The Rundown of the Smackdown: Aiyer v Lovell

As promised, here's my take on the HCDP lunch debate with Jay Aiyer and Sue Lovell. First, of course, the disclosure. And this is a twofold one: a) I've supported Jay as a City Council candidate since before his official announcement. I've been on record as endorsing him since December 17, 2004. As if the rejiggered button along the side of the site wasn't a dead giveaway. b) I've done a bit of paid work for Team Aiyer in the past. If that makes one inclined to discount any remarks, so be it. If you think I support him because I cashed a small check or two, that's your perogative ... but you'd be wrong to assume that.

If there's anything more that's worth considering, there's also some backstory with regard to Sue Lovell that has yet to sit entirely well with me. Namely, her efforts at having a campaign staffer invent an attack peice on Jay that is totally without merit and almost identical to the same baloney she tried to pull on Ron Green two years ago in her losing efforts. At the outset of this campaign, I hadn't a lone negative word to say about Sue. Now, I'm really not that crazy about her. And that's primarily due to matters of campaign style less than policy points. Unfortunately, that prevents more hope for a balanced recap than any involvement on my part with Jay's campaign.

Now, all that aside ...

Sue starts off the gig ... No, scratch that. Gerry Birnberg started off the event with a bit too much material. I know, I know, the job is thankless enough. Cheap shot, Greg. Anyways, with a great deal of buildup by Gerry, Sue starts off. Within the first 10 sentences, I think the word "Democrat" was tossed in an average of 1.1 times per sentence. In case you didn't know it, she's a Democrat. Among the points Sue raised was that her DNC spot was the succession of Houston's own First Lady of the Democratic Party, Billie Carr. Mentioned specifically was that (according to Sue), Billie Carr blessed her for the DNC nomination after her passing away. I'll get back to that point in the followup. By the way, Sue Lovell is a Democrat. Just want to make sure that's out there.

If there's one point I can equally knock each candidate for, it's that Jay started off a bit hesitant in my calculation. Not entirely sure what to chalk it up to, but it's a stylistic thing anyway. The longer any event goes on, the more comfortable Jay gets, though. I think Sue's presentation of her opening was a bit more solid on the same stylistic grounds, but if there's a knock I have on what I thought of Sue's actual talking points is that the statement "The reason I'm running for this office are the principles of the Democratic Party" doesn't inherently make a ton of sense to me. I mean, I adhere to the principles of the Democratic Party and did not, myself, feel compelled to run. That aside, though, I will be fair with regard to Sue laying out her resume and qualifications more than adequately.

Jay's leadoff was a good fit with what he would bring to City Council ... someone that cares for this city not just for the next few years of his political life, but because he genuinely wants to see a better Houston several decades out. His analogy of Houston traffic during the Rita exodus as something similar to what we might see in Houston if we do nothing dramatic on public infrastructure between now and 2020, when many demographers are predicting Houston's population to double. State demographer, Steve Murdock, is predicting a Houston metro population of 6.4 million by 2020. So clearly, something's gotta give.

Sue did end her leadoff with an indirect jab at Jay, mentioning that the Houston Community College System was "outsourcing" some services that would allegedly wreck some bit of havoc with the Texas Workforce Commission. Unfortunately, Sue seemed to mix up the terms "outsouce" and "privatization" with what Jay pointed out on various occassions was more like "consolidating multiple existing service contracts into one." In one instance, Jay mentions how HCCS went from having dozens of contracts with different companies to provide janitorial services. These were all small employers, none of whom offered health insurance for their employees. HCCS looked at that and offered one service contract for all janitorial services, with the express requirement that the employing firm offer health insurance for the janitors. According to Sue, that's outsourcing. If that's the case, then I'm curious how much more bloated City government would get under Lovell's control by hiring employees for which local government does not have a direct competitive advantage in hiring directly. I mean, if private companies use outside contractors for janitorial services, why should City Hall?

Sue made some mention later on that she "TOTALLY opposes ALL privatization." One would have to wonder if we will now have to contend with City Hall hiring employees for services that are currently being done just fine and well by private sector contractors. But considering that Sue never really nailed down an accurate definition of privatization or outsourcing all day long, we could well just assume the entire comments to be campaign boilerplate.

One little-discussed point of contention in the debate was an area where Sue and Jay both have a point of contact in their professional careers. Sue used to work for John Sharp in the Comptrollers office. I'll admit, that's a hell of a feather for anyone's cap because we've not had a better Comptroller in this great state. Sue mentions that she played a role in implementing the Lone Star Card program, implementing the Texas Workforce Commission, and implementing the Texas Tomorrow Fund. I'll take her at her word for all that implementation ... but if anyone wants to round out that picture of work for the Comptroller's office, feel free to contact with me on the particulars. I'll explain why later on.

The point of contact, it seems, comes from Sue's work on the Comptroller's HISD audit. One part of the recommendations in that audit was for more private-sector competition for services. We know this, because Jay was in the Attorney General's office working on the compliance of that very audit. So much for the whole anti-privatization moment we were having earlier.

On the plus side, I think Sue made one particularly excellent point about disaster plans not being kept a secret. Sue's parallel of kids at school knowing where to go for a fire drill is rather apt. Both candidate rightfully noted the need to do more to instill trust and confidence in future emergencies. Jay's added point that one leader on the stage instead of a PR show behind the mayor and City Councilmembers offering their own independent evacuation plans would also go a long way towards reducing chaos.

Now, the flip side of the above is that I think Jay was an unstoppable train of just damn good ideas by the time he hit his stride. Part and parcel of what I enjoy about Jay is that he isn't shy about putting those ideas out to other governmental agencies where he sees a fix. In particular, Jay notes how he advocated for HISD to collect enrollment info to identify CHIPs eligible kids and solve at least half the problem of CHIPs, in that it is underenrolled. The underfunding, of course, he's not able to wave a wand for. But considering that this issue isn't one that exists under Jay's HCCS domain nor a future City Hall domain, it's always good to see good ideas move forward where they're needed.

Of course, I had to contain my sense of pride in hearing Jay wax eloquent on last year's Prop. 1 local vote as an excellent approach for a progressive alternative on tax relief. The reason? Probably because longtime and loyal GO readers had a chance to see that same sentiment expressed almost a year ago in the comments of this fair blog.

Now, local elections between two people on the correct side of the debate are always tough. Most would probably wish they shouldn't have to choose between the two of em. Many have likely been friends with one or another since no-telling-when. So, for them, the choice is more a personal preference. For whatever remains of the undecided, I'd characterize the difference as a choice between one who, as he says, is uniquely qualified for serving on City Council ... and one who's going to pull up the right bullet-point talking-points that make the hearts of liberal activists all aflutter. Jay Aiyer is a genuinely great progressive idea person who knows how to get ideas into practice ... and in a way that even garners praise from those on the other side. As a result, I'm not only quick to offer my own recommendation to my fellow Dems, but also to any and all GOP friends of mine in town. Apparently, there's good company from both sides on this choice. With that, I heartily recommend a vote for Jay Aiyer this election. It's the best vote you can cast for this city and the strongest endorsement I have for anyone on the ballot this year (and likely for a few hereafter).

AFTERMATH: I mentioned a few points above that I'd get back to at the end, so here we are.

First up: Billie Carr's "endorsement" of Sue Lovell for DNC. Take it for what it's worth and if you want to dismiss it out of hand, so be it. But I've got it on good enough authority for me to reprint that there's ample sources that would be willing to contradict this story.

Second up: Sue as the "good Democrat." Bull. Sue pulled quite a bit of garbage last election when Ron Green made it to a runoff and was against a Republican (Bert Keller). There are numerous tales of endorsements withheld and letters written to supporters that were nothing quite "endorsing" of then-runoff-candidate Green.

Third up: Sue's trifecta of implementation. I'd normally be reluctant to knock someone's resume. And whatever else I may think of Sue, she's got a far better one than I. Good for her. But I couldn't help but notice that Sue seemed to have her fingerprints on three of the top four things to eminate from the Comptroller's office during the Sharp era (all that's missing was "implementing" his Performance Review). Now, either that's one hell of a role she played in Sharp's office ... or there's a bit of a Gore-esque overstatement going on. While I might just let the benefit of the doubt rule the day any other time, the two earlier points give me cause for concern this time. If anyone wants to offer some insight to this bit of the record, I'm all ears. On the record or off. If I have to dine from the shoe of incorrectness of my insinuation, I'll do so if proven wrong. But when a pattern seems to emerge, I don't think a question mark on a few other items is totally unwarranted.

TOTALLY MEANINGLESS ASIDES: All campaigns love to play the endorsement game, so here's my own fun and game at the expense of this:

Best Endorsements: For Sue, I'll give credit where it's due ... she brought Sylvester Turner and Garnet Coleman together on the same page for something. For Jay, I think anyone would have to respect the sheer number of former Mayors and mayoral hopefuls on his side: Lanier, Brown, & Mosbacher. Ed Wulf, who's name is sometimes tossed in as a potential candidate is also on Jay's list.

Worst Endorsements: For Jay, even I would have to rib him for having Locke, Liddell, & Sapp on there. I'm just not a fan of theirs. For Sue, it's equally obvious that I'd have to question the presence of State Rep. Al Edwards on her list. Seems like he takes a dim view of Sue's lifestyle from what I recall.