shang_stayhomeIn yesterday’s Diario de El Paso there was an article by Karla Guevara Walton where she details how Jane Shang, one of the city’s deputy city manager has been put on administrative leave since June 1, 2014. You might remember that Shane was at the center of the controversy involving the streetcar restoration project where the city had spent $4.7 million in environmental and engineering studies in hopes of receiving a $90 million grant from the state. The catch was the state had never promised the money so it wasn’t available to the city.

Now it seems that Jane Shang is receiving her full paycheck of $174,598.70 while on administrative leave from the city. According to a memorandum dated May 19, 2014 published by the Diario de El Paso, Shang’s employment agreement from 2008 was amended.

According to the memorandum, Jane Shang was reassigned “to a special project as determined and directed by the City Manager, effective immediately and continuing through May 31, 2014”. The memorandum goes on to state, that Shang’s annual salary is $174,598.70 and that she was placed “on paid administrative leave from June 1, 2014, continuing through December 31, 2014”.

The memorandum then goes on to state that Shang will “be placed on vacation leave from January 1, 2015 through April 14, 2015”.

It then states that Shang’s last day of employment at the city “will be on April 14, 2015”.

According to the memorandum, the city “will continue to match” her “employee contribution into the City’s pension fund and will continue your current employee benefits, including car allowance, parking, health insurance, vacation leave, sick leave, life insurance, holidays, personal days and professional development through April 14, 2015”.

In other words, Jane Shang is being paid by the city about $174,000 to stay home until April 14, 2015.

The question everyone should be asking is why was Jane Shang put on “administrative leave”.

More importantly, why is the city using taxpayer funds to pay her while she is not working?

If Jane Shang committed an offense that necessitated her being put on administrative leave then why continue to pay her? If, on the other hand, Shang was put on paid administrative leave because of the actions taken by an employee of the city then was that employee disciplined accordingly?

Notice how all we know is that the city spending the taxpayers’ monies and nothing else.

As always, it is the secrecy of personnel matters that conveniently keeps the community in the dark as to what is going on at the city. Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers that are paying Jane Shang to stay home.

And some still wonder why some individuals do not trust the city to do the right thing.

Martin Paredes

Martín Paredes is a Mexican immigrant who built his business on the U.S.-Mexican border. As an immigrant, Martín brings the perspective of someone who sees México as a native through the experience...

21 replies on “City Paying Employee to Stay Home”

  1. Martin – thank you. I was waiting for someone who knows nothing of Texas employment law to post this. I want to talk about it, but the first person to post a private personnel document is always the one named in the lawsuit! That’s you buddy!!!

    Head on over to my blog and I’ll explain why you’ll be a party to a lawsuit along with the city and your buddy Karla.

    Don’t start using your brain – that would be boring for the rest of us.

    1. David,

      You are right, like you, I am not a lawyer so I do not have a firm grasp on all aspects of labor law in Texas. However, unlike you, I have employed, terminated and paid wages to employees in Texas, other states and even in Mexico. Since it is my company, I am solely responsible for the consequence, if any; to those actions, I took with employees. Therefore, although I am not a lawyer I believe I have much more experience in labor law then you do. In addition, I have a better understanding of the responsibility that comes with blogging. As you know, unlike you, I have not had to issue a public apology on my blog, or remove posts because of my blogging activities. You have.

      I understand that you want to drive traffic to your little blog however; you do not need to lie about nonexistent legal issues in order to mention your blog on mine. How about just a little comment stating a fact, like, I blogged about this issue on my blog. Or, even Martin is wrong come read my take on it. You could even link to it, if you like. The truth works.

      Oh, I realize that your handlers have told you to lie to get attention but isn’t time you started thinking for yourself? Do you really want to continue being a useful idiot?

      Now, I do not have a full understanding about the Jane Shang issue but the blogger over at El Paso Speak does. ( You might want to read it.

      Try the truth once in a while; you might be surprised at the responses you get.

      Thanks anyway for your comments, however erroneous they are,

  2. Hey Martin, glad you are scared. You should be. Depositions suck. You’re going to be deposed. You’ll need a lawyer. That’s expensive. Judging by the time and effort you spent responding to me – you know all of this. I mean – you were sued successfully by how many people? At least Larry Medina, we know that. And just because I was nice enough to make your buddy Leeds feel better about being scum, doesn’t take away from the fact that he had to drop a frivolous lawsuit before he was embarrassed in court. You see, I win lawsuits and you lose them – I’m probably in a better position to speak on them.

    You see, the difference between El Paso Speak – someone who actually employees a few people – and you is that you posted a screen shot of a document that was not supposed to see the light of day. Brutus knows better – he stuck to what was in El Paso Times. You have access to something you shouldn’t. You posted it. Now they are going to want to know how you got it. Who pays you to write your blog. Who inside city hall you talk to. All of your lies and the people paying you to lie are now possibly exposed. You wouldn’t want your benefactor having to deny his involvement with you, would you? He’s just a family man – why are you doing this to him?

    Balmorhea – your IP is no secret… you spend all day on my blog. Nice try.

    1. Oh wow, David you really have no grip on reality. I am so glad you brought up Larry Medina. You do mean Larry Medina the felon who admitted in court that he is corrupt! He even spent time in jail for it. I am proud to admit I lost a lawsuit brought on by a corrupt individual! Larry Medina sued me because he wanted to shut down the mechanism that people used to use to show how corrupt he is.

      In other words, like you, he did not want people exposing the truth because the truth is that he is corrupt! The legal system finally caught up to him and exposed him for the corrupt individual that he is. By the way, Larry Medina was also linked to public corruption at the city in court. I wonder if you know, some of the people at the city that are yet to be identified that partook of Larry Medina’s corruption.

      By the way, the penalty I paid for the case I lost to Larry Medina was exactly zero. I agreed to provide him advertising on the very mechanism he wanted to shut down and I never did.

      None of that negates the fact that you publicly apologized for a post you posted on your blog. You also removed at least one post after being threatened with a lawsuit.

      Not that it matters to you since the truth isn’t something you care about; the copy of the document I posted came from a public source. It came directly from a newspaper that actually practices the art of journalism, the Diario de El Paso. Unlike the El Paso Times, masquerading as a newspaper, the Diario actually encourages investigative news reporting. I’m sure it’s a concept you wouldn’t understand.

      I do not know who Brutus is so I will not comment on the blogger other than to say his take on the Jane Shane issue is more detailed than anyone else’s, including mine.

      As for who pays for my blog, that would be me. Unlike you, I have no benefactor. I work for a living and I pay for my blog out of my own hard-earned money. I don’t have a mommy to run to when I need pay bills.

      Again, try the truth once in a while; it might actually blow your mind as to how refreshing it can be.

      Thanks for taking the time to read my blog,

      1. Bal, David thinks he knows everyone who post due to their IP. Funny, my IP changes daily. When i search my IP it just shows El Paso, No address and points to the servers location. At many different times my IP will pick up on different servers all over town with completely different numbers. On my Laptop my Wifi picks ups everywhere according to where I am in the City. Now, if you post with the same IP all the time then yes he would know.

  3. DK loves secrecy in government. That way his developer and contractor friends get to plunder the city checkbook and avoid the inconvenience of being outed. Not that the average Jose here gives a crap.

  4. Martin,

    Did you notice that those news resources referred to the document, but didn’t post? There’s a reason Mr. Smarty Pants. When a council member starts passing out internal documents (as your sources are notorious for doing) that aren’t for public consumption, “real journalists” know better than to post them. They simply refer to them as a source. Why? so they don’t get sued or get their sources sued.

    And I didn’t remove any post after being threatened – I doubled down and made fun of the guy by being a clever smartass. I stand by what I write – because it’s the truth.

    What ever happened to Stuart Leeds? Using your reasoning – I’m a hero and you’re not thinking ahead when you compare our situations.

    1. David,

      I should know better than to argue with someone who would rather lie then know the truth. As I wrote on my blog, I learned about this issue through the Diario de El Paso. Karla, acting as a real reporter, investigated and gathered the facts. I did not know about this until I read Karla’s article. The document you are so shocked to see (or your handlers are shocked to see) was published by the Diario.

      See the screen capture here.

      I did not have access to the document nor did I know about it before I read it in Karla’s article. Now, just to be clear and so you don’t play word gymnastics, if I had seen or received a copy of the document then I would have gladly published it on my blog before anyone else.

      You know why? It is because it is a factual document. The only people who don’t want the facts to be revealed are those that have something to hide.

      Why is it that you, your supporters and especially your handlers don’t want the truth to be publicly discussed? Is it because for corrupt people the facts are just inconvenient truths?

      The truth will set you free. Aren’t you tired of being a useful idiot?

      Again, thank you for taking the time comment on my blog,

  5. Mr. I-Only-Blog-When-We-Need-To-Coverup-Or-Mislead-The-Facts-To-Help-My-Mommies-BFF is back again.

    Good reporting Martin. And just so you know the story and the document in question have been posted on numerous FB pages, blogs, etc.

    AS far as the law, in the landmark case, State of Calif. vs. Trashy Celebrity Magazines, et. al. , the California 5th District Court upheld that directing someone to the scene of a crime with intent to have them participate in a crime being committed ( in your case, DK’s assertion that you are breaking the law, civil or criminal. by posting the document; therefore we could be participating by looking at it) was a punishable act and could subject ALL parties to imprisonment and fines. So, I guess that DK, you, me, and FaceBook could all be in trouble…….

  6. Martin,

    There’s something interesting about your copy. There’s something a little less interesting about theirs. Notice nobody is saying how they got this document. Nobody saying EXACTLY how they obtained the document. If someone were to do an ORR on the ORR – what would we find? That’s where the problem is. Especially since we have emails with both karla and martin as recipients from members of council and staff.

    And just because Martin might get sued doesn’t mean he’s done anything wrong. I was sued and I did nothing wrong. I happen to have pro bono representation so it was a waste of Leed’s time and killed his goal of making me spend money. What Martin did was dumb. at the least they’ll depose him and he will under oath have to talk about who pays his bills, who gives him information from executive session etc et al.

    It’s no secret the DA has been watching this site all along to track down how Martin is getting inside executive session. The leakers are in trouble – Martin is their worst enemy.

  7. PHEW!….Listen up everybody, we ain’t going to jail!

    This is from the Texas Attorney General’s Office Public Information Act handbook, page 19:
    Personnel Information
    47. What information within a public employee’s personnel file is an open
    The vast majority of information within a public employee=s personnel file is considered an open
    record and accessible to the public. For example, information about a public employee=s job
    performance, dismissal, demotion, promotion, resignation, and salary information is generally
    considered open. Similarly, job-related test scores of public employees or applicants for
    public employment are generally treated as open records, as are letters of recommendation,
    and opinions and recommendations concerning other routine personnel matters. However,
    Attorney General rulings have required information about an employee=s withholding on a
    federal tax form to be withheld, as well as information about an employee=s beneficiary under
    governmental body life insurance programs. A governmental body may refuse to reveal
    certain information under common law privacy through Section 552.101 of the Government
    Code. To make such a determination, the governmental body should consider:
    1. whether the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts about
    the person; and
    2. whether there is any legitimate public interest in the release of or access to this
    Under the above two-part test, a court has held that a governmental body did not have to release
    the names and statements of victims and witnesses alleging sexual harassment.128 The court
    found that the information at issue was intimate or embarrassing and that the public had no
    legitimate interest in the release of that information.

  8. There’s no way all the law schools in this country could put out enough lawyers to satisfy all the lawsuits DavidK always threatens or claims will happen… or to subpoena the web to identify the IP addresses his clairvoyant mind claims tell him who all of us are, street addresses, social security numbers, bank accounts, day we lost our virginity, etc., etc. just by seeing different sequences of numerical digits and dots, on his screen.

    Seriously, there are many pills for such delusions. Maybe his momma and daddy can pay for that too.

    1. DK is beginning to act like Norma when it comes to law suits that will never be filed – lots of drama but no substance. This whole thing should have remained private, IMHO, except for a review by CC also in private.

  9. Oh, but thanks for letting us know DA Esparza (we assume that’s the DA you’re referring to DavieKboy) spends his time reading this blog. That explains his failure to ever bring any public official in El Paso County to trial for corruption or to do something about that pesky police brutality problem that has some of our finest shooting suspects to death. He’s too busy reading this blog and reporting it to “everyone” so they all know.

  10. what david sees as interesting in martin’s pic is it looks clearer. he assumes(hopes,insinuates) martins jpeg is from an original copy. the diario’s pic is larger therefore it looks grainy and less clear, but was blown up so the reader could read it better(how it looks on the site, not sure about the paper version, and not sure how their original looks). martin could have been in the presence of the original that karla had before she put it in the diario. all i see is that martin posted it after the diario. from what i can tell thats all that really matters from a legal standpoint. if he say’s karla showed it to me or scanned and emailed it to me and said she was putting it in the diario and says he doesnt know how she got it then thats about it from what i can tell. how karla got it, who knows , but david went after martin, not realizing that he posted it after the diario.

Comments are closed.