I almost don't know where to start, but lets begin by keeping score. Remember who the people are that have been sticking up for the embattled City Manager all along the way... City Reps Michiel Noe and Emma Acosta. Niland has since seen the light after her initial support for the city manager and Larry Romero, well lets just say he has plenty of time for swanky golf tournaments these days.
I guess over the weekend there was some dust-up over Emma Acosta's effort to try to stack the Ethics Commission with supporters of Tommy Gonzalez. If you don't see that movida for what it is you should let Stevie Wonder drive you around from now on.
Now for all the spin you'll hear the choir of Tommy supporter's come out with, and most especially the bullshit from his attorney Jim Darnell, the fact of the matter remains that through an evidentiary process, in which Gonzalez was able to defend himself and present his own evidence, the Ethics Commission found that his violations rose to the level of a letter of admonishment.
That is a big deal and people are rightfully upset at what he has done.
Council voted to not give him an evaluation this year, and that vote was right before Gonzalez's ethics commission hearing. For all his talk of conspiracies behind every Whataburger with green chile and cheese, where the hell is Paredes on this one?
The majority on council were basically hedging their bets for their boy Tommy. I don't know any other employee of any other type that would be facing a formal hearing and their employer forgo their evaluation before the hearing. Now that there has been findings, and an admission from the then-city rep, can we now stop acting like there aren't major problems with Gonzalez?
But now the pottery barn rule kicks in, you break it, you buy it. So now Noe and Acosta own all the Gonzalez problems, although they basically have from day one when they first led the charge for his obscene raise.
So after a negative result from the Ethics Commission I wonder if they still think he was so deserving of such a ridiculous amount of money for a raise?
It will be interesting to see if city reps now try a backroom scheme to undo what the Ethics Commission did yesterday. I'm betting they will and I'm betting it will be led by either Acosta, Noe, or Robinson (in that order).
Here's the bottom line - the City Manager is in charge of the employees and making the trains run on time. How can he continue to be the City Manager when he's been admonished for not following the rules? How can he expect to be able to admonish his subordinates for infractions in light of the fact they he was found to have done so - and given far more due process than his subordinates are afforded in the process.
No matter how you spin this, Gonzalez has been another black-eye for the City of El Paso. He was part of something that the Ethics Commission would've have recommended removal from office of an elected official (Romero) if he hadn't already resigned.
Seriously, that is really bad.
Final quick blurb about Jim Darnell's assertion that the Commission can't find someone is unintentionally unethical. What the hell kind of bullshit statement is that? Yes, you can be unintentionally unethical.
In what scenario is intention every a defense to breaking a rule? Sorry I was late to work today boss, it was unintentional so you shouldn't write me up. Sorry, I shot the owner of the liquor store I was trying to rob earlier today, it was unintentional.
Give me a break. He's a lawyer and I'm sure he's even said the old cliche that "ignorance of the law is not a defense".
C'mon man, you're supposed to be the big go-to defense lawyer in town and that is your argument?