The opinions you expressed in today's column concerning former councilman Al Lipscomb's lead me to believe that you consider his behavior to be somewhat pretentious. I have no first hand knowledge of any of the particulars of his case nor have I met the gentleman. There are, however, some possible aspects to the case I would like you to consider.

I know and have known such men as Mr. Lipscomb. I also am familiar with such tradesmen and their trade that are the impetus of his alleged violations. As concerns the latter, I put myself through the University of Texas driving a taxi in Austin. As to the former, I was once imformed by a city clerk that they had plans to place a reservations plaque bearing my name above the couch outside the traffic court. Traffic court was the venue for most all matters involving differences of opinion concerning the city regulated activities of taxicabs. You most likely are unaware, Ms Floyd, that even a licensed taxi can be forbidden to operate in the city of Austin if it is covered with an excess of dust. What constitutes an excess is entirely at the descretion of certain city officials. Virtually all cities have a plethora of such provisions written into "taxi" law. I don't think I need carry this line of thought any further except to point out that whether such regulations are good or bad gives meaning to the line between subjective and objective.

To some, Councilman Lipscomb's behavior may be considered purposefully insulting. Some others view it as merely effusive and a learned means of coping with a very difficult environment. Either way, please believe me when I say that he is a man who simply can not act any other way. He is part and parcel of a very important segment of our society. He is a leader to the unleadable. He is a champion for the taxi driver. The powers that be know this. They also know that in his circles he is a very popular man because of his cunning ways. You will notice that despite the many articles written about him and his activities in his backyard there is still a conspicuous lack of odium. Perhaps this is because his public knows that any damage he possibly could have done to his community had to be listed, defined and then pointed out by an outsider before anyone even noticed something could be considered amiss. In the world he represents political contributions that are meaningful and sufficient can only be afforded on the installment plan.

In any event, even the legal system knew his conviction would present them with a conundrum. Once he completed any sentence they imposed upon him, would it be possible for him to legally run for office all over again. If so they know he most likely would win and return to haunt those who punished him? The bottom line is that in Texas it is very difficult to keep a popular man out of office - guilty or not. We once had a governor convicted of briberies of much greater severity than those ascribed to Councilman Lipscomb's. It took an act of Congress to keep him away from office. But even the best proscriptions the Legislature could devise did not work out too well - what with his obliging wife and all.

Rest assured that someone, somewhere, worked through the possible scenarios of the "Lipscomb situation" with all the care given to the moves in a grand master chess game. Ridding the board of him would leave a void the first successful pawn would fill. And, such is Mr. Lipscomb's popularity factor. Love him or hate him you would still have to deal with someone like him.

Long before the first gavel rapped, the salient question was how best to keep him out of a position of authority for the longest period of time possible and not martyr him in the process. In the end it was Councilman Lipscomb who established the precedent that is likely to be his only punishment. Whether his indictment could prohibited his serving as a councilman was not tested.

Mr. Lipscomb proved himself the gentleman in the matter. He voluntarily resigned rather than foist himself on a group that resented his presence. At least that was the mutually agreed upon explanation. Some very smart someone, possibly Lipscomb himself, figured out a way that this quasi-voluntary solution can be made to keep him in the officially innocent category.

the whole affair seems to stand resolved with an unorthodoxy that would make Solomon proud

Accidental or not the whole affair seems to stand resolved with an unorthodoxy that would make Solomon proud. Mr. Lipscomb keeps his civil stature despite his seemingly illegal incivility. Dallas government keeps from having to put a final condemnation on a man who has been a valued public servant. Please try to keep in mind that it is mostly in the eyes of the beholder that Councilman Lipscomb did anything wrong. In a manner of speaking just about everyone associated with City Hall can be accused of ignoring the same metaphorical red light he is accused of running. Councilman Lipscomb surely has been long enough in a position to be privy to many such events but he has been enough of the gentleman not to point them out.

All in all, the entire affair has been a devilishly delightful web that really has no end to the weaving. I say that it is good that this particular man keeps his claim to innocence and his public forum. He helps keep an amalgamation of goodly but otherwise forgotten citizens represented and through him the noise lets everyone know who and where their cohort is - for both better and worse. If anything, the brouhaha reminds us that the less financially secure segments of our society must be differently resourceful.

But then, you knew all of this already. Didn't you Ms Floyd? There must be a word for this sort of happenstance - the kind where one completely understands neither the solution nor the problem. Bejiggered if I know what that word is. But I do love that word odium. I looked hard for it.

patrig