Dang, missed the meeting tonight

And it was jam packed with information.  That means 3 hours in front of the computer for me some time this weekend.  Not that I don't spend a lot more than 3 hours in front of a computer every weekend, but  this will be different.

I was ready to leave Austin at 1545, which would have put me at City Hall almost in time, but someone unkindly pointed out a mistake I had made.  It would have been wrong not to fix it.

City Council is operating smoothly, if not always well

There were positive and negative indications of the council's ability to conduct business at yesterday's special City Council meeting.

On the positive side, the council civilly and independently decided a matter of little importance: whether to postpone the Council meeting scheduled for June 12 to June 14 so that council members could attend a farewell reception for General Campbell, the departing commander of III Core and Ft Hood.  Mayor Corbin was in favor of postponing the council meeting; he argued for it.  Councilman Clark said that he thought that city business was important and should not be postponed and proposed a motion to that effect.  Reasonable people could argue either way.  The 4-3 vote was to retain the June 12 meeting.

This was important for two reasons:  first, the council voted against the view of the mayor.  It will need to do so again in future, so it's good they are getting practice; and second, the debate was conducted at a high level, each side stating their reasons and the council deciding based on the weight of the arguments.  This bodes well for future debates that have more consequence.

On the negative side, the amendment to the ordinance establishing a no-stopping zone at Willow Springs School was botched.  The motion made by Councilman Clark was garbled, and I'm very surprised that the City Attorney did not require it to be restated.  If the ordinance becomes law as amended by Clark's motion, I will be very surprised if it can be upheld.

When amending ordinances submitted to it, the council needs to be careful and precise.  If there is any doubt at all, council members should seek the help of the City Attorney in formulating the amendment.

Lyle Cheadle at tonight's City Council Meeting

Two interesting aspects of the Killeen sign ordinance  -- I would call them bugs -- came out at tonight's City Council meeting.

In one, First Baptist Church had to come before the council to request a zoning change in order to legally install an electronic message sign; the ordinance clearly did not intend to restrict churches and schools from erecting signs, but that's exactly what it currently does.  This one is an easy fix, although it's too bad that FBC had to jump through hoops.

In the second, Lyle Cheadle, owner of Guns Galore, protested unequal application of the sign ordinance.  He alleges the sign law says that if a business previously had a city permit for a sign, the sign can remain even if it is in violation of the current sign ordinance.  As a practical matter, only large businesses (or maybe it was businesses with large signs) were required to get such permits before last year; small businesses, such as Guns Galore, were not required to secure permits before erecting signs.  The result is the the large businesses' signs are grandfathered, and small businesses' signs are in violation of the ordinance.

If Dr. Cheadle's summary is accurate, it does seem that the small businesses he references were treated unequally.   You could argue that the city gave them a de facto license by not requiring them to secure any license at all.  This will be difficult to remedy, because it is just those unattractive, unlicensed signs that drove enactment of the sign ordinance in the first place.  If I follow Cheadle's argument to its logical conclusion, the small-business signs that should be grandfathered are those that, if the owners had applied for license, it would have been approved.  And that's impossible to determine. I guess I'd rather live with ugly than be unfair to anyone, but there must be a compromise somewhere.

KDH again an object of scorn

Here we are on Memorial Day, 2012.  The whole community is involved, in one way or another, with remembering men and women who served well, honorably, and sometimes fatally.

Except the local daily newspaper.

The Killeen Daily Herald decided once again to run a syndicated editorial that was probably never even glanced at by anyone on the staff.  The same plain vanilla envelope was also picked up the the Reading (PA) Record-Searchlight and the Burlington County Times.

Was there nothing to say about Killeen's observation of Memorial Day?  That seems hard to believe.  Mention might have been made of Patrick Gray, the city's first sacrifice to WWII.  Equally there is something to be said about each of the 1,000 names on graves at the Veteran's Cemetery, not to mention the hundreds of veterans buried elsewhere in this area.  There is a Memorial Day story that would wrench your heart on every street in this city.

But apparently that's not enough motivation to get a KDH editor to write a couple of hundred original words.

KDH editorial silliness

I read the Killeen Daily Herald editorial page every day, even though it is consistently disappointing and usually disgusting.  I look forward to Saturdays because that's when the paper deigns to print Letters to the Editor.

So let's look at what is on today's page A4:

There are two "editorials" (really syndicated articles from a wire service).  What could be more relevant to the people of Killeen than

• A rant on the Essential Air Service program, which affects no city within 500 miles of us, and
• Some opinions about how many people should be allowed to climb Mount Everest?

I'm guessing these "editorials" are chosen to fit the space available, automatically, with no human intervention. 

There are three Letters to the Editor:

• A thank-you from the American Veterans Travelling Tribute to the Phantom Warrior Week planning committee.  That was nice.  Organizations that make an impact should be recognized and should recognize those who help them succeed.
• Pete Stanonik's opinion that TAMUCT is spending too much money on landscaping.
• An unparsable screed from Joe Brown that seems to accuse a letter-writer whose opinion he objects to of being a heretic or a welfare mother or something.

And then there's "Last week's Poll Question", which was "Do you plan to vote on May 29?".  72.7% said "yes".  The actual percentage of registered voters who cast ballots will be about 5%.  That speaks well for the people who responded, but not for the poll itself.

So KDH: can we expect your editorial page ever to deal with real city issues?  Or is it always going to be the object of derision it is today?

CA-2 should be pulled

Item 2 in the Consent Agenda for Tuesday's Special City Council meeting should be pulled for further discussion. (CA-2  is a resolution to approve awarding a contract to construct an extension of the Andy Wells walking trail along Nolan Creek into the downtown area; and to build a plaza-like section downtown along Avenue D.)  I recommend pulling it because

1. It is a very large contract, $5 million.  Half of it comes from TxDOT, but the other $2.5 million is from bonds -- borrowed money that the city has to repay with interest.  As a matter of good practice, the council should pay close attention when approving so large an expenditure.
2. As Mayor Corbin pointed out, not many people understand what we are getting for $5 million.
3. There were a lot of questions about this item at Thursday's council meeting, not all of which were fully answered.  I will be very surprised of more questions did not occur to the council since then.

At this stage of the project -- awarding the construction contract -- there is not much the council can do other than accept the project as-is or cancel it.  (That's why it was on the consent agenda, I assume.) But they can use this final hearing on a high-dollar, high-profile  project to educate themselves and their constituents on how we got here.  If I could ask questions, they would include

• What is the history of this project?  Who initially suggested it and how did the plan change over time?  At what points was it reviewed by the City Council?
• What other high-priority projects were not funded?

Filling the city manager job

Glenn Morrison is the obvious choice for Killeen City Manager.  As former Mayor Hancock pointed out, he has been doing the job (without the pay) since a year ago February.  And he says he is willing to serve. But there are important reasons why the city council should not rush to do the obvious.

One important question is how the contract will be written.  City Managers usually negotiate a contract with the city corporate entity (represented by the city council) that specifies the term, conditions, pay and benefits associated with the position.  Killeen did a bad job writing the last contract; creating a better one while being fair to Morrison will take time and lawyers.  Rushing that process will be unwise on both sides.

But much more important (this will sound funny coming from an engineer) is the effect on how the council views itself.  This council has no personality, yet; it's too young to have one.  They are developing an attitude that there are no dumb questions and that good things seem to happen when they ask questions; but there is not yet any sense that individually or in groups they are going to put their own stamp on deliberations.  Tonight the mayor tried to push through an agenda he is strongly attached to. There was some resistance, but the major picked his battle well:  no one can plausibly oppose the decision to give Morrison the job.  But the council, I am sure, knows very well that they have almost no first-hand knowledge of Morrison.  Officially, most have known him for 10 days.  For them to make such an important decision based on ten days' experience has to be uncomfortable.

And that's why the council should not vote next Tuesday, or even June 19, to hire Glenn Morrison as City Manager.  In the absence of a compelling reason to act with undue haste, they shouldn't. If they do anyway, they are defining themselves as a group that is easily led.  In six weeks the council will have had a chance to test the mettle of Glenn Morrison both publicly and privately.  I have no doubt they will find him such a good fit for the City Manager job that they will have no reason to do anything but offer him the job.  But for them to act without making that test will mark them as being much like the councils we've had in the recent past.

Council presentations

Thanks and praise are due to City Manager Glenn Morrison and mayor Dan Corbin for following through on their offer to make city council presentations available on the city web site.  I don't know whether all of them will be -- I was told to present a Public Information Act request to get the slides from Tuesday's meeting -- but what's there tonight is a significant step forward.  Here's what I saw tonight at http://www.killeentexas.gov/index.php?section=36 :

• Dr Shanaa's training slides for the council dealing with zoning, delivered May 17.
• Dr Shanaa's training slides for the council dealing with platting and subdivision, also from May 17.

Both of these presentations are worth reading.  They are short and to the point, and contain information useful to council member and the rest of us.

Absurd agenda

The agenda for tomorrow's city council workshop (and by implication the agenda for next Tuesday's special council meeting) is absurd.  There are more issues here than any experienced council, let alone a group of rookies, could hope to digest if they had twice as much time to prepare.

I hope that some council person will  have the gumption to object to this force-feeding.  Three-quarters of the issues listed require careful consideration, and that is exactly what they will not get if these agendas are adopted.

Executive session

Dan Corbin called the city council into executive (that is secret) session tonight, without objection from the council, to discuss "the performance and duties" of the city manager.  There are three things very wrong with that.

• First, the mayor and most of the members of council campaigned on promises of open government.  More than one of them told me that he or she would not agree to executive sessions unless it were absolutely necessary.  "Absolutely necessary" seems to coincide with "at the first opportunity."
• Second, the move was taken -- I think with some forethought -- when there was almost nobody in the room.  There were two "outsiders" there when Mayor Dan Corbin declared an executive session: me and one other civilian.
• Third, and I think this is most important, the mayor and members of council have had exactly one week to take official note of the city manager's performance.  And they are going to evaluate him?  In secret?  The word for this is 'hubris'.

I have no doubt that the mayor and council members will say that if I knew the circumstances I would understand that there is no problem.  But that's rather the point, isn't it?  When you have secret meetings, almost no one will know the circumstances.

Council questions

At tonight's city council meeting -- the first regularly scheduled meeting since the election -- everything went smoothly.  The consent agenda was approved, the election canvass accepted, and a mayor pro-tem (Mike Lower) chosen.

The items of interest were all in the workshop sessions that preceded and followed the brief formal meeting.

First, in the pre-meeting workshop, council members and the mayor asked a number of good questions about the consent agenda items.   I think the questions were valuable.  They gave the city staff a "heads-up" about the kinds of material they'll need to present on future items.  I don't think many of them will want, in the future, to hem-and-haw as a few of today's presenters had to do.

The second item of interest was an executive session, after the council meeting.  That will be the subject of my next post.

It will be a race to tomorrow's workshop and council meeting

I have a meeting in Austin to nail down a patent submission at 1500.  That will make it tight for me to attend the council at their workshop which starts at 1700.  If I'm not there, someone take notes :-)

Hancock Reception

I'm sorry I will miss tonight's reception for Mayor Hancock.  He has given a lot more to Killeen than he got back from us.

Questions I hope council members ask

In my last post I mentioned that 6 of the seven council members seemed interested and engaged and asked good questions; but that they didn't ask some questions I would like to have answers to.  That wasn't a criticism, but I hope i can convince one or two of them to share my curiosity in one area.

I often wonder how the city manager and his staff make financial decisions.  I wonder because I never (or at least very rarely) see the analyses that (I hope) go into those decisions.  On a macro level, I can point to the decisions around investment in the First Baptist Church property -- not just the initial acquisition, but the decisions to turn it into  expensive performance and office space.  Whether or not those were sound decisions, I feel safe in saying that very few people know how the decisions were made.

On a micro level, take a look at Consent Agenda item CA-14 on next Tuesday's council agenda.  The city is leasing some mowing equipment over the next 3 years for a little over $100,000.   The questions I hope the council will ask would give everyone a better idea of how the city makes one kind of financial decision: whether to buy or lease:

1. What were the alternatives to acquiring the equipment?
2. Why was it better to lease the equipment rather than buy it?
3. What determined the length of the lease?  Why was 3 years better than 2 or 4?

I'm not picking on the parks department.  I would like these kinds of questions to be asked routinely.

Contacting me

Some people have complained that blogger.com's comment interface is daunting.  If you are frustrated by it and still want to contact me, feel free to send email to bblair48@gmail.com

This will have to come out in pieces...

Tonight's special city council workshop went 3.5 hours.  There was a good crowd at the start.  By the end, it was the council, the mayor, 4 city staff, the police chief, the sergeant-at-arms, Philip Jankowski and me.  We should get t-shirts.

It was mostly positive.  The first hour was business -- bringing the council up to speed on the consent agenda for Tuesday's council meeting.  The rest was training, which was valuable for almost everyone in the room.

I need time to get my notes in order. I'll just drop off a few general observations tonight:

• The council members seemed to get along well.  I would describe the atmosphere as collegial.  It's a good start down a long road.
• With one exception, the council paid close attention and asked good questions.  They didn't ask all the questions I wanted them to (I'll get into that tomorrow), but every time a member opened his or her mouth, it was to clarify something or introduce a new aspect of the subject.  I was impressed.
• Dr. Shanaa mentioned that the conservative prediction for Killeen population in 2030 is 158,000.  That doesn't mean annexing Harker Heights; it means growing another Harker Heights.  It's a sobering statistic and a good one for the current council to keep in mind, because decisions this council makes will still be felt by those 158,000 people 17 years from now.

Consent Agenda

At that start of a new council, I think it would be a good idea for each councilor to make it a habit to scrutinize the Consent Agenda.  (The Consent Agenda is usually a miscellaneous collection of items that are routine, non-controversial, and unlikely to generate questions from council members.  I'm not sure who selects the items in this section of the agenda; I suspect that whoever proposes the item has the option  of putting it there.)  At most meetings, all items on the consent agenda are approved without discussion.

Any council member may except an item from the Consent Agenda and ask that it be considered separately.  The main reason for doing this in the past has been to highlight an item that is especially beneficial to the city or that a council member had a hand in bringing to the agenda.  Off the top of my head, I don't recall any case where a Consent Agenda item was excepted because there was a question whether it should pass.

This system hasn't been badly abused in the past, but it is subject to abuse.  After 20 meetings in which only minor items appear in the Consent Agenda, any councilor might be excused for missing an item that really needs discussion.  Council members and people who are interested in city business need to look carefully at the Consent Agenda items, and carefully read the backing information for each one, for every meeting.

For example, I think CA-4, CA-8, CA-9, CA10 and CA-15 on next Tuesday's agenda deserve study.  I have no doubt that they have merit and should be passed, but I can't tell from the descriptions; and I doubt that new city council members can, either.  I intend to do my homework on them, and I hope council members, as a matter of good practice, will do so too.

The new council is in the house

I have two posts planned for tonight, but it's already late and I have work work to do, so we'll see.

High lights of tonight's City Council Workshop:

• The vote was canvassed and accepted.  I think this means that even if Mark Manning asks for a recount (and KDH is more interested in that than Mark is), it won't matter.  The Council is Clark, Lower, Blackstone, Okray, Foster, Segarra and Gilmore.
• The city has agreed to some technology changes that are going to make a big difference in the long run.  Thanks to Dan Kott and Dan Corbin for pushing them:
• Video of council sessions and workshops will be live-streamed and archived
• Session segments will be indexed so viewers can find the parts of meetings that they are interested in.
• Council packets (the boatload of information each councilor is given to prepare for meetings) will be posted so that the rest of us can see them, too.  This is going to make a huge difference, because citizens will be able to see what the questions are and hold councilors responsible for resolving them.
• Lots of "hello, rookies" information was presented.  Most of it is available on the city government web site.
• Katherine Davis, the city attorney, presented a good (meaning jargon-free) summary of the Open Meetings Act and what it means to the council.  I hope her slides end up on the internet somewhere.  I'll link to them if they do.  For the required training that each councilor will take on this subject, see https://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index.shtml
• Workshops on council meeting days (first and third Tuesdays) will start at 1700 instead of 1600.

There's lots more city government coming up.  A special workshop is scheduled for Thursday the 17th, where the agenda items for the first formal council session in six months (Tuesday,  May 22 at 1800) will be discussed. The agenda is already posted at the city web site.  I encourage people (including council members) to pay particular attention to the crowded "consent agenda" which, in previous councils, was often approved without discussion.

Bad arithmetic

As part of my apology for misinterpreting the at-large candidate results (thanks to walkman baba for correcting me) here is a  table that shows the votes for each candidate as a percentage of the number of voters.

According to the unofficial results released Saturday night, 4232 (7.4% of the 57509 registered voters) cast ballots for at-large  council candidates.  Voters selected 1, 2 or 3 candidates from the list of 16.  Here are the results expressed as (100 * votes-for-candidate)/(number of voters):

Elizabeth Blackstone (1714 votes, 40.5% of ballots)
Jonathan Okray (1455 votes,  34.4%)
Jared Foster (1149  votes, 27.2%)
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Manning (1108 votes, 26.2%)
Jim Butler (895 votes, 21.1%)
Doris Mims-Owen (730 votes (16.9%)
Benton Goodnight (714 votes, 16.9%)
Steve Harris (589 votes, 13.9%)
Dan Kott (435 votes, 10.3%)
Milton Powell (402 votes, 9.5%)
JoAnn Demonbron (317 votes, 7.5%)
Ralph Cossey (312 votes, 7.4%)
John A. Doranski (271 votes, 6.4%)
Nathan Small (226 votes,  5.3%)
Mike Gamel (133 votes, 3.1%)
Abe Amir (117 votes, 2.8%)

It's city council season again

I''m glad we will once again have a city council after tomorrow.  I expect the new council to get a rousing round of applause when they are seated; then reality will set in  Little or no work will be attempted tomorrow, but there will still be several things to look for:

• The new mayor has hinted he will run the council meetings the way he believes meetings should be run.  Will he try to push procedural changes through in the first meeting?
• There are five rookies on the council.  What will be their plan for getting up to speed?
• Who will be mayor pro tem?  Probably Clark or Lower, but I think Mrs Blackstone may have some support.
• What will be the plan for clearing the zoning backlog? It's a remarkably small backlog for 6 months' business, but it represents a lot of issues the new members have to learn about quickly.

One more general observation on the city election.

Ah, that was nice.  My wife and I spent the afternoon with our son and his wife, his mother-in-law, and his sister-in-law among others.  All are examples of why mothers are the center of our lives.

I ran out of time to make one more general observation.

• The number of candidates had a big effect on at least two of the races.
• In the mayor's race, Dan Corbin won with 47% of the vote.  If the 23% garnered by Nellis, Estrada and Butchard were in play, the contest would probably have been much closer.
• The huge field vying for at-large seats on the council resulted in a very splintered vote.  Only 16% of ballots mentioned the front-runner, Elizabeth Blackstone.  14% mentioned Jonathan Okray and less that 11% Jared Foster.  Well over half of voters didn't vote for any of the successful candidates.
• Everyone elected (with the exceptions of Gilmore and Segarra) got in with a minority of the vote.  This puts a lot of pressure on those elected to gain the approbation of the 4,200 or so people who care about city government.

That was fun, but I'm glad it's over

We have the leadership team in place for the next two years of Killeen city government.  For the most part, I think the voters made good choices.  All of the at-large winners were on my short list, and I even endorsed one of them. Dan Corbin was the obvious choice for mayor, and I never thought he would fail.

With one exception, I've talked with all the new senators, some of them extensively.  The exception is Wayne Gilmore whom I saw for the first time last night at City Hall; we apparently do not run in the same circles.  With that exception, I can tell you that the new city leaders say with one voice that they are ready and willing to provide a city government we can be proud of.  I take them at their word.

Some general observations:

• Voters favored candidates with deep roots in Killeen.  That's not surprising given that the 4000 people who voted were disproportionately long-time residents themselves.  There are pluses and minuses, though.  In part it's just a matter of favoring people you know or have heard of; but there may an element of zenophobia.
• Except in the mayoral race, where the vote count and the money spent appear to have a linear relationship, candidate spending doesn't seem to have been a big factor in the result.
• Scare tactics seem to have been ignored.  The voters of Killeen aren't as gullible as some people seemed to think.

Happy Mother's Day.  I'm off to my son's house for some grilling and mother-thanking.

Why I'm glad to vote

Tomorrow I will be a dribble, a tiny fraction, an inconsiderable portion of the voice of Killeen.  I feel good about that.

My voice will be bigger than it ought to be because, even with record turnout, less than 8% of registered voters will cast ballots.  But that's not why I feel good.  It's because during the election cycle, the people who care have exchanged ideas and influenced each other.  Sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly we've either changed each others' minds or we haven't.  The weight of the arguments will be determined one tiny increment -- one vote -- at a time.

I'm happy where I ended up.  I think I know how the city can prosper and which candidates are best equipped to make that happen.  I'm eager to see if my views line up with those of the other participants in the discussion.

And if they don't line up, that's OK.  I'll see what I can learn from it.  The only way I can lose tomorrow is if I don't vote.

Friday-before-election Ads

KDH is probably a couple of pages fatter with them today.  The first one to catch your eye may be the 1/3 -page color-bordered screaming-font effort by the Fort Hood Area Association of Realtors (FHAAR) on page A2.  They never get around to actually supporting a candidate, and they never actually attack a candidate, either (although they mention "CAP candidates" in a negative light).

The FHAAR ad is evidence that the realtors finally realize that city government is likely to be made up of individuals who do not have realtors' interests as their first priority.  It doesn't say much about them that they wasted so much money on such a silly advertisement.  They do urge you to to "VOTE for candidates that understand the issue."  If you've been reading this blog, you've seen me recommend a few such candidates.

It's interesting that about 75% of the advertising column-inches paid for by Killeen city government candidates in today's paper are for individuals supported by FHAAR.

On page A3 we have Mark Manning, who went with small and simple: "City Councilman 1980-82; 1990-96; Mayor Pro Tem 1995-96." "Experienced. Independent."  Manning's appeal probably isn't helped by its proximity to the less-dignified FHAAR screed.  (Manning has been endorsed by FHAAR.)

Also on page A3 is the latest from Juan Estrada, who has done his only effective campaigning in the paper. He says

At the beginning of this year's election process it was my fervent hope that there would be no outside influences affecting the outcome of the election.  I had hoped that those running for office would present their qualifications to serve, were familiar with the issues, and would offer ways in which those issues could be resolved.  And on Election Day the electorate would vote into office those whom they believed would get the job done.Unfortunately that is not happening.  Certain groups and individuals with their own agenda to advance have come into the process.  They would have the electorate vote for those candidates whom they believe would promote their cause.There are problems inherent in this arrangement; First, with the myriad of issued facing our city, these proponents are promoting candidates that may not have the necessary prerequisites for the job.  Second, to acquiesce to these groups would be returning our city government to where it was prior to the recall.  The recall, of which I was a litigant, was about removing interest groups from our city givernment.  Let us keep it that way.  Third, the effectiveness of the elected officials could be rompromised due to divided loyalty between the support group and the electorate.Therefore I urge the electorate to vote their conscience. Do not give in to those who would skew the election process for their own purpose.

Mr Estrada could use an editor, and I can't support his apparent view that people and groups shouldn't seek the government they prefer, but this wasn't a bad effort.

Opposite the week-old syndicated columns that the Herald midleadingly calls "Editorials", on page A5, is a large ad for Elizabeth Blackstone.  Her message is

I am a candidate for an at large position on the Killeen City Council, and I am asking for your vote.  My heart and my history belong to this city.  As a  first-time candidate, I entered this race with one objective--to help make Killeen a better place for each of us.If you will select me as your council member, I will promise only one thing--to listen with an open mind and to vote with the best interests of all citizens.  I will be available to you and independent of special interests.The May 12th election is fast approaching, and if you have not alread voted early, I urge you to go on Saturday and note for me!

Wayne Gilmore, who has been nearly invisible in this campaign, bought color space on page A6.  He asserts "I possess the experience and love for this city so that I know I can participate in its future success."  Not a catchy slogan, but it's good to hear from him.

Dan Corbin also has a full color ad on page A6.  He includes some common-sense suggestions for running council meetings, which after all is what the mayor mainly does:

Televise or stream on the internet all council meetings and workshopsAllow internet users to download video recordings of meetings/workshops by reference to the Agenda item number so they can easily watch only the items of interest to them.Make public the packets given to council members prior to each meeting or workshop.Conduce frequent town hall meetings to receive input from citizens, to answer their questions, make presentations, and provide staff briefings of items of interest.At town hall meetings, receive input or take questions via internet, text, or phone for those not able to attend.Use closed sessions only when required by law.
"I will work hard to insure open givernment and fiscal reponsibility."

Jared Foster paid for a few words on the back page of section A: "Let's build a better place to live and work for the future of Killeen."

Jose Segarra went for a small color ad at the bottom of page B4: "Moving Forward in a Positive Direction!"  He has a bigger one on C7: "A Killeen Success Story Ready to Shake Up City Hall;" and "Open Government / Public Safety / Economic Development."

There are four political ads on page C8 (the back of the Sports section).  One is a smaller Corbin ad. Then there's Jim Butler who, in a very small font, says

Served in US Air Force Security Service / Professional Civil Engineer / Resided in Killeen 36 years.
Goals:

• Get City Council running and effective ASAP

• Public Safety: Fire and Police

• Improve transportation system

• Quality Community Development and Renewal

• Preserve, and enhance our partnership with Fort Hood

• Upgrade older parks and infrastructure in nor side of Killeen

"I have no ties or allegiances to any entites."
1. Honesty 2. Integrity 3. Experience 4. Dedication

Followed by Travis Sutterfield: "Let's move Killeen forward... Together."

And Benton Goodnight:

Ready to begin the process of regaining the trust of the citizens of this city

• Strong sense of duty

• Served as chairman of the Celebrate Killeen Committee

• Volunteered on the Killeen Volunteers Committee for over 15 years

"Please support me with your vote and encourage your friends to do the same.  I will continue to be committed to this great community that I love.  I will be open and honest to my strong moral and God fearing values, and I will always be willing to listen to your opinion and do my best to discuss the issues with you when you feel that it is necessary."

The Realtors' Endorsements

I complained yesterday that individuals and groups have not published their endorsements for the open positions in Killeen city government.  I neglected to mention the slate proposed by the Fort Hood Association of Realtors:

• Mayor: Dan Corbin
• City Council, District 2: José Segarra 
• City Council, at-large: Jim Butler, Jared Foster, Mark Manning
• The Realtors group did not endorse any of the candidates in the District 1 race.

I admit I am tempted to point out the tarring that this organization's recommendation may apply to their selections, but I don't entirely disagree with them.  Jim Butler and Jared Foster are not bad choices for the council; I've said good things about both of them.  I think the realtors' choice of them is probably (from their point of view) just a pick of the best from a bad lot.

Watch parties

One of the most neglected and least planned aspects of elections (besides actually registering to vote) is where to watch the results.  For national elections, I prefer to watch with my family, groaning, pulling out hair, rending clothes (often at different announcements) and generally enjoying the proceedings.

But being a fairly unsocial person, I'm not sure of the protocol for local elections.  There are only 5 boxes (the district voting places and the early ballots), so it's not going to be a drawn out affair.  I recall that last election, Mayor Hancock hosted people in his office at City Hall, and they were out  by 2200.

Is anyone planning a watch party?  If so, please feel free to advertise it here.

So the endorsements are done...

and I expect you to give them exactly as much weight as my reasons carry with you.  If you vote for an entirely different slate, I'll not think the worse of you and besides, I'll never know.

There are more good people running for at-large council seats than I can vote for.  I won't be upset if Elizabeth Blackstone wins a seat; she's more than smart enough to do the job and she's willing to learn it.  Jared Foster is so full of enthusiasm that he would probably do well, at least to start.  Jim Butler certainly has the experience to serve well.  But I'm satisfied with my recommendations of Cossey, Kott and Okray.

What I'm not satisfied with is the dearth of other recommendations.  The newspaper is silent and will probably remain so.  Based on my experience, the KDH motto is  "All the news that won't upset an advertiser."  And where are the many other interested parties?  Blog space is free at
blogger.com
and at
wordpress.com
to name just two sites.  If you have an opinion, put it there or elsewhere. Let me know, and I'll link to it.

Or to save you trouble, feel free to list your slate in a comment to this post.  Include your reasoning or not, as you wish.

No Endorsement for Mayor

Dan Corbin has all the skills and experience needed to be mayor (I think he will agree that is not a very high bar). He also has some good ideas about how to run the city council.  But he is spending more money on the race than he needs to.  This worries me in two ways:

• I don't understand why he's doing it.  I worry about what I don't understand.
• I don't think dollars should mean votes.  (There may be a name for this opinion: naivete.)

Billy Workman would make a good mayor except that he does not have the public speaking skills required.  I have no doubt he can acquire them, and if he is serious about a political career, he will.

Eric Nellis's qualification is that he willing to do the job.  I thank him for that.  He should continue to speak out and run for office.

I will vote for one of these three men for mayor.  I don't know which, yet.  I can't confidently recommend one.

An Aside about Work

If you wondered about the long work hours I complained of, here's a further explanation : http://armservers.com/

My employer, Calxeda Inc., is trying to build server computers that use a _lot_ less energy than current models.  So far we're doing pretty good.  But it's hard work and they expect me to do some of it.

Endorsement for at-large council: Jonathan Okray

Let's get right to the biggest issue in many people's minds:  Jonathan Okray faces trial on a Class A misdemeanor  in July.  I don't know if he's guilty.  Neither do you.  I don't like it that I don't know how the trial will turn out.  If I had other doubts, I might let the unknown sway me.

I've disagreed with Jonathan Okray more often over the last year than I've disagreed with anyone except my wife and my boss.  I've tried to change his mind about some things, without success.  Every time he has said "I'm doing the right thing."

That's what I want in at least once city councilman: a person beholden to none and firm in his belief that if he is doing the right thing there is no need to change what he is doing.  (As long as he's intelligent, sane and not fixed on a single idea; all of which apply to Okray.)

You may be put off that Jon doesn't use the rhetoric of more experienced city government figures.  I'm pretty sure that's both temporary and positive.  He'll learn the lingo, and the council will not be weakened by an honest layman.

No blog tonight

I'm having trouble with my third endorsement for at-large city council.  Not trouble deciding, but trouble marshaling the arguments.  That usually means my reasoning is faulty, so I'm going to wait until I can explain myself to my own satisfaction.

Voting

As of this morning, 1100 people have voted.  I figure another 200 probably voted today, bringing us up to 1300.  You have Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday to join them.

Let me try to put your vote into perspective:  you need to vote.  I don't care if you favor candidates whom I reject out-of-hand; I don't care if you think Hal Butchart would make a good mayor.  If you are a registered voter and you don't vote on one the three occasions left to you, don't contact me for a while.  I'll be too upset that you shirked your civic duty.

At-large Endorsement: Dan Kott

My next pick for an at-large council seat was also easy: Daniel Kott.  Explaining why may take longer, though.

A candidate for another city position told me that Dr. Kott has no chance of being elected.  In another election year I might agree with this astute observer, but this is an upset-the-applecart election.  Check off what you want in a city council member:

• Able to understand the issues before the council?  Check.
• Beholden to no one?  Check.
• Interested in making the city a good place to live?  Check.
• Good ideas that other candidates don't have (or at least haven't articulated)?  Check.
• Has the time and energy to study and understand city issues?  Check.
• Understands what the recall was about?  Check.
• Well connected with a diverse collection of Killeenites? Check.
• Plays accordion?  Well, yeah, but ....

Bottom line is that Kott is at least as qualified as any other candidate and he brings to the council an understanding of technology and technical tools that it needs.

Endorsement for at-large Council

My first choice is easy:  Ralph Cossey.  Ralph is smart, involved in the community, and full of energy.  He has good relations with the old crowd and the the new yet-to-find-itself majority.  He presents himself well and speaks his mind.  He probably is not going to drive many new initiatives, but I trust him to apply common sense to issues before the council.

The anonymous mailings

I didn't get one myself, but KDH reported this morning that an anonymous mailing had been sent to some residents.  Apparently the mailing expressed opposition to the candidacies of Billy Workman (for mayor) and Jonathan Okray (for an at-large council seat).  The KDH article is at http://kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=66015

According to the paper, the mail did not meet even the loose standards of the Texas election code, which requires people who are trying to influence your vote to give themselves some sort of name.

I have some general observations:

• It's possible to think there are better candidates than Workman and Okray and not be either sleazy or stupid.  This episode proves, however, that there is at least one sleazy and stupid person of that opinion.
• The mailing does a great disservice to other candidates because it is natural for voters to reflect on cui bono?  Who benefits?  I hope that candidates who -- of course -- think themselves better qualified than the maligned parties will not suffer because someone they probably do not know decided to spend some money anonymously supporting their positions.
• It's interesting that the letter-writer may have committed the same level of misdemeanor he is so willing to pre-judge Okray guilty of.
• I wonder what it is about these candidates that has frightened someone?  Neither is a shoo-in, though either or both could conceivably win their races.  What made it seem worthwhile to spend money and face a further fine to influence a gullible few?  Maybe he or she is just an idiot.  But I'd like to know what scared him into attacking two men whom I know to be honest and intelligent (if not great politicians) behind their backs.

No Endorsement in District 2

I can't recommend either candidate in the District 2 race.  That doesn't mean either or both is not worthy of your vote, if you live in that district.  It just means that neither stands out as the clear better choice.

Until November, District 2 was represented by recalled councilman Juan Rivera.  Mr. Rivera had a couple of habits I hope the winner in this race will emulate:  he talked to people in his district -- in fact he made his private phone number available to them -- and he drove around the long (probably 7 miles, end-to-end) district to look at sites involved in matters before the council.

District 2 is probably the most diverse district in terms of race, affluence, culture, language and age.  It will be difficult to represent well.  But I can't point to anything that tells me that one of the candidates will serve better than the other.

Endorsements

With only 8 early-voting days left before the election, I realize I'm late making endorsements.  Part of my delay is that I am still uncertain about several candidates; part is that I wanted to interview my short list and post the interviews for discussion (which I will still do); but the biggest factor is that I'm working 75 hours a week on a project that I consider even more important than Killeen politics.  I'll post something about it next week.

My first endorsement is for council member in my home First District.  It is an easy one.  Jason Lawhorn has been running since the recall.  He's talked to more people in this district than I have, and I've lived here more than 30 years.  Lawhorn campaigned vigorously; his opponents hardly at all.  But that's not why I recommend District 1 voters cast their ballot for him.  My reasons include:

1. Jason saw early the reasoning behind the recall.  He got it and supported it.
2. As ugly a remedy as the recall was, Lawhorn recognized it as an opportunity to build a better city government -- (at least this is what he told me, and he has so far given me no reason to doubt it) -- that has as its basis representatives with (to borrow the phrase of another candidate) servant hearts. 
3. He's not wishy-washy; no one is going to push him around.
4. He has roots in and knowledge of his district.
5. And as near as I can tell he has no intention or motivation to act other than in the interest of his constituents.