Well, it was standing room only again for the new council’s first meeting. Instead of B-Y-O-Chair, it should have been B-Y-O-Cot because it was a looong meeting. In addition to the usual citizen comments and city administration reports, there were 23 agenda items from council members.
I’ve said before that I don’t often write about my little city because I live here and people get mad. Well, this is going to be one of those recaps that make people mad, I guarantee it. So I’ve put on my big boy britches and here we go.
Let’s just get this out of the way. A couple of the new council members have a burr up their butts about the old administration and can’t seem to let it go. I hope that in the future, they will set aside these petty grievances and focus on the business at hand.
After accepting the former Mayor’s resignation, discussion centered around selection of a new mayor. There was much discussion amongst the council and citizens about the best approach but in the end nothing was decided. Reviewing the agenda items, it looked like the members had already decided what to do but perhaps in the end they decided to be a bit more transparent than this:
8.2 Action to accept the resignation of Mayor Dolly Arons and declare the office of mayor vacant. [Webber]
8.3 (withdrawn) [Webber]
8.4 Consideration and discussion of method for filling the vacancy of the office of mayor (appointment or special election). [Webber]
8.5 Consideration and action to fill the office of mayor by appointment until a special or regular election is held. [Webber]
8.6 Administer Oath of Office to newly appointed mayor. [Stall]
Logic dictates that when that agenda was prepared, the council “knew” what they were going to do. But as one of the citizens said, “I sure hope this agenda doesn’t mean that you’ve already decided what to do.” They quickly backed away from appointing someone, deciding to study the issue further. So we still do not have a mayor and I wouldn’t be surprised if they chose to go the next year without one as an election is estimated to cost ten grand, money that could be used more effectively next year. Another option is to fill the post with a placeholder, someone that will not run in 2014, leaving the field open. But I think that an election is out of the question – ten grand for an election in November, to fill out the term for seven months doesn’t make fiscal sense.
After that non-decision decision, things went south quickly. One of the reasons for the council turnover was that long time Police Chief Randy French was fired. So one of the new council members, Nancy Schnell, put forward this agenda item:
8.10 Consideration and action to adopt Resolution No. 2013-110 naming the Shoreacres police station the “Randall J. French Police Station.” [Schnell]
Schnell and new council member Rick Moses both gave long, emotional speeches about why this was deserved. New member Bo Bunker and returning member Steven Jones both said that they heard from constituents that perhaps a plaque was more appropriate. Many citizens commented, including myself, with about 60{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} in favor and 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} preferring the plaque. Moses gave another emotional speech claiming that 98{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the room was in favor of naming the building after French, then said that he was there to listen to the people and the people that show up at council meetings are the citizens that need to be listened to. Bunker folded and the vote went 3-1 (could have been 4-1 if Webber voted but I didn’t see him say ‘Aye’) in favor with Jones being the dissenting voice. When Mayor Pro-Tem Webber asked him if he wanted to state why he voted against, he stated that he was simply doing what the constituents wanted him to do.
So I guess the new rule is that if you don’t go to council meetings and agree with the loudest council members, you aren’t a citizen that matters. Interesting coming from a group that ran on listening to “all” of the citizens.
Okay, with that baseline established, the meeting then turned to pure embarrassment. After a relatively short discussion of city hall hours, Moses had five straight agenda items about the police department:
8.12 Review and discussion of police department hours of operation; chief of police duty hours; and, officer duty hours and shifts. [Moses]
8.13 Review and discussion of the Chief of Police’s job functions. [Moses]
8.14 Review and discussion of the police department grants and status of pending grants. [Moses]
8.15 Review and discussion of the police department standard operating procedure. [Moses]
8.16 Review and discussion of the police department pursuit policy. [Moses]
I won’t go over each one of them but as a group, they were nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on the new police chief, David Newman. There was much back and forth with Moses, many snide remarks from Schnell, and a lot of comments from citizens.
A lot of information came out during this “interrogation”. In talks about why a warrant officer was necessary, it was disclosed that the city has about $800,000 in outstanding fines – much of that money would go to the state if collected but a significant portion would go into the city’s coffers. There seemed to be many people “shocked” that the police department’s calls are not computerized but are still slips of paper. No one that met the candidates should have been shocked by that – that very item was one of candidate Mike Clark’s reforms.
Then many people seemed appalled that the SOP’s for the department were written in 1994 and wanted to know why the new chief hadn’t updated them. Keep in mind that he has been chief for about six months – he was interim for about six months before that. Citizen Paul Croas suggested that the city contract with CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) to update their SOP’s. Chief Newman was open to this but noted that it was not a free service. Indeed, according to their website, the initial accreditation will run $7,125 plus an undetermined amount for an on-site visit/assessment. After that, it runs $3,470 per year to maintain accreditation. Ouch.
There was also much discussion about having two officers on duty at all times. Certainly we can do that but do we need to? There is very little crime in Shoreacres and most of it during the day because we have no businesses other than the Houston Yacht Club. During the “interrogation”, Chief Newman pointed out that the night officer sometimes goes weeks without receiving a single call. Why we would need two officers waiting for a call that never comes baffles me but the main argument was for officer safety. I understand that but it isn’t like we have officers patrolling strip clubs or nightclubs – we are a residential community. It would take hiring at least four new full time officers to make this work and as I mentioned in an earlier post, we already have the highest tax rate by far in the area.
Like I said, a lot of information came out but the irony of the interrogation was lost on the inquisitors. At one point, Moses said that he felt like the police department was going backwards because many of the answers Chief Newman gave were along the lines of “well, that’s the way we’ve done it since I started here in 2001”. The irony is that every single issue that Moses and Schnell were harping about should have been laid directly at the feet of the former police chief, the one that not 30 minutes earlier had them giving emotional speeches supporting his service. It makes my head shake.
And Moses was just plain wrong in his statement about going backward. During the “interrogation”, it was pointed out that the new chief had already begun to address many of the shortcomings that seemed to bother people, other than the shift schedule. While he was interim chief, he asked the previous council for funding to acquire and install a computerized system to track their calls. The previous council denied his request. While he was still interim, he determined that the SOP’s needed updating and started the process – the previous update done by French was in 2006 and consisted mostly of using White-out to cover up the 1994 author’s name and replace it with his own. Shortly after being named permanent chief in December, 2012, Newman contacted the Texas Department of Public Safety for their assistance in helping the city become part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting. In April of this year, Newman initiated contact with the Southeast Texas Crime Information Center (SETCIC) so that Shoreacres could begin using their system, allowing thousands of regional LEO’s to see warrants issued by Shoreacres.
Although it was embarrassing and totally out of line, if anything, the “interrogation” of new Chief Newman shows just how poorly run the department was on the administrative side under the old chief, the one that now has a building named after him. Unbelievable.
At that point, the meeting was already over two hours long and many agenda items remained. Unfortunately, the council chose to skip the next four items, including the one agenda item that many of us had stayed for, discussion of EMS services in the city, and moved that to the next meeting. So I chose to leave and have no idea what happened on the remaining three items, two dealing with the audit committee and one with requiring department heads to be at council meetings.
Hopefully Moses and Schnell were able to get all their emotional items out of the way and future meetings will be productive for both the city and the citizens. I’ll give them a mulligan this time, hoping that they learn to consolidate and condense their concerns. It was good to see Jones participate and hold to his conviction to do what the citizens that he talked to asked him to do, even if they couldn’t make the meeting.
Other “eyes”: Alderman Nancy Schnell’s recap of the meeting: Shoreacres City Council Report by City Council Member Nancy Schnell
Not sure who “Garrett Bryce” is but here is a report: Shoreacres City Council by Garrett Bryce
Gerry Victor says
This is in response to your last article about Shoreacres.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend this council meeting and had to form my opinion of what occurred based on your article and two others plus comments from a couple citizens. In a nutshell, your article chastised two council members for chastising the new chief of police for his lack of accomplishment during his short tenure.
Apparently the two council members mentioned are concerned with the direction the PD is headed and the manner in which it is being managed. Likewise, I am concerned about our PD, since during the past year I have watched the gradual deterioration of morale in our PD and loss of rapport with our neighboring PD (La Porte) which, I believe, was fostered by the (previous) administration’s contract with the new Chief wherein he is held accountable to the City Administrator! As a result, the new Chief doesn’t have control of the PD. It would not be surprising if this so called night/day shift schedule mentioned during the meeting was not his idea at all. Who do you think has the final say about the watch schedule? In my view, our new Chief is a good person caught up in a bad situation. He is taking criticism for whatever occurs and isn’t accomplished. But I think this new council will make the necessary adjustments between the PD and Administration. Our new Chief needs to be independent and not answer to the City Administrator.
But, stay tuned, this council is determined to make the changes the electorate demanded and I expect they will do exactly that. It appears they have started by holding department heads more accountable and by promoting an open dialog at council meetings to encourage citizens input.
Most of the citizens who track local politics here know about the mayor issue and council’s choices for the future. Should council appoint a new mayor, mayor pro tem and another council member or just leave it as is until next year’s election? Eventually they will make that decision which can sit on the back burner until next meeting or next year if they want.
One last comment. The previous Chief earned respect by exhibiting integrity and professionalism. He didn’t allow the Mayor or City Administrator to push him into carrying out poor decisions. Do I need to mention the special meeting of March 30th where council reinstated a police officer after he was fired by the new Chief? And others. Our new Chief will have to earn respect which I beleive he is capable of doing if he is given the chance to act independently of the administration and given the support of council.
Gerry Victor
David Jennings says
Gerry, as you noted, you were not there. This was small town politics at its very worst.
If you had been there, you would have learned that the shift schedule in question was not created by the new chief or the city administrator. It is the same shift schedule used by the old chief.
As I said, every single item that Moses/Schell complained about belongs squarely to the old chief. The new chief is making progress, as I noted above.
In your example about the officer being reinstated, that happens from time to time. But you should also credit the “old” council for that decision. And if you had been at the meeting, you would have learned that the reason that he was reinstated is that the policy manual was unclear as to his boundaries – the very policy manual that the old chief used during his fifteen years, adopting it from the prior chief.
There is a difference between open dialogue and chaos/anarchy. If you had been at the meeting, you would have observed that at times it seemed like an old fashioned lynch mob.
Are you saying that the previous chief did not report to the city administrator? If that is so, and I don’t know if it is or isn’t, then the blame for the lack of flood insurance discounts also falls squarely at his feet. I’m really curious now and will attempt to clarify.
If you are appointed Mayor at the next session, I support that, as I told Schell. I think having your experience will help the city function properly. I don’t think that you will allow your personal feelings to get in the way of doing the right thing, at least from the times I saw you on council and from your public comments. I won’t be at the meeting but wish you well if that is the direction chosen.
Dave
Gerry Victor says
Thanks for your followup. I’ll address a couple points.
In my first response I stated that council on March 30th reinstated the police officer. That date was wrong it should have been January 30th vice March 30th. You are correct, it was the old council who made the decision. It was not my intent to mislead anyone into thinking the existing council who were sworn in on May 28th were responsible for the reinstatement.
I haven’t seen the job description issued to the previous Chief and do not know if it was reissued with each change of Mayors. But, I have seen the job description for the new Chief which in the very first paragraph states: ” Under the direction of the City Administrator, the Police Chief manages and directs etc.” To me that means the City Administrator has the final say in what is going on in the PD.
Concerning the Flood Insurance issue some noteworthy dates:
JUNE 18, 2009: David Stall was designated Community Rating System Coordinator for Shoreacres in CRS Application FEMA Form 81-73.
JUNE, 2010: Hazard Mitigation Action Plan for Shoreacres was adopted by Harris County.
SEPTEMBER, 2012: After a lapse of over 2 years the CRS application process was reinitiated with the submission of Modification Activity Worksheet form AW-230-1.
MARCH 2013: ISO processing paperwork for placement of Shoreacres on listing of communities eligible for Flood Insurance discount.
…..Bottom line, we will see the discount within the next 12 months, I think…..
At this tme, I am not in the position to accept or seek any political office. However, I will gladly help by being a part of citizens’ committees or other venues to improve our great city.
Gerry Victor
David Jennings says
Gerry,
I called and talked to David Stall. Both chiefs reported to him, as I suspected. He stated that it is in the city code and I’m sure it is but I didn’t bother to look. So that gets French somewhat off the hook for the flood insurance discount because the buck has to stop somewhere, in this case with Stall. French was directly responsible but Stall has supervisory oversight.
But on the other issue, once again, I fail to see the problem with the police chief reporting to the city administrator. It makes sense to me. All department heads should report to him. I have no idea why you and others are bringing this up as if it were (a) something new or (b) something bad. I don’t get it.
I’m sorry to hear that you are not in a position to accept a temporary appointment as mayor. Schnell told me that you were reluctant but I was hoping that you would reconsider. I understand completely about time, etc., but frankly, you are the only person that could take that appointment. For whatever reason, Jayo Washington is not in that “group”, he would be another option. Richard Adams would certainly qualify but not only is he not in the “group”, he might run for mayor. In my opinion, the appointment should go to a “placeholder”, someone that can bang the gavel for a few months and not get an advantage during the May 2014 election. Paul Croas has already stated that he is running and he seems to be a capable fella, and I suspect a couple of others will enter the fray.
I pretty much cover politics for a living these days and can tell you that one of the problems the council is going to have is lack of experience. That is why I was hoping that you would consider the appointment. I’ve seen too many political entities fall from inexperience to wish that upon my own city. I was hoping that you could mentor the council without the pressure of going to all of the extraneous meetings – Webber could handle those. Nothing can replace an experienced hand at the helm, guiding, mentoring, teaching, etc. And you would be perfect for that role. But again, if you can’t, you can’t.
We should have coffee sometime.