New Page 1

making all his nowhere plans, for nobody! (This caption on the CSC El Paso Express web site was continued from the home page).

While I could certainly address the Mayor's "Nowhere Plans" (he calls them "visions") like rail hub, Anthony Gap Plan, or Central Park which are wastes of time, energy, and money because they are too expensive and/or impractical to ever come to fruition, the actual purpose of this article is two fold: the recent Andrade Resignation and the Director of Economic Development!

For any of you who are wondering why the Mayor is trailing so badly in the polls, the Andrade Resignation should shed some light on the matter. Here is a man of integrity who formerly supported the Mayor, being told that he will not be reappointed to the Civil Service Commission ('CSC') for another term because he has voted to often with the "Cobos Appointee"? You would think a lawyer would not be so stupid as to say that over the phone. Hell, why not use the Medina ploy against Corona, i.e., LULAC has asked me to replace you with a Hispanic women! While it is a lie, at least it doesn't suggest that the Mayor doesn't want an "independent Commissioner" who will vote his conscience based upon his beliefs of right and wrong! Click on Andrade Resignation above to see it in PDF; I understand the Mayor was "livid" over the written resignation but probably won't admit he made such a statement nor address the matter in Public, unless asked. Ah . . . , you don't suppose we could see another "press release" slamming Mr. Andrade and the CSC?

And of course while Mr. Andrade may have voted with me on more than one occassion, it is ONLY ONE VOTE that actually made the Mayor decline to reappoint him, i.e., voting to adopt the CSC Subcommittee Report on Ethics regarding the "provisional appointee" to the position of Economic Development Dirctor. Past readers may recall the Mayor's press release (see below) wherein the Mayor sucessfully issued "ex-parte" communications using City Resources to interfere with a future vote of the CSC. Ultimately, the Mayor was successful in "encouraging" the CSC to decline to adopt the report, however he did not get the vote of the person he appointed as the Mayor's representative!

A Panel of four members will meet April 22-24 to rank 10 candidates that Human Resources came up with for the "permanent" position of Director of Economic Development. Look for the current "provisional appointee" to be #2-4 on that list (they don't have the audacity to make him #1 in the face of the Report of the Subcommittee which is a matter of Public Record with Exhibits). Look for him to get the nod for the position from the Mayor again and try to push him through at the April 29th City Council meeting!

Sure the item should be tabled until after the election and the new Mayor and Council members are sworn in; but that wouldn't bode well for the Mayor's agenda. Whether is smacks of politics or not, look for them to try to get it done while they "possibly" have the numbers and the Mayor's position. While the Motion to Table should be easily passed since the provisional appointment is good until July 14 (6 months), don't bet on it! Lame ducks can do a lot of damage in their final days even though one would not think the provisional appointee could be considered a prime candidate for the job based on the undisputed evidence that is now available to every Council Member (provided they requested it?).

Just thinking out loud, the vote to Table will probably be opposed by Summerall and Medina and supported by Rodriquez and Cobos. The question is how will the other four vote. Escobar is unopposed so there would be reason for him to avoid an appearance of impropriety by allowing the matter to be tabled until the elections are completed. Sorianno isn't running so I see no reason for him not to table the matter so the new representative from District #7 can do his own research and evaluation of the matter? Powers and Cook are both in tough elections and I can't see them benefiting from any opposition to table UNLESS they are going to vote for some "other candidate" other than the provisional appointee? Personally, I would look for any candidate running opposed in the May 3 election to lose considerable votes if they vote to make the current "provisional appointee" permanent at the April 29th Council Meeting in the face of the much publicized facts of the appointment.

Below is information previously posted concerning the CSC, specifically the "provisional appointment" of Director of Economic Development Director:

Press Release by Civil Service Commissioner Ruck (8:30 am El Paso): I am extremely disappointed by the failure of the Commissioners to adopt the "Report of the Civil Service Subcommittee on the Ethics Ordinance" relative to the provisional appointment of the Director of Economic Development at the regular meeting on February 13, 2003. In adopting only a Motion that the City Council did not violate the Ethics Ordinance in said appointment and then defeating a Motion to Adopt the Report, the Commission opted to ignore the facts and exhibits of the Report as well as the final conclusion of the Report, to wit:

"However, if we do not utilize the investigatory powers which are lawfully ours, and agressively pursue enforcement of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission and provisions of the City Charter which are applicable, we are each not only culpable of violations of the "Ethics Ordinance", and, moreover, our oath of office, but a true "breach of duty", to the employees of the City of El Paso and the public in general."

In essence, 5 of 8 Commissioners voted not to further investigate the undisputed serious violations of the Civil Service Rules and City Charter or even attempt to enforce the rules of same. The theory of forgive, forget, and move on seems politically motivated and cannot be in the best interest of the Citizens of El Paso. That both City Council and the Civil Service Commission were given clearly erroneous information seems to be of no concern at all.

It is noted that the 15 page "Report", now a matter of "Public Record" is placed below in pdf. If you wish to see the exhibits, you will need to go to the 3rd Floor of the City County Building and request a "complete" copy of the report? The items below the report were previously placed here and the most recent addition is the bottom email which became item # 22 to the February 27th CSC Agenda and is also a matter of "Public Record"!

What is the CSC? Why has the El Paso Express Newsletter, which formerly only addressed Railroad issues (generally Union Corruption), decided to branch out into other areas? Simply stated, my career with the Railroad is almost at end and corruption exists everywhere in our society!

It is predominant in Government, including City of El Paso Government. Perhaps "predominant" is not the appropriate word, perhaps "unchallenged" is more accurate? The CSC is the Civil Service Commission and any review of this term will go back substantially in history but will indicate such "commission" was created to do away with "nepotism" and "cronyism" in government.

Has there been any success? Well . . . , not in my opinion after just approximately 6 months on the CSC of the City of El Paso. All open meetings during my time in office (I have missed no meetings) are a matter of "Public Record"? While I had all the necessary qualifications to adequately do this job, as I did with the Board of Appeals of the UTU, I quickly found myself in "big" trouble for trying to do my job (as in Smoot)?

Said trouble reached "critical mass" recently when the Mayor of El Paso found it necessary to personally address what he perceived as a serious "faux pas" on the part of myself and a fellow Commissioner concerning an "advisory report" of a subcommittee on the "Ethics Ordinance" concerning a "provisional appointment". Said "styled" press release can be found at Mayor of El Paso Press Release!

Having a mind of my own and being relatively sure I was assigned to a subcommittee in open session of a Public Meeting of the CSC, I responded to the mayor via email with copies to interested parties (City Councilpersons, CSC Commissioners, City Staff, and appropriate news media, i.e., newspaper and TV). Said communication stated in body:

Dear Mayor Caballero:

I have just been advised that my name, as a member of the Civil Service Commission Subcommittee on the Ethics Ordinance, has been addressed in a press release from your office. I have been able to determine that such is fact, and while there are numerous inaccuracies in the article that need to be addressed eventually, I am sending you this email (copied to parties of interest) to insure you understand my position relative to your press release.

Your statement: "it is an insult to denigrate the experience of Col. (Ret) Landry and the many women and men who have honorably worn the uniform in peace and war in the military to suggest that military experience is not the equivalent of civilian experience." is highly offensive to this veteran and appears to be "politically motivated".

I have never denigrated the experience of Col. (Ret) Landry! On the contrary, at page 5 of the Report is the following:

"It is evident that the selected candidate was not an employee in the service of the City, it is evident that recruiting efforts had provided at least forty-five candidates, none of whom had been assessed, and it is clearly evident that while the selected candidate had exceptional qualifications, they did not meet the minimum qualifications established for the position. (Emphasis Mine).

Despite your "quantum leap", I wish you to personally know that I am a 50+ year resident of the City of El Paso, having graduated from Burges High School in 1963, having attended NMSU and UTEP, and having been a child of a "Military Family". My father was assigned here in the late 40's and was a career RA officer who retired with the rank of Colonel in the early 70's, after serving as Inspector General of Fort Bliss for most of the decade of the 60's! I was drafted in 1968, attended Basic Training at Ft. Bliss, Texas (wherein I was awarded "outstanding trainee" of my basic training class), AIT at Ft. Sill in Artillery, and Officer Candidate School at Ft. Sill. I was commissioned an "Officer" in the U.S. Army and then attended Air Defense Officer School at Ft. Bliss, and Army Aviation School in Mineral Wells, Texas and Ft. Rucker, Alabama. I am an Army Aviator who served in Vietnam, flew over 1000 hours of combat missions, and was awarded various medals of valor, including the Distinguished Flying Cross.

I am currently the President of the Lancer Association ( http://www.thelancers.org/ ), a life member of the 101^st Airborne Division Association, and a life member of the VHPA (Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association), who regularly attends yearly reunions of these esteemed military groups. While I don’t know what your military service is, if any, you would be well advised to discontinue any plea to the military community (or the citizens of El Paso) that this Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission is interested in any matter other than fulfilling my oath of office.

As you have seen fit to use City of El Paso resources for your press release, perhaps it is appropriate to place this response there as well? Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, I am

Sincerely,

Lance E. Ruck

Commissioner, Civil Service Commission

Now, being somewhat of a pacifist since my return from Vietnam, or at least not being one to strike the first blow but rather one who believes in self-defense, imagine my surprise when I found the basis for statements that the subcommittee had no authority was because the "public record" had been tampered with, i.e., the tape of the January 23, 2003 Public Meeting of the CSC was altered to delete all discussion concerning the appointment of said subcommittee? Kinda like "striking the first blow from behind" in my mind? I sought guidance from the Public Information Office and quickly received a phone call from "David" in the Office of the Attorney General. He responded to my query and advised I see the District Attorney. I did; I followed their guidance and I did what all "good" citizens do when they become aware of a "possible criminal violation", i.e., I filed complaint with the appropriate agency of the El Paso Police Department. In this case, the aptly named "Public Integrity Unit"! CLICK HERE for a "pdf" copy of said complaint! To Be Continued?

I was mildly amused yesterday by your description of myself and fellow Civil Service Commissioners as "yo-yo's". I was irritated by the Mayor’’s suggestion that the Commission acted outside their authority and they should get "good lawyers"!

While you are both entitled to your opinions, it is unfortunate that those you belittle rarely have a public opportunity to respond. As I was afforded an opportunity to a video interview last night after the Civil Service Commission meeting with KVIA, wherein they stated they would use it in it’’s entirety, I was able to address the two comments above, also publicly. Now whether they actually show the entire interview is doubtful, i.e., I am relatively sure it will be edited. Nevertheless, "talk radio" shows are frequently bias and some don’’t even want to hear probative evidence that disputes their opinions or the particular agenda they are trying to achieve. On information and belief, your show is not one of these.

Relative to the specious suggestion we acted outside our authority, item #29 to the January 23, 2003 Agenda, placed at the request of a Commissioner just like any City Councilperson could do with an item to the City Council Agenda, stated:

"Discussion and action concerning actions taken by the City of El Paso, by and through its agents, and made available to the public via various media outlets, with respect to possible violations of specific sections of the ‘‘Charter Provisions and Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission’’ concerning the styled "provisional appointment" of an individual to fill a Department Head position, on or about January 14, 2003."

Said investigation is clearly within our domain pursuant to Section 6.1-5(B) and enforcement at Section 6.1.8.

Quoting Section 6.3-1.D as authority for said appointment without first complying with Sections A., B., and C. is an erroneous conclusion on your part or disingenuous if, in fact, you knew the appointment was made pursuant to Section 6.6-2.?

I took personal exception to one item in the Mayor’s recent "styled" press release and since you have seen fit to read "quotes" from it on your program and he has not seen fit to respond to me personally or place my response on the city web site, perhaps you would be interested in a copy? I know you read a letter from a serviceman in Afghanistan this morning which took Cindy Williams to task, and rightly so, for her opinion on the military pay raise. Are you interested in a letter that takes the Mayor to task? Would you read it on the air? Inquiring minds want to know?

While the City Attorneys were able to prohibit the release of the "amended report" last night through their averments in closed session, I believe those averments were incorrect and also a conflict of interest with the rights of the Commission and the Citizens of El Paso. The matter will be back at the next meeting. However, the contents of the report itself may now be overshadowed by the City’’s improper, if not illegal attempts to suppress it!

Your comments concerning Councilperson Cobos were obviously politically motivated, but I found them to be the same type irresponsible journalistic license that previously sent me to "The Fox". Should you wish to receive a copy of my response to Mayor Caballero, please email me as I "won’’t have my ears on" anymore (I actually only listened to hear Roger Corona and then the Mayor the following day). Also today to see if you had any comment on the meeting last night or the possibility that the allegations of "no authority for the Ethics Subcommittee" is based upon doctored tapes that are the subject of a criminal investigation?

I consider your suggestion to get rid of the Civil Service Commission to be detrimental to the Employees of the City of El Paso and the Public. If anything, this incident shows why we need the Commission, i.e., the unacceptable delay in qualifying candidates, the questionable qualifications for the specific position and compensation of the selected candidate, and the constant attempt of certain city staff to withhold pertinent information from Commissioners and Councilpersons who require "complete" backup information to make informed decisions!

Military men do not subscribe to the theory "rules were made to be broken". This issue had nothing whatsoever to do with Col. (Ret) Landry personally, but rather are the rules to be enforced "uniformly" for everyone? The "Rule of Three" is not that the City Charter and the Rules of the Civil Service Commission are waived when the three chamber of commerce agree on a candidate!

As information, I visited your Web site for the first time and do appreciate your veterans pages and the work you do to keep the Public informed of events within the community!

With regard to appearing on your show, I must first check with my attorneys relative to "Ex Parte Communications" as I have become "persona non grata" with the powers that be within the City and certainly the City Attorney. I'm sure they would like nothing better than to charge me with violations of the "Ethics Ordinance" for any information I might share with your concerning certain subject matters.

However, despite any reservations I may have or the advice of my attorney, I will appear alone from 8:30 to 9:30 AM (I have a CSC subcommittee meeting currently scheduled on Monday at 10 AM) if you see fit to read my response to the Mayor on the air in its entirety and so advise me when you will do it? I am confident that my right to free speech and "privileged" speech was addressed by the Supreme Court recently in Bartnicki wherein the Court stated they are reluctant to ever consider telling the "truth" to be a violation of the First Amendment. If you can't read it, I understand and will not rule out appearing on your show at some future date when this issue has been completely settled. Thank you for your prompt response. Lanny Ruck PS: As I suspected, KVIA did two "clips" from a 6 minute interview. Jack Bradford introduced me to you in the lobby at City Hall when we were attending a Redistricting Commission meeting about a year ago.

While the Commission attorney assured me that my emails of Feb. 20 and 21 were now a part of the "Public Record", I am only including the February 21 Email below at this time. Further legal research is prudent before the February 20, email is placed, albeit it is available to the Citizens of El Paso under the Public Records Act. Said email again listed the Amended Report as an agenda item (#19) for the February 27th Meeting and stated:

Dear Ms Buenning:

Please place the following item back on the agenda is this form after the item addressed in my email of February 20, 2003 concerning Section 6.1-9.

"Discussion and action on the Amended Report of the Civil Service Commission Subcommittee on the Ethics Ordinance by Commissioner Lance E. Ruck and Robert A. Cushing, Jr dated February 13, 2003."

As backup for the item, I would like this email included as there was information that the rest of the Commissioners were not aware of, even after the closed meeting and the 4 to 3 vote to delete the report on February 13.

Relative to the "authority" of the Subcommittee, there is little doubt that the Subcommittee was either appointed at the January 23 Meeting in open session and/or appointed and voted on. Since we have no rules, either process would constitute authority for the Subcommittee if done with the approval of the Chairman. I don’t personally remember is there was a Motion or not, but I distinctly remember no one objected nor was any "legal advice" given concerning the matter by our legal counsel. It is my understanding that the original tape has resurfaced so that matter may be cleared up in the near future.

While on that issue, Commissioners did not learn until after the vote to delete the report that a copy of the open meeting tape left out all discussion on the appointment of the Subcommittee and resulted in a criminal complaint. Inferences were being made, specifically in a styled "press release" from the Mayor, based upon the altered tape that this Commission gave no authority for the Subcommittee. I found such inferences demeaning to the Subcommittee and the Commission itself. After listening to the "copy" of the tape, I followed a prudent course of action by seeking information from Ms Amanda Crawford in the Public Information Office, to wit:

"Dear Ms. Crawford: To make a long story short, I am a Commissioner on the Civil Service Commission. At an open meeting of said Commission, during discussion of a posted item, the Chairman of the Commission appointed a two person Subcommittee to determine if there were violations of the Ethics Ordinance relative to the provisional appointment of a Department Head. While the advisory report found no violation under the Ordinance by the actions of City Council, we found sufficient evidence that an investigation should be conducted concerning violations of the CSC rules and the City Charter.

I began hearing rumors that our "advisory committee" was in violation of the open meetings act, that we had no authority to act, and that the report could not be addressed and was voidable, i.e., to the point it could not be made "public". I also heard rumors that the City Attorneys were considering criminal charges? My investigation of the open meeting act concluded that the Committee was indeed "advisory" (evident by it's content if said content could be addressed) and that Attorney General LO H-594 was right on point.

However, rumors continued to swirl and the Mayor then addressed this statement in a styled "press conference", to wit: "While it is not clear whether this subcommittee was so tasked by the commission, we are nevertheless responding to the merits of the report." This was reported at http://www.ci.el-paso.tx.us/mayor/mayor021003.htm ! As that statement gave me cause for concern, I then requested to hear the tape of the item from the last meeting. The recording secretary allowed me to listen to a "copy" of the original, stating she has yet to hear it as the Director of Human Resources won't authorize overtime to provide the last minutes for the next meeting. She also stated the Director of Human Resources picked up the original for her and the "City Attorneys" to review.

Having listened to the copy of the tape, the problem is now apparent in that about the last 5 to 10 minutes of the proceeding, wherein the Subcommittee was appointed, has vanished! Is it a criminal violation of Texas State Law to willfully alter a Public Meeting recording in order to generate inaccurate minutes? If so, what statute would apply and who should I see to file a complaint and begin an investigation? Thanking you in advance for any information you can supply, I am

Lance E. Ruck

Commissioner, El Paso Civil Service Commission

(915) - 565-9741

PS: As the next meeting in this Thursday, a quick response would be greatly appreciate!

The very next morning I received a call from "David" in the Attorney General’s Office who stated that 552.351 was the statute that was violated assuming my facts were correct and that I should file a complaint with the appropriate City or County District Attorney. He also stated that based upon my facts as presented, an advisory report does not fall under the requirements of the open meetings act.

I mistakenly went to City Attorney Rita Rodriguez to file my complaint and she guided me to the District Attorney’s office. I spoke with Assistant District Attorney Doug Fletcher, who also stated the advisory report would not come under the Open Meetings Act unless the report took some specific action (approved a contract, or bid, etc.) and the report of less than a quorum would be "rubber stamped" by the entire body in quorum. He advised I file my complaint with the Public Integrity Unit of the El Paso Police Department, which I did that afternoon.

Suffice to say I totally disagree with the advice given the Commission in the closed meetings and those issues have been adequately addressed in the above referenced email of February 20, 2003 which I fully expect will be on the agenda with the email as backup. The backup for this item should include this email and a copy of the Amended Report dated February 13, with Exhibit.

There is one final issue that needs to be addressed. The Amended Report concludes that was no violation of the Ethics Ordinance in the provisional appointment of the Director of Economic Development. It further concludes that there may be a violation if the Commission fails to investigate and enforce the City Charter and the Rules of the Civil Service Commission. However, as Ms. Cuellar has pointed out, the Commission has no current provision that would allow a person determined "qualified" to become "unqualified" without a rule change which could not be retroactive. Any investigation that would be conducted or has been conducted involves the process used, and not any specific individual. It should be apparent to all that the current provisional appointee, whether qualified or not, has been determined to be qualified and he will not have to again become qualified. Accordingly, there cannot be any need for any appeal to this Commission unless the current provisional appointee applies for a different position with the City and is determined to not qualify for that new position.

Thanking you in advance for placing this item on the agenda and supplying the Commissioners with the backup information to make an informed decision, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Lance E. Ruck

Commissioner, Civil Service Commission

cc: Ms. Terry Bond, Ms. Lupe Cuellar, Mr. Ray Graham

Dear Ms. Cuellar:

I am in receipt of your styled "Legal Opinion to Civil Service Commission Attorney Client Privilege Confidential" which was received during one of the many "executive sessions" at the last meeting of the Civil Service Commission on February 13, 2003.

In addressing Issue One, I guess I am unsure what "documents" you reviewed? Whether a "BS" in Military Science, Physical Education, or Animal Husbandry is "equivalent to" a BS in " . . . business or public administration, economics or related field . . . ." is questionable at best and failure to properly indicate the actual discipline the degree is in has been fatal is previous determinations of the Human Resources Department under their "no tolerance" rules. Indeed, the precedent, when denials have come before this "Commission" regarding failure to properly attach a transcript and/or failure to follow the instructions on the application, has always been fatal in the past.

It is unknown at this juncture if the applicant was given "preferential treatment" by the Director of Human Resources or if the information supplied by Human Resources, i.e., the complete application of the applicant, to Commissioners Cushing and myself on February 13, is merely another "altered public record"? While Ms. LePage has certainly made the applicant aware of the rules, it is doubtful the applicant could be removed or dismissed pursuant to the "certification" paragraph as no signature appears on that document?

Your determination that "The analysis conducted was objective, fair and reasonable is not supported by the record or the facts. If you did not view the complete application in making your determination then is appears you were either bias or didn’t use due diligence.

Relative to Issue Two, I fail to understand your semantical argument concerning "wages" as that term appears nowhere in Rule 5, Section 5 Professional/Managerial Compensation. In any event, your determination here does not seem to be supported by Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code under Section 457. Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local Governments and Tax Exempt Organizations. Moreover, those issues are moot to me given the questionable qualifications as opposed to an ". . .applicant with exceptional qualifications" and the fact "recruiting efforts" didn’t fail to fill the position at the minimum but rather failure to timely evaluate those that did apply caused the position to remain vacant.

Relative to issue three, I am not concerned with the legality per se (and will accept that it was not "prohibited"), but I am wondering what this has done to the morale of other Department Heads who are not receiving said benefit and probably feel they are as "qualified" as this applicant to receive same?

Relative to issue four, I concur that it is a 6 month provisional appointment pursuant to Article VI, Section 6.6-2 of the Civil Service Charter. Indeed, if you remember correctly, I flat stated so during the meeting of January 23 when Commissioner Cushing wanted to get a clarification from City Council! However, that this question has "no legal consequence" is debatable depending upon what information or "lack of information" the selected applicant was given by city employees/officers, whether he was in fact given "preferential treatment" without his knowledge or consent, and whether there were promises for the job beyond the 6 month period.

Your apparent need to twice reiterate the ability to extend the "provisional" appointment another 6 months with "appropriate action" is now the heart of the problem that I also addressed succinctly on January 23^rd to Commissioner Cushing, i.e., that there would be no assessment panel to provide an eligible list until after another 6 month appointment! There is one way to put this issue to rest; advertise the job at the same entry rate and deferred compensation that the current "provisional" appointee is receiving, create an eligible list, and fill the job permanently before the City Election in May. Of course, if that were done it is likely the current applicant may not make the top five in any unbiased evaluation of the new applicants.

I take exception to your "theory" that infers City Councilpersons didn’t use due diligence in their consideration of this provisional appointment because it is my understanding "no backup" was included on this consent agenda item. Both City Council and any other Commission has a right to be provided with all necessary backup information in order to make informed decisions. Once City Council learns, as this Commissioner has, that you can’t necessarily trust "staff" to provide all, or any of the relevant information, they shall adapt accordingly. Hell, I can’t get some information even after I request it for the next meeting, i.e., it’s simply put back on the consent agenda without the backup in the hopes it won’t be caught?

Relative to issue five, my notes taken from the altered tape copy of the open meeting do not indicate that was the question. Therefore, I shall not comment on that other than to say I still question why the military liaison in Washington, DC was not used to determine if this applicant's military service equated to the job position applied for as has been done with other military applicants in the past.

Relative to issue six, I will accept your decision there by stating in view of the information supplied by one disqualified applicant, overturned by the Commission on February 13, suggesting less qualified applicants are receiving both contract and classified jobs ahead of more qualified applicant, there needs to be a Rule change and investigation. I would be interested to know if "ANY" applicant that was allowed to test pursuant to his/her successful appeal to the Commission has ever been hired?

My understanding of the confidentiality of anything under Attorney Client privilege is that it relates to a legal restriction upon the attorney, not the client. Accordingly, I found the "legal opinions" expressed by yourself and Ms. Rodriguez in "executive session" relative to the release of the "Report of the Civil Service Commission Subcommittee on the Ethics Ordinance" to be inaccurate at best, and blatant intimidation at worst. While you nit-picked certain provisions from the 2000 Open Meetings Handbook and took them out of context, you failed to address specific provisions that were germane in the instant case. An example would be the last sentence of page 14 which states in pertinent part: "In contrast, as advisory committee without control or supervision over public business or policy is not subject to the act, even though its membership includes some members, but less than a quorum, of a governmental body.58"

The advice from yourself and Ms. Rodriguez that the public discussion and action on said report could lead to litigation was certainly unclear? Were you, as our attorney, considering legal action against us? Was that some type veiled threat that the "applicant", who currently holds this "provisional" appointment, would have redress in the Courts? Regardless of the intent, I believe your actions and your legal opinion herein above addressed, leave little doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that you have a "conflict of interest".

Unless of course, the position espoused by yourself and Ms. Rodriguez is that the Civil Service Commission may not investigate and enforce the provisions of the Charter and Civil Service Rules whenever there are violations that could subject the City to criticism and/or litigation? However, that position suggests we owe our allegiance to the City and City servants/officers/employees who violate the rules as opposed to the Citizens of El Paso. As I reject that notion, see no failure to place a agenda item number on this email, provide it to each Commissioner with the next packet, and list the item as:

"Discussion and Action on hiring independent counsel to represent the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Section 6.1-9. Legal Counsel of the City Charter. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, I am

Lance E. Ruck

Civil Service Commission

Commissioner, District #8

PS: It is noted that this email is sent to the addressee and carbon copied to Rosy Buenning, Recording Secretary, Terry Bond, Secretary, and Ray Graham, Chairman. Absent it being included on the next agenda of the Civil Service Commission as herein requested, I shall expand the addressee list significantly and any person taking exception should follow my own example, i.e., file a formal grievance with an appropriate law enforcement agency and/or a court of competent jurisdiction.

Coming next: the two letters from Ms. Cunningham that are part of the "Public Record". I would be remiss If I did not give her an equal opportunity to place her "defenses" for the provisional appointee?

I have determined that the March 7, 2003 letter presented at the conclusion of the "Public Open Meeting" is not necessary to any determination of this matter. Accordingly, the March 13 letter is placed and I shall address it as time permits; suffice to say I received it at the March 13 meeting of the CSC and had not read it until after the meeting closed!

While the averments of the "provisional appointees" attorney may sound good to the uninitiated, they are basically "theory" that ignores the record. I have found through many years of "litigation", that when "attorneys" cannot prevail on fact, reason, and law, they relegate themselves to "theories" as if they are fact! While the statement "tell the lie often enough, it will be believed" comes to mind, let's address a "few" of the "alleged inaccuracies"?

Of course, the first of which was already addressed in open session last Thursday when I advised that Mr. Landy was never asked to "provide testimony" because this was never about Mr. Landy, rather the process used to make this "provisional appointment"!

But now that he has given additional "testimony" to his attorney based upon what she learned at the open meeting, how has anything changed? Of note is that " . . . Mr. Landry first submitted an application with an attached resume, as he was advised to do by City staff not in the Human Resorces Department."

That Mr. Landry submitted a "completed" application within 48 hours of notification that his original was not proper is fine except that when the record was provided on February 13, it was still not complete. When it was viewed on February 24, the supplementary application then had a signature but the other portion was still blank. When viewed at the Meeting on March 7th, the portion was still blank? If there now exists a "completed" application, this Commissioner has yet to see it!

Releative to item #2, I suppose one representing one could call it humility? I concluded that it was just "ole fashioned honesty", i.e., the provisional appointee admitted on TV and in writing that he had no "experience" in this discipline . . . end of story!

Relative to item #3, the Subcommittee report is NOT silent on the issue of equivalencies of education and experience, but rather places the CSC Rules regarding these issues as Exhibit J, to wit: "Additional RELEVANT education MAY be substituted for the required experience at the rate of one additional year of education for one year of required experience (EMPHASIS MINE). Accordingly, A relevent Masters Degree could have provided up to two years of experience. However, an "equivalent" Masters Degree from attending Army War College is not "relevant education" as shown by the couse word itself!

Relative to item #4 (The Chronology), while it is nice to know that he worked until January 17, 2003 with Raytheon, his employment history (page 1 of Exhibit I - 18 pages) that he "allegedly" filled out (correctly within 48 hours if I believe the March 13 averments), shows 06/02 to 12/02? That fact did not change on any of the dates I viewed the application, i.e., 2/3, 2/24, and 3/7?

Relative to item #5, there appears to be little, if any, comprehension of the facts? Lets examine #5 closely: "On the issue of Compensation and Fringe Benefits, those amounts are set by City Council in accordance with applicable provision of the Executive Compensation Plan of the City." The "PA's" attorney has made a brilliant statement which also is a true statement! However, as this statement would relate to the appointment, the City Council blundered badly because they were not advised of the "applicable provisions" of the Executive Compensation Plan (Exhibit L). First of all, a deferred compensation plan under 457 is not a "fringe benefit" as the City Attorney attempted to aver in her ill fated legal opinion. Second, if you watched City Council a week ago you heard Ms. Summerall state that "all deferred compensation" is paid by the employees and Chief Financial Officer Chapman agreed, thus this "provisional appointee" doesn't qualify as a "Plan Participant" and is apparently the "only city employee" getting this benefit paid by the City? Third, he could NEVER have been given anything above the midpoint pursuant to the unambigious facts and the requirements of Exhibit L, as the report clearly states!

While Ms. Cunningham has correctly pointed out that Human Resources found the "provisional appointee" qualified and the CSC has no ability to undo that determination, it remains to be seen if City Council will again give the "PA" another 6 months absent an "eligilble list"?

Obviously, politics won out with the refusal of 5 Commissioners to "adopt the report". Now all eyes should be on the Human Resources Department to see how they "solve" this little problem? As the two top positions in the current Department of Economic Development are both a result of an extremely questionable process probably not based upon merit, the citizens of El Paso should have great cause for concern?