Yesterday, I deconstructed one bad reason to vote YES on direct election of Richardson's mayor. In fact, Richardson is not Tammany Hall, but even if you think it is, direct election of the mayor is not the solution.
Today, I look at another bad reason. If you're inclined to vote YES because you think the Richardson City Council favors direct election of the mayor, you just might have been deliberately misled by a political action committee (PAC). After the jump, deconstructing the lie.
If you are like me, you received a robocall from a PAC this week encouraging you to vote YES on direct election of the mayor. I was struck by the wording of the message: something along the lines of "thanks to a unanimous city council action" voters have the ability to vote yes for direct election of the mayor. The implication is that the city council supports the referendum, which is patently false. In February, when the city council considered this option, the city council voted 6-1 against putting this change to the voters. The question is before the voters because of a petition, not because of city council support.
Why can't the PAC behind this petition (whoever they are) simply argue the merits of their case? By deliberately misleading voters about the city council's position, the Vote YES faction takes the low road. If they win, Richardson still won't be Tammany Hall, but we'll have had a little taste of Tammany Hall tactics right here in Richardson. If you are like me, that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Forgive me Mark, but didn't the Council unanimously put this on the ballot after a petition of 5,000 or more citizens said no, we disagree with the appointment of the Mayor in private? I get that Scott Dunn said on record he did not like this but he voted for it anyway. So technically the council did approve it after two meeting discussions with the City Attorney.
And yes, the Council did say they did not have the time to address this earlier in the year. And yes, everyone is clear they don't like it for reasons only a crystal ball might hold. It is close to Halloween.
How long was the call? Who delivered the message? I haven't heard it.
Adding food for thought. Did the Coalitionists ever disclose who is behind all the voter's guides they put out every 2 years? Who votes in those polls to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on candidates?
So what are you really trying to say here? Some other group copied what had already been done many times by the group of Coalitionists you support? Who are the Coalitionists anyway?
Mark, I find it very amusing that you find that robo-call so offensive and most especially so when considering the deliberative fabrications of McCalpin and the propagation of the fabrications by the Richardson Coalition.
As to McCalpin’s claim that that the mayor is not a “member” of the city council, Section 3.01(a) states quite the opposite: “… shall be exercised by a City Council to be composed of six(6) members and a Mayor…”
As to McCalpin’s claim that the mayor can’t vote on certain issues, Section 3.02 states “… The mayor shall vote on all matters coming before the council…”
It is truly odd why you get worked up over something that can be misunderstood and why you don’t get worked up over something that is an out-right lie. Why is that?
Would you care to reconsider who you think has taken the low road on this issue?
Read the proposed charter change for yourself at this link:
(1) "we disagree with the appointment of the Mayor in private?" - despite your repeated claims, the mayor is NOT "appointed" in private. The election of the mayor is discussed in executive session, then the council comes out of executive session and votes in public and on the record for the mayor and the mayor pro tem.
Shame on you, Cheri, for misrepresenting what I have personally witnessed.
(2) "So technically the council did approve it after two meeting discussions with the City Attorney." This is disingenuous. Per 9.004 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Council is required to submit the proposal to the voters. To refuse to do so would invite a lawsuit that the City would lose, so why bother?
The City Council certainly sent the proposal to the voters, but they certainly didn't approve of it, and you know the difference. Mark' point is quite valid - the robocall was deliberately phrased to make it sound like the Council approves of direct election when they don't. Shame on you, Cheri, for pretending otherwise.
(3) "How long was the call? Who delivered the message? I haven't heard it. " The text can be found at http://www.rumorcheck.org/Robocalls.html
(4) "Did the Coalitionists ever disclose who is behind all the voter's guides they put out every 2 years?" A good-sized partial list of Coalition members is at http://www.richardsoncoalition.org/about-us/who-are-we.html . The original decision makers on contributions and expenditures are listed on the PAC's Form GTA, and you can get a copy from the Texas Ethics Commission (for whatever reason, PAC GTAs are not put online).
You know all this, Cheri. Shame on you for pretending that you don't. There is no comparison between the Coalition and the so-called "Richardson Citizens For A More Democratic Government" who suppressed the list of members of the Board of Directors in Form 8871 filed with the IRS, who never announced any supporters other than Alan North (who technically had to have help because in Texas you can't have a one person PAC), and who doesn't even have a website!
Double shame on you for making such blantantly misleading comparisons!
(5) "And yes, everyone is clear they don't like it for reasons only a crystal ball might hold. It is close to Halloween. " This doesn't even make sense.
In short, you continue to make statements that are deliberately misleading and often false, and you don't seem to even care...again, shame on you!
(1) "the deliberative fabrications of McCalpin" - Name one. It's easy to claim that I make fabrications, but when I ask for proof, all I get is you throwing cheap insults at me about being "Willy". I would say "shame on you", David, but frankly, the opinions of decent people are wasted on you.
(2)"As to McCalpin’s claim that that the mayor is not a “member” of the city council, Section 3.01(a) states quite the opposite: “… shall be exercised by a City Council to be composed of six(6) members and a Mayor…” " You blatantly contradict yourself here...I didn't say that the mayor's not ON the City Council, I pointed out that the unknown author deliberately changed the language of the Charter to say that there are only "six" members. The evidence is right in front of you...as Cheri always says, "It says what it says" - read the language literally - and it says there are "six(6)" whereas it used to say that there were "seven(7)" members. For you to deny what the written word plainly says is ridiculous and an insult to the decent people of Richardson.
(3) "As to McCalpin’s claim that the mayor can’t vote on certain issues, Section 3.02 states “… Then why does section 3.12 say that only members' votes get counted? Or are you going to deny that the secret author of the proposed changes didn't intend to mean that "member" referred to only the "six(6)" that he plainly referred to above?
And if he meant that "members" still referred to all seven council elected officials, then why did he change "all seven(7)" to "all six(6)"? Why did he change the heading of 3.07 to refer to "Councilmember Vacancies"? Why did he change "members" to some variation of "members and the mayor" in more than a dozen places???
Better yet, instead of bandying words with you, why don't you tell us who wrote this abomination, and we'll ask him ourselves! The people of Richardson deserve some openness and transparency, which you are pathologically incapable of providing.
(4) "why you don’t get worked up over something that is an out-right lie. " What outright lie?
(5) "Read the proposed charter change for yourself at this link:" This URL is pointless; it's just the original proposed changes. And note that despite the claims of many, the City Attorney has NOT approved the content of the proposed changes; he has only approved that it is of "proper subject" and "in proper form"...and it's obvious that you have no idea what that means...see http://www.rumorcheck.org/RumorCheckCityAttorney.html
Well, Bill, I see you still have a selective reading problem, read one thing liberally and the other constrictively.
I still contend that the mayor, under the proposed charter amendment, would be a member of the council and subject to the same rules as are all other council members. If you want to read it otherwise, please don't let me stop you. You are doing a great service by providing free entertainment. Thank you for that.
To answer your question about fabrications on your part, it was hard to choose just one fabrication, but this one will do: "Thanks to a cynical campaign dedicated to defeating "openness and transparency", the PAC succeeds in getting enough signatures before the public finds out that the PAC is really the Richardson Citizens Alliance, part deux."
Tell me, who from the previous group is in Alan North's new group. I know I have never met or spoken with Alan North. I am ticked he didn't let me in on his "conspiracy" for a Richardson political make-over.
Bill, once again you are telling me what I think and what I know. And once again I will tell you AGAIN, you are not qualified. At last check I am the only one in this body who knows, with complete certainty, what I think and feel about any topic. My husband doesn't even know all of what I think about topics all the time. But you seem to know better than he does. That is just priceless. He might have more to say to you than "shame on you". Thank you so much for the laughter today!!
And no I do not know who is on the Coalitionist board, nor who meets and votes on the voters list. Or who attends and secret meetings to conjure up whatever they do. It is never disclosed on the brochure. If you know, please do list all the names here. Or have you posted that on Rumor check?
You never cease to amaze me. I sometimes wonder how you became you. Comedy reigns in politics in Richardson!! Thank you.
Post a Comment