This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

SO.....the plot thickens.

Both the Victoria Sales Tax Development Corporation board of directors and the Victoria City Council meet in the council chambers at 107 W. Juan Linn St. On Tuesday, the sales tax board will meet at 4 p.m. and the city council at 5 p.m.

Inquirer,

This chart: www.victoriawatchdogs.com/diagram

It hasn't been updated in over 6months, so it probably needs some tweaking. Many of the organization bubbles have hyperlinks to their respective websites if you'd like to verify the org's make-up.

PatB,

What chart are you referring to? I'd love to see who serves on what board. Might be very informative at a time like this...

It is not so much a question of a reflection of how few people want to serve or the abuse heaped on our community leaders by bloggers.
I strongly agree with Jeff Williams...persons who try to change are quickly put in their place. Again, look at Ms. Rangel who was elected to represent her district and was convinced to vote against them.
Please feel free to see the history of the voting past of the Victoria council and see if this does not show some light as to a matter of concentrating the "power" of these organization in fewer and fewer people.

"I am very hesitant to comment," Armstrong said. "The wording of the resolution before the sales tax board speaks for itself."

The resolution reads, in part, "the board wishes to reaffirm its prior amendment of the budget in light of the filing of House Bill 2556 in the 82nd Texas Legislature by Representative Geanie Morrison."

If a lobbyist was paid with our tax dollars, then every single one of them that voted for that needs to go! That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Someone please tell me I'm reading into this?

radiobabe,

I believe you are somewhat naive in your view on the subject. Look at what happened with the council representation on the Sales Tax Development Board. Gabriel Soliz, was replaced BY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL by Halepaska (4-3 vote). This is not a case of no one willing to serve this is obviously a matter of concentrating the "power" of these organization in fewer and fewer people.

During the meeting where the new board members were "elected" it was stated that those members who had agreed to serve would be considered first. Mr. Soliz was willing to serve again but was blindsided by Armstrong and gang. There were two other individuals who had submitted applications for other positions but they were not even considered. Armstong allowed Halepaska's name to be submitted in the form of a nomination to unset Soliz who was willing to serve. Armstrong DID NOT allow the other two names to be submitted for a vote.

I could continue with other boards that similar actions took place but it won't accomplish anything to mention them. There has been and continues to be a concerted effort to concentrate the control of decisions affecting the City of Victoria into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

My thoughts: www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblogs/para...

I agree PatB, unfortunately many qualified individuals have to earn a living before they can consider serving their communities. Many of the public servants are individually wealthy or are long time business owners with the flexibility to be available to serve in the various capacities. That means many bright, qualified individuals with new fresh ideas do not even consider public service due to the time constraints of work leaving us only a small handful of people that run our town.

PatB,

I think it's more a reflextion of how few people want to serve. And sadly, based on the abuse heaped on our community leaders by bloggers, I don't blame the public in general from not wanting to enter the fray.

Should there be that much "intermarriage" among our local elected officials and the various groups that control the city/county government? I have seen a chart related to this and it is scary how few people actually control things.
Patrick Barnes