Austin City Council Plans to Plan; Statesman Stenographizes

December 30, 2008

The oldest joke in the sales business goes something as follows:

Customer: Ok, you’ve convinced me. I want to buy your opto-broadband peanut butter emulsifier. How much is it?

Salesman: What’s your budget for the project for your digital lunchbox project?

Customer: Eleventeen thousand shekels.

Salesman: Well, well! Do I have a remarkable coincidence to report…

As silly as that seems exchange seems, something remarkably similar seems about to go down between the Austin City Council and the sixteen consulting firms who think the $1.5 million the Council proposes to spend on focus groups, surveys, and general facilitation would be pretty good work if they could get it.

The Statesman dutifully explains the Council’s logic:

The Austin Tomorrow plan was adopted in 1979. Numerous smaller-scale efforts dealing with issues such as neighborhood preservation, transportation and water quality have taken place in the intervening decades.

The new comprehensive plan won’t replace those detailed documents.

Instead, the goal is to document a community-wide consensus on how Austin should deal with its expansion.

“It’s an opportunity to have us all take a breath and say, ‘What is our overall vision of growth in the city?’ said Jim Walker, chairman of the regional planning group Envision Central Texas.

“It’s important because it will allow us as a community to define what our goals and visions are for the coming decades and then really plot out how we go about achieving that from a lot of different perspectives, such as land use, transportation, parks and public safety,” said Council Member Laura Morrison, who made the need for a new plan a campaign issue.

Austin’s leaders and citizens deliberated for nearly a decade before the city adopted the 176-page Austin Tomorrow Plan, but current city officials want to complete the upcoming process in just two years.

“We looked at comprehensive plans in other big cities, and it’s almost universal that the plans that took a long time were less successful,” said Garner Stoll, assistant director of neighborhood planning and zoning. “The plans that try to do too much got bogged down. It’s really to engage the whole community in establishing the broad policy directions.”

The planning process will include public participation through workshops, focus groups and online opinion surveys.

Am I missing something, or is this just irredeemably strange, from the standpoints of both process and content?

First, process. It seems odd to broadcast the City’s budget for the project before anyone bids. Maybe this always happens-I’m certainly not immersed in the protocol of such things. But in the private sector, an RFP would outline what we’re interested in doing, not how much we’re willing to spend. Then, we’d choose a vendor based on a combination of price and other criteria. What seems to be happening here is the reverse: “we’ve budgeted $1.5 million; what can you do for us?”

Next, content. Take a $1.5m budget and carve it up into people-hours, at a very generous rate of $200 per average consultant, fully burdened (that’s $400k per year, more than we pay almost any of the CEOs in our portfolio). That works out to 7,500 person/days. Ummm…doesn’t that seem like a lot? And as for pricing, I needn’t point out that this is likely the slowest professional services environment since the Depression, and we’re shopping for what appear to be relatively commodity services. The fact that 16 bidders showed up might give some clue that that the City has room to negotiate; it’s hard to believe that a lot of municipalities are clamoring for long-term consulting services in this economic climate.

We have some really smart people on the City Council. Is this all as bass-ackwards as it seems? And if I’m even anywhere near the mark, why doesn’t the Statesman ask these questions? Even if they’re only published on-line, where there are no space constraints? And if the paper is not going to ask such questions, why write a story at all? That’s what I mean by stenographic journalism.


Hill Research on the Republican Brand in Texas

December 8, 2008

Via Forrest Wilder at the Texas Observer, this rather eye-popping summary of the much-awaited survey:

The full results of a much-discussed survey by the Republican firm Hill Research showing the weakening GOP brand in Texas have been released. The details are stunning. Take for example this slide:

Got that? In a head-to-head matchup today between a generic Democratic candidate for governor and a generic Republican, the Democrat starts out with a 13 percent advantage. In a state rep race, the Democratic advantage is 14 percent.

What is it about the Texas GOP that voters don’t like?

Voters think the Republicans are arrogant, racist, corrupt and angry. While they think Democrats are smart, innovative, reformers, fair, thoughtful and - perhaps most important - the party of the future. As Hill Research notes, “Long-term, this is simply untenable.”

What’s going on out there to produce such profound distaste with the Texas GOP? After all, this is the party that currently controls all statewide elective offices and both chambers of the Texas Legislature.

Even Texas voters are sick of Bush. That much is evident. But Republicans in time can overcome the Bush problem. More worrisome for the GOP in this state is that half of the voters surveyed cited a lack of appeal to young people and Hispanics, the most important demographic groups of the future.

Based on their survey results, Hill slices the voting population into five distinct segments: Enduring Republicans (21%), Emerging Republicans (10%), Critical Middle (25%), Emerging Democrats (17%), and Enduring Democrats (27%). It is the Critical Middle - those “not in either camp solidly - that Republicans must win to hold onto power. This group is heavily male, under age 50, self-described moderate and/or independent, focused on fiscal rather than social issues.

Hill warns in no uncertain terms that for GOP campaigns to succeed they must wrap up 80 percent of the Critical Middle. “This isn’t ‘optional’ - anything less means Republicans lose.” The Texas Republican Party, controlled in large part by religious conservatives, is going to have to make some serious changes to accommodate these folks. This group could not give a hoot about immigration (only 15% said it was the most important issue vs. 38% of the Enduring GOP). The Critical Middle also doesn’t care much for “traditional values” (8% said it was the most important vs. 16% of the Enduring GOP and 19% of the Emerging GOP). What they do rate as important are cutting property taxes (17% said it was the most important vs. 15% of the Enduring GOP), child healthcare (19% vs. 2%), and investing in education (20% vs. 9%).

Because this survey is meant as a wake-up call to complacent GOPers, Hill has some recommendations for strategists and politicians on how to reach that Critical Middle.

The danger, of course, in appealing to the Critical Middle is pissing off the Loony Right, err… Enduring GOP. But, Hill emphasizes, not acknowledging and adapting to political realities will result in a Colorado-style meltdown for the party.

The Hill survey shows that Democrats have a golden opportunity to make major gains in Texas. But Texas Democrats - as was said of Yasser Arafat - have been known to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


Let’s See….What if We Could Make Pat Green, Like, Blue?

November 13, 2008

I just had my an email exchange with my friend Evan Smith about his post in response to Chuck Todd’s review of the bidding in Texas. 74% percent of white college students voted for McCain in our state. Mind boggling.

Is Texas in Play in 2012? Uh, No.

From NBC’s First Read:

Is Everything Redder In Texas? Just a week after the election, there’s already speculation about which other red states Democrats might be able to turn blue in future presidential races. And Texas — which McCain won by 11 percentage points, down from Bush’s 23-point win in 2004 — is at the top of that list. A growing number of Hispanic voters, check. A sizable African-American population, check. A relatively young state, check. Sounds a lot like North Carolina or Virginia, right? Well, not so fast. Ideologically, Texas remains a very conservative state. Nationally, according to the exit polls, 34% identified themselves as conservatives, but that number jumped to 46% in the Lone Star State (it was 33% in VA and 37% in NC). In addition, Bush’s job approval was 41% in Texas, compared with 27% nationally. (As we wrote yesterday, with the exception of Missouri, Obama won every state where Bush’s approval rating was below 35%, and he lost every state where Bush’s approval was above 35%.) Besides the Texan Bush, check out these numbers: While Obama almost tied McCain among white college grads nationally, McCain destroyed him in Texas among this subgroup, 74%-25%. And while Obama won the suburbs, the Texas ‘burbs broke for McCain, 61%-37%. So what does this all mean? Don’t bet the ranch that Democrats will win Texas in 2012 or 2016. Still, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Texas Republican brand now that a Bush isn’t around to prop it up.


Something to Ponder for 2011

September 6, 2008

Matt Angle-one of the smartest and certainly the hardest-working guy in Texas politics-hit me with one of those factoids which is both obvious and hard to believe at the same time.

As mandated by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congressional districts are redrawn by each state legislature in the year following the decennial census. Or, in the case of Texas in 2002, whenever Tom DeLay and Tom Craddick got the hankering. Although DeLay’s 02 travesty of justice was an outlier in the art of gerrymandering, there is not surprisingly partisan squabbling that follows these things. Although the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of any particular map, the Justice Department is the last word in practically all redistricting cases.

What Matt reminded me is that since the passage of the VRA, there has never been a Democratic Attorney General in office in a redistricting year. As if the stakes for this election needed to be any higher.


Goes Both Ways, Sen. Van de Putte

August 24, 2008

Idly thumbing through the 2/25/08 issue of the New York Observer (don’t ask), I ran across this encounter between a reporter and Texas’s own Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, the Chair of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus. As Bexar county is likely not overrun with Observer readers, this didn’t get much play. Anyhow, Sen. Van de Putte

…said that while she found Mr. Obama’s speeches inspiring and invigorating, she thinks most adult women (emphasis mine) would be resistant to their charms.

“We’ve dated guys like that, and when the going got tough, they bailed on us,” she said. “We’ve been promised before—we know what that letdown is.”

Hmmmm… that reminds me of something I’ve read recently. Something about sexism, maybe….gosh, what could it be?? Oh, I know! It was that proposed plank in the platform of the Democratic Party, the one the Clintonistas couldn’t live without:

“Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us.”

Enjoy your plank, Senator.


That Pretty Much Says It, Sen. Watson

August 1, 2008

I often (usually) auto-delete spam from politicians (e.g. “dear John D Thornton, we’re so grateful for your generous help as we take to the powers of evil our vigorous fight to save the Quicky Mart here in Snoggsville”).

But I almost always read Kirk Watson’s stuff, which I get the feeling he actually writes. This week, a pretty crisp-if bleak-summary of the state of play in Texas government and the need to throw the bums out:

A GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS

At some point, a tragedy is more than an isolated mishap.

With this week’s stunning report of negligence and neglect leading up to the fire at the Governor’s Mansion, the time has passed to ask serious questions about competence in running state government.

To start, let’s reject the notion that this was an isolated, unpreventable act. Let’s not allow claims that the Texas Department of Public Safety – and, more than that, the leadership of the State of Texas – is nothing more than a victim.

No, for once, let’s look at things more broadly. Here’s a short, sobering list of only the scandal and incompetence that’s made headlines recently:

- The Texas Youth Commission, the agency charged with rehabilitating young Texans who break the law, is under receivership like some bankrupt Savings & Loan because some state employees, who were supposed to protect these kids, are instead accused of physically and even sexually abusing them. Just this week, we learned in the Dallas Morning News that after more than a year of the strongest reform the leadership could muster, many of these kids are receiving “poor schooling from overwhelmed teachers plagued by badly designed programs.”

- The Texas Department of Transportation – once an agency so effective that we bragged about it to the world – has become a rogue element in state government: “losing” a billion dollars, enraging citizens and legislators regardless of party or constituency, and drawing its own recommendations for receivership.

- The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the state’s meager efforts to ensure its citizens stay healthy, turned vital operations over to a private vendor that wasn’t nearly up to handling them. In the process, tens of millions of dollars have been wasted and dedicated state employees are scrambling to pick up the pieces.

It goes on and on. Stroll among the committee rooms during a legislative session, and the conversations weave a dreary tapestry of the failures by Texas’ leaders to protect, serve, and meet the needs of the People of Texas.

At some point, leaders must take responsibility. And if they won’t, the people of Texas have to take a long look at what’s wrong.

We remain the state with the most uninsured, yet the legislative leadership refuses to pursue all available federal dollars for children’s health care.

Our universities can’t keep up with our state’s growth, yet the leadership cuts funding levels, cynically decries tuition increases, and vetoes increases for community college budgets.

Our small businesses fret about huge tax increases and homeowners can’t find their promised property tax relief, yet the leadership can’t find a way to seek out solutions or even basic information in a timely manner.

And there’s the Department of Public Safety, the umbrella over the Texas Rangers and the one-time ideal for Texas law and order.

But now, according to its state reviewers, we have an agency that has a phobia for technology, doesn’t look at all of its own data, and would sooner ship its people across the state than modify its habits to be more effective.

And, according to this week’s report on the Mansion fire, we have an agency that forces good officers to beg for adequate protection of the state’s treasures; that doesn’t check or repair its security equipment; that employs senior officers who won’t even ask for needed resources; and that fails to prepare its people for potential emergencies.

Taken together, it all resembles a fantasy of someone looking to drown the people’s government in a bathtub – or, if you will, burn it to the ground.

But the Mansion fire isn’t only a symbol. It’s a symptom of the self-interested neglect and mismanagement that have come to define those who purport to lead this state. While Texas is blessed with dedicated, hard working, public service-oriented employees, they have been denied the tools and leadership they need.

Texas, and every Texan, deserves better. It’s time to demand a government that works.


Paul Burka on the Texas Electoral Map

July 23, 2008