefore in need of a solution. But that’s not how this idea came about. Whereas rational people follow a path of problem identification, possible solutions, cost assessment, and then choose and implement the most cost-effective solution, this is bureaucractic government we’re talking about here. So the first step is identification of funding ($59 million—oh, baby!), then identification of a problem at which to throw money, er, fund.

Key in this process is the “assistance” of engineering consultant Freese & Nichols, which is already working on plans for our 377 couplet project. You see, a simple and cheap solution like converting one of the two lanes that currently converge just across the tracks into another left turn lane doesn’t require much engineering work. But a million-dollar intersection-widening project? There’s some juicy consulting fees in that.

Before you accuse me of accusing Freese & Nichols of impropriety, I’m doing nothing of the sort. They are acting in their best interest by proposing a solution in which they would like to participate. But it’s the city council’s job to recognize that what’s in Freese & Nichols’ interest might not be in the people of Keller’s interest.

Did I mention that if this is “successful” Keller’s taxpayers will be obligated to spend $200,000 improving State Highway 1709? That’s Keller’s “match” for the $800,000 from NCTCOG. Call me crazy, but I think the people of Keller should pay for Keller’s roads, and the people of Texas should pay for Texas’ roads. And just to make this as insulting as possible, we’ll have to pay TxDOT application and inspection fees when we improve their road.

And now on to the “Clean Fleet” aspect of this. Here in the real world, we use rewards and punishment (carrots and sticks) to alter the behavior of our children, employees, pets, congregation, etc. Of course it goes without saying that we reward the behavior we want and punish the behavior we don’t want. But not in bizarro-government-world. No, no, no. There we reward the worst polluters with $3,000 handouts (see Unhappy Motoring) and punish those who pollute the least–namely the City of Keller. Our police cars are replaced every three years, and virtually all of the city’s vehicles meet the current (2004 and later) standards for NOx. It is literally true that if we adopt the Clean Fleet policy, we expect it to do absolutely nothing for the environment. It will only add another layer of bureacracy, and prevent us from even considering future trade-offs of a little pollution vs. something useful (e.g. safety, cost, maintainability, etc.)

Oh, and by the way, the air has been getting cleaner (including NOx) for over three decades.

Finally, and since this post is already preposterously long, I want to defend the automobile. There are now hundreds of millions of people walking around with the notion “Nature good, Cars bad,” and for too many this is as deep as their thoughts go. Not me. When one looks at the big picture, the internal combustion engine (and the cars that were built around it) is arguably mankind’s greatest achievement. Although its direct benefits to its owner are pretty impressive, its indirect benefits to society are just enormous.

By freeing us of the limitations imposed by distance, the automobile enabled dramatically improved specialization of labor, enhanced social networking, speed of medical care, propagation of culture and technology, improved education, and on and on. The automobile began as a great thing, and has consistently gotten safer, cleaner, more comfortable and more efficient. If you desire to replace the internal combustion engine with something even better, godspeed. But if you are a useful idiot who only sees the bad in man’s greatest achievement, you are a misanthrope. Anti-car is anti-human.

The council tabled consideration of the Clean Fleet policy until January. I’ll close with a quote from a movie that really should never be quoted:

What this calls for is a really stupid and futile gesture on someone’s part. –Otter in National Lampoon’s Animal House

Time will tell whether the stupid and futile gesture is a) government’s solution to road congestion and pollution, or b) my attempt to fight it.

Or c) both.

Proposed Resolution (MSWord doc format)
Council discussion
Precouncil discussion

As I try to achieve my goals of smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient government, I often attempt a little humor. Alas, my too-dry—and sometimes imaginary—wit might land me a few pity votes next May. But there’s nothing funny about this post. It’s just an angry rant.

The State of Texas has funded a program to incentize owners of cars ten years and older to trade them in for newer, less polluting models:

Star-Telegram article
Dallas Morning News article
TCEQ Qualifying Rules

Motorists in the DFW, Austin and Houston areas pay $39.75 annually for their emissions inspection. The rest of Texas pays $12.50, because they aren’t in a “non-attainment area.” The extra $27.25 has been accumulating in an account somewhere, and the legislators and bureaucrats are determined to spend it in the stupidest possible way.

Their plan is to give $3,000 vouchers to anyone who 1) owns a 10+ year-old car that has failed an emission test*, and 2) is “poor.” Of course “poor” is defined as $72,390 for a family of five.

So in the State’s plan to get rid of $100 million, the punishment for pollution is doled out equally regardless of vehicle efficiency, but the rewards are heaped on the people most to blame for the problem. And for our $3,000, we’ll be lucky to get $100 worth of cleaner air—the rest will go into leather seats and premium sound systems. This is not about cleaning our air; this is about taking from those who have produced and saved, and giving it to those who haven’t.

There will certainly be some reading this post who will take advantage of this program. If you are one such person, perhaps you fancy yourself clever or even a defender of the environment. You are neither.

You are a parasite. You are an undeserving welfare recipient, and in a just society you would be stigmatized. You’re part of the problem, and you likely always will be.

A moral society is one in which people produce an abundance of goods or services that other people want, and then trade that abundance for the things that they want. It is based on freedom and property rights, and the needs of the poorest and least able are satisfied by the voluntary charity of the Righteous.

A society in which people all try to live at each other’s expense is immoral and doomed to failure.

I think we need a grass-roots effort to stop this program. But it would be pointless to go after the bureaucrats or even the legislators—they can’t be embarrassed by anything. No, the way to do it would be to go directly to car dealers and ask them to pledge not to participate in this voucher socialism. Publish the lists of dealers who do and don’t enable government stupidity on blogs and such.

---

*According to Scott Streater in the Star-Telegram, the requirement that the vehicle failed an emissions test was eliminated. Guess the bureaucrats realized that making sure your car fails an emissions test is pretty cheap and easy (ball pein hammer required.)

Patrick McGee of the Star-Telegram picks up on my two-year rant about education v. entertainment in the library:

http://www.star-telegram.com/407/story/302926.html

Should expanded Keller library serve to enlighten or entertain?

By PATRICK McGEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

KELLER — Just when it seemed the debate over the city’s library was over, a centuries-old argument about a library’s purpose has emerged.

After nixing proposals for a new library twice in the past eight years, Keller voters approved a $4 million proposal last week to expand the existing library by 60 percent.

But officials are divided over whether to devote the added space solely to research and reading or to entertainment options, such as DVDs and video games, as well.

Keller City Councilman Jim Carson wants the added space for research and reading rather than entertainment options. He said no more money should go toward things such as Spider-Man movies but instead toward the development of services, such as genealogy research and English instruction.

“There are those of us, like me, that feel that libraries are for learning and learning only,” he said. “Anyone who seeks entertainment should do so on their own dime. … I’d like the entire library to be focused on education and less focused, if at all, on entertainment.”

…

Matthew Battles, author of Library: An Unquiet History, said … “It’s a sign that people are thinking about libraries,” he said. “It’s really neat to hear that there’s such a vigorous debate about what libraries mean to people in their community.”

…

Note that some of the Keller Library’s most important Friends abhor the idea of “vigorous debate” about what should be available at the library. They prefer that experts decide for you. So unless you have a Masters of Library Science, you need to keep quiet.

Prior Posts:
No Common Ground? At All?
Library Action Plan

Good old boys

Editor:
The good-old-boy system is alive and well on the Keller City Council. The question before the council was whether or not Jim Carson violated the city charter. Instead of bringing in an outside, unbiased opinion, the council voted, 2-3, that he did not violate the charter. But isn’t it interesting that two of the votes in favor of Carson (Brown and McGrail), were from councilmen that Carson campaigned for during the last election? Jim Carson even created their Web sites. Yes, the good-old-boy system prevails again. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. How long will the citizens of Keller allow this to continue? Jim Carson not only violated the city charter, but he has managed to run off some of our best city employees. Morale among city staff is at an all-time low because of his interference. Candidates for a new city manager are quickly dropping out of the running and who can blame them? No one wants to work in the environment that Jim Carson has created at city hall.

Pat Holding
Keller

I’d ask Pat, isn’t it ironic the people who are trying to get Jim thrown off council are the same people whom he helped defeat? The same Good Ole Boys who voted in the dark of night during the Christmas Holidays of 2005 to build a Library the voters clearly didn’t want.

Works both ways Pat.

In a 3-2 vote, the Council and Mayor cleared Councilman Carson of any Charter Violations. The Old Guard was out in force trying to get rid of their nemesis, the owner of this blog.

It didn’t work, and in the process made the Interim City Manager look like a bitter little man. When was the last time you saw a “professional” City Manager cuss in a Council Meeting? Hopefully his replacement will ask him to find employment in another municipality very soon.

On a side note, there was a great deal of discussion of how this Blog may violate the Texas Open Meetings Act…what nonsense. Do a Google search for elected officials’ blogs, and you will find everybody from US Senators to Dog Catchers blogging. This is just a way for the Old Guard to keep the public from finding out what is really going on at City Hall. Mayor McGrail, Councilmen Harness and Holmes, or the City Manager may not like the idea, but they need to get with the times. It is actually very refreshing for a City Councilman to express his views, instead of hiding behind a work session that nobody attends or watches on TV.

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but my instincts tell me that the US Constitution overrules any City Charter.

On a final note, a lot of comments made by other people on this blog were directly attributed to Jim. That’s like saying that I am responsible for the content of the Star Telegram because I am a subscriber.

Mitch Holmes gave credit to Jim for the Keller Station response, but criticizes him for not giving applicants due process. Hey Mitch, you can’t have it both ways. It just seemed to me that maybe Mr. Holmes understood that if he spoke ill of Jim on that issue that maybe he’d see the wrath of 400 citizens in attendance. This blog allowed the response to City Council that will eventually kill the apartments in Keller Station. There needs to be more transparency in City government, rather than less.

Former Councilmen Badalamenti and Trine appear to be in favor of crushing the free press, but I’ll fight them to gates of hell before I let them take that right away from me.

There’s an article in the Star-Telegram on Keller Station. http://www.star-telegram.com/407/story/290419.html

Also, the city manager’s weekly memo says that Keller Station will be on the November 20^th agenda.

Current city council email count on Keller Station: 229 opposed, 5 in favor, 1 jump ball.

This coming Tuesday, the city council’s first agenda item is “Discuss and consider possible Charter violations by Jim Carson and take any appropriate action.”

Adrienne Nettles has the byline in the Star-Telegram:

Mayor says he will seek inquiry

By ADRIENNE NETTLES
Star-Telegram staff writer

KELLER — Mayor Pat McGrail said he will ask the City Council to investigate whether Councilman Jim Carson violated a city charter provision that bans council members from interfering with city administration and from giving orders to employees.

The City Council is expected to consider McGrail’s request at Tuesday’s council meeting.

Carson has denied that he violated the provision, which calls for his removal if found guilty of any violations.

“I think I have done nothing wrong or anything even questionable,” Carson said Friday. “I have done my job, and I’ve done it well.”

The charter provision states that except for inquiries, council members must go through the city manager regarding the city administration. The provision also bans council members from giving orders publicly or privately to any subordinate of the city manager.

Read the entire article…

Click here to read the Interim City Manager’s letter, with attachments

Kevin Lahner’s interpretation of the Charter just baffles me. When a Keller resident contacts me and says “The city manager is a dirty rotten fink, and so-and-so in Accounting can confirm it,” I am supposed to follow up by contacting the city manager? I guess the conversation would go something like this:

Me:	Are you a dirty rotten fink?
City Manager:	No.
Me:	Well OK, then.

---

Steve Trine accuses me of violating applicants’ rights to due process by disclosing what I think before hearing the application. Steve has it exactly backward. By publicly stating my understanding of the facts and my reasoning, I am giving the applicant an advantage. He can then formulate a counter-argument, pointing out any errors I’ve made.

The City Council is not some jury that needs to be sequestered. We are leaders, and it is our duty to share information with the community. What goes on in our heads is the most important information of all.

---

I’ve never said to anyone that I’m going to get them fired. I did tell Keller’s contracted massage therapist that the City of Keller (or any government) should not be in the massage business, and that I would try to get the Council to agree with me and shut it down.

Tomorrow’s Keller Citizen will have the following Letter to the Editor:

Editor:

We wish to respond to last week’s letter to the editor by Ms. Betty Hipple. We are, respectively, the councilman who proposed the idea of council members receiving a family membership to the Keller Pointe, and the councilman most in favor of the idea. The idea was proposed at the City Council’s annual Goals Retreat in June, 2007, and discussed further during its Budget Work Session in August, 2007. City Secretary Sheila Stephens diligently published and meticulously recorded both meetings.

Though both meetings were announced and open to the public, no members of the public were in attendance. The initial proposal and all subsequent discussion of it were predicated on the notion that this benefit was in compliance with the City Charter, since no one at the meetings could say for sure. At some point in the process the cart got before the horse, as the benefit was approved before the city attorney was consulted. His opinion is that this is prohibited by the City Charter, and we respect and concur with that opinion. We apologize for the error. To paraphrase a tenet of law, “ignorance of the Charter is no councilman’s excuse.”

To the larger point of city council compensation though, we hope the citizens of Keller will someday reconsider the Charter’s strictures. Our Charter was written twenty-five years ago, when budgets were six figures instead of eight, and the governance of Keller was much simpler. Today a councilman worth his salt spends hundreds of hours reading thousands of pages, in addition to time spent in meetings and interacting with the public. We’d like to ensure that a future, otherwise excellent representative of the people of Keller does not balk at the long hours for no pay. We’ve been around long enough to realize that the financial impact of poor civic representation could easily run into millions of dollars. Let’s encourage Keller’s best and brightest to participate in public service—surely THEY won’t stumble into Charter violations.

Mitch Holmes, Place 5
Jim Carson, Place 4

My only purpose in republishing here is to allow comments. Please note that Mayor McGrail was not in favor of this proposal, and was one of the first to question its Charter validity.

How about I tell you that the City is about to approve 310 more apartments in Town Center? Would that make you angry? Well, they are. Keller Station will be located at the NE Corner of 1709 and Keller Smithfield.

Sure, Keller Station is part of a “Mixed Use Development” that seems all the rage these days in Keller, but come on, 310 MORE units?

Every major project in Town Center in the past 6 years involved high density housing. Isn’t enough enough?

When the garden homes at the SW Corner of Keller Smithfield and 1709 were put before council 6 or 7 years ago, they were nearly denied because of density issues. Every planned development that comes in front of council gets scrutinized because of density, but yet, it’s perfectly fine to build Apartments in Town Center?

Can anyone explain why we should allow a developer to build multi-family housing on perfectly good retail/commercial property?

Our schools are full, our roads are full, our city services are stretched, but hey, let’s build some 800 square foot apartments next to a brand new development of high-end homes.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

I have supported every current Council Member and the Mayor, well, except for Mitch, but hey, he hasn’t had to run against anybody. It truly makes me angry that these guys will continue to approve multi-family projects asking for zoning changes, something that 85% of Keller would be against if asked.

If enough people leave comments, contact the Mayor or a Councilman, speak out against this by writing a Letter to the Editor, get the word out to people that live in the area, we might have a chance to stop this. But it will take action. I even ask the folks that may not agree with me on any other issue to take a minute and send an email.

mayorandcouncil@cityofkeller.com

Link to Plat

Edit: I have bumped the post up towards the top of the page. The post was originally written October 11, 2007 at 6:33pm

Former Councilman Steve Trine spoke in the Persons To Be Heard section of tonight’s council meeting. He called for the city council to remove me per Section 3.11, paragraph 3 of the City Charter. I strongly urge my fellow council members to investigate the details of Mr. Trine’s complaint, and, if valid, remove me from office.

He also suggested that city staff should keep detailed records of communications with council members, and publish same on the city’s website weekly. I enthusiastically second that motion.

Despite our differences, Steve and I are kindred spirits–we each have a vast supply of righteous indignation.

Video:

http://kellercitylimits.com/video/Council20071016SteveTrine.wmv

Cited section of City Charter:

Section 3.11. Prohibitions and ethics.
(1) Holding other office. Except where authorized by law, no councilmember shall hold other city office or employment during the term for which he was elected to the city council, and no former councilmember shall hold any compensated appointive city office or employment until one (1) year after the expiration of the term for which he was elected to the city council.
(2) Appointments and removals. Neither the city council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any city administrative officers or employees whom the city manager or any of his subordinates are empowered to appoint, but the city council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the city manager anything pertaining to appointment and removal of such officers and employees.
(3) Interference with administration. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Any councilmember violating the provisions of this section, or voting for a resolution or ordinance in violation of this section, shall be subject to removal by the council.

My worthy adversaries’ spokeswoman, Pat Holding, weighs in with another letter to the editor of the Keller Citizen:

Politics

Editor:

So what’s the big deal? The paper lately has had numerous letters concerning the firing of Officer Dan Bettes from the Keller Police Department. Obviously Dan Bettes believes that he was unjustly fired. People are fired from jobs every day and they often believe that it is unfair. So why the big deal? Politics.

Councilman Jim Carson needs to let the process work. Officer Bettes will receive a hearing with the City Manager at which time the facts will be discussed in a private forum. Our interim City Manager will then make the decision to uphold the firing or reinstate Officer Bettes.

For Councilman Carson to publicly attack our city manager for not violating city policy by granting Officer Bettes’ request for a public hearing is beyond comprehension. Mr. Carson, let the process work and stop micro-managing our city staff.

Pat Holding

Keller

As Mrs. Holding is aware, I am a serial disrespector of “the process.” Most whistle-blowers are.

My specific complaints about the process in this case are:

1. I did not create the process, and as councilman, I have never been offered a chance to review the process.
2. No one has explained the process, or procedures for deviations from the process.
3. The fired officer has made credible charges of misfeasance against two of the people most responsible for managing the process of his firing. This is a prima facie conflict of interest.
4. The decider of the appeal, the Interim City Manager, said “…it is important to stress that this termination is not related in any way to statements made via media outlets or the claims of Mrs. Bettes at the recent City Council meeting.” To say this, he must either 1) have known about the intended firing for several months, or 2) believe what the Police Chief tells him without question.

I’m reminded of a quote from the movie Men In Black:

There’s always an alien battle cruiser,” Kay lectures Jay, “or a Korlian death ray, or an intergalactic plague about to wipe out life on this planet. And the only thing that lets people get on with their hopeful little lives is that they don’t know about it.

On the surface, this sounds like a romantic notion—our heroic leaders are bravely and anonymously saving us from things too terrible to imagine. But here in the real world, we should know better. The more I learn about the way things are done, the more distressed I get. The only reason that the people of Keller aren’t mad as hell about the actions of its government is that they don’t know about it.

When I demanded that the Bettes situation be placed on the city council’s Executive Session agenda, the city attorney intimidated a majority of the city council with hysterical warnings about the possibility of council members being personally sued for daring to even hear what I had to say.

The only thing I wanted to suggest to my fellow council members was that we should encourage the interim city manager, in light of the potential conflicts of interest, to appoint an independent investigator and/or mediator who would be agreeable to all parties.

But I was not heard. Some process, huh?

---

Video from the last council meeting:

Dan Bettes
Doug Packer
Earl Minchew

Last week Officer Dan Bettes was fired from the Keller Police Department. For the Tuesday, September 18^th council meeting I requested an item be placed on the executive session regarding this termination. My request was strongly resisted but, as is my right, I insisted that the item appear on the agenda so that the full council can decide whether they wish to discuss it.

When the meeting began Tuesday night, three people spoke in the Persons To Be Heard section of the meeting. (The PTBH allows citizens to say anything they wish to the council, but the council cannot respond.) These gentlemen either lauded the Keller Police Department and Chief Mark Hafner and/or criticized me for daring to request a discussion before the Interim City Manager had made a decision on Officer Bettes’ appeal.

Especially notable were the remarks of Tom Soulsby, member of the Keller Crime Control and Prevention Board and strange bedfellow of mine in the last election:

Mayor McGrail and Members of the Council,

When each of you took office, you swore an oath to uphold the City of Keller and its Charter. Keller, as you know, is a city manager form of government. And with that form of government comes the acknowledgement that the council will give the city manager direction for the city, but will not be involved in direct contact with any department heads until the appropriate time in the process.

Within the city manager form, there is a process for administrative hearings to resolve any grievances within a department. Not until the administrative process has heard all the facts and made a determination can the council become involved.

In tonight’s executive session, Councilman Carson has placed on the published agenda for consideration an item H in Section 2A, without the benefit of the administrative process being completed.

As a citizen of Keller it bothers me that the council would begin this process without the administrative process being completed, or any ruling having been issued. I do not know, nor care to know, the facts in this issue, but I do know that the council, by publishing and considering the issue without the administrative ruling is injecting themselves into the process of micromanaging staff. And that is clearly an overreach by council in the city manager form of government, and the item should be pulled from the agenda to give the process time to deal with the issue and for council to not be further involved in the day-to-day operations of the various departments.

Thank you for your time.

Hmmm. If Mr. Soulsby wants to challenge my oath to the City Charter, I’d suggest he first read it:

(2) Appointments and removals. Neither the city council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any city administrative officers or employees whom the city manager or any of his subordinates are empowered to appoint, but the city council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the city manager anything pertaining to appointment and removal of such officers and employees.

(3) Interference with administration. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Any councilmember violating the provisions of this section, or voting for a resolution or ordinance in violation of this section, shall be subject to removal by the council.

Not only is it the council’s right to inquire about such matters, I think it is our duty to “fully and freely discuss” matters regarding city employees.

In the executive session, the council refused to hear what I had to say. It’s ironic that had I chosen to speak in the Persons To Be Heard, the council would have had to listen to me without comment, as I had to listen to Chief Hafner’s apologists. I’m disappointed in the council’s lack of courage.

Video:
Glen James
Tom Soulsby
John Salvesen
Invocation by Police Chaplin