« More thoughts on the Bowie High School Graduation Center | Main | You don't understand how the RMA works »

November 04, 2016


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

Hi David, have noticed for a number of years now this paper has a 'burr under its but' for the city.

Not too long back didn't that paper report someone got into the EPISD computer system, possibly taking personal information? It seemed to also miss that UMC too had some computer problems.

As you can unfortunately see from this year's presidential election, there's now some real distrust with the press.

David, how are we supposed to place the blame where it belongs if you don't tell us exactly who to blame? Name the alleged Shapleigh camper for whom cover is allegedly being provided. Who is it that you are hearing is the sole person responsible for this problem? Inquiring minds want to know. And El Paso taxpayers DESERVE to know.

the times article is blaming gonzalez and then they go through all the past shit about romero, gonzalez, and the paving. the times wants to blame gonzalez and get him fired because their past write ups against him during the so called paving scandel didnt work. the shapleigh's dont like him either and they damn sure dont want their "trolley" scheme to be blamed.

actually its an editorial. http://www.elpasotimes.com/story/opinion/2016/11/04/editorial-getting-scammed-embarrassment-city/93275032/

I always used to wonder who in the world would fall for the fake email invoices that show up daily in most businesses general email boxes.... now we know!

The Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority has its own website and it will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the RMA. I suggest you visit the webpage and after reading all that information it will not be hard to put it all together.

This is such as an easy solution. Someone just needs to put in an Open Records Request to the CRRMA for their Executive Director's emails. Then the truth will be known. Raymond Telles is not as bright as he thinks he is. About 4-5 months of emails should do the trick.

The City paid the money to the fraudulent account, not the RMA. The RMA approved payment but assumed the City would pay the vendor, not the scammer. The clerk who changed the bank account number should be fired. Mark Sutter should probably be fired for not putting in the proper protocols for preventing a scam like this. And Tommy Gonzalez should do the firing. Council does not to be involved in personnel matters. Perhaps Gonzalez should have questioned Sutter more about his safety protocols, but Gonzalez should be able to count on his department heads and staff to do their jobs.

The City should not be making electronic payments without spending another million dollars to get software that prevents this kind of fraud. Sutter was asleep on the job for instituting electronic payments without the proper software.

While I agree that the Times editorial was out of line -- way out of line -- the City is at fault. Period.

In his usual attempts to cover for the city, David K ignores that the city processed two fraudulent payments, only one of which involved the RMA. The city is the fiscal agent for the RMA, and payment and billing practices are handled by the city. The CRRMA bears its share of responsibility, but to try to absolve the city of its responsibility is laughable.

Obviously no one seems to understand the law that governs the RMA in Texas. You all just want to tar and feather the CM and CFO. Guess we need to blame yesterday's hail and flooding on the CM and CFO.

There is no law that could prevent a city clerk from sending electronic transfers to the wrong account. You cannot prevent errors of this type with a law. The CITY clerk erroneously changed a bank account number. She / he sent the funds, not anyone at the RMA.

I do not want to tar and feather Gonzalez. I want Gonzalez to tar and feather those responsible -- whoever that might be.

The trend has been for the last several years to require vendors to be paid through ACH debit. The entire reason for doing this is for the agency or private company to save money on bank fees for processing checks. The sad thing is not one of those agencies or companies can guarantee you, the vendor, that their payment system is secure. I agree with the statement Sutter made last week-going back to paper checks mailed to a vendor.

The city or RMA or whoever should never allow an email to be justification for changing bank account numbers and routing numbers. They should have been required to complete a new form with signatures matching the account. Some forms require a vendors bank officer to sign the
form too.

Now I hear that El Paso Times has filed Open Records Request for documents. Someone should file an ORR for the exact documents the Times wants. Then maybe the truth will come out. Everything connected with the payment to the Street Car Vendor was done as a result of a direct order from Raymond Telles, the CRRMA Executive Director. The CRRMA is responsible to review and approve payments to its vendors. The City just processes those requests for payments.

So why do people want to fire the poor clerk. The clerk was just doing what the boss told her to do. The CFO created the process. The Executive Director failed to confirm he was dealing with the right people. The blame goes to the CRRMA. It is that simple.

How would the RMA director know that the city clerk changed the routing number? Did the city inform him of that change? The city was scammed. Admit it.

Smith: the RMA has its very own super special processes for its very own super duper TXDOT and tax payer funded projects. The city can't do shit without the RMA (read its director/CEO) telling them to cut a check, change bank info or whatever. RMA vendors do not deal directly with the city. They must go through the RMA. Got it?!?!?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)