University Democrats Endorsements

Darrell Pierce (0.00 / 0)

UD's endorsed Darrell Pierce? Whatever they're passing around at UD meetings these days, don't smoke it... must be laced with something.

---

by: msanford @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 05:43:48 AM UTC

Central Austin Dems (0.00 / 0)

...endorsed Touvell over McCracken.

Now who's smoking some mccracken...

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 05:45:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

true (0.00 / 0)

but going with the progressive environmentalist in what amounts to a protest against some of brewster's policies during the last three years is not the same as endorsing the least progressive, least Democratically involved candidate in darrell pierce

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 13:19:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? May elections? (0.00 / 0)

Not going to lie - were it not for the occassional Mike Martinez e-mail, I'd know nothing about the upcoming May elections. And I'm an extremely "active" politics-follower. I can't imagine how any of these folks are working to get their names out for May...

Actually - it's interesting for me to get 4-5 mail pieces on a race I know nothing about. I form my opinions strictly based on information in the mail pieces - which is fun, since I worked at a political communications place for two years where I edited a couple hundred mail pieces in a single year. It's interesting to be in the position we expect voters to be in, and see how my opinion compares with the Statesman endorsement, BOR writings, and what people say - especially since, half the time, my mail-piece formed opinion is the exact opposite of what everyone "in the know" tells me.

Just shows how important direct mail is to a campaign...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 06:16:00 AM UTC

Ruh-Roh. (0.00 / 0)

UDems against Open Government amendment?

This is a Jennifer Kim moment, I'm afraid.

-Colin Kalmbacher

p.s. Thanks to my number one (and only) fan!

"There's nothing new except for the history that you don't know."
-HST

Justice Addict

---

by: Colin Kalmbacher @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 13:43:44 PM UTC

Yeah! (0.00 / 0)

Didn't you know?  We're totally against any form of open government.  Haha!

I voted against endorsing mostly based on the fact that it'd be expensive as hell to implement when we could use the money for other things.

---

by: RamonT @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 15:14:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it wouldn't (0.00 / 0)

I like Brewster and think he's done a decent job but I heard his take down on amendment 1 at TED/CAPD/SAD and it was complete.bullshit.

Anyone who works for a company that employs more than 400 people and has a field organization has online calendering in realtime. It's an off the shelf solution and the damn thing even ties into my blackberry (always helpful for people like me who 'forget' conference calls).

I wish y'all had voted for this!

 

---

by: The Trey @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 15:38:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whats in a name? open govt == no child left behind == patriotism (0.00 / 0)

up front, you will hardly find someone more open to accountability, transparency, and technology roles in the polticial/governmental process than me,

but i am against prop 1.

whether you believe or not it was poorly worded so it would fail (as a conspiracy or as proof of idiocy), it IS poorly worded, and it should fail. it has at its core some good ideas, and maybe next round it will written in a way that makes its viable.

ignore the "With Patriot in the name, who can be agianst it?" tactic and read the actual language:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/election/downloads/20060403-002eng_prop1.pdf

it is filled with opportunities for good people and broadly supported projects to be hamstrung by bad litigation.

undefined, and worse yet, multiply-defined phrases abound, such as:
"all other instances where it is reasonably anticipated that
there is significant public interest in the matter."

am i significant, is crazy cat lady significant? is that enough? does it have to be two, three, 30 people to meet the "significant public interest" metric?

"“Meetings” includes all informal and formal meetings including
but not limited to telephone conferences, videoconferences, happy
hours, and luncheons."

what if someone stops by an aide's table at las manitas and says "lets talk about funding that festival" "ok call me later". is that not an informal meeting? who gets the $500 fine for it not be recorded in 'real-time'?

"All references within this article to “online” refer to the Internet or future
similar technology."
'future similar technology'?!? who decides when its similar enough? i ve been doing mobile stuff for 5 years already. i think it similar, and so do lots of companies. does every 'meeting, including phone calls' at which someone raises a city issue available to me on my phone 'in real time' and if not, why not? live record and re-podcast it. i DEMAND it. ; )

etc etc, READ it and see for yourself that Prop 1 is at core a good idea gone astray in the details. if you can blame someone, blame them, vote THEM out, but Austinites should NOT be voting for such a tangled mess.

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 16:31:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, Mario... (0.00 / 0)

I think you're taking it to an illogical conclusion. However, casual meetings like the example you mentioned provide an excellent example.

They were talking about setting up a meeting. At that time there was no decision made as to the time. If they'd decided to meet Thursday at noon for lunch, THAT would be the meeting that should be scheduled. It wouldn't be difficult with a handheld to
1) check the time to make sure it was available
2) create the appointment
I do both all the time and have even done it at 80MPH on the 35 between SA and Austin.

As for formal vs. informal, it's the setting. A formal meeting would be in an office and informal would be offsite.

I think the entire thing is silly, but this is one time when the anti-amendment forces are making the case FOR the amendment by using extremely squirrely logic and arguments.

---

by: The Trey @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 17:29:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

last thing...and sorry... (0.00 / 0)

one last point on the 'realtime' calendering, I've spoken with several attorney's who are friends and all of them have the same read on this... as soon as it's entered into the official schedule.

---

by: The Trey @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 17:53:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm all for shared synced calendering... (0.00 / 0)

and if they arent doin it, shame on them for being so inefficient.

but, your reponse is a great example of the danger of undefined terms, i honestly (and i think reasonably) thought formal meeting meant 'scheduled' and informal meant 'non-scheduled', not that formal/informal was a measure of the level of decor or geography ; )

as an example, if at, say, a lloyd dogget fundraiser (something non-city based), Will's aide and a (enemy of your choice) run into each other and talk about (project of significant public interest) how is that treated?

see i think the idea of this charter amendment is based on making THOSE meetings public/transparent/open.

or maybe not.

and its the fact they i cant tell, and i am genuinely interested and (tho some might dispute it) pretty smart.

reasonable people will reasonably disagree (and nevermind the unreasonable trouble-makers!) and that leads to my opposition to the written details, not the idea -- but we arent voting on if ts a good idea, we're voting on THIS version.

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 17:59:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You ARE smart... (0.00 / 0)

which is why your comment got under my skin:).

Three interesting points to be made in that if this much time was spent on the language of bills passed by the Congress or the Lege we'd have better legislation. We'd also have less of it and finally, MOST LAWS ARE WRITTEN VAGUELY:).

The benefits outweigh the costs...

---

by: The Trey @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 18:54:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm curious... (0.00 / 0)

What exactly is a Jennifer Kim moment?

---

by: Bluebonnet @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 17:37:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you from the Mike Martinez Campaign! (0.00 / 0)

I want to sincerely thank the UD's for supporting Mike with your endorsement.  I know this was a very hotly contested endorsement and Mike is grateful to have earned your support.

We've enjoyed getting to know many of you over the past few months and we look forward working with you over the next few weeks to get the word out about these important city elections. 

And Phillip - I'm so happy to know that someone finds our newsletters useful! ;)

See y'all soon!

---

by: Amy Everhart @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 17:52:25 PM UTC

They're good... (0.00 / 0)

Keep 'em coming.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 18:04:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 1 (0.00 / 0)

My favorite line:

"All references within this article to “online” refer to the Internet or future
similar technology."

That just cracks me up, for some reason.

This is a harmless amendment, and I'm amazed that the U-Dems folks think it's bad. Basically, the city is adopting similar practices to what the folks have here at the Legislature. You have to announce formal meetings, and allow as much information from those meetings and that process to go online.

Going online isn't that expensive, Ramon T -- just ask any Maxey supporter. Once you've got the system in place, it's there. Done. A few upgrades here or there, but it's not like we're building a frickin' toll road.

As for the formal/informal meetings, I can't imagine anyone would ever be charged $500 for anything. Two city officials run into each other and they talk about some other meeting, so what? "Accidental" meetings like that always happen, you can't outlaw them without moving too close to Big Brother-like following. That portion of the rule would apply if, say, the mayor takes three council members out on some expensive cruise in the Bahamas to try and get them to vote a certain way. Not for folks running into each other on the street.

Sorry to be mixing city and state political metaphors, but it's the best way to look at it. Put the stuff online. Just as few people will actually pay attention as they do now, except now they can do it while driving 80 MPH down I-35. :)

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 18:10:10 PM UTC

"I can't imagine..." (0.00 / 0)

You can't imagine that anyone would use the letter of the law to their advantage in a political arena? Why that would never happen!

I need to spend more time looking at this measure, but my early sense is that it is a flawed implementation of an idea with some value.

---

by: George @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 18:20:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I can't... (0.00 / 0)

Though, I mis-wrote. I meant to say that I can't imagine someone being...I guess convicted is the word I'm looking for...for having an informal meeting.

Let's say you run a campaign against Brewster. He runs into someone on the hike and bike trail and says hello. How do you prosecute that? Mayor Wynn goes to a forum, sees Jennifer Kim, and talks to her. Do you have any way to prove those two discussed city business?

No, it's not very well written, but all the core principles are there, and the rest is up to litigation. Do you think they can write a law that someone won't twist to their liking?

As I said - if there was some aggregious private meetings, a la going away somewhere for an extended period of time, or scheduled secret meetings, that'd be one thing. That, I'd see getting fined. But Mario was talking about bump-in meetings, and I just don't see those being anything real.

You want to file charges on two city officials for passing each other while getting red enchilladas at Las Manitas?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 18:35:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]