bloggin' all things brownsville
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
My Vote on the City Commission
Since the last City Commission meeting when the voting majority on key issues consisted of myself, Commissioners Rick Longoria, Tetreau and Villarreal, I've had some heated discussions on the so-called "split vote" on the Commission.
I do not, nor will I ever, vote for the sake of having the majority vote on the Commission. I have on many instances been the sole vote or voice against an issue on the City Commission, i.e., Fly Frontera, the Sports Park, zoning variances and contracts, etc., because I've felt strongly on those issues. I have also walked into a meeting believing I was going to vote one way, but after hearing everyone's concerns, I take a very different approach. That is my right as one of seven votes on the City Commission.
I will not adopt this "us-against-them" mentality that has for so long plagued our City and its various elected bodies. We must move away from this to move our City forward.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Tonight's City Commission Meeting
It was an interesting meeting.
There were several appointments to be made to the Brownsville Community Improvement Corporation tonight. There were four board appointments that expired on 12/31/11. And, upon adoption of the new board appointment's policy at the last meeting, which I did not agree with, the City Commission was now poised to make appointments.
There were several applicants, and all but two were representative of District 3, my district. I would love for my district to have several representatives on that board, and any board for that matter. However, I didn't find that the representation would be representative of all districts. Commissioners argued that the intent of the new board appointment policy was to have the "best" representation on all boards. Still, this conflicted with the intent of creating district commissioners -- to provide city-wide representation.
After a heated discussion, it was decided that the board appointments be tabled to allow for district representation on BCIC. I know this was not the intent of passing the new board appointment policy, but in my opinion, it was the right thing to do.
In other business, the BCIC bylaws were revised to allow for removal of board members should they miss three meeting either regular or special meetings. I do agree that this was needed, but I was disappointed that when I proposed something similar for GBIC prior to the last city election, I didn't have any support on the commission. There were GBIC board members who had missed several consecutive meetings, yet remained on this board that makes multi-million dollar decisions. I expressed my frustration today, too. Why did we allow board members to remain on GBIC when they were frequently absent? Politics. Pft.