The first order of business at Monday’s meeting of the City of Shoreacres City Council was to present a service recognition award to former Police Chief David Newman, thanking him for his many years of service to the city. What this council did to that man is unconscionable and you could tell that they were embarrassed by it as they sat watching the sham presentation. That’s all I’ll say about that.
Citizen Comments
David Gerany spoke about speeding on Miramar. He said that it looks like there are fewer efforts to control speeders. He suggested doing speed control differently – at the present time police are visible and people slow down. He suggested doing as Pasadena does and that it could be a large revenue source for the city.
Administrative Reports
The cell tower behind Public Works is being upgraded with fiber optics and back up generating power.
Round two of the street upgrades will be complete on 11/6/13.
The grant from Homeland Security for radio systems has been received.
City Administrator Stall also discussed the Community Rating System for flood insurance. He thinks that FEMA is going to accept the application and if they do, policies written after October 2014 would be eligible for a 5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} discount.
Stall also went over the city’s financial position. Between the General and Utility Funds, the city has $151,767.81 in cash on hand, plus another $53,454.82 in customer utility deposits. The Texpool reserve fund as expected has $954k and we have another $250k in CD’s.
Stall claimed that we had “excess revenue” because property tax collections were $13k above budget – but failed to mention that the budget was in the red to begin with.
Police Management Review
Interim Chief Massey went over his report. You can read it online – it is mostly boilerplate stuff, the key being that he got rid of Chief Newman and recommends hiring another officer to replace the one that quit after the debacle at the Yacht club. He claimed that morale among the officers has already increased and offered his services in hiring a new chief. After reading through his report, our best option would probably be to ask LaPorte to annex us. The next option would be to contract out our police needs to the Harris County Sheriff’s department. We are already in a huge financial bind, adding to our police department is going to be difficult.
Business
8.2 – New water and sewer rates. After a lengthy discussion, council unanimously approved Alderman Schnell’s ordinance changing the way the city bills for water. The sliding scale for water usage changes a bit and there is now a sliding scale for sewer. A few homeowners will see a decrease – the “widow’ that lives alone and doesn’t use more than 2,000 gallons a month. Most homeowners will see a slight increase. If you use 5,000 gallons a month, your water/sewer portion of the bill will go from $44 to $50. Gross revenue is projected to increase approximately $36k per year.
8.4 – dispatch contract with LaPorte. Unanimous approval on changing from Lakeview to LaPorte. Alderman Moses explained in detail why this was a good move, even though the cost increase was significant.
8.5 – unanimous approval to gain access to the City of Houston’s emergency radio system. Their system will be adopted by Harris County as well.
8.7 – Alderman Schnell asked about the city not adhering to the ordinance pertaining to drug testing after accidents. Stall said that he used his discretion at this time and did not send employees for drug testing for minor incidents. In my opinion, after 35 years in managing safety programs, any OSHA recordable accident should be drug tested and any accident resulting in damage to equipment or vehicles should be drug tested.
David,
I have no dog in this fight as I am a resident of the City of Houston, but I agree with you. Any traffic accident that results in significant loss of property, injury, or life should be sufficent reason for everyone involved in the accident to be drug tested.
My former employer instituted this policy in the early 90’s and it was amazing how quickly it cleaned up a nasty little drug problem we had in the company. Everybody got whizzed if an OSHA recordable accident happened.
Simple
Permission to speak freely? Oh, that’s right I always do.
I take exception to the narrative, “What this council did to this man is unconscionable and you could tell they were embarrassed…” David Newman’s fate was sealed when the previous council and mayor placed a “good guy’ that was unqualified to be the chief of police. Type B people do not generally succeed in a position of leadership.
Specifically as to the comments of council’s actions..you are way off base on this. August 12, 2013, I placed an item om the agenda (8.5) for Executive session to discuss David Newman’s position as chief of police. This was after the mayor and I received a (informal) grievance letter in the mail. Chief Newman requested that the meeting be public; poor decision. Formal grievances were filed, requiring action by the mayor.
Due to other events and interviews, council was requested to and authorized the hiring of and outside Acting Chief, Mike Massey. There was no one that was qualified to conduct an IAD Investigation that had not either filed a grievance, or had one filed against them.
An external audit was conducted of the entire police department, not focused in any specific individual. The findings are sound, and uncomfortable for some; yet they are an objective finding.
This is much like the forensic financial audit this city needs in light of our budget nightmare. An impartial source, comes in digs deep and necessary changes are made and recommendations given.
As to 8.7 and the city’s drug testing policy-I’ve already drafted the revision
A couple of points about your article:
Statutes, whether city or state, need to be followed.
City code states:
“In grievance complaints in which an employee may feel uncomfortable reporting to the department head, or if the department head is the person accused, the employee may file the grievance with the mayor.”
This procedure was done correctly. Our governing body chose to hire an outside independent qualified person to investigate those grievances and report back with their findings. City council really had no other choice, given the requirement for someone qualified to do the investigation. People may not like the results, but I believe the investigation was done properly.
Speed bumps on Miramar…
It seems so simple just to put those bumps on that road and be done with it, but it is not that simple. The city has never done a good job of explaining the process.
A speed bump is considered a speed control device under Texas law, as defined by the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, just like a speed limit sign. Under Texas law, all streets in an urban district have a prima facie speed limit of 30 miles an hour. The authority of a municipality to reduce that speed limit, per Texas Transportation code 545.356, is limited to not less than 25 mph.
Any speed control devices on urban streets, including speed bumps, require Texas DOT approval, except the 25 mph speed limit sign. To obtain that approval, a traffic engineering survey must be completed that supports the additional speed control device. Shoreacres did that survey about two years ago and the survey did not support adding speed control devices on Miramar. In fact, the survey would suggest that the proper speed limit on Miramar should be 25 mph and not the current 20 mph. The 20 mph has been on Miramar preceding the Texas Code, so it is grandfathered in.
If the city were to put speed bumps on Miramar without following Texas law, then we might have a liability issue. The issue of speed bumps on Miramar needs to be put to rest.
Drug testing of city employees…
While I would agree with your opinion, our code has a higher standard. It states:
“As a public employer, the city is entrusted with protecting the health and safety of the citizens. In keeping this obligation, all employees of the city will be required to pass a substance abuse test prior to employment, after any work-related injury or accident, or if the department head has reasonable and probable cause.”
The code has no provisions for department head discretion when a work related injury or accident occurs. Had city council wanted to allow department head discretion, they would have done so in the city code. Mr. Stall erred when he thought he had discretion.
However, Mr. Stall did raise some valid points. A bee sting occurring while on the job is a work related injury, per OSHA. If city hall were infected with mold causing an employee to become sick, it is also a work related injury. Under our current code, a drug test would be required.
This code needs some revision.
I think I need to add to my last posting about drug testing employees and our city code. The city code needs some revision to adhere to Federal law.
If a city employee is accidently stung by a bee, while on duty, resulting in a work related injury, then drug testing that employee as a result of that injury would violate the employee’s 4th amendment rights. In that case, our city code, as written, would not apply.
If a city employee, through their own negligence or carelessness, damages city property, such as a motor vehicle, then our city code would apply and the city would be within their right to drug test that employee.