What’s wrong with Siegel

Ed Oakley

The Advocate’s Jeff Siegel is usually a fairly astute observer of the local political scene, but his obvious bias for mayoral hopeful David Kunkle appears to have blinded him. First he mistakenly thought that Kunkle might have latched on to an issue that voters care about when he attached himself to council ethics. Now he so incorrectly calls Ed Oakley “a guy no one has ever heard of” and suggests his endorsement of Kunkle’s runoff opponent Mike Rawlins is meaningless. Someone should tell Siegel (perhaps I’m doing it myself now) that Oakley’s campaign against his successor on the Dallas city council sealed Dave Neumann’s doom and his endorsement of Rawlins, if nothing else, tells the city’s gay and lesbian community who to support in the runoff.

I’m thinking Dave Neumann is toast

Ed Oakley

Actually, I’ve been thinking this for a long time. I had silently wished former District 3 council member Ed Oakley had run against him two years ago. I am convinced he would have made Neumann a one-term council member.

But Oakley didn’t run in 2009 and he’s not running this year either. But, unlike two years ago, Oakley has decided to jump into the fray with a strongly worded endorsement of Scott Griggs and a brutal condemnation of Neumann, saying the incument “has done such a poor job of representing the citizens of District 3 that I must speak out.”

In a letter to Griggs, Oakley wrote that Neumann “has not worked with the other council persons to make progress. He is very good at taking credit for everything that was put in place prior to him taking office.”

Pretty strong stuff and you can read all about it here.

The election bombshell

Larry Casto, one of Dallas’ assistant city attorneys, just completed what could have been a mundane presentation to the Dallas City Council on what’s going on with the Lege down in Austin. The reason it wasn’t mundane was because of the “oh, by the way” bombshell he dropped at the end of his presentation. He told the council that the Lege will pass and the governor likely will sign a bill creating a uniform election date throughout the state.

That means is all elections — whether they be school board, municipal, bond elections, congressional, presidential — will be held on the same date and that date probably will be the second Tuesday in November. Therefore, those elected to the City Council this May will not have to stand for re-election until November 2013 (in case of the mayor, November 2015).

This has far reaching effects. For one, like Casto told the council, instead of leading off the ballot like they will in May, city council candidates will probably be relegated to Page 14, 15 or later on the November ballot. But, although this subject wasn’t broached at the council session, I’m guessing this will also eliminate runoffs — that all a council candidate will need is a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. This will definitely favor incumbents, especially if they have more than one opponent in an election because all the opposition voters won’t have the opportunity to unite behind one candidate in a runoff. It also favors minorities in the mayor’s race, especially if the minority community can unite behind and come to the polls to vote for one candidate, which is far more likely to happen in a November election setting.

Unless, of course, the City Council takes the bold step (But when have you ever heard of our council taking a bold step?) of removing the bi-partisan status of the City Council elections. Force the candidates to affiliate with a political party. That way the candidates can run in their respective party’s primary prior to the general election, and the also-rans can be eliminated through that process.

As a semi-closeted anarchist, I love it when something comes along to disrupt the status quo and this is definitely one of those times. Those who are familiar with what really happened in the “location debate” will know if a uniform election date had been created a decade ago, the new Cowboys Stadium probably would have been constructed in Dallas.

The Carriedaway Tapes

By now, everyone who is interested has learned interim Mayor D-Wayne Carriedaway lost his battle to suppress the police tape recordings of the encounter with Archie and Andrew or Mrs. Mayor or whoever it was that caused such a ruckus at his domicile that Carriedaway was forced to call the personal number of the Dallas Chief of Police to stop the brouhaha. They also know there was no Archie or Andrew, but a knife-wielding Mrs. Mayor who wanted to discard some of Carriedaway’s aprons.

So what’s the big deal? It’s certainly nothing about aprons or the fact that Mrs. Mayor goes after hubby with a knife. The big deal is the fact that the tapes prove Carriedaway is a liar and that it is probably wise not to believe another word that comes out of the man’s mouth. I know I won’t.

Why Mike Rawlings lost my vote for mayor

Not that he really had my vote to begin with, although he stood a better chance of nailing it than Ron Natinsky, who is just Da Mayor all over again.

But today I got this slick new mailer from the Rawlings campaign designed to do exactly the opposite of what it succeeded in accomplishing. On the cover it says “It will take a leader from outside City Hall to change how they do business inside.” That could be true, but it will also take someone with far more knowledge than Rawlings has about exactly “how they do business inside.”

For example, the brochure states: “As Mayor, Mike (Editor’s Note: I guess, if elected, he will want to be known as ‘Mayor Mike.’) will build a strong foundation of basics that we can build upon into the future. That means … smooth roads, free of potholes. Beautiful parks where our families are safe to gather and spend time together. Libraries that are open and equipped with the books and resources to serve families. And rec centers that give our young people a safe place to have fun and get fit.”

And all the while I’m reading this I’m thinking “Where in the hell is he going to get the money to do all this?” Of course, as My Hero reminds me, Rawlings has built somewhat of a reputation for twisting corporate arms to get them to contribute to municipal causes. Still …

But then the very next paragraph of the brochure says: “We’re in a tough economy; and the upcoming budget is going to be just as difficult as the last one. Mike is the only candidate in the race who has personally managed billion-dollar budgets, cut waste and streamlined systems to make them more efficient and profitable. As Mayor, he will work department-by-department, examining the budget and getting taxpayers the greatest return on their investment.”

What? Does he really, in his wildest imagination, think he can accomplish all he’s promising simply by a “department-by-department” budget review? He’s not only from outside City Hall, he’s from another planet.

Here’s a man, because he is, by his own admission, “from outside City Hall,” who has never seen City Manager Mary Suhm prepare a budget. The man is an idiot if he thinks Suhm will submit anything but the leanest, most efficient budget imaginable. If there ever was any “waste” in a Mary Suhm budget, she found it and cut it years ago. The problem now is she has not only removed all the fat from the municipal budget, but also the meat. Now she is attacking the bones to submit a plan that will allow the city to operate within the confines of its current revenue streams. No one works harder, with greater diligence, achieving better results from the resources available to her than the budget wizard, the great Mary Suhm. What the next mayor is going to be faced with is not a budget that needs department-by-department examination to cut waste, but a bevy of City Council colleagues demanding cut services be restored.

But it’s obvious to me Mike Rawlings doesn’t want to face reality, at least not yet. He just wants to pander to the body politic, spouting anything, even if it makes no sense, just to get elected. But, in doing so, he has lost my vote.

Dallas mayor's race: Hunt's out (forever); Rawlings in; my off-the-chart candidate

Angela Hunt's decision not to run for mayor in this year's municipal elections means she will never be elected mayor of Dallas. Term limits will prohibit her from running for her seat again in 2013 and the next mayoral election won't come along until 2015, at which time the incumbent may just decide to run again. That means Hunt will be out of the public eye anywhere from two to six years and that's political poison. I can't see her in any kind of role that will keep her in the spotlight during that time.

But she also shot her chances when she said yesterday "I think what will be best for Dallas is a mayor who comes from outside the current city council." That statement would definitely come back to her haunt her should she ever decide to run in the future.

Now here's an idea for all the conspiracy theorists to chew on. Hunt wins re-election to her final term this year and then two years down the road hand-picks a successor to run for her seat in 2013. Hunt promises this candidate the full backing of her effective grassroots machine, but only if the candidate agrees to serve one two-year term. Then Hunt runs for the District 14 seat again in 2015. It's possible, but if she thinks that's the way she will eventually be elected mayor shes' only deluding herself.

Mike Rawlings decision to enter the race is an interesting one. I thought all along the Park Board chief was Da Mayor's hand-picked successor, but in the meantime City Councilman Ron Natinsky seemingly lined up the support of the city's traditional power brokers, illustrated by the fact that Carol Reed is running his campaign. Both Rawlings and Natinsky appeal to the same downtown business/North Dallas resident voting base. Thus, Rawlings entry into the race is a shot in the arm for former police chief  and mayoral candidate David Kunkle who is going to emerge as the closest thing we might get to a "people's" candidate, now that Hunt has bowed out.

For my money, Rawlings brings a pedigree that's superior to Natinsky's into the race. What impresses me the most about Rawlings is that during the time he served as president of Dallas-based Pizza Hut, the largest pizza chain in the world, from 1997 until 2003, he directed a major turnaround in the company’s business, resulting in the then highest weekly store sales in Pizza Hut history with system sales over $5 billion. Under Rawlings’ leadership, same-store growth rose 19 percent, overall operating profit doubled and margins improved to record highs. As the city’s Homeless Czar, he helped Dallas reduce its number of chronically homeless by nearly 60 percent. Those are measurable results that Natinsky can't match.

However, neither of them will be able to tout the public safety issue as successfully as Kunkle. And public safety is still the No. 1 issue resonating with Dallas voters in municipal elections. During his term as police chief, the crime rate dropped dramatically and Kunkle will be the only candidate who can legitimately claim responsibility for that.

So what we have right now is a race among three candidates: Ron Natinsky, the candidate of the downtown business cabal; Mike Rawlings, the candidate with an impressive record of results, although not on matters voters really care about; and David Kunkle, the man who actually produced a reduction in the city's crime rate.

What bothers me is that the race is among three white men. I don't suppose there is any way someone could convince Dr. Elba Garcia to resign her just-won County Commissioner's seat to run for mayor. Probably not. I know I wouldn't do it if I were her.

But I'm going to throw a name out there that I'm betting no one else has ever mentioned, but makes a lot of sense to me: Clarice Tinsley. She has more integrity in her little finger than most of us have in our entire bodies, she's knowledgeable and she's absolutely capable. Anyone want to join me in a Draft-Clarice-Tinsley-for-Mayor campaign? It could be fun.

Irreconcilable Differences

This should make the split final. Now the only thing to decide is the division of the community property and who gets custody of the City Council.

He's running

This announcement is going to make the mayoral race a lot more interesting than it might have been. Frankly, of the candidates announced and speculated about, the former police chief's candidacy is the one that excites me the most.

Kunkle for Mayor?

The Dallas Observer's Robert Wilonsky talked to former police chief David Kunkle today and Kunkle told him he is seriously considering a run for mayor. Kunkle said he would decide within the week.

I had never thought of a "Mayor Kunkle" before I read this, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Of all the candidates who have announced or whose names have ricocheted around the media walls, Kunkle's is the one I find most appealing. Kunkle turned things around at the Dallas Police Department and, when it comes down to it, the mayor of Dallas is nothing more than a glorified traffic cop anyway. Besides, his spouse is one bright individual who already knows her way around City Hall.

Mayor Kunkle? I like the sound of that.

Siegel wrongly says Hunt shouldn't run for mayor because the job is too difficult

Jeff Siegel at the Advocate is obviously an unabashed Angela Hunt fan. He proved that yesterday in an essay titled "Why Angela Hunt shouldn't run for mayor." His basic argument is that times are tough, the upcoming administration may have to make unpopular decisions and Siegel thinks if Hunt has to make those decisions she will thus become unpopular herself. And, being an unabashed Angela Hunt fan, Siegel doesn't want to see Hunt's image tarnished.

I find his arguments faulty on so many levels, I have trouble knowing where to start. First they are based a some false assumptions. Siegel writes: " If current trends continue, we won’t be asking cops and firefighters to defer raises; we’ll be laying them off." No we won't. Uniform personnel can't be fired, except for cause. They are civil service and protected by the City Charter. A freeze can be placed on hiring uniform personnel, but Siegel should not be throwing around scare tactics that they will be fired.

But more important than that, I don't want a mayor who only wants to preside over a City Council in good times. True leaders are moulded during hard times. It was Harry Truman who famously said "I'll stand by you, but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." If Hunt can't take the heat, then she should not be mayor at any time, not now, not four years from now.

I have not always agreed with Angela Hunt, but I never thought of her as one who shied away from difficult decisions. In fact, she has come across to me as an individual who studies until she learns all sides of an issue and, unswayed by outside voices, makes the learned decision she firmly and passionately believes is the right one. Perhaps that's exactly the type of person we need as mayor at this time.

I would rather much have a mayor interested in leading instead of winning a popularity contest.

You could add this one to death and taxes

Was anyone shocked by this announcement? C'mon, anyone? Anyone shocked? Anyone at all?

So now Da Mayor is going to follow former Mayor Ron Kirk and make a run for the Senate. While Kirk wound up the Democratic nominee for the seat, I can't picture Da Mayor even making it to a GOP primary runoff.

But what's ahead for the City of Dallas? Who will be running now that Da Mayor is not. Right now you got to figure the race is going to be between two council members: the articulate, charismatic Angela Hunt (left), a Democrat who has absolutely no support from the downtown monied elite, and the equally articulate, non-charismatic Ron Natinsky (right), a Republican who has boat loads of backing from the landed gentry. That means Da Mayor actually will be running for re-election because Natinsky is, after all, nothing more than Da Mayor's beard.

If the voters are happy with Da Mayor's performance during the last four years, Natinsky should come out on top. However, if they've grown tired of the toll roads that will never be built, the convention center hotel controversy, and are frustrated about the Trinity River levees, than Hunt could prevail. However, if D-Wayne Carried Away decides to enter the fray, he will siphon away far more votes from Hunt than from Nat. Of course, if someone like former homeless czar now park patron Mike Rawlins decides to run, that hurts Nat more than Hunt.

It is interesting to note that while Dallas County is certified red, the city itself hasn't trended that way. How else do you explain the victory four years ago by Tea Party wannabee Da Mayor? That's unusual because in most urban areas, the Democratic base is usually found in the center. Here all the Democrats must be hiding out in Garland or Grand Prairie or Irving or Mesquite or someplace. Either that or they are just too partisan to vote in non-partisan elections. They need the label to guide them.

Say what you will about the guy, but Da Mayor has made sure the days between now and the May municipal elections are going to be a tad more exciting politically than they could have been.

A public loss: Veletta Lill nixes any future run for political office

Veletta Forsythe Lill, the former city council person whose dedication and perserverance are largely responsible for Dallas having a new opera house, a new performance center and, for that matter, the entire arts district, has decided she will not seek public office again.

"It is nice to know that my work, past and present is appreciated," Ms. Lill told said in a written message responding to something I wrote on this blog a couple of days ago. "However, I really don't have a desire to run for public office again ... I truly enjoyed my time on the city council and am proud of the many things we accomplished. Now, in the next phase of life I am also having a wonderful time nurturing the Arts District."

And, as per her way, she's doing a damn fine job of nurting the district as the Winspear Opera House, the AT&T Performance Arts Center, the Dee and Charles Wyly Theater and, for that matter, the entire 68-acre, 19-block area of downtown Dallas known as the Arts District attests. She also fought tirelessly, passionately and ultimately successfully during this last City of Dallas budget cycle to restore funding to the city's Office of Cultural Affairs

"Dallas has changed a great deal over the last decade, "Ms. Lill wrote me. "It is no longer J.R.'s Dallas. It is imperative that tomorrow's leaders have the vision, passion and compassion to lead our city to the next level."

Veletta Lill is a person with that vision, passion and compassion. Her decision is the public's loss, but I respect it and wish her only the best and the happiest of new years.

An uninspiring list of Leppert sucessors and two who aren't

It appears certain that Tom Leppert intends to be a one-term-or-less mayor of Dallas. If Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to resign to run for governor, Leppert plans to run in a special election to succeed her. Personally, I can't see Hutch resigning. She knows she doesn't stand a chance in the GOP gubernatorial primary against Gov. Hair, so why should she give up her Senate seat to pursue a lost cause? But I do expect that she will decide not to seek re-election when her current term expires in 2012 which, coincidentally, is when Leppert's first term expires as well.

So the rumors are rampant on possible candidates to succeed Leppert, even though such talk is probably premature (no one was talking about Tom Leppert two years before he was elected mayor). Gromer Jeffers, one of the best reporters at the Dallas Morning News, weighed in Sunday with the names he's heard -- council members Ron Natinsky and Angela Hunt (Yawn!); state Sen. John Carona (Leppert redux although I can't understand why he would scuttle a promising political future to run for Dallas mayor -- see Steve Bartlett); Dallas lawyer David Laney (noted conspiracy theorist and Dallas Observer writer/reporter Jim Schutze suggests promoting Robert Decherd's cousin is the sole reason for Jeffers' story.); former council member Mitchell Rasansky (a real horror story); and a bunch of other unknowns.

None of the names gets me excited at all, although I will admit the inclusion of homeless czar Mike Rawlings is, at least, somewhat intriguing.

Now I am going to throw out a pair of names no one is mentioning. The first is former council member Veletta Forsythe Lill, a champion of the arts and other causes in Dallas who superbly represented the multi-cultural interests of District 14 for eight years. I really would like to see her return to political office -- either county judge or mayor of Dallas. My second name is really out of the blue:

Mary Suhm. Who knows the city better than the current city manager? And, by 2012, not only will she have served longer than just about anyone else in this position, she could retire with more than 30 years service to her credit and receive a full pension. She would be the best, most qualified candidate, but I wonder if she has mayoral temperament or whether she could resist running the day-to-day operations of the city from the mayor's office. But, you gotta admit, this is a name that's more fun to speculate about than any of the uninspiring ones mentioned by Mr. Jeffers.

Update: The incomparable Sam Merten points out, quite correctly, that Leppert's first term expires a year before Sen. Hutch's. Probably no big deal -- former Houston Mayor Bill White was out of office for a while before announcing he would run for Hutch's seat -- Whoops!, White really meant governor.

Why are some council members afraid to think for themselves?

I spent much of Monday reading, writing and just plain relaxing in my home office. For entertainment I had the Dallas City Council's agenda meeting on the television. I watched them wrangle with the question of "Just how ethical do we want to be?" for much of the morning before they broached the even trickier question of "Just how close to we want our chillun to get to demon likker?"

At issue was an ordinance, supported by state law, that says a store selling beer, wine or other forms of alcohol can't be located within 300 feet of the property line of a school, a church and possibly something else like a hospital. But the main issue is schools or churches. Not the school or church itself, mind you, but its property line. The proposed change offered during Monday's city council meeting would abolish that arbitrary rule and let council members determine these cases individually and perhaps grant variances to the rule if circumstances warrant it. In other words, it would force council members to think, to reason, to study the merits of each application and not hide behind an archaic ordinance.

Here's an example of how ridiculous the current ordinance is. A school could sit at the back of a large campus whose property line is, say, 275 feet from the front door of a proposed grocery store that wants to sell beer and wine. But that grocery store, under the current ordinance, would not be allowed to sell beer and wine even though the distance from its front door to the school's front door is 1,000 feet. Yet a grocery would be allowed to sell beer and wine if the distance from its front door to the school's front door is a third of that 1,000 feet, as long as its property line is more than 300 feet away. Stupid.

For some reason, two council members I always thought wanted to hear and decide issues on their merits, Angela Hunt and Linda Koop, voted against changing this ordinance, both for reasons that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. But Ms. Hunt is a master of dodging the real issue of any question and changing the subject matter to suit her personal agenda. In this case, she tried to change the subject to the square feet of the grocery store in question and not how far it was from the school. Ms. Koop simply expressed a desire to protect children. Fine, Ms. Koop: If a situation comes before the council that endangers children, I would hope you would vote against it. But why deny all applicants just because one of them might pose a danger to school children? Council member Steve Salazar, whom I thought was beginning to show some signs of intelligence that had not been on display during his previous council tenure as well as most of this one, snapped back into his old habits by arguing how the proposed change set "a dangerous precedent," as though it set a rule as arbitrary as the one it changed. The only dangerous precedent it sets, like I said earlier, is forcing council members to reason these cases on their individual merits -- a process, come to think of it, might scare Mr. Salazar.

I've always been taught that every rule has its exceptions. Fortunately, a majority of the city council realized that and the proposed ordinance change passed by, as I recall, an 11-5 vote. So it was a case of all's well that ends well. But while the debate was going on I got to see Hunt, Koop and Salazar do their Three Stooges bit. Talk about Must See TV.

Morning News outs Mayor Leppert

This Morning News story, about what Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert knew or did not know, said but did not say, back during the city's battle with council member Angela Hunt during the campaign over her toll road referendum, doesn't exactly call Da Mayor a liar. Oh, wait a minute! Yes it does.

Blinded by the lights

Hey, Angela, if you think travel is a problem on the Dallas City Council, have you checked out what's happening in Mesquite?

Angela Hunt is gumming us again

Angela Hunt never misses an opportunity to take a symbolic, if not a realistic, high road. This time she has announced she will no longer use city funds to travel on city business. Sure. Fine. Whatever.

Dave Levinthal of the Dallas Morning News nailed it when he said Ms Hunt's latest stunt is "a move that's perhaps more symbolic than anything." Levinthal's report also said the council members with the highest travel budgets last year were Ron Natinsky who spent $14,925.75, Carolyn Davis who spent $13,388.75 (much of it on a trip to Belize to study, I guess, the habits of people visiting beach resorts for when Dallas gets a beach and a beach resort), Tennell Atkins who spent $12,790.60 and Pauline Medrano, $7,941.95.

Look, here's the deal. Each City Council member is allotted $4,000 annually for "any city related travel purposes." Hey, that seems like a good deal to me. If Ms. Hunt is really serious saving tax payer money, I suggest she introduce a resolution for a full vote of the City Council that restricts all council members from using any other funds, especially their office expense fund, for travel, so that all members will be limited to the $4,000 a year set aside for them for city related travel purposes.

Oh, if she really wants to get tough, then she should go this route. According to my rough calculations, city council members spent an average $2,310.45 each on travel. Now, Ms. Hunt, here's what I would like you to do: Introduce a resolution for a council vote that puts an absolute cap on all taxpayer-funded city travel at $2,500 per council member. Any amount over that must come from the council member's own pocket (campaign funds are permissible to use). If a council member uses less than that, the council person in question gets to pocket the change.

Now that would put some teeth in her message.

Ed Oakley may not run against Dave Neumann, but that doesn't mean he won't slap him on the face a couple of times

Dave Levinthal of The Dallas Morning News had a conversation with former District 3 Dallas City Council member Ed Oakley about whether he might challenge first termer Dave Neumann's re-election bid in that district. According to Levinthal, Oakley said the chances he will run range from "slim to none." But then Levinthal asked Oakley, if he didn't run, would he endorse any other candidate. Oakley said he would not. "I've made it a policy to endorse candidates I believe in, and that's where I'm at."

Ouch!

Most politicians talk in circles, just not in these circles

In his news release announcing he was not going to run for the District 13 Dallas City Council seat being vacated by Mitchell Rasansky (he did run as a write-in against Rasansky in 2005), self-styled political activist Rich Sheridan wrote:

"In his work, some animosity towards Sheridan has developed in certain circles, and by certain individuals. It is Sheridan's position that these attitudes are part and parcel of the scenario, that this 'negativity' is an essential part of what is 'Going On'. 'If people don't know what's going on, that they are in a game, a truly life and death game, in a Millenniums long spiritual battle, and all the world's the stage for this battle, and that there are (up to now mostly hidden) rules of this game, then we will always lose. "

Got that?

A trashy campaign in District 13

The first "Look at Me -- I'm Really Stupid" award for the upcoming Dallas City Council election campaign goes to likely District 13 candidate Brint Ryan (I say "likely," because, as far as I know, he hasn't officially filed the necessary papers with the City's Secretary office).

Not filing did not stop him from mailing out campaign material that won him the above-mentioned award. The mailer lambasted the city for expanding the area of the highly successful once-a-week trash and recycling pickup. The picture he displayed on this mailer depicted two overflowing trash cans. The problem is, however, everything -- EVERYTHING! -- overflowing those cans were recyclables and belonged in a recycling container and not a trash container. If anything, Ryan's campaign photos were arguments for once-a-week recycling pickup.

Then, last night, when he had an opportunity to actually show his face in person to voice his complaints -- at a public meeting called by outgoing District 13 council member Mitchell Rasansky to discuss once-a-week garbage pickup in his district -- Ryan was nowhere to be found. Ann Margolin (pictured above left), who has declared for the post, was there campaigning quietly and, I believe, effectively. I have had one brief conversation with Ms. Margolin at a meeting identical in theme to the one held last night at the Walnut Hill Recreation Center and she told me, unlike Rasansky, who has hand-picked her to be his successor, she is a firm advocate of recycling and has, at least to date, not made switching to one day garbage and recycling service a campaign issue. Perhaps she realizes, as Mr. Rasansky noted during the meeting, the policy is a fait accompli and to rail against it now amounts to little more than demagoguery.

Of course, that doesn't seem to have stopped Mr. Ryan from looking incredibly stupid with his mailer, whose pictures advocate exactly the opposite message he was trying to convey.