« Limon's insane budget demands | Main | My thoughts on the trolley »

August 05, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Council will have to vote to make Allala pay or not pay. Unless Romero and Noe get a case of feeling sorry for Allala then it could pass to make loser pay-that is the law in Texas. If it goes to a tie vote Leeser will vote to give Allala a pass. As much as Limon bitched about the cost she won't vote to recover the costs. Nice dilemma for council.

The tragedy of it all is that nothing strictly illegal was done and so Paul and Woody and the cabal know they can get away with it again. And will. They, with the help of the Witch (and an electorate that will not engage), have made El Paso a demo project for Koch Bros style government.

You've either broken a law, or you haven't. Innocent until proven guilty. Pregnant or not pregnant. This is a country of laws. 'Nothing strictly illegal' means 'nothing illegal'.

Until you can prove something, you are just pissed because your side didn't win.

Nothing illegal was done. The ballpark is the best thing to happen to El Paso in a long, long time and has done more for El Paso businesses and families in five months than any of the naysayers have done in five years.

We can only hope "they" do it again. We need more "cabals" with plans that actually work and a lot fewer whiners with angry complaints and no ideas.

The new Texas laws on loser pays do not apply to when one sues Gov't. Albeit that does not mean one still may not pay if loses. Given that nearly 90percent of all Judgments [ie its illegal to evade the tax man but not a creditor judgment] go uncollected if this ever reached a Judgment re Fees no doubt it may remain unpaid anyways.

The way to ensure better Attorney Fees paid by loser is to embed a Counter-suit from the start asking for such...if one does not do this way back in the Answer then chances are a whole lot smaller.

Overall this case educated the public, for one I agree it is true unintended this case has made those who seek to wine and dine Gov't Actors to do just that ie dining at Central Cafe with a Gov't Actor could lead more to a lot more infuence stroke and less damning and less papertrails than a cold email from a common man.

So in other words while emails serve the common man to connect with their lawmakers...dining one face to face has more pull and protection.

The city did not seek $42k from Gomez and I when re that Austin suit, for one as the Press said they did not get a "home run".

Carl Starr -Tulsa

She and her attorney continue to mislead people. Read his statement about her role in his press statement, a complete mis- characterization of the law. It was a limited role really. She was an intervenor, not an actual party (sounds a little like meddler-huh? because that kind of what it is). When the city threw in the towel and gave everything up supported by affidavits, the AG bought it. The suit was over. She had no more standing and no ability under the law to continue a discovery fishing expedition just because she didn't like what she found or did not find in nearly 10,000 emails (nice try - gotta give them that). DK is right, she didn't do anyone any favors. Nothing now will not be documented, period. She would be crazy (well I think that might already be evident) to continue this fight. She will lose on every level, the law is on the city's side. That's just the way it is. Not saying that the laws re: public officials communications does not need updating, but a couple of attention seeking opportunists who call themselves attorneys, championed by a handful of sore losers, is not the way you do it.

So, cronyism and secrecy are now enshrined in the CM form of government, too. It is how we do business because it is always how we've done business. One more reason to go back to a strong mayor because at least we can throw the bum out of office every four years.

And they wonder why talented young people leave El Paso.

#4 is what I have been saying all along. They keep crying about dirty deals in personal e-mails and how they have the right to go through a personal computer. If someone really wanted to make a dirty deal, they would meet out in the desert where no one can see or hear them. Plain and simple.


Sure, OJ was innocent and they never got Steve's.

RP -- the ballpark and downtown improvements, including housing, might make young people stay in El Paso. Those young people are not voters, are not politically connected and probably have not even followed the alleged corruption. They don't know who Allala is nor do they care. They do know how to get the ballpark and the downtown festivals. They also see that El Paso is now showing signs of life, after decades of regressive "strong" mayors held it back.

In the immortal words of Josh Hunt according to our mayor John Cook when he asked Hunt if he thought the people of El PAso would vote to tear down City Hall for the stadium Hunt replied, "Let us worry about that !"

Just because you got away with it and its not illegal doesn't make it right or ethical.

What STA wanted was to depose the Witch and expose the stadium deal, its origins and how it unfolded. This is like one of those family secrets that, if you expose it, it loses its power. That is not going to happen now and DK is correct when he states, "Allala's work to force them to be a transparent governing body has lead them to go even further behind the curtain." Yep.

No one will believe a damn thing coming out of city hall. There will be TORAs and hard ball questions during CC. CC will respond by making it even more difficult to figure out where the money is going by burying it in little pieces across hundreds of pages.

Don't believe me? Try to come up with a cash flow for the stadium out of the current budget document. No one knows if it is making us money or costing us, or for that matter, if the HOT will even cover the bond payment. That is by design.

Phoenix: the young people I talk to (3 lately) have degrees or certified trades and most say that they want out of El Paso. I tell them that is a good idea if they ever want to make something of their life.

RP why do you stay here?

Here is the problem. Another Court in another case just like this one drew the exact opposite conclusion. Since both courts came to different conclusions a higher court will be forced to rule to bring the law to one standard..

Really and what court is that, I would like to read it for myself.

U, both cases you refer to we're decided by the 3rd Court of Appeals. The rulings were based on two very different set of facts. In the Bexar County case, a commissioner refused to turn over emails from his private account. El Paso originally was going down that path, challenging an AG ruling to turn over such documents, but later reversed course and provided all the documents it said it had and obtained from individuals. El Paso argued before the trial court and later the 3rd Court that it had taken all the legally required actions to comply with the AG ruling, and the AG, which brought the lawsuit against El Paso, agreed. This was an argument over whether the court had jurisdiction. The intervenor in the case, Stephanie Townsend Allala, argued the court still had jurisdiction and asked permission to conduct limited depositions to test whether the city had fully complied. The trial court ruled for the intervenor on this issue, but the appellate court reversed. The essence of the ruling was that the city had done everything required to comply with the law and the AG letter ruling, so the court had no jurisdiction. So the decision is not about whether public business conducted on private devices is considered public record. Especially after an amendment to the Public Information Act last year (passed after the city sued the AG), such information is clearly public record. The 3rd Court ruling last week was on a much more narrow issue, whether the city had done what was required to gather all such emails. The court ruled that it had.

Carl, the 3rd Court's judgment includes this statement:

The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

The appellees are listed as Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas and Stephanie Townsend Allala.

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=69ab5d9c-265d-416a-9224-43ff7dc460ce&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=120abef9-2d65-4e3e-b789-a8edbb5b3726

The sky is not falling...the tax base is rising...and El Paso is now hip again without the charm of Juarez as our only tourist attraction. I spoke with 2 Reno fans in line for my hot dog and they came not with players, but just because they were baseball fans and wanted to come check out El Paso. They loved the mountain biking at Crazy Cat canyon. If you don't think Baseball is a good thing and that words like the above from Reno guys won't spread then U and RP are idiots...oh wait you already are.

The sky is not falling. The trolley will make our story even more attractive around downtown.

U i think it may set it up that ie two courts differ...but someone still has to move-movant it there ie tx supreme court...other wise it just sits the way it is, but bear is also right re narrow etc the old distinguesh [sic] on the facts senerio arguement one always faces

i did not read bears link to ruling yet but 'costs' does not always mean winners atty fees....it could just mean filing fees...but either way it means nothing without here the city prosecuting for their atty fees to be paid by any loser...its like a whole other fight and even if atty fees are won then it has too be enforced and thats another fight and texas is largely held as a debtors paradise, for one, its one of few states where wages cannot be garnished from most

Thanks for clearing that up P Bear, I figured as much. Allala took portions of the Gov code and twisted it in an attempt to make it fit her case or she twisted her case to try to fit sections of the Gov code, whatever. The Court wasn't buying it. It was a convoluted attempt (I read her brief) because there is no law, case or statutory that would allow her to stay in this case and do what she wants to do. Now some, like U, would have you believe that there are such cases but I don't see anyone putting them out there so educated people who understand how the law works can analyze them. She will continue to misrepresent the law to her small following who will believe whatever she tells them. Waste of time to try to educate them.

I agree Harvey Girl and I see lot's of young families and all kinds of people out at the games, loving the new stadium and spending all kinds of money that the ankle biters insisted they didn't have.

Take a picture of downtown on a weekend from one year ago and hold it beside a picture from last weekend. Yeah, the two homeless guys, no cars and tumbleweeds have been replaced by bustling crowds, vendors and more activity that Downtown has seen since the 1950's.

No laws were broken. If your morality was offended, check the back-story on every single attraction in the country. Not a single one was built by the Virgin Mary. Whining about morality is a red-herring -- things were not any more "moral" before this deal. If anything a lot more used to go on under the table, and all the people of El Paso got was one more used car lot on Alameda.

The sky is not falling...the tax base is rising.
-----------------------------
Last week's Inc says otherwise with commercial valuations down.

RP...there you go again picking out bits and pieces to support your twisted vendetta.

The article you claim supports your statements doesn't do that at all.

It discusses..PROTESTS and their effect on the valuation numbers.

It makes ZERO connection to the ballpark or ANYTHING downtown.

Seems ridiculous to even have to point this out but why would anyone expect overnight results or instant positive effects on the tax base from the ballpark when it hasn't even been open and operating for 6 months yet?

RP... The problem with the inc article is that last year the CAD doubled appraisals of every business in El Paso without justification. Most comercial business who were doubled without jidtificafion sued...that's the 27 million loss. Do your homework ! You are an idiot. Look at year over year and see CAD doubling values on business without study. People like you and U don't get what is really happening because you are both pension Blood funnel scum.

robnelp, then why are these idiots saying the tax base is up ? Rp is right on that one. even David's own article a while back about downtown
dallas shows that the tax base doesnt really go up due to a stadium. yes, Rp ha ha, a year ago the cad did double everyone's evaluation, but everyone fought it down. me included and foster even sued. the value's they settled on are still there on the cad and this year in may with our stadium already there most of the values went down or were settled at a lower value than the year before.

Is Harvey Girl Trolley Barn Guy Ernesto Villaneuva. Sure sounds like it.

You should hear STA, on radio. All she spews out is hate for any of our women leaders in this city. And she lies worst then the devil. She hardly knows any facts, but keeps saying ugly things of those she does not like. I for one am glad she lost. And I hope they do make her pay. We do need better government here in El Paso. We need leaders that know how to get along and work together for the good of this city.

I will not listen to her and there is no point in trying to call in to Montes show to set the record straight. She may not lie, but she doesn't tell the truth. Lupe, just ignore her. How many people listen to Montes anyway. This case is over and no one even cares about Ortega's emails. You can tell by how many people are posting here and you should have seen the crowd that showed up to the ball park last night for Field of Dreams. We love our ball park, we don't care that the toaster looking city hall building is gone. She is totally irrelevant.

Both cases seem the same.

Public Information Act: Adkisson v. Abbott, No. 03–12–00535–CV, 2014 WL 2708424 (Tex. App.—Austin June 13, 2014). This is a Public Information Act (PIA) case where Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson sought to withhold county emails sent to him on his personal email account. [This PIA request and suit was brought prior to the 2013 amendments to the PIA which make public all emails regarding public business, regardless of whether they are on personal or entity email accounts.]

Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., sought correspondence from Adkisson’s personal e-mail accounts related to his official capacity as a county commissioner or as chairman of the San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), or both. The attorney general opined the emails were public and must be released. Adkisson filed suit in district court to withhold the emails, but the trial court granted the newspaper’s and attorney general’s summary judgment motions holding the emails were public. Adkisson appealed.

Adkisson argued the emails in his personal e-mail accounts, regardless of their content, are not public information as defined by the PIA because they were not collected, assembled, or maintained by the governmental body or prepared on behalf of the governmental body and the governmental body did not have a right of access to the correspondence [old statutory definition prior to amendment]. Adkisson further argued that the county could not search his personal email accounts as he had an expectation of privacy and a constitutional right not to be subject to a search without probable cause. The court went through the language of the PIA and determined the “official-capacity emails” were emails created in Adkisson’s role with the county and MPO and the emails were part of his transactions for the entities. The court then examined the records management laws and county retention policies, noting that no employee has a right of privacy in any public document.

Adkisson was in office, that is the difference. I think I am familiar with the case and it is not quite same, but I will pull it and take a look anyway. Allala's case would require the city to force individuals who are now private citizens to produce their personal emails. Both individuals have contended that they have done so already, there is no way for Allala to get to them now based on suspensions. Allala did not meet the burden of proof and there is no proof that anyone removed or tampered with information that was stored on city computers and much of the Gov Code she is relying on deals primarily with those kinds of issues. Not saying I am right here, but not sure you are U. Will have to check it out.

U, You are misleading people and overstating Allala's case. The Adkisson and EP cases may have started out with a similar set of facts, BUT then the City of EP changed course. See Pooh Bear's accurate accounting, above. Both cases were in the 3rd Court of Appeals, just another example of how you misrepresent things.

Oops meant "suspicions" not "suspensions" and Ex-city officials turned over everything they had (you can believe them or not) but both the AG and Appeals court determined that the city has done everything required of them.

You were right. Frickin email drama is never going to end.

The comments to this entry are closed.