The Daily Hustle: 3/29/10

Her own subcommittee: Sheryl Cole (Photo by Jana Birchum)

Welcome to The Daily Hustle, a (hopefully!) daily rundown of local politics in our fair city …

Last week, City Council ratified their intentions to hold a rail-free, $100 million transportation bond election. And while the train never left the station, similarly stranded were three council members &ndash Sheryl Cole, Bill Spelman, and Laura Morrison.

At issue was the creation of a citizen task force that would vet the bond package before final council approval. According to last Thursday's resolution, the task force "will be presented to the full Council at the regular meeting on April 8, 2010 by a Council committee consisting of Mayor Lee Leffingwell, Council Member Randi Shade and Council Member Chris Riley." This didn't sit well with Cole, who's name is absent from the committee. In a long, somewhat muddled, speech filled with allusions to her dais mates, Cole urged them to change the language, so that each council member could have their own appointee, with the final two members of the nine person task force named by the special council subcommittee.

From the council transcript (See if you can match the council member to their place!):

I don't think any of my colleagues would and are intentionally attempting to disenfranchise any of us, but I recognize that this is not about me per se, but this is about the seat that I sit in. And I feel like when you're going to the voters and we're going to be asked by the voters about not only the financial integrity but the reasonableness, the geographic dispersion, and all those things, we have to answer those questions, and we'll have to answer those questions into the future. And I can certainly understand why the subcommittee would want to set up a process where we looked at Place 2 and we said that 'we don't need to have a forward-thinking firefighter who is passionate about people owning homes,' but if that Place 2 council member wants that, that's a problem. We might decide that the Place 4 council member might want to appoint someone who knows a whole lot about compatibility and commercial design standards and VMU, but they don't necessarily sit on any of these boards and commissions, but they want them to serve because of their standing in the community, their standing in civic organizations, or their ability to compromise and get along with others. And I don't think that should be taken away. And of course, I can certainly understand if we were being disenfranchised because there was a fear that there would be an appointment in Place 6 of a homeless person that lived on Waller Creek, and finally, worst of all, I can understand if there was a disenfranchisement of Place 5 for a potential appointment that like to give slide shows and was passionate about water quality and water supply, and this bond election has nothing to do with that but transportation, but they just felt like they had an amendment about environmental protection and somehow it does relate to that, even though they don't serve on these committees. And I think that flexibility and respect for that office, especially in this case, when you're going to the voters and you're talking about $100 million. That being said, I would simply propose that each council member have an opportunity to appoint a member to the citizens task force.

Cole caught something of a smackdown from her colleagues: Shade noted "there would be no way that we would come forward with the group of nine that wouldn't be diverse, that wouldn't be with the input of our colleagues, because as you said, this is a big deal. So I don't see the need for it to be amended the way that you're suggesting. This is going to be a council-approved committee, and the only way we're going to have a group to bring forward as a council to approve is by working collaboratively." Cole countered a few moments later noting "I appreciate the fact that you say, you know, you would talk to all of us and that, but it's not just about this. It's about the precedent that you're setting that we go to a bond election for a hundred million dollars and every council member not have the opportunity to appoint the citizen of their choice." A few minutes later, Cole said "the premise that all of council appoints everybody anyway – I don't agree with it, because we make individual appointments associated with us that last the term of our office." The mayor then interjected, "Council member, that's not correct. Individual council members make nominations, the entire council makes the appointment."

Spelman and Morrison later came to Cole's defense, Spelman saying "Although there have been precedents for appointing other ways in the past, it is not our usual practice. The vast, vast majority of our board commission and appointees have been appointed at least by individual council members. … I think by appointing individual members, each of us having an appointment on this taskforce, we're going to ensure a better linkage and better communication. We'll all know more about what was going on in that taskforce than we otherwise would." Morrison added " … really to me I think council member Cole's motion speaks to a big picture issue that we really need to keep in mind here. And that is that this effort as we go forward, we need to signal to the community that this is a whole council effort. And I think this is the best way to do that.

The amendment failed 4-3, with Cole, Spelman and Morrison the nays. Cole sought to resolve some diversity issues moments later, in a new "proposed, I hope it’s friendly, amendment." Citing "a very difficult time when we had over 100 applicants in the Comprehensive Plan process even coming up with three African-American" candidates, she said "the pool of minorities sitting on boards and commissions is very, very small and even of that pool they are being stretched very, very thin. … My motion is simply to add the language to allow former members of boards and commissions to be in the pool for consideration." Accepted as friendly, it was incorporated into the final motion.

What the hell else is happening?

– City Council is taking this week off, but they return April 8. The draft agenda for the meeting went live late last week.

– The city submitted their final application for Google's "Fiber for Communities" program, where the do-no-evilers will build a blazing fast network connection in at least one lucky city.

– Scant board and commission get-togethers this week, as the meetings have petered out for the month. The Citizens Water Conservation Implementation Task Force meets at Waller Creek Plaza, Room 104, 625 E. Tenth, 5:30pm. They’re set to discuss water saving recommendations from 2009. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee of the Urban Transportation Commission assembles at One Texas Center, Suite 800, 505 Barton Springs, 6pm. Business includes updates on the Sidewalk Master Plan, and intersection improvements through federal stimulus dollars.

– If you were hoping a Cloverfield-style monster had severed all the electricity to Downtown Saturday, no such luck: it was only Earth Hour, where much of Downtown, including City Hall, went dark from 8:30 to 9:30pm, to promote energy conservation.

Got something you wanna show the Hustle? Email it to wells [at] austinchronicle.com, tweet it @CityHallHustle, or leave a comment in the section below.