Thursday, August 14, 2008


To the Brownsville City Commission and Mayor Pat Ahumada:

I am calling on the Brownsville City Commission to issue a public rebuke of Commissioner Atkinson for the following remarks made on

"And a follow-up: Where is my comment faggot? Post it! For someone who comes across like a know it all, you sure lack balls boy. Its alright, I saved it and I'll show it to Joe Rod. He has to feel somehow your blog has caused damage to his legacy. Dumbass!!!! If I were your wife, I would leave your ass!!!!!charles atkinson08.13.08 - 12:05 pm
Guess I hit a nerve. Huh. Who knew?

If he did not make the comments then I suggest he take immediate action against Chris Davis for alleging otherwise. Brownsville has an emerging gay and lesbian community which for years has feared discrimination by public officials. I am particularly concerned with the impact these type comments have on young gays and lesbians dealing with all of the emotional issues associated with coming out of the closet. Gay and lesbian youth suicide remains a problem in the US.

I have filed a formal complaint with Adriana Gonzalez with Customs and Border Patrol - my concern is with whether or not Mr. Atkinson is mistreating men and or women he considers to be gay as they cross the Gateway Bridge back into the US. I am also concerned with whether or not he was on the job at the time he posted these comments to Brownsville cannot move forward as a city which welcomes a diversity of people with open arms if it is unwilling to take action against such comments made by a City Commissioner. How the City Commission responds to my request will speak volumes about how this City Commission views its gay and lesbian taxpayers and residents.

For the record - I do not believe there is any legal basis for Chris Davis' complaint concerning Atkinson's appointment of his brother to the Charter Review Committee. Nepotism has always been about money and wages. Any rule which would prohibit commissioner family members from serving on Citizen Committees would be highly suspect as being unconstitutional. These are participatory committees wherein every citizen afforded an opportunity to participate has a right to serve. If they were receiving any compensation or making policy not subject to Commissioners review then I would be concerned - but they are not. Further, the so called Nepotism policy is so vague no judge would be so dumb as to interpret it to prohibit public volunteer service by an entire class of Brownsville residents.


Anonymous said...

CBP Employee Responsibilities and Conduct
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 1. PURPOSE. This directive establishes the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policy on the ethical conduct and responsibilities of employees. 2. SCOPE. This CBP directive applies to all ... standards_of_conduct/std_of_conduct.ctt/std_of_conduct.doc -

BobbyWC said...

I believe this is the link - - here is a small part

4.2 Certain conduct, on or off duty, may subject an employee to appropriate disciplinary action whether or not such conduct is specifically addressed in these standards, the standards listed above under Authorities, or in related statutes or regulations. Employees will be held accountable for their actions, and will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action when their conduct:

• Fails to conform to these standards or related statutes and regulations.
• Raises the presumption of a connection between the conduct and the efficiency of the service because of the nature and gravity of the conduct (e.g., criminal conduct).
• Directly and negatively impacts the job performance of an employee or his/her co-workers, or management’s trust and confidence in an employee’s job performance.
• Adversely affects or interferes with CBP’s accomplishment of its mission.


5.1 Every CBP employee is required to: (1) know the Standards of Conduct and their application to his or her behavior; (2) seek information from his or her supervisor if unsure of the application of the Standards of Conduct; (3) adhere to the Standards of Conduct; and (4) be aware of the consequences of violation of the Standards of Conduct, and of applicable statutes, regulations and rules regarding conduct.


6.1 CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. Employees shall not engage, on or off duty, in criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or any other conduct prejudicial to the government.

6.2 PROHIBITED ACTIONS. Employees will avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by these Standards of Conduct, which might result in, or reasonably create the appearance of:

• Using public service for private gain.
• Giving preferential treatment to a private organization or individual in connection. with official government duties and/or responsibilities.
• Impeding government efficiency or economy.
• Engaging in activities which conflict with official government duties and/or responsibilities.

Now if Atkinson claims he never made the statments the real kicker where this gets interesting, Chris Davis could find himself in a position of providing CBP access to his computer - LOL

Bobby WC

Mas Triste said...


If these comments were racial, the city would be going crazy.

It is sexual orientation and not a peep.

This is pathetic.