While I'm not sure this is really City Hall's "lowest moment," there's certainly very good reason to grumble about the latest rumble in our City's political foundation.

Chicken or the egg? It's not so much that less-respectable personalities fall in with the 'bad crowd' (the special interests), it's that they were brung by those special interests in the first place...and smack talkin' is merely a by-product.

City Hall has had some LOW moments in the past year or so, to be sure...but many of those are lost on the average Austinite who haven't followed the long threads of stories and issues leading up to a vote.  This story is an easy "gotchya" moment. One where those who haven't logged 100+ hours a year at City Hall can get a quick glimpse into the mindsets of our elected leaders.  And if the story actually ended here, yes, they would likely weather it as the consultants speculate.

Though what's REALLY important in this story, as David notes in yesterday's post, is the lack of submittals by Martinez. If we thought we'd seen open meetings/open records issues before, this could potentially really blow things up. If any of them are found to have withheld records, we're talking jail time (3 days minimum/3 months maximum: Section 552.351/TX Gov't Code). That would be a career-destroyer just as sure as any prostitution ring.

But apart from that aspect - which we've yet to suss out, I agree with the Mayor (really!).  The issues are more important.

HOW they vote is more important than how they treat each other and us, their constituents; but that certainly doesn't mean such etiquette or lack, thereof, isn't important...it's just a trait of having loyalties lie with the people or with those who profit off the people.  To apologize is futile; you can't take back your electronic smack-talk any more than you can your votes.

Better Austin Today's latest report card, just published last Thursday in the Austin Chronicle, exhibits this phenomenon. Those dais-members that vote with community interests 50 percent of the time or more are the ones who can hold their head high after this weekend's revelations: Cole, Riley, Morrison & Spelman aren't the ones saying nasty things about each other or community members in their city correspondence (shy of a funny "chicken" remark from Cole to Martinez...there are many names one could call him if one were really trying to be hurtful).

On the other hand, the Mayor, Martinez and Shade, the ones most inclined to vote with developer and union interests, seem to -from what we've seen so far- have the most disdain for other council members and the public.

Coincidence? I think not. 

Apologies?  Pointless. Those who vote against the public's interests simply lack the political will to do otherwise. 

May's just around the corner....