Who is Sidney Hall Maven and is the ANewspaper Tree@ the Original Source of News in El Paso?

Damn, here I am fat, dumb, and happy entering old age thinking I am a pretty nice guy with reasonable values and nothing to be ashamed of based upon the current 7 year statute of limitation? But I see an article in the El Paso Times concerning future base closings with several comments from Senator Shapliegh and former El Paso Economic Director Alan D. Landry that irrate me to the extent I write a response to the writer (Gary Scharrer). Now I didn't write the Editor, Mr. Scharrer responds that he doesn't doubt what I say, and the editorial staff soon wants me to cut it down to less than 200 words? I don't respond because I got everything off my chest to Mr. Scharrer but soon receive another email that they want to publish my letter if I could only cut it down! I do it, albeit they edit two things that I considered necessary, and it is published in the opinion portion of the El Paso Times. Soon afterwards, Mr. Scharrer sends me a cut and paste entitled ASilence from the Lambs and assumes I have seen it and wants to know if there is any truth to it? I give a response and request the link wherein I soon find out that I may not be the nice guy I thought I was - at least according to someone who calls himself Sidney Hall Maven? You may read the original article by clicking on ASilence from the Lambs below wherein the editor added the link. Suffice to say I waited several days to have my response printed (without postscripts) and when it was placed, Mr. Maven was allowed to respond immediately below my response as herein attached:

Ruck Responds to Maven

1. I have just become aware of your styled "original news source" with a query if there is any accuracy to the Sidney Hall Maven "Silence from the Lambs"   [Vol. 1, Issue 18] article that recently appeared as your "lead story". You were wise to disclaim any liability for tawdry news journalism like that of Mr. Maven and he apparently is unaware that it was his responsibility to check the "accuracy, completeness, currency and/or suitability" of his information. As to whether you are providing a "Public Service" and "original news" is questionable at best. [Editor's note: Thanks, dude.]

If Mr. Maven was present at council or watched it on TV, he would realize that it was Mr. Cobos who asked the item be moved to the forefront of the agenda. As I did not speak with Mr. Cobos on this issue and only advised Mr. Cushing that I had a lunch meeting at 11 a.m. that I could not miss, I can assume he asked Mr. Cobos to move the item up since I am the appointee on the Civil Service Commission for District #8. And Mr. Cushing probably was concerned that if I was not there to speak on the item, the human resources director may misrepresent the item=s intent as she did previously before pre-council. Allowing City Employees to test for new positions when they were absent for the entire bid process account sickness or vacation seemed like the fair thing to do for everyone on the Council except Mr. Powers; I am at a loss to why he voted no.

That Mr. Cobos or any Councilperson would move up a Civil Service Commissioner probably has to do with the fact the CSC tries to do the same for City Councilpersons when they wish to address the Civil Service Commission. That it rises to the level of innuendo suggested by Mr. Maven (favoritism/cronyism) is his opinion.

Regarding the "unofficial and unrecognized ad ho committee report", there were initial questions concerning the "authority" of the committee. Those questions were put to rest on February 27, 2003, to wit:

"MOTION UNDER ITEM 19 TO DELETE CURRENT "AMENDED REPORT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ETHICS ORDINANCE BY LANCE E. RUCK AND ROBERT A. CUSHING, JR. DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2003," AND AUTHORIZE A NEW SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS ENTITLED IN THE REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS RUCK AND CUSHING TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CIVIL COMMISSION MADE BY COMMISSIONER RUCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARRIS AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2.

Ayes: Commissioners Andrade, Harris, Ruck

Nays: Commissioner Sutherland, Mata"

(Source - February 27, 2003 CSC Minutes - Public Record)

In essence, previous questions regarding the authority of the Committee were made moot by a majority action of the Commission. It is further noted that the City Attorney to the Commission advised that the previous report may have violated the Open Meetings Act and this Motion sought to comply with the Act and hold an open Public Hearing (held March 7, 2003) before another report was issued! It is unknown why Commissioners Sutherland and Mata did not wish to follow the advice of our appointed City Attorney and have a report based upon a posted Public Meeting?

The Report does not "claim" that Alan Landry was not qualified for the position, it proves he was not qualified for the position and that numerous Rules of the Civil Service Commission and Charter were violated by Mayor Caballero=s "provisional appointment" of Mr. Landry (See City Charter, Section 6.6-2. and the Report with Exhibits)! Moreover, I didn=t "fail" to mention seven Commissioners rejected the report because the March 13, 2003 Minutes clearly show the report was rejected by a vote of 5 to 3. Commissioners Andrade, Cushing, and Ruck voting in the minority and Commissioners Sambrano, Berube, Sutherland, Mata, and Harris with the Majority. Suffice to say if Medina hadn=t abruptly withdrawn his reappointment of Commissioner Corona and placed Sambrano on the Commission, the vote would have been 4 to 4 and Chairman Graham would have broken the tie and accepted the Report. Yes, it was very political and yes, Mr. Maven=s assertion that seven Commissioners rejected the report is totally inaccurate.

While Mr. Maven apparently believes I have had numerous opportunities to be a Civil Service Watchdog, he only alludes to one, i.e., the transfer of various classified secretaries from the 10th floor. I found it interesting that our "Human Resources" Commissioners all averred this was a travesty yet readily admitted Management had the right to "transfer" employees with or without their consent. This was an unusual departure from their voting records and I queried how could we reject that management right IF one of these secretaries actually appealed her transfer rather than discussing it because an individual Commissioner instituted his/her own investigation into the matter. I found it interesting that he/she was given all records requested immediately by the Human Resources Director but I had to place a "open records request" to get information on the Landy issue. Apparently some Commissioners need a majority vote to investigate a matter and others don=t? Probably a "Human Resources" matter that I can=t possible comprehend!

As a practical matter, I was the ONLY Commissioner to demand to see the resume of Mr. Romero before I would approve his contract as Assistant Economic Director; and had he had the same type Bachelor=s Degree as Mr. Landry, I would not have approved the contract. I have met Mayor Wardy only once and I owe no allegiance to any politician in this town, not even Mr. Cushing despite the fact he is not a "good friend", he is my best friend.

As I don=t know Mr. Maven, his opinion of what I fancy myself to be is of no consequence ( I certainly know there are City Employees who appreciate my efforts on the CSC), particularly given his constant flight into Fantasyland. It appears the pill Mr. Maven took didn=t make him large or small but rather gave him hallucinations, i.e., that what he writes is of interest to anyone other than the sour grapes Caballero supporters!

As the Newspaper Tree has seen fit to publish the drivel of Mr. Maven, perhaps you would be good enough to publish my response unedited. Or do you view your "Public Service" as did Mayor Caballero, use a web site to engage in character assassination and misrepresentation of facts and then simply ignore the response without so much as an acknowledgement that you even received it?

Lance E. RuckCitizen of El PasoVoluntary Board Member - Civil Service Commission - District #8

Maven Responds to Ruck's Reponse to Maven

Thank you for reading the Newspaper Tree and for taking the time to respond to my column. I appreciate that you have pointed out some inaccuracies in my 11.25.2003 column, and I'd like to acknowledge that I was indeed incorrect on two matters: It was Mr. Cobos, not Mr. Cushing, who asked that the Human Resources item you wanted to speak on be moved up, and the Civil Service Commission vote to reject your report was indeed 5-3 and not 7-1. I always value reader input, and I will work harder to ensure total accuracy in all my columns.

However, I, too, would like to set the record straight on some of the issues you have brought up.

I went back to my notes on the 11.25.2003 meeting for further clarification on the "moving up" issue, and when Mr. Cobos asked to bring your item to the forefront, he stated that there was "a volunteer from the Civil Service who had an emergency to get to." When you stepped up to the podium, you did not correct the record to tell him you had a lunch, not an emergency, to attend to. In any case, the fact that you received preferential treatment cannot be disputed. It should go without saying that everyone wishing to speak at Council has other things to do, and sitting through a lengthy meeting inconveniences them, too. At that particular meeting, for example, there were several individuals waiting to speak on an important issue affecting their neighborhood. Do you doubt that they also had other things they wanted to do? Yet their item was not moved up. Who grants them these courtesies or fails to do so? Why were you granted such a courtesy, and why were you willing to accept this special and preferential treatment?

I'm happy that you concede that "there were initial questions concerning the "authority' of the committee" that drafted the report critical of Al Landry's appointment as Director of Economic Development. In fact, I believe that the committee "meeting" where you and Mr. Cushing came to your conclusions about Landry's qualifications was problematic on several levels: (1) it was not posted and open to the public, (2) City staff was not present; (3) the City Attorney who represents personnel was not present; (4) there were no formal minutes; (5) it was not an official committee. Because of these problems, as you conceded in your letter to NPT, that meeting and its participants (you and Mr. Cushing) almost certainly violated the Texas open meetings law.

You assert that your report does not merely "claim" that Alan Landry was not qualified for the position of Director of Economic Development; you say it positively "proves" he was not qualified. You also assert that Mayor Caballero violated numerous Civil Service Commission rules and the Charter with Mr. Landry's provisional appointment. In my view, this is simply an unsubstantiated claim, and nowhere in your letters to the other paper or to NPT do you support this claim. Moreover, as a volunteer Civil Service Commissioner, I contend that you are neither authorized nor qualified to make that assessment. Simply saying something is so does not make it so. With respect to Mr. Landry's alleged lack of qualifications, this also remains nothing more than an allegation. In neither letter did you cite a single fact that established that Mr. Landry was not qualified to be Director of Economic Development. This issue can be debated further; however, the specifics of Landry's appointment were not what I was concerned with. I will re-state my point later in my response.

Regarding the voting tally of the Civil Service Commission, the fact remains that the Commission rejected your report, and you did not mention this in your letter to the other paper. Moreover, your strategy here is clear-fasten on a factual error to avoid the larger issue. And just as important as the fact that the report was rejected are the reasons for that rejection-all of which are a matter of public record. One of the reasons it was rejected was because the City Attorney's Office informed the Commission that publishing the report could very well subject the City to liability for defamation. I would remind you that an essential element of defamation is falsehood.

You also did not state in your letters to the other paper or NPT that the Civil Service Commission has no authority whatsoever to approve or disapprove of department head appointments at City Hall. Yet, despite this fact, you and Mr. Cushing took the time and trouble to meet, discuss the appointment privately (not in an open meeting), and draft a report attacking the appointment of Al Landry as Director of Economic Development. Why on earth would two Civil Service Commissioners take the time and trouble and, presumably, the resources of the Civil Service Commission, to draft and present a report on an appointment the Commission has no authority over? If you believe so strongly that this was an appropriate use of your time (and that of the entire Commission when they had to decide whether to accept and publish the report), why didn't you create an ad hoc committee to draft a report on the violation of the Charter in the appointment of James Martinez as Chief Administrative Officer? By the way, his appointment did violate the Charter and here's why: The Charter states that the CAO is to have extensive municipal experience; Martinez had none, and you raised no objection to his appointment . . . not even an eyebrow.

You claim that I "allude" to only one potential civil service violation. I don't allude to anything in my column; I clearly made very specific and pointed accusations. In my column, I mention the fact that 10th floor secretaries have been kicked off the floor (you count those numerous violations as a single one); I also cited the CAO's appointment, the City Attorney's appointment, and the appointments of various contract employees who serve as "assistants" to the Mayor and City Representatives. I also pointed out that the appointments of the directors in the Planning and Building and Permitting departments are, at the very least, problematic. Finally, I mentioned the phenomenon of civil servants who are promoted from within earning less than outsiders brought in by the Wardy administration. There have been plenty of questionable appointments, all of which translate into plenty of opportunities for a person committed to the strict observance of rules and laws to make his objections known.

Thank you for pointing out that Mr. Cushing is your best friend. You claim that you have no allegiance to him, but you certainly cannot deny that you are an ardent supporter of his. In fact, you actively campaigned for him and celebrated his victory in person and on your website when it happened (http://home.elp.rr.com/elpasoexpress/cushingc.htm). He also calls on you personally to speak at his district-wide community meetings (http://www.elpasotimes.com/stories/borderland/20031119-46594.shtml). If this isn't allegiance, I don't know what is. This significant allegiance, if you prefer that word, is what granted you the privilege of getting to speak first at a busy City Council meeting while other people had to sit and wait for their item to come up in the order it was posted; furthermore, it is this allegiance that prevents you from speaking out against significant and egregious Civil Service violations. Wouldn't this be, by definition, cronyism?

With respect to Mayor Wardy, your allegiance to him can be inferred from that fact that you are not (as far as I'm aware) on record as raising any objections or concerns regarding his administration's creation of numerous contract positions that bypass stringent Civil Service requirements. Unlike what you did during the Landry appointment, you did not come to speak before Council during those innumerable appointments to voice your opposition (and you had plenty of opportunities). It can be also inferred from the fact that you are not (again, as far as I know) on record as raising any objections or concerns regarding high-level appointments of people who (unlike Al Landry) were manifestly unqualified and whose appointments clearly violated the City Charter. Somehow, your concern for adherence to the rules and the law vanished with the election of Joe Wardy as Mayor. You might say this is a coincidence. I would not.

In your own words, you have stated that you believe it is your duty to fight any wrongdoing. On your website, back in Spring 2003 (you don't have a specific date for that posting on your site), you claimed that --

". . . if we do not utilize the investigatory powers which are lawfully ours, and aggressively 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."

You go on to claim that, in light of an appointment that you saw as circumventing the Civil Service rules, "The theory of forgive, forget, and move on seems politically motivated and cannot be in the best interest of the Citizens of El Paso." (http://home.elp.rr.com/elpasoexpress/newpage14.htm) Finally, when you criticized the previous administration for approving Landry's appointment, you said --"while I am disappointed that the vote was not tabled, this was no 'surprise' to me as I have seen the 'rules' ignored with more audacity than occurred here repeatedly in the Smoot Court Decisions. As in that case, the decisions were politically motivated, with entities of governmental agencies specifically ignoring their own rules because there is little, if any, accountability to a higher authority who is not already on their side should they need to 'validate' their specious actions."

These very words describe the actions of the Wardy administration and your failure to criticize them makes you "culpable of violations of the 'Ethics Ordinance', and, moreover, [your] oath of office, [and] a true 'breach of duty', to the employees of the City of El Paso and the public in general."In my view your decision to abandon the responsibility you so strongly believed you had in the spring in order to benefit a different mayor today is a clear case of hypocrisy. My point in the past two columns was to demonstrate that your passionate fight (and that of Mr. Cushing as well) against what you saw as Civil Service violations ended the day that Joe Wardy and your "best friend" Robert Cushing got elected. What has stopped you from fighting the good fight? Why the silence now, when there is so much circumvention of not just the Civil Service rules but the City Charter as well?

In closing, I would like to say that to dismiss my opinions and my description of the current political climate as part of "Caballero sour grapes" is certainly your prerogative. However, I would like to make you aware of the fact that I have taken on a strict "no grapes" stance since the 1970s and will continue to do so. And to call my observations of City Council meetings "hallucinations" is also inaccurate, as those hallucinations, sadly, stopped when I finally had to get a job in the 1960s. And one final correction. You state that in my column I take flights into "Fantasyland". Unfortunately and much to the detriment of our community, we are indeed in flight -- not in Fantasyland, sir, but in "Wardyland."

Have a wonderful holiday!

Sidney Hall MavenCitizen of El Paso

Of course, what did not occur after that is my response, Mr. Maven=s subsequent response, and my final response with exhibit! It would appear that while Anew@ articles have now been posted for the beginning of the new year, the communications between myself and Mr. Maven are no longer Anewspaper tree worthy@??? Ah . . ., I wonder why that might be? Well, in any event, here is the communications not necessarily in order:

Dear Mr. Ruck:

1. Pardon my delayed response to your email, but I have been quite busy with my family during the holidays.

I, too, do not wish to get into an extended debate with you; it would be pointless. However, you refuse or are unable to understand my position, so I will try one more time to make it clear.

With respect to Mr. Landry=s qualifications, here=s a fact: The City of El Paso accepts resumes in lieu of applications; Landry submitted an extensive resume and that is a matter of public record. If you were not aware of these facts, then you based much of your claims regarding Mr. Landry=s lack of qualifications on false assumptions. If you did know this, then you have continued to deliberately distort the record. Either way, is this appropriate conduct for a Civil Service Commissioner? (By the way, I responded to your post-script, but my response, too, was edited by the NPT editor and publisher.)

You state that you refuse to address my other contentions Auntil such time as you introduce yourself to me and show me that you are a real person!@ I don=t know what to make of such a remarkable statement. Obviously I am a real person. However, refusing to address my other contentions for this reason is nothing more than ducking the issues.

I will also use this opportunity to repeat what you fail to acknowledge: The Wardy administration (which includes your Abest friend@) has committed egregious violations of both the charter and the civil service rules, while youCa civil service commissioner and an individual who was once a vocal critic of what you considered unethical behaviorChave remained silent. Here=s a recent case in point. As you may be aware, Wardy=s team has kicked out yet another talented public servant. Seventeen-year City veteran and Deputy City Attorney Laura Gordon was fired without cause this week (http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20031227-61249.shtml). She=s the dedicated lawyer who drafted the sexually oriented business ordinance and who has worked at City Hall for most of her professional life. She now joins the ranks of the managers who have been pushed out by the Wardy administration. It is shameful. But what is more shameful is that the Council and folks like you who are in appointed positions are completely silent about all this.

It was you, after all, who took it upon himself and went to great lengths to criticize an appointment even though the Civil Service Commission had no approval authority over that appointment. My question to you, which you so far have refused to answer, is why you do not criticize the continued misconduct of the Wardy administration. I agree that the Commission has no more power now than it did during the Landry appointment to veto high-level appointments or terminations. But that didn=t stop you before from speaking out. Why is it stopping you now? You and I both know the reason.

Thanks again for reading the Newspapertree. Have a wonderful new year.

SHM

P.S. I find it amusing that you tried to find ASidney Hall Maven@ in the phone book. You obviously did not get the play on words that the name represents.

Emanuel Anthony Martinez <editor@newspapertree.com> wrote:

I know the report was not rejected because the City Attorney advised that publishing it could subject the city to liability. Mr. Landry=s Attorney suggested possible legal action from the podium but was met with the ultimate reality: "The people who owe Mr. Landry an apology and who you may want to consider legal action against at sometime, are the people that misrepresented the facts to Mr. Landry and never advised him that he was getting preferential treatment and that other people had applied and that various rules were being broken that he was unaware of." (February 27, 2003 minutes). Of course, I made that statement; and I offered proof to his attorney during the open hearing but she wasn=t interested in viewing it - as you and NPT are not interested now? In your opinion, I haven=t offered anything other than allegations IF we continue to disregard the report and exhibits which are a matter of ! public record.

Dear Reader (haha): If you did not click on the Application of Alan D. Landry herein above, please do so now so that YOU, unlike Mr. Maven, will be able to distinguish a Fact from fiction! Yes, this is the very SAME application that Mayor Caballero said was Aproperly submitted@ - Ah . . . ., and that=s a FACT!!

I see my name only appears once in the latest Aoriginal news@ from Mr. Maven:

AEnter Michael Moffeit, the attorney referenced in item 11 and who is, presumably being hired to take over some of Gordon's duties. Again, Mr. Moffeit will be paid $91,000. I don't know if Moffeit has any municipal experience because Elizondo did not attach a resume to the agenda item -- I won't hold my breath waiting for Lance Ruck or Robert Cushing, both former Civil Service "watchdogs," to express their outrage -- but I wonder how many new city attorneys have been hired at such a remunerative salary.@

Yo, Mr. Maven, or whatever the hell your name is, PLEASE, please, please don=t hold your breath since City Attorneys are in the unclassified service and I don=t have a clue why Laura Gordon was fired! Suffice to say I don=t got no dog in that fight; take the issue up with Mr. Cushing but I understand you don=t want to communicate with him any more either! Whatever credibility you may think you have is lost when you can=t properly articulate the City Charter and CSC Rules but chose to be a Acritic@ of City Government fulltime! I found your recent innuendo that Mr. Cobos postponed something so he could accept bribes to be blatant defamation of character and slander! IF you have some hard facts then do your duty as a citizen rather than continue to pollute the environment with your trendy yuppie bullshit! Ah . . ., did I say hang in there and always have a nice day?