Be a Loyal Foot Soldier - Or Else

This may just be my opinion, but nothing says weak and ineffectual leader like surrounding yourself with sycophants. Today, we read in the Dallas Morning News that Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert doled out committee assignments. Freshman councilmen and women received chairman and vice-chairman appointments. Veteran councilwoman Angela Hunt will helm no committees. None. Not at all. Hunt has made it her business to study diligently the issues surrounding the Trinity River. But not only will she not oversee that committee, she's not even serving on it. Yes, Hunt has opposed Leppert's plans for the Trinit River project, as she also does his plans for the convention center hotel. And now, apparently Hunt is being punished for that, and for having the temerity to not rubber stamp what might be detrimental to the city. Now, Leppert makes the normal noises (for him) that he appointed the best people to these committee leadership positions. But a council person who has just taken the oath was given more weight than a veteran with many miles and many hours logged in the study of what is bad and good for Dallas - and that just doesn't pass the smell test. So maybe these people are completely qualified. But really, it more appears that Leppert is sending a message: Be a loyal foot soldier, because that's far more important than what you do for your constituents.

Is It Just Me, or Is This Misleading?

So I took a real good gander at the Vote No! Web site today - and noticed immediately Angela Hunt's photo on it. Now, let's begin this by saying the Vote No! site is for both Prop 1 and Prop 2, and urges a no vote for both. But that being said, it doesn't do much on the front page to distinguish between the two. So just on first glance, it looks like Angela Hunt is urging people to vote no on both. And we know that's not true. While yes, she does urge people to vote no on the harebrained Prop 2, she's decidedly on the Vote Yes! side of Prop 1. But she's also popular. She's known as being one of the smartest city council members and - to me - it looks as if they're trying to capitalize on that popularity by hinting she's for everything the Vote No! camp stands for. Couldn't they have used a picture of someone else? Update: Angela Hunt responded in the comments, and reports the photo has been removed. And another update: Wilonsky has more at Unfair Park.

Uh...

So today I read a story about a contretemps at the Dallas City Council meeting. It was - surprise - about the Trinity River levees and was - surprise again - involving Angela Hunt and Mitchell Rasansky, who accused Mayor Tom Leppert and City Manager Mary Suhm of flat out not telling the council about the issues with the levees. But the weird part - or rather, the part that gave me pause? Dwaine Caraway's reaction. I can understand defending people you respect. But I dunno - a simple, "I knew about it, maybe you weren't paying attention," might have been a little more on point than what the story says happened. The pause button quote:

I know a bunch of stuff that ought to be out here in the public and that would be most embarrassing and everything else," Caraway said, quickly adding that he wouldn't do so. "If we ... keep on beating them up, then I'm going to start doing some beatin' 'em up. And if I get to beatin' 'em up, it's really going to be something."

So he says he wouldn't use it, but then it sounds like he's reminding Hunt and Rasansky he has dirt on them, and would use it if he needed to. Which sounds like he would use it. Which confuses me. I mean, if it's something that would make them poor public servants, if it's something the voters should know, isn't he duty-bound to say whatever it is? Don't get me wrong, Dwaine Caraway has done a lot of good for his constituents, and you'd be hard-pressed to find another council person so involved in his area of the city. But now it feels like he knows something bad, nefarious, evil, and any/or any other word that connotates that, about these two people. And now it almost sounds like he's willing to keep it hidden - for a price. And that, sadly, is politics as usual. Say it ain't so, Dwaine.

Wherein she takes a brief break from the salt mines...

Sorry for the delay in posting - actual work began eating into my time to write. I promise to get cracking in the next few days. In the meantime, in light of city council candidate Charles “Chazz” Redd's newest campaign photo, I give you a new list of people now qualified to run for Dallas City Council: 1. Sylvester Stallone 2. Chuck Norris 3. Harrison Ford 4. Frank Drebin 5. Angelina Jolie 6. Lt. Dan 7. Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore 8. Stewie Griffin Can you think of any more? Comments are open.

What Say You, Dallas?

In a time of budget shortfalls in Dallas, all that irritation about Dallas becoming a nanny state with its raft of smoking bans may dissipate like so much Marlboro smoke, experts say. According to an Associated Press article today, many municipalities that just last year were discussing smoking bans or beefing up existing smoking bans have tabled the discussion because of the possible drop in tax revenue that would come from masses of people receiving just one more reason - besides saving money - to stay home and cook and drink as opposed to hitting a restaurant or bar for a night out. In other words, there are some cities out there that have decided that a wholesale ban of smoking could be knee-jerk and ill advised. Sure, the ban makes some constituents happy, but you know what makes more constituents more unhappy? Not having city services they've become accustomed to, or seeing those services reduced because of budget concerns. Long Beach, Calif., is mulling over the possibility of easing restrictions it already has in place. Kansas is finding passing a smoking ban to be a contentious issue. And, as the AP article explains, Atlantic City, N.J., Colorado and Wyoming are also having longer discussions about possible bans. I still say that cities are missing a huge revenue opportunity. Instead of banning smoking altogether, why not create a smoking establishment permit. It could be a set, uniform fee - or a fee based on a percentage of yearly or quarterly receipts. The permitted restaurant or bar can put their certificate near the entry, which alerts nonsmokers who feel strongly about it that it's an establishment that allows smoking, and they can choose to go elsewhere. The permit could possibly even be contingent having extra ventilation. It seems like it would be a way to make nearly everyone happy, and even help generate some additional revenue for the city. It also allows the businesses to make the decision themselves to allow smoking, and allows patrons to make up their minds themselves about where they'd like to eat or drink. Anyone else have any suggestions?

Dear Dallas:

So I hear you're having trouble keeping up with the repairs on the massive fleet of patrol cars. This got me to thinking - which sometimes leads to trouble, I'll admit, but this time I do wonder if perhaps I'm about to make too much sense. In the Dallas area, we have a plethora of community colleges. Instead of hiring a bajillion mechanics - which you've already said is going to be a daunting task - would it not be a better thing all the way around to perhaps partner with one of those colleges that already offers an auto mechanics certification program to offer a satellite program at the city garage? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the cost of one instructor to oversee the work the students do, and entry into the work-study program to pay the students, would allow for a steady influx of students to help with some of the more routine maintenance, as well as the more difficult stuff needed to become ASA certified. It seems to me that it would be worth looking in to, wouldn't it?