I am voting for Laura Morrison for Mayor of Austin. And I am every bit as surprised by this as you are!

Laura and I did not get off to the best of starts. More on that below. I encourage you to at least jump to the story about our trip to Ballet Austin. Since then, I have had the opportunity to work with Laura and found several things to be true and virtuous about Laura:

• She is a leader
• She’s open
• She’s thorough
• She’s smart. Really smart.
• She’s practical
• She’s friendly
• She’s quite funny

Before getting into why I am not voting for Steve Adler, I’d rather start with why I am voting for Laura Morrison.

From below:

I was on the finance committee of which Laura was now in charge. She took the time to hear everyone’s thoughts on a subject and welcomed feedback. She was open. More profound, she actually took the time to read the Treasurer’s job description and the finance committee’s duties and then (gasp) adhered to them. Conformed to the them. Actually did what we were supposed to do. She was thorough. As a previous Treasurer, I was embarrassed.

A leader is the person best suited to get to group to the desired end of a journey or problem. Laura gets to the end result, regardless of what the end result may be. That’s leadership.

Laura has proven to me to be a capable leader. Someone with whom I can trust City Hall. A woman of the highest integrity while remaining open to other points of view. If you have heard Malcolm Gladwell’s “Revisionist History” podcast, Season 1, Episode 9, titled Generous Othodoxy (Listen Here), then you understand Laura Morrison. Her generosity will not come at the cost of her orthodoxy, but rather because of it. Her virtue is only balanced by her loyalty. And I like that about her.

Now, most of you are trying to scream at me through the screen saying something like “Marshall, what the hell are you thinking? She doesn’t believe in any of our Downtown values! What about density? What about all that stuff you fight for? How can you possibly vote for her?” Here’s how and why: I am represented by a Council member representing District 9. I will vote for the candidate that has my neighborhoods best interest in mind.

But this race is for Mayor. It is the one at-large position focused on the entire city. Issues much bigger than the closure of 4th street or the rebuilding of Brush Square. The Mayor needs to reign in the Council to get results on the real issues facing us all: homelessness, congestion, a code rewrite, etc. The blue print for being mayor was written by the citizens and they called it Imagine Austin. I hate 10-1. But I can see the advantage to voting for the one person running that can get our City back on track. Back to Imagine Austin. And that person is Laura Morrison.

I have served on nonprofit boards with both Laura (ECHO) and Steve Adler (Ballet Austin). I have worked with both of them on issues facing our city, Laura as a Council member and Steve as Mayor. I respect both of them. I like both of them. I know they both want what is best for our City. I voted for Steve for Mayor. I am pretty sure I did not vote for Laura for City Council. And anyone who knows me will be shocked by this announcement.

Here’s the quick explanation: Since taking office as Mayor, Steve Adler has done, or has attempted to do, more harm to my neighborhood and city than I could imagine possible. Before I make this list, I must point out how grateful I am for everything Steve has done to try and end homelessness in Austin and Central Texas. He is a true advocate for ending homelessness and has done more than any Mayor in the modern era to do so. Thank you, Mayor Adler.

Now, what I am not happy with:

• Let’s start with the demise of CodeNext. Simply a disaster and a collosal waste of $8M  of hard-earned taxpayer money. More disgusting was his choice to terminate CodeNext in a political move while working tirelessly on much more important items like a subsidized soccer stadium.
• Mayor Adler allowed for the closure of 4th Street for a Capital Metro train station that can only be described as “doing the least amount of community good for the least amount of people with the least amount of effort and the least amount of resources”. This is not only personal (and it is very personal), it is unprofessional and against everything the Downtown Austin Plan recommends. Remember that plan? no one else seems to.
• The threat that the only way to get the hotels to join a T-Pid to help fund the ending of homelessness is to expand the Convention Center is absurd, not true, and the worst type of blackmail I can imagine. To take something so humane as ending homelessness and then to say the only way to get the community to pay for it is by cowing to the hotel association? That does not sound like Austin to me.
• After more than $161 million spent, the new Waller Creek Tunnel has severe structural problems that will reduce its ability to control flooding in downtown Austin and lessen the tunnel’s lifespan, an attorney representing the city said in a letter to a contractor last month. “This impacts the entire purpose of the tunnel,” the Feb. 23 letter said. – Austin American-Statesman, March 7, 2018.
• Need more? There’s more…

So here’s the backstory with Laura:

I was leading the Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association (DANA) at a time when downtown was really starting to explore it’s density and someone had the idea to build a high-rise residential condominium. Laura was leading the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC), of which DANA was a member, and they did not like that idea one bit.

Then someone wanted to build another high-rise, this time across from a “beloved” media company and ANC did not like that.

In the end, one building was built, one was put on hold for several years and resurfaced only to be built several years later. Did DANA win and ANC lose? Who knows. What we do know is they was contentious times.

Laura then went on to serve as a Council member before we had geographical representation. At the same time, a past president of DANA, and a downtown resident, also served on council. Yep, it was still a contentious time. One of us versus them. Winners and losers.

The Ballet Austin Story:

Somehow I learned that Laura had taken up tap-dancing for her 50th birthday. I similarly took up the harmonica in the 40’s so I appreciated her following this dream later in life. At the time, I was on the Ballet Austin Board and asked Laura if she had ever been inside the Ballet studios. It is a remarkable building and I believe all that is good with our expanding downtown. She had never been inside so I offered to set up a tour for her. Be careful what you wish for, right? Laura agreed and so we set a date and time. Living downtown, I walked to City Hall to meet Laura and escorted her to Ballet Austin for the tour. It was a very warm day and yet one the chilliest walks of my life. I’m not sure we said three words to each other, collectively. I couldn’t wait for the awkwardness to end. I appreciate the Ballet Austin staff hosting us. I hope she enjoyed the walk more than I did!

Then something remarkable happened. While I was serving on the Board of Directors for the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO), someone on the Board asked if we should approach Laura Morrison to join the Board. I was the Chair of the Board at this time so the other directors wanted my thoughts, though I tried to stay silent. What I told the Board was that while we had a relationship reminiscent of oil and water (or more like gasoline and a lit match), I was all for her being asked to serve. She had great credentials as a former council member, a neighborhood association “activist” (I hate that word) and my understanding was she had a career in engineering or something smart before serving our City.

Laura joined the Board and her second year was asked to be the treasurer of ECHO. As the past Chair, and a former treasurer, I was on the finance committee of which Laura was now in charge. While I got know Laura from our Board meetings and other ECHO outings, this was the first time I really had a chance to work with her, as opposed to so often working in opposition to her. What I found was a very capable leader; a leader who was efficient and organized, but more importantly, open and thorough.

Any of your who have served on a Board, or a committee, knows two things exist more often than not: no one really seems to care what you think and how quickly can we get this meeting over with. This was not the case with Laura. Not at all. She took the time to hear everyone’s thoughts on a subject and welcomed feedback. She was open. More profound, she actually took the time to read the Treasurer’s job description and the finance committee’s duties and then (gasp) adhered to them. Conformed to the them. Actually did what we were supposed to do, She was thorough.

As a previous Treasurer, I was embarrassed. I may have been open, and thoughtful, but even I was not thorough. That is the difference between a good Director and a Leader. Laura is a leader. Don’t bother trying to look up a definition for a “leader” as the results are borderline ridiculous. “A person who leads”. Thanks for that. I’ll define a leader this way: A leader is the person best suited to get to group to the desired end of a journey or problem. Laura gets to the end result, regardless of what the end result may be. That’s leadership.