You may have already heard, but in case you haven’t, I wanted to share the good news: my husband and I are expecting our first child — a baby girl — in late April.
Paul and I started dating in high school — in 1987 — so we figured after 22 years it was about time to bring a little one into our family.
We’ve already received several very… creative suggestions for baby names (”Jimette” tops the list so far), and as always, I welcome your input.
As for how my pregnancy will affect my service to the City of Dallas: I will continue to actively serve on the council and do all that I can to make Dallas a better, safer city in which to live and raise a family.
We are very excited about our little girl’s impending arrival and are deeply appreciative of all the well wishes, thoughts, and prayers we have received.
Today I sent the following suggestions to my council colleagues on how we can put some real teeth in the Mayor’s proposal to regulate lobbyists and limit campaign contributions:
The purpose of creating a lobbyist registration system is to reduce the likelihood of corruption at City Hall. But for this system to be effective, we must focus on the nature of the problem, then develop a system that will, to the fullest extent possible, create a climate hostile to such corruption.
What corrupt activity are we trying to prevent?
Buying influence from the mayor and councilmembers. Trading money for a favorable vote.
Who would have incentive to bribe an elected official? Who would a corrupt elected official think they could extract a bribe from?
Someone who’s got a financial stake in a decision by the council.
Are paid lobbyists the problem?
No. But like smoke denotes fire, paid lobbyists indicate there’s somebody who has such a significant financial stake in a council decision that they would expend money on a professional to fight on their behalf.
How do we keep a “financial stakeholder” from paying off the mayor or a councilmember?
We can’t. People who are corrupt will find a way around any rule we create. But we can shed so much light on the relationship between a financial stakeholder and city officials that we make it very difficult for them to trade money for influence.
So how do we shed light on the relationship between financial stakeholders and city officials?
By requiring them to disclose the same information we are requiring paid lobbyists to provide. And by requiring both lobbyists and financial stakeholders to disclose information that illuminates and gives context to the extent of their relationships with city officials.
The following changes to the proposed ordinance attempt to accomplish just that. MORE….
I know what you’re thinking. “Wow, Angela, you must be psychic. How else to explain your eerily accurate prediction one year ago that the impending economic recession would reduce revenue to the city, reveal the city’s budget forecast as overly optimistic, and necessitate mid-year service cuts?”
Indeed, how else to explain it other than telepathy?
I began dabbling in the clairvoyant arts last year around this time in an effort to see into our city’s financial future. I started out by reading tea leaves (and by “tea leaves” I mean “newspapers”), which foretold ominous fiscal tidings: Lehman Brothers would file for Chapter 11. AIG would go down in flames. Bank of America would take over Merrill Lynch.
And that wasn’t all. My crystal ball/television revealed more otherworldly insights: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be placed in conservatorship. Congress would plunge $700 billion into Wall Street to try to stop the hemorrhaging. And Washington Mutual would become the largest bank failure in American history. Ahem. MORE….
You know, the devil’s in the details when it comes to just about everything. Especially government, and most especially, government budgets.
Take next year’s proposed city budget. I’ve been through this thing line by line, with a fine-toothed comb, ever since we got the “final draft” in early August. It’s a lot to digest. Lots of numbers and all. But some numbers are more important than others, and right now I want to focus on debt and its effect on our bottom line.
The city borrows money to make major infrastructure improvements, like constructing new libraries and police stations, building new roads, putting in new playgrounds in our parks. These are bond projects approved by voters. When we borrow money for these projects, we’re essentially putting them on the city’s credit card.
As with any credit card, the city has to make regular payments. Next year, our credit card bill will be about 22% of our entire operating budget. It’s the largest expense after police. Take a look:
Next year, the city manager proposes to charge an additional $314 million to our credit card. The critical question is: How will that affect our credit card payment? Well, it won’t make much of a difference next year. It’s the following year we have to worry about.
See, if we decide to borrow $314 million next year, then the following budget year we’re going to be up a creek without a paddle. Our credit card payment will jump by $24 million. TWENTY-FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.
Why am I shouting? Because I’m worried about this. Really worried. Because if we have to spend $24 million more on debt repayment, that means $24 million less that we’ll have for all our other city services: police, streets, parks, libraries, code, the arts, etc. MORE….
I don’t know that there’s much more to add about the DPD incident in which an officer (Powell) prevented a man (Moats) from seeing his dying mother-in-law in her last moments. I am so glad this was captured on video so there is no question about what happened. The self-control Mr. Moats displayed is amazing. I don’t know if I could have reacted with such a level head in the face of that kind of cruel, irrational behavior.
Some people have questioned whether this incident is reason enough to fire this officer. The fact is, it is an incredible responsibility to be a police officer. The authority and power that comes with it require considerable restraint and good judgment, neither of which was displayed here. MORE….
I debated about posting this since I didn’t want to make a big deal about it. But I did want to clarify a couple of things, so here goes.
The Dallas Morning News ran a story today about my decision not to use taxpayer dollars for city council-related travel. The story might have inadvertently left some with the impression that I called a press conference or sent out a press release to announce this. I didn’t. Reporter Dave Levinthal regularly reviews how much the council is spending on travel, and he asked me about my reimbursement to the city. I explained my personal decision: that I didn’t think it was right to use taxpayer money for city trips when our economy is in such bad shape and we’re going to have to cut back on city services next year to meet the city’s budget deficit.
To be clear: I wasn’t proposing a ban on other councilmembers’ travel. I was just doing what seemed right to me. MORE….
I appreciate good advice, even when it’s critical or requires me to revisit a position I’ve taken. Good counsel usually ensures more analytical thinking on my part and leads me to a better understanding of my decisions, even if I don’t ultimately follow the advice.
With that in mind, I appreciated the Dallas Morning News’ recent advice to me in their editorial “Texans to Watch in 2009″:
“If Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt really wants a more prized seat at the horseshoe, this is her year to show she can broaden her appeal (and fundraising) beyond her East Dallas base. Our advice? It’s not enough to be against everything, no matter how loudly the peanut gallery might cheer.”
Evaluating the Editorial Board’s arguments led me to ask myself some hard-hitting questions. Do I want a “more prized seat at the horseshoe”? What am I “for” so as not to be “against everything”? Who is this “peanut gallery” and why aren’t they sharing their trove of peanuts? MORE….
I saw on Dallas Morning News’ City Hall Blog that some folks who want to see Jenny the Elephant moved to the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee plan to stage a protest in front of Mayor Leppert’s home in the coming days.
I may not see eye-to-eye with Mayor Leppert on every issue, but this kind of invasion of privacy crosses the line. It reveals a lack common courtesy and is an embarrassment to those of us who advocated for Jenny’s move to Tennessee. MORE….
We’re finishing up our “afternoon” speakers at 7:30 p.m., and our first two speakers were smart, articulate, and had legitimate problems they wanted the City Council to know about, and hopefully, resolve.
But I was just told that their concerns were not aired publicly, and the TV broadcast was cut off when our speakers began. I am not happy.
