Austin Political Report

Has the Meeker campaign cratered?

By Pol Pot on May 6, 2008

great ad…good to see Dwayne Lofton in it. Hopefully, he’s auditioning for another run at office — place 5 next year?

By Kedron Jerome Touvell on May 6, 2008

What ever happened to McMeeker? Whatever happened to Robin Rather supporting him?

I thought he was some big RG4N organizer but he seemingly can’t raise a dime and needs Rick Culleton to pay for his signs..and his ads…and his campaign manager…and what’s next? his rent?

By BeatrixKiddo on May 6, 2008

I don’t understand the big deal with me endorsing Lee…as if I would endorse anyone else in that race.

Lee is the real deal…and that’s exactly why some folks really don’t like him…because he doesn’t pander to them and give them a bunch of double talk. He tells em what he thinks, what his position is, and sticks to it.

I have had the privilege of sitting next to Lee on the dais for 2 years now, and I know that my perspective of Lee is very different and much more in-depth than many folks get to know. But as you can see by the testimonials, I’m not alone in my assessment of Lee.

Just take a look at how many times he and I have been on opposite ends of a decision…yet we are colleagues, friends, and dedicated council members to our great city. And the minute after we take a vote in opposition of one another, we get right to work on the next issue and bust our butts to do what’s right.

You can’t find that every day in this world. Especially not in politics. Quite frankly, I didn’t think being a council member would be this great of an experience. It’s been the best decision of my life (to leave the fire department for a seat on the dais). But I know there experience has been what it is because of folks like Lee who make it all worth it. And Lee is the only one…but he is a damn good guy.

Mike

By Mike on May 6, 2008

I thought Laura Morrison was the only candidate this election who had earned the “Mc” sobriquet because of her hypocrisy on the McMansion ordinance. Why “Mc”Meeker?

By McMe on May 6, 2008

I am no political expert, like the many who post here, but it seems that the Mc portion of the McMeeker moniker is a winking way of noting a relationship between Mr. Meeker and Mr. Brewster McCracken.

By Schlomo on May 6, 2008

Are you blind? Jason Meeker has an army of volunteers posting signs all over town! He’s organized canvassing in all the high turnout locations. He’s looking awful likely to pull off the biggest political upset in Austin history.

By Fred Friendly on May 6, 2008

Hey Jason, I mean Fred, posting signs all over the right of way is easy, but I don’t see any signs in my neighbors’ yards. Even my neighbor Lisa doesn’t have one.

By BeatrixKiddo on May 7, 2008

I think meeker would have a shot if we had single member districts. Under the current scenario though, I believe he is toast.

By agar on May 7, 2008

Here’s the big deal. It’s not done. Jackie Goodman says in In Fact that previous city legal departments told her it was a violation of the city charter.

§ 2-7-2 DEFINITIONS.

In this chapter:

(3) CITY OFFICIAL or OFFICIAL, unless otherwise expressly defined, means the mayor, members of the city council, municipal court judges (including substitute judges), city manager, assistant city managers, city clerk, deputy city clerks, city attorney, deputy city attorneys, all department heads or deputy department heads, whether such person is salaried, hired or elected, and all other persons holding positions designated by the City Charter, as it may be amended from time to time. City official, unless otherwise expressly defined, includes individuals appointed by the mayor and city council to all City commissions, committees, boards, task forces, or other City bodies unless specifically exempted from this chapter by the city council.

§ 1. OFFICERS — NOT TO BE INTERESTED IN FRANCHISES — FORFEITURE OF OFFICE.
Neither the mayor nor any other member of the city council, nor any elective or appointive officer of the city, shall be directly or indirectly in the employ of any person, company or corporation, holding or seeking to hold any franchise from the City of Austin, or shall receive directly or indirectly any wage, commission, fee, gift, favor or payment from such franchise holder, and any violation of this section shall ipso facto render vacant the office held by the person so violating it.

(Charter of 1909, § 11, Art. XI; Sp. Laws of Texas, 1909, 31st Leg., p. 8, ch. 2.)

§ 2. OFFICERS, ETC. — IMPROPER ACTS OF.
Any officer or employee of the city who by solicitation or otherwise shall exert his/her influence directly or indirectly to influence any other officer or employee of the city to favor any particular person or candidate for office in the city shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit his or her office or employment and be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00). Officers and employees shall not be permitted to take an active part in any political campaign of another for an elective position of the city if they are in uniform or on active duty. The term “active part” means making political speeches, passing out cards, or other political literature, writing letters, signing petitions, actively and openly soliciting votes and making public derogatory remarks about candidates for such elective positions. City officers and employees are prohibited from contributing or using city resources, equipment or money for election campaigning.

Officers and employees coming under the provisions of this act are not required to contribute to any political fund or render any political service to any person or party whatsoever; and no person shall be removed, reduced in classification or salary, or otherwise prejudiced by refusing to do so; and any official who attempts the same shall be guilty of violating the provisions of this section.

By Just Another Lobbyist on May 9, 2008

Guys…get over yourselves please.

Don’t you think I sought legal opinion (inside and out) on this before I even chose to be in the ad?

Since when does a politician being a politician become illegal?

The charter is CLEAR…”officer or employee”…not “official”

Council Members are city officials…the definitions are right there in your own posting.

Mr. Meekers track record on interpreting the city charter speaks for itself. I would think he and his campaign supporters have better things to do the day before the election…but then again…I can see why they don’t.

Have a great weekend.

Mike

By Mike on May 9, 2008

What an insult! “Mike’s” posting is precisely why such language is in the charter. In the report in “In Fact Daily,” Jason Meeker pointedly praised Mike Martinez and his record when he commented on Mike’s involvement in Lee’s campaign. It’s completely fair to raise the question, since what this council member is doing has never been done, and since former Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman is on record now as being told in the past that what is being “allowed” now is, in fact, a violation. If this really is a post from Mike Martinez, it demeans him and the office he holds by needlessly attacking Jason Meeker here and his supporters. What up with that? Whomever is doing this, have you no sense of decency? Even worse, this “Mike” runs the risk of further alienating the thousands of Austinites who support Meeker’s candidacy and are already suspect of this council. This is precisely why a council member should never get involved in another council member’s campaign ever. Moreover, if this really is Mike Martinez and he is posting on a blog while at City Hall and on a City of Austin computer, that is a violation of the charter.

By Yet Another Lobbyist on May 9, 2008

Take a breath, Mr. Meeker. You are going to pass out or get carpal tunnel if you keep going on this way.

By Schlomo on May 9, 2008