« The worst reporting I've ever seen - or the new norm | Main | When anger turns to job losses and higher taxes »

June 12, 2019


Maybe if the document had been written in Spanish EPT and Wright would have understood the words better.

I read it and DavidK is correct. No where in the document does it take away any council members right to state their own opinion on any issue.

Too bad this document wasn't in place when Limon and Niland had their pissy little fit about sitting next to each other.

A City Council rep should have the freedom to state a view that represents his/her district in his/her official capacity as a City rep. That has always been the case. That is now gone. Generally, the Mayor is supposed to represent City views, according to the new protocol. Moreover, there are real restrictions now on how City reps and staff communicate with the media. These "reforms" will have the effect of restricting speech and diminishing citizen representation and curbing public information. I get your point of view but there is another edge to that sword.

Rich is Wright.

Rich is Wright: please explain.

I read the entire document and found no area of disagreement. In any organization, there is a designated spokesperson. In cities, it is the mayor. In no way should any representative or employee of an organization attempt to pass his or her view off as the view of the total if it is, in fact, not. It is certainly possible for a representative to state that his constituents feel one way of the other. (However, the representative is most likely not speaking for all of the constituents, only those to whom he has spoken.)


Clearly every Rep still has their right to express themselves in what they think is representation of their constituents. In fact, the document clearly lays out how to do that. Please show me where speech is restricted. I'd love to have the ACLU take the case and let freedom ring.

You're smarter than this.


David K

"Do you want some idiot council member telling a representative form the Federal government that the city is willing to fork over all the money from the bridges just because the Fed representative has nice legs and good coffee? F*ck no! This is common damn sense - if you're sent to represent the city's position you must represent the city's position, not on your own opinions."

So what if we switched the scenario around and it's the City's position? I would want my council member to be pushing what's best for not only my district but City.

I do see what you see in terms of the "liability" "In my opinion" which should, offset any repercussions they may face since they obviously state it's their opinion.

David, there are Constitutional violations in this code. Forget the ACLU. The Texas Public Policy Foundation is the best state-level organization to deal with this. Some of the language will have to be removed or revised. The idea that the personal opinion of a City rep can be separated legally from a "City position," whatever the hell that is, is the dumbest thing ever. Every conservative should jump to the defense of the First Amendment when this kind of crap is foisted upon us. You are just like an El Paso Republican, always deferring to power and talking through your nose at all those ankle biters and dissenters who are in the way of those crony capital projects that you love so much.

Max G - the Texas Public Policy Foundation has its detractors too. Some would call it a far-right fringe group. So asking them to weigh in on what are constitutional violations is not a great idea. The only way to know if there are violations is seeking a Judge's opinion, in a court of law. Which means you will need to find another sugar daddy to pay for your lawsuit.

By the way - in all my years of living in El Paso I have never, ever seen a city rep back off of expressing their opinion. Regardless of any law, any ethics code or code of conduct. You can't keep a politician from blabbing about their feelings or their opinions.

"Who Cares": Why the anonymity? If you want to call JP Bryan my "sugar daddy" then why not state your name for the record? What are you afraid of? That's the strange thing about this blog. Very few of you identity yourselves.

No, I have no intention of spending any time or money fighting this one. Other groups can handle this just fine. I happen to like the TPPF and think they do important work in our state. You might be right, however. The issue could end up in court.

I have never seen a City rep back off from expressing an opinion either. Let's hope things stay that way.

We've all been colonized in El Paso since 1598.

When our elected need to come up with a code of conduct because they can’t behave together, we need new elected. Further one council member has no power in one regardless of how they express “Their opinion”. They all have power as a body. One thing I agree with you on is the mayor costing us the tax payer tons of money due to his back door deals and self interests agendas.

This is a solution to a problem that never existed. You'd think that the Mayor and City Manager would have bigger fish to fry. But I guess they're got time on their hands.

Sorry Rich but there is a major problem with one member of council leaking documents to their significant other for possible financial gain. There is a very good reason to put onto paper how council members should act so there can be repercussions for bad behavior.

I haven't read the Roberts Rules of Order that Council adopts every year - but surely there was some discussion in the rules of order on how to treat each other when sitting in a council meeting.

Either way - too bad this wasn't done during Leeser's term. The bitchin and complaining from Niland, Limon, Lilly - and no real control of the meeting.

The comments to this entry are closed.