Claudia Brown's letter to the editor, KDH

I think Dr. Brown got it wrong in her letter to the editor of the Killeen Daily Herald published this morning.  The important point about the firing of Barbara Gonzalez has nothing to do with the mayor's ethnic views (in which I have seen no sign of bias) nor his political resentment of the recall (which he may well harbor--I wouldn't blame him--but which he has shown no sign of).

The central point is whether Ms Gonzalez should have been in charge of Fleet Services at all.  It had no relation to her main function, which was to make sure the city can and does borrow money at the best available rate.  Why was she in charge of the motor pool?

An argument can be made that assigning Fleet Services to the Finance director was capricious and arbitrary, and was almost certain to result in less rather than more oversight of that department.  If Barbara were given a job she had no chance of doing well, it seems hard she would be fired when she did not do well.  That is the important point; whether the mayor showed good judgement on Facebook is a very minor point.

Failure to capture the Gonzalez appeal

I am in the dark with regard to the Review Board hearing on Barbara Gonzalez's firing.  My only sources of information are Brandon Janes's two articles in KDH and Mayor Corbin's Facebook post.  I don't think there is any reason I should be under-informed.  There were people there ready to make a  full record of the proceedings, but they were prevented -- by the authority of the Killeen city government -- from doing so.

Glen Morrison must take responsibility for the decision to decrease the visibility of the proceedings.  He's also the person most likely to suffer if Ms. Gonzalez's dismissal is overturned.  In my opinion, City Manager Morrison must -- from this point onward -- make sure that the public has full information of all  proceedings in this case.  If he does anything less, he decreases his own credibility.

Terry Clark for District 3 Councilman

I endorse incumbent Terry Clark for Killeen City Council.  I do so without any disparagement of his opponent in district 3, Mike Lower, who has also done good service to the council and the city as Mayor pro tem.

My reason for endorsing Clark is that he has shown himself an independent thinker.  Rather than let the mayor do his thinking for him, as many council members have done,  Clark has tried to understand issues and analyze them using information from many sources, not the least of which are the views of his constituents.

District 3 will be well-served regardless.  But I believe it will be better served by an independent, involved, inquiring and well-intentioned Terry Clark.

Growth

Growth is what politics in Killeen is really about.  If there were not competing interests trying to profit from the seemingly inevitable growth of our region, we wouldn't have much to talk about.

There are, of course, many aspects of the problem.

• Do we have a choice other than expanding south? 
• How far south can we expand? 
• Is there water available?
• How are we going to treat the sewage, and where will the effluent flow?
• What's the infrastructure going to cost? 
• Should we try to absorb our neighboring political entities? 
• How much should we borrow given the uncertainty of military funding in upcoming years? 
• What are the disincentives that will ultimately limit growth and how can we limit them?  And should we?
• What are good ways of building the job and tax bases?  Are we overemphasizing some ways and under-funding others?
• What are the right levels of funding for police? Fire protection? Libraries?
• Do we continue the traditional "You want to build something?  We'll change the zoning" policy or implement real land use planning?
• If we have real zoning, do we zone for the elite?  Should there be areas of the city set aside for the well-off?

And those are just the tip of the iceberg.  I forecast interesting days ahead.

Father Kapaun

It's not exactly the city beat, but I'm pleased that the DoD plans to honor Father Emil Kapaun with the Medal of Honor.  I was stationed at Kapaun Barracks in Vogelweg (outside Kaiserslautern) and learned Father Kapaun's story from the command chaplain (32nd AADCOM at the time).

Bravery beyond the call of duty, perseverance and motivation are three characteristics of his behavior while a prisoner of war in Korea.  He was a credit not just to the Chaplain Corps, but to his country.

Rosewood extension

The east-most fringe of the city is about to get its last structural enhancement.  Veterans Memorial Highway will be widened; there will be a new overpass; Rosewood Drive will be built out; and area growth will be focused even more tightly on the area between existing development and Corps of Engineers easements along the Lampasas River.

The cost of extending infrastructure suggests that we ought to continue to expand east.  That's where water is available.  There's plenty of land.  But standing in the way are the political boundaries of Harker Heights and Nolanville.  Maybe we should merge.  If Killeen could annex Nolanville, Harker Heights would have to join the coalition.  We'd go from being the 21st largest city in Texas to the 16th or 17th.  More importantly, there would be ample, easy, growing room to the east.

This could all happen without a political merger. but Nolanville, and to a lesser extent, Harker Heights are (because of their size) unable to support the required infrastructure.  A single political entity with 175,000 residents should be able to finance whatever would be required.

Visibility

There was a lot of conversation at work (in Austin) today about the Monsanto Protection Act -- the provision in the budget Continuing Resolution.  It's already viral: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/04/why-monsanto-protection-act-internet-comment-video

The local implication is that we are immune.  There's no hiding who proposed a measure and who voted for or against it.  May our city council remain superior to the sewers that are our national and state legislatures.

Code violation fines

I wish I had been able to attend last night's council workshop, which focused on fines for city code violations.  From the KDH article and the little bit Mayor Corbin posted, it sounds like the emphasis was on the level of financial penalty.  That is a consideration, of course; the penalty needs to be higher than the cost of non-compliance.  But there is much more to consider (though not necessarily to change):

• Does the city give fair warning of violations?
• Do we make allowances for special circumstances?  If so, how?
• Can a citizen apply for an exception to the code, and, if so, how?
• Is the code applied uniformly across the city?
• Can the code be used punitively, and if so how does the punished party recover parity?
• What is the history of code violation citations?  Is there anything we can learn from the pattern?

If we're going to talk about the level of fines, it seems a fine time to open the entire can of worms.

Quality of argument

The quality of argument in the city council is low.  None of the members have much training or experience in the art, so they make their points indirectly and without force.  The mayor could chew them up and spit them out if that were his role and he had a mind to.

Nonetheless, they do better than their betters at the state level.  In a news conference today, Party 1 asserted that problem X exists and action A will fix that problem; they did not offer much support for that position, which should have allowed Party 2 to argue:

1. Action A is not a cost-effective fix for problem X, and
2. Action B would be a better fix for problem X, and
3. Problem X isn't as severe as Party 1 said, anyway (a tough argument in this case, but one that could be made), 

Instead, Party 2 argues "Problem Y exists and Action A does nothing to address it."

I take back what I said about the city council.  At least they're trying.