Nine Steps to Occupy America

Occupy Austin website, calendar, forums: here.
---------------------------------------------------------

My friend and mentor (and former employer during his 2006 campaign for Texas Atty. General), David Van Os, has developed some hard-hitting proposals that should definitely be considered by the Occupy Movement. While some of these are admittedly not easily attainable, if we don't call for radical change, we'll be left with a few nominal legislative band-aids that won't serve to mend the very cultural fabric that has been ripped to shreds in our country.

While we have such language in the Declaration of Independence, in Texas, the expression of our right to "alter, reform or abolish" our government is folded right into our Constitution. But this right is inherent. It's just been lost on us in the propaganda machine.

Many have expressed the lack of coherent solutions being offered in the Occupy movement - which has taken hold across the world. It's time for us to bravely assert that We, The People, expect much more than power brokers listening to our grievances. To that end, I offer the following piece by David.

And as David is famous for saying, "fight them until hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice!"

------------------------------------------------------

OCCUPY AMERICA
By: David Van Os

(Note: every person who reads this is hereby granted permission to forward, quote from, re-publish, or re-post this article by any means and in any forum desired. I would appreciate your citing my authorship if you repost or quote directly.)

The young people who started and grew the Occupy Wall Street movement have given their country and the world an incredible gift. We should all thank them a million, billion, trillion times. I’ve participated in Occupy Austin several times at the Austin City Hall Plaza where the Austin branch of Occupy Wall Street has its nerve center. It is inspiring to experience people of all backgrounds coming together through their natural human rights to speak freely and assemble in public places because they hold common grievances against an unresponsive political-economic system and have decided in common that enough is enough. It is especially inspiring to experience the horizontal decision-making processes of the movement, showcasing full participatory democracy without ego-tripping leaders or control hierarchies.

The right to revolutionary change is deeply rooted in the American psyche. For example, the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article 1, Sec. 2, TEXAS CONSTITUTION) states that “all political power is inherent in the people”, and that the people have “at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” This inalienable right is subject only to “the preservation of a republican form of government”, i.e., self-government by the people. Various other state constitutions contain similar confirmations of the inherent sovereignty of the people.

Respectfully, I submit that the articulated mission statements, demands, and goals of the movement need to call for change of a more revolutionary nature. The movement should demand not reform of the established order, but its downfall. I submit the demands should deliver a message that the entire oligarchy controlling the unresponsive political-economic system has to be peacefully removed and replaced to give the people a fresh new start. Listed below are some demands that I suggest. (My endnotes are simply commentaries. They are not part of the demands themselves. A mass movement’s demands must be basic and plain. The final details evolve in the people’s ongoing self-government of the movement in response to the fluidity of situations.)

1. That every member of the U.S. Congress resign and new elections be held in every state and district, with open access to the ballot and equal access to free airtime on broadcast media.[1]
2. That every director and officer of every Wall Street bank permanently resign.
3. That every Wall Street bank’s charter to do business be revoked.
4. That the banks be broken up in order to get new charters.
5. That the new charters place strict caps on executive compensation.
6. That every corporate charter be amended to prohibit corporate contributions to political parties and candidates.[2]
7. That the old usury laws be restored: absolutely no interest greater than 10% per annum can ever be charged on any transaction.
8. That the Federal Reserve Board be abolished and no individual private bank or group of private banks ever again be given a monopoly over the issuance and control of the nation’s currency.
9. That the president and vice president resign and the replacement elections take place through a speedy election process that reduces the influence of money. [3]

In other words: Replace the government, Break up Wall Street, Disarm the bankers, End the power of money in politics, End corporate contributions, and End the Fed.

A mass movement’s demands must be continuously repeated and the mass occupation and peaceful street action and guerrilla theater must continue, grow, and escalate until the demands are met. The established order will not fall overnight. But if we stay true to ourselves and resolve ourselves to fight till hell freezes over and then on the ice, it will fall.

Power to the people.
Revolution now.
OCCUPY AMERICA.

Respectfully,

David Van Os
Texas Patriot

[1] Here is an example of how the election process could be opened up. Candidates run in open primaries so that the political parties would not control ballot access. No monetary filing fees. Each candidate who can present 250 signatures of support to run for a House district or 1,000 signatures to run statewide for a Senate seat gets on the ballot. Each candidate on the ballot gets an equal amount of free airtime on every FCC-licensed broadcast carrier that broadcasts in the election district. No single change would diminish the influence of money more than free equal access to free airtime. Current members of Congress would be able to run for the new Congress so that the voters would have the opportunity to elect them again if the voters choose to do so.

[2]This is a simpler way to overturn Citizens United than amending the U.S. Constitution. Every state has laws governing how corporations get chartered and what the requirements are for getting chartered. It is a matter of state law that the Supreme Court can’t touch. This change is simple, but would require legislation in every state. But amending the Constitution would also require demanding it in at least ¾ of the states, and passing simple-majority legislation is procedurally easier in every state than passing a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. Nationwide state-focused action would focus and grow the Occupy movement even more. From the occupation of Wall Street, to the occupation of America.

[3]For example, with each political party selecting its nominee either through all primaries being held on the same day in the states where the party has ballot status, or through a national convention; with each candidate in the nominations races given an equal amount of free broadcast media airtime on FCC-licensed carriers in each state; and with each general election nominee of each party given an equal amount of free broadcast media airtime on FCC-licensed carriers in each state where the party has ballot standing.

Occupy Austin: "Why Are You Not Here?"

Call to Action: OCCUPY AUSTIN! Thursday, Oct. 6, 2pm - ?? (overnight/bring your own water/food/creature comforts-no sleeping though, that's officially illegal), City Hall "Free Speech Plaza," Cesar Chavez and Lavaca. Join the 99%!

The Occupy Wall Street General Assembly, in solidarity with the recent movements ranging from the Arab Spring to actions in Wisconson, has codified a list of grievances along with a call to action:

"To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone....

Join us and make your voices heard!"

People are joining around the nation and world and the Occupy Austin General Assembly, through a time-consuming (true democracy is!), consensus-based facilitated process involving hundreds of voices over the course of daily community meetings in the past week, and recognizing "that our system of economics is badly broken," developed a mission statement last night: "to assert our rightful place within the political process, and take the reins of power away from profit-driven interests."

A few days earlier, the assembly invited all "to participate in the return of our Democracy and to add to the problem solving that must come from We the People, now. Our political leadership on all levels, has failed the People of America." Occupy Austin stands "in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who occupy Wall Street and occupy around the world. We are dedicated to non-violently reclaiming control of our governments from the financial interests that have corrupted them. We demand that our public servants recognize that the people are the supreme authority."

So join in and become part of the people-driven problem-solving.

Solutions, you ask? Yes - we need to discuss the many ideas and decide on a common platform. We don't need people complaining that a brand new organizing committee isn't presenting a complete menu of solutions. Join the movement to insert your voice to get us there. It's a process. It's democracy. It takes work. This isn't a button on a website where you can just join/support notions developed by others on your behalf. A true movement starts in the streets...not in cybersphere.

An opinion-editorial written by Travis Heights resident and local businessman, Carl Lindemann, and recently submitted to the Austin American-Statesman for publication (hopefully tomorrow or Friday) makes some good observations about this point:

"Critics claim they don’t see any specifics here. This is all just a childish, incoherent gripe. Get over it! Apparently, they need polished corporate public relations messaging to legitimize this. Instead, we have this rising generation finding its voice. How can they get on point without focus groups?"

and:

"Those questioning Occupy Austin would do well to remember a legendary exchange between Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Thoreau had been jailed for refusing to pay the poll tax, and Emerson visited him along with some skepticism of his wisdom in this. 'Henry, why are you here?' Emerson asked. Thoreau answered, 'Waldo, why are you not here?'"

Photo courtesy of Reagan Hackleman:

Formula One: Robin Hood in Reverse

F1 Subsidy - Now You See It, Now You Don't!

The Statesman twittered, "NO TAXES FROM AUSTIN!" and Wells Dunbar at the Austin Chronicle tweeted it was "a great sounding F1 agreement." We're off the hook, it seems. We're not investing $40 million of local public monies into the Formula One race after all, right?

"Nothing up my sleeve...look! No subsidies!" is the subtext to Mayor Pro Tem Martinez' FaceBook announcement Thursday afternoon. "No Austin taxes at all will be used, leveraged, borrowed….what ever. It’s all private funding. But we still get the huge benefit of the sales tax from the site."

Wow! OUR HERO! Right?

Hold the parade..."it's all private funding"??? NOT so much. There's still the little matter of the state coughing up $250 million, and we, in Austin, have the responsibility and the power to stop that.

Us Austinites, along with the rest of our fellow Texans, fed the Major Events Trust Fund (METF) trough that almost got re-routed back into the general fund at the end of the regular legislative session - thanks, ironically, to Sen. Watson who lined up right behind Rick Perry to bring us F1 in the first place. Our money is in that pot and could be used for something else, like schools or healthcare, as was discussed on the Senate floor May 23, IF, in the special session-education budget conference committee happening this week, someone puts that on the table again.

What Does 25 Million of Our Tax Dollars Pay For?

Remember when the Comptroller's office once said this money would not go to the promoter, but to the local entity to reimburse it for costs? Well, they did. Then, we found out that's not true (*gasp...they lied!*). It is, in fact, planned to go to the promoter to "pay the sanctioning fee London-based Formula One Group charges for the privilege of hosting the first of 10 annual F1 races planned for Austin beginning in 2012.”

It's going to Bernie Ecclestone, one of the richest men in the world that runs one of the most profitable entities on the planet.

We Get Nothing Now Via the METF

There are still costs to make this thing happen that F1 expects us to pay for - things normally these METF funds pay for - and we won't get any of the METF dollars from F1 since it all goes to their sanctioning fee. We will have to invest local public monies. Martinez said, "no Austin taxes at all will be used"...yet Austin taxpayer dollars will be spent (besides our portion already paid into the METF and the $13.5 million for water/wastewater lines out to the track). Disingenuity is not exactly a "heroic" trait.

There's roads (construction then REconstruction after getting torn up by 100,000+ vehicles), police, water, etc. We haven't determined them all yet. We haven't seen the contracts. We haven't seen the studies. We haven't seen the analyses. There aren't any to see, Assistant City Manager Sue Edwards confirmed last week. Last fall, F1 representative Richard Suttle promised Del Valle residents they'd pay for several impact studies for them - on which he has not delivered, much less mentioned again.

The Mayor tried to tell us we won't have to budget for it--but how we going to pay for the supporting costs for the first race, or any subsequent race if we're no longer eligible for any of that state pot?

$4 million being off the table changes nothing about how we still aren't anywhere near ready to vote on whether we should be on the hook for these costs...on whether we should unlock the METF floodgates from the state. How will Austin justify it to the rest of Texas?

Besides the fact that the METF is an incentive fund -- but they're already here...building out the track right now.

Texans Who Go To F1 Will Pay For It Twice

This money was allocated to the METF and it can be re-allocated right back into something more worthy than providing welfare to a few very rich international folks to entertain other rich folks. Of course, what's not being mentioned is that the majority of folks coming to the races will be Texans - the ones that don't have to spend gobs of money to travel here (and aren't likely to spend $1,500 each person/day as the Comptroller "predicts"). The trend for F1 in less exotic spots like Great Britain is that only a handful of spectators come from out of country.

So you like Formula One racing? Great. While I'm a little "NIMBY" myself on the matter (it will be a nightmare in terms of numbers, traffic, public safety, environmental hazards/non-attainment, lack of water resources, etc--for a full month, not just 3 days a year, as 1000s from the teams are here prior preparing), just realize that your taxes are subsidizing it even before you buy a ticket. Then most of the tax from what you spend while in Austin will go back into the fund, to go back to F1 - not the local entity. We merely get any leftover, if there is any.

This is not a deal to tax 100,000-300,000 out-of-state visitors -- for 'free money,' this amounts to making Texas race fans pay twice for the "privilege" of having it in their backyard. A vicious cycle considering there's no need to offer welfare to some of the richest people in the world at all. You're already stuffing their wallets, why do it twice?

Petra Ecclestone, daughter of the F1 magnet, is buying the most expensive mansion in the United States as a second home.

Formula One Updates tweets: "Ferrari have extended their contract with Marlboro which is set to be worth $480,000,000 in 3 years."

These people and their sponsors are rolling in it. Why are we scraping the bottom of the Texas barrel to help them make more money? Is it because F1 is costing more every year and making less which means Petra might have to downgrade to the 2nd most expensive home in the U.S.? Which also means we aren't going to see the local riches we're being promised. So we have to double-question the trade-off in costs - which we don't know yet.

They suggested in their commercial that one event will generate $5 BILLION; that the local economy is supposed to reap $400 million: they said 8% was our portion of their take, which would be $5B. But listen closely to the commercial. It's double-speak. It seems more like they will make $400M (a still-inflated, but more reasonable, figure), so that we get $32 million--but what are our costs? No event in the country has ever generated $5 billion. Ask Jerry Jones.

North Texas cities brought in paltry numbers during last year's Super Bowl. Comptroller projections were $31.2 million...but it looks like they brought in less than half that, depending on which source you use and whether they isolated taxes from just game goers or not. Some cities saw no increase in sales tax revenue from January to February: game month. Granted, ice and snow storms hurt attendance and sales, and perhaps F1 will bring a few more people with fatter wallets, but $5B?

We simply don't have the capacity to support that many people or sell that much stuff (Dallas, maybe: see #7), whether we're talking $5B or $400M. We have no 5 star hotels or restaurants. We don't even have near enough high class call girls that will be in demand (of course, we can't tax that), much less enough limos for hire.

Austin's "cool" but not "fa-fa-shi-shi." We're "weird;" not "money."

Welfare Reform Now! (For the Rich)

What do our Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember Shade have in common with Governor Perry? They're all very much in support of subsidizing F1 however they possibly can...even if it's "only" locking the state into doling out $25 million/year -of our money- for 10 years.

Our Guvnah told a crowd recently in New York City ("NYC?"), as he wrote in his book, the federal government "spends too much." Meanwhile, he was the first to promote F1 subsidies. The trumpeting trio on Council are a bit schizophrenic as well...Mayor Leff says we gotta "tighten our belts" and Shade's all "meat and potatoes," but playing host to a luxury sporting event? No prob.

What's in it for Martinez to play "hero"? $25,000 at least for his next run. Shade got that this run-off just from Suttle's firm, plus some, as we don't know what businesses -under individual names- contributed that will directly profit from F1. Nor do we know who the private investors are who may have also (33% of her contributions were from out of town) - more information we lack to make an informed decision next week.

We Can't Vote This Thursday

We can't vote on their application ("accept" it, according to statute) prior to one year before the race is scheduled. While June 17, 2012 has been penciled in by Full Throttle Productions/F1, it has not been confirmed by the The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile who is the governing body for F1. First Ecclestone pipes in and then the World Motor Sports Council votes to ratify the entire year's calendar. If ratified, the date becomes official. This vote is not scheduled to take place until the "the September or December WMSC meeting."

Todd Wroblewski explains in a letter to council: "The date of the race is significant not only to the application, it is also the key to determining the economic impact of the race. The statute requires the comptroller to determine the incremental tax receipts 'for a one year period that begins two months before the date on which the race will begin.' If the date of the race changes, the economic impact study would have to be redone if the statute is to be followed."

Also according to the statute, we have until 90 days prior (perhaps March, 2012) to decide if we want to buy in...and it's still "buying in" no matter how you look at it. We can wait, and actually HAVE to wait, several months before deciding. Just because F1's in a hurry doesn't mean we are.

Survival of the Richest!

Spending $40M to make $250M? A no brainer! These F1 guys are no dummies.

It became too politically hot for them to continue to try and pressure Austin into picking up their 'privilege fee' tab. It helped that activists and the Tovo campaign helped bring the issue to light, but we still have to sign off to unlock those state funds.

It's up to us in Austin to save Texas from itself.

PS: VOTE SATURDAY! Call 238-VOTE, option 2, to find out your polling place.

Unnecessary Democracy

When is it okay for an activist wholly dedicated to democracy to say "enough's enough?"

When the people have already spoken at the ballot box, and a run-off election is merely a waste of taxpayer dollars. That's exactly what's happening in Austin right now, in our City Council Place 3 race (all registered Austin voters weigh in on this race as we still have an antiquated at-large system - more on that later). If we had implemented instant run-off voting long ago, we'd have already cast that second vote at the same time we cast our first, and not even be in this mess...but that too, is another story for later.

Randi Shade, the incumbent, fielded 3 tenacious challengers in Kathie Tovo, Max Nofziger and Kris Bailey in the first round. Tovo came up through the City Planning Commission and more recently, received significant community praise as an Austin ISD task force member who challenged the District's plan for cutting the budget. Nofziger is a former councilperson with a populist bent and significant grassroots support and Bailey is a young up-and-comer libertarian who garnered the coveted Willie Nelson endorsement for his pro-legalization stance which he successfully packaged as re-routing local police resources.

All this to say the challengers' collective take in the general election was as much in support of them as it was for unseating the incumbent for her consistent votes in favor of big-monied interests and against the community. That total exceeded 67%, so a plurality of voters said "we won't be needing your services any longer, thankyouverymuch."

None of those votes will go to Shade as the challengers all very much ran against her platform, and their supporters were rabid anti-Shade. I'll concede there is a small handful of Nofziger supporters that are purely anti-rail that may be bent more Shade than Tovo, but Shade's not really committed one way or the other on rail - and we're only talking about a 100 or so voters that may not be motivated to show up again anyway.

All logical predictions were that Tovo would be the runner-up and that we'd surely see a run-off, but no one predicted Tovo would actually come out ahead - and by 14 points at that: 47% to 33%. The voters CLEARLY don't want Shade in office, and clearly favored Tovo as the best person to replace her. Most political gurus say, too, that going into a run-off more than 5 points behind is insurmountable.

Based on voting and election result patterns - and on who did and who didn't concede a run-off in the past, most thought Shade would concede. I, myself, predicted as much, providing examples of why that would make sense.

She didn't (in time for the withdrawal deadline). Which shows precisely why she's such a bad representative of the people.

So we traipse on, committed to spending $528,400 to determine a pre-determined outcome. Is it the heavy-handed monied interests that believe she still owes them on deliveries or pure ego? I, myself, have a hard time understanding that her large ego would allow for such smashing humiliation to befall her, so it must be the muscle behind our police union and chamber folks.

On top of trying to keep her base and re-energize them to vote again, she will have to get 1000s of new voters to the polls just to vote for her AND seek to prevent the wholly-dedicated Tovo supporters from showing up again (unlikely as Tovo's ground game is tops). Meanwhile the indications are that more people who didn't vote prior may show up this time, but to vote against Shade for the mere fact that she's wasting our money.

I predict a 75-25 outcome/70-30 at worst, but I'm alone in that steep of a prediction. Morrison, in 08, with the same base as Tovo, beat a formidable opponent in the run-off with the same politics as Shade, 65-35. He wasn't a despised incumbent (it was an open seat) so he wasn't additionally getting punished for costing us a half million dollars, and with the almost-guaranteed plurality of Tovo as a starting point, she should exceed 70%, in my mind. We shall see.

In Shade's first week of the run-off campaign, as in her general election campaign, every trick she tried blew up in her face and set her back even more. She got caught removing parody signs from the polls ("Shady the Clown" - I understand they are gaining even more traction now by her bringing attention to them!) and failed in her ethics complaint against Tovo.

Stay tuned...the election is June 18.

Better Austin Today's City Council Endorsements

The only broad community political action committee in Austin, of which I'm a member, makes its picks in the May, 2011 election and calls on even its endorsees to step up their game:

Community Coalition's Where it's AT!

As an organization comprised of neighborhood, local and small business, environmental, social equity and other community leaders, Better Austin Today (BAT)’s vision for Austin’s future encompasses a wide range of issues. Thus, winning our endorsement requires candidates to go beyond appealing to a single constituency or limited area of City policy. Instead, our broad coalition of interests ensures that anyone we endorse is the “best all-around” candidate in the race who will bring a comprehensive view to office and act with the big picture in mind and a commitment to open, inclusive government. Endorsements require a challenging 60 percent vote of this diverse board (a full list of members is on our website).

The public safety unions came out before the filing deadline with their endorsements, meeting with none of the challengers, and the developer dollars started rolling in for incumbents before 2011 even began. BAT members, meanwhile, have been attending candidate forums and meeting one on one or in groups with the candidates over the last two months, taking time to give consideration to all the candidates responses in many different venues and from a variety of questionnaires.

The Buck Doesn't Stop at the Endorsement

BAT is a group representative of all the interest of all the citizens of Austin. Although there are a great many pressing issues and problems that the council has and must continue to address, one of, if not the most, pressing issue the that amount of funding that has been dedicated to improving the quality of life of the most under-served and under-resourced community (a mere $700,000 on the African-American Quality of Life Initiative in its 5-year span while millions are thrown to non-local developers).

"We, as a community, have acknowledged the need for improving the quality of life for African-Americans and Latinos, yet, the actions of the City have not reflected the urgency necessary to make the vital changes necessary to turn a declining situation around. We hope that our endorsement is not mistaken as a tacit approval of this lack of urgency." - Richard Franklin, BAT board member

BAT intends to be ever more vigilant with regards to the improvement of the quality of life for all residents of Austin and we will hold all elected officials accountable.

ENDORSEMENTS

Better Austin Today endorses Kathie Tovo for Place 3 and Laura Morrison for Place 4; no consensus was reached for Place 1.

Kathie Tovo - a strong advocate for open, inclusive and accountable government: Ms. Tovo's academic background, steady demeanor and extensive experience in a variety of public policy matters in the past 19 years she's lived here is exactly what Austin needs to bring balance to the dais. From social services to education to neighborhoods to the arts to the environment and planning, her broad swath of public service provides her much-needed context to serve our diverse population at a critical time as we grapple with an out-of-control budget where the special interests gain and the under-served lose. Her intellect is matched by her creativity when faced with difficult problems. Her forthrightness in addressing the critical issues and her integrity as an inclusive mediator of interests demonstrates her commitment to the entire community.

PLACE 3 CHALLENGERS: We feel it's important to make special note of the other challengers to the incumbent in this race. Max Nofziger has brought special attention in his candidacy to the extraordinary rise in the City's expenditures since his last time in office, when he voted on our first budget that surpassed $1 billion. Since his tenure, we've well surpassed $2 billion and are poised in one of the next few budget cycles to hit $3 billion - which he explains as an unsustainable frenzy of spending. He points out that Councilmember Shade is the biggest spender we've ever had on Council. See his explanation here. While there are some criticisms of Nofziger's tenure in office, a trait most agree on was his responsiveness as a Councilmember--one of the main characteristics BAT seeks in candidates. Kris Bailey is running primarily on a police accountability platform, which also resonates with BAT, especially in terms of setting budget priorities and implementing practices such as focusing on investigating/clearing public safety matters involving victims versus arresting increasing numbers of people for victimless crimes. We'd like to see Ms. Tovo more emphatically adopt some of these messages the other challengers bring to the table - many of which she's already aligned with; and while she's shown no indication otherwise, seek to match if not surpass Nofziger's reputation for responsiveness.

Laura Morrison - a proven leader on important community issues: Councilmember Morrison is far and away the best choice for Place 4. Morrison is BAT's only Councilmember to have achieved a perfect "A" on our scorecards published in the Austin Chronicle over the past 3 years. What we noted in her first run, her "keen intellect, deep respect for differing opinions, and a willingness to fight tenaciously for policies that protect Austin’s environment and neighborhoods" indeed proved to be the right formula for moving Austin forward. She has demonstrated a deep dedication to smart economic policy while giving social equity issues due process. Morrison has proved she has the right combination of vision, integrity and know-how for the job and Austin deserves no less an attentive public servant.

With Ms. Tovo in Place 3, along with our previous endorsement in Place 5 (Bill Spelman) and Morrison retaining her seat in Place 4, we hope that the tenor of our Council will change dramatically, that these three good examples can gain more courage for leadership; inspiring others to improve their performance or exposing those who resist an open, accountable, fiscally responsible government.

NEXT STEPS

We now turn our efforts to raising money and recruiting volunteers to help Tovo and Morrison win election. If you believe it is time for a change at City Hall, we invite you to join us as we work to get Austin back on track. Better Austin Today is excited about this opportunity to re-establish balance at City Hall and to reclaim local government for the public interest.

Leffingwell's Email Follies: Dance a Lil' Sidestep!

Monks, PLEASE, Bless This Mess!

The Tibetian Monks are visiting again, and during the Council meeting are hard at work in City Hall creating their glorious mandala sand painting in the atrium. They will endow a blessing of compassion on our City tomorrow...let's hope some of that good Buddhist mojo actually sinks in down at 301 W. 2nd St. before gifting the remainder of the sand to our beautiful river.

...The Mess Council Got Themselves Into

Except for Morrison and Spelman, other councilmembers haven't turned over public business emails conducted on private accounts, or explicitly said they didn't have any to turn over. Meanwhile, their attorneys are telling them they don't have to turn those over despite case law, Attorney General opinions and input from other government entities that say otherwise.

So while they (sans Morrison and Spelman) claim they are in the right not to disclose such emails...they passed policy today to instruct themselves to do otherwise. (Item #14)

Yes, we've seen this before. "I didn't do anything wrong but I'll pass policy to say I won't do it again." Hence the Wednesday worksessions in place of the 2-on-1 walking quorums.

Put a white suit, boots and cowboy hat on our Mayor and watch him go. "Ooooh! I love to dance a lil' sidestep..."

We Already HAVE a Law

It's called the Texas Public Information Act. The Legal Dept. said they researched and couldn't find any other entities passing this kind of policy for a model. That's not because Austin's being progressive (hardly), it's because no one else is confused by the law. They see no need to define what's already been clearly stated by the TX Attorney General: public information is subject to disclosure, no matter where it gets hidden.

This is all for show. "See? We're DOING something." (Shuffle, shuffle). Great. But you should have been doing what this resolution says all along. It's not complicated. It doesn't matter who, where, when, what device, what account the public business is conducted on or with...the person that is elected to office takes an oath that, when asked, will turn over all public business to the public. If it takes them a lot of extra time to scour all sorts of devices and accounts to gather that info, dredging through personal information to capture public business, then that's their problem. It's up to them to organize themselves to save time later. Doing what this policy instructs -forwarding emails concerning public business to private accounts to your public account- is just common sense. It shouldn't need to be debated for 2 hours and crafted into policy.

If we really need this new policy, then we really need some new leadership.

Public Business is the Public's Business. Period.

No if, ands or buts...if an elected official meets a lobbyist at the coffeeshop, the business discussed doesn't become a private, personal conversation because they aren't physically in City Hall. Same with phones, emails, chat systems, etc.

This policy is a disingenuous gesture, but IF (a big "if") this were good policy to begin with, Councilmember Spelman is to be commended for trying to make it actually have some relevance. He is still pushing for amendments as I type, fixing the "who" and the "when" questions that I was going to bring to the podium had I been able to afford to sit there for 5 more hours waiting to speak. "Who" is "who does this cover" and "when" is "how quickly do I have to forward these emails?" As in: "can I wait two years during which time maybe several open records requests won't pick up this info and I'm already out of office so who will care what shenanigans I was involved in?"

The other question not being discussed is ENFORCEMENT. What happens if someone fails to comply? Well, the law already says what happens...so again, that makes this all an exercise in futility.

The problem with this policy is that the ones still holding out on disclosure have NO intention of releasing previous emails from private devices/accounts this policy would cover from this point forward. So why would we trust them to do it right from here on out with self-specifying an enforcement mechanism?

Kennard's True Colors

Seems my long-standing question has been answered. Does our new Law Department head, Karen Kennard, subscribe to the David Smith Skool of Law or is she going to bring trustworthy legal analysis to the table for bettering our local government?

My eternal optimism failed me, yet again. We've heard this one MANY times before. "Council can't mandate things for the City and its staff to do...only the City Manager can." REALLY????

Let's take a look at our City Charter: "...all powers of the city shall be vested in and exercised by an elective council...which shall enact legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, and appoint the city manager who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the city."

Eerie how you can look at this healthy, attractive black woman and see the face of an overweight white man on the edge of an aneurism superimposed upon it. But there it was, with echoes of KeyPoint-Gate, Smith's ghostly face hovering over hers conjuring up the lyrics to which Leffingwell leads his Follies in a shuffling farce.

She must have uncovered the DavidNomicon - the not-so-long hidden tome describing how to continue the horrific practice of subduing Council and their duty to excercise their Charter-given powers.

Stay tuned for the next chapter. As Molly Ivins described about the Texas Legislature, I unapologetically co-opt for our City Council: it's the finest form of free entertainment ever invented.

AustinGonzo articles at AustinPost.org

I've been posting articles for some time now over at the Austin Post - a non-profit on-line web forum for local happenings.

Please visit the page to see my take on such subjects as:

KeyPoint-Gate: the mishandling of the fall-out from the APD shooting death of Nathaniel Sanders, II. From misleading the public, withholding a publicly-led inquiry, scapegoating and avoidance of accountability and the unprecedented slap in the face to the Sanders' family and the whole community when they back-tracked on the negotiation for a settlement on the civil suit. "Austin's Schoolyard Bullies" exposes how beholden some of our elected officials are to the police union.

Email-Gate: more evidence of wrongdoing is being exposed in the uncovering of "walking quorums" and the continuing refusal to turn over public-business emails from private accounts by some councilmembers. Also as part of this series is critique of The Austin Chronicle's refusal to cover the issue, except when they attack those who are bringing it forth.

APD: focusing on non-violent crimes and pursuing costly technological toys continues to drive APD expenditures well beyond that of peer cities and well beyond the revenue stream of our general fund. Use of force reports, or the lack thereof, expose ills in accountability, while our Chief's choice of dress at an execution belies Austin's "progressive" stance.

Austin's Police Monitor: is hiring a former sheriff the best choice for overseeing police officers?

There are also miscellaneous stories about the Formula 1 racetrack boondoggle; the lack of coordination in making boards and commission appointments; note of a win for civil liberties by preventing officers from wielding needles and drawing blood; a May 2011 council election candidate roundup; and a "huzzah!" for my bud Richard Franklin, III getting national recognition for his incredible program lifting up youth.