Friday, September 28, 2012

Tin Foil Hat Award Goes to Willy McCalpin


Time for a break from vacation…..

Sometimes it is hard to stay on vacation especially when a conspiracy theorist is so ripe for the pickins’. Such is the case with Willy’s latest conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory that he is putting forward now is that Mac, Bob and I masterminded one of the greatest acts of political strategy ever to grace the sleepy little town of Richardson. Well, if you say so Willy.

His conspiracy theory about this, more than any of the other rumors he has portrayed as fact, make him fully qualified for the “Tin-Foil Hate Award of the Year” award.

Thank you, William J. "Bill" McCalpin, for providing such wonderful entertainment and amusement.

http://rumorcheck.org/ThePetitionDrive.html

http://rumorcheck.org/SixDegrees.html

and

http://rumorcheck.org/AlanNorth.html 

Now, back to vacation…   
-

25 comments:

  1. He wants to think he is an investigative reporter. Truth is he is an assumptive reporter given all the assumptions and no fact. Peggy Venable is also behind this? What a clown.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice to know Bill thinks most of the people are so stupid he resents the fact that they can vote. I always thought the more voters casting ballots the better. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. McScalpin is the Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life" of Richardson. Nothing more than a "warped and frustrated old man" and a "scurrvy little spider" weaving his tangled webs of deceipt, deception and lies. I really wonder if his wife stuck one of her sewing needles in his small little pea brain to trigger such illogical, irrational, and complete and utter nonsense. In having been part of the honestly intentioned RCA movement, I can say for a fact that the petition did not involve it in any manner, and in particular, none of the individuals mentioned. Furthermore, unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of payoffs for petition signatures constitutes libel, slander, and defamation of character given McScalpins' reckless and purposeful disregard for the truth. I say sew, er, sue the imbecile. I'll chip in gladly for that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You guys need to stop being distracted. McCalpin is a side show. Forget him. The mayor thing is a done deal.

    Maybe you should pay attention to the city and the city council. Nobody is running the show. It is a free for all and there is no leader. Go watch the meetings from the website. You guys need to start paying real attention and that doesn't mean ranting about McCalpin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that the Mayor needs to be elected by the people. Electing the Mayor is only going to work if you put the right people on the council. People who will say NO once in a while. As it stands now the council we have are still bell cows for Chuck Eisemann and Gary Slagel just to name two. Electing the Mayor is just the first step. The Mayor and council, when elected, need to look at employees, salaries, benefits, pensions and most important is the debt. We need to bring down the debt. Please citizens of Richardson, put the right people in office so we can have the city we had ten to 15 years ago. It is still there to have, but only you can make it happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it ironic that you dis Slagel and then say that we need to take the city back to what is was 10 to 15 years ago. Slagel isn't mayor now but he sure was then.

    What are the problems about city employees, salaries and benefits that you allude to?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Give it up about Slagel and Eismann. Eisemann never had influence except in getting people elected in his personal PAC. They all laugh at you when you focus on him

    Nobody is steering the ship.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You gave the correct award to the right person. That man is an idiot. He is so upset that Mr. North will not speak with him,
    (per his posts) that he take hours to make up stories. If mccalpin ever had any credibility,( which I have never seen) he has lost it with these posts.
    As far as the city council, it is a joke. Just take the time to watch the council video, when they gave their reasons to allow a 7/11 across from Brick Row. All they are interested in is promoting themselves. What a bucn of losers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice to know Bill thinks most of the people are so stupid he resents the fact that they can vote. I always thought the more voters casting ballots the better. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I find it ironic that you dis Slagel and then say that we need to take the city back to what is was 10 to 15 years ago. Slagel isn't mayor now but he sure was then.

    What are the problems about city employees, salaries and benefits that you allude to?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meanwhile, sales tax revenue remains anaemic at 1.06% ahead of last years abysmal numbers. For all the money pi***d away on economic development, the Keffler administration left us with nothing more than a multi-decade dept and his pension payment. A few of the rats slipped out the back door recently.

    Then there's McPinhead. What a piece of work this guy. I agree, there are some people whose comments do not deserve the dignity of recognition, much less acknowledgement.

    This poor, misguided fool will never get his head out. His eyes will remain shut and his ears will never hear clearly. Why, he can't even smell where his head is. Is it any wonder he is so out of touch with reality?

    We must pray for the despots and guard against them preying on us.

    Meanwhile, don't be a fool also. These masters of deception and distraction have proven themselves to do most anything when you're not looking. ALWAYS look for what they're trying to hide with distraction.

    Whack-job Willy leads the pack at diverting attention while the rats are busy doing their misdeeds behind the scenes.

    God bless the petition! It's long-overdue!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Could you be specific on how the petition (I.e. the proposal for direct election of the mayor) solves the unspecified ills that you mention? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  13. Could you be specific on how the petition (I.e. the proposal for direct election of the mayor) solves the unspecified ills that you mention? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 5:30 & 5:31,

    Could you be more specific about your ignorance of the circumstances?

    What lesson in democratic election of leadership did you miss in elementary school?

    What English class did you fail that left you inept at reading comprehension regarding the Texas Constitution?

    The arguments pertaining to the benefits of democracy have been argued for thousands of years. The tenants of the arguments are present in every text book on U.S. government ever printed.

    Where did you go to school? Are you a product of RISD?

    ReplyDelete
  15. In your flood of ill will and hostility you forgot to provide an answer to my question that I asked in response to Anon 2:19 PM. Could you try again? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 12:42 Though I did not write the comments above you make reference to, I will answer from my perspective. No, this action will not solve all ills of the city and the strange business mentality of the current council and staff. But, what it does do is bring light to the Texas Constitution, the Charter and Texas Statutes. It also brings one point of the charter into compliance with the Texas Constitution and should have been done quite a while ago.

    Unless you have spent time at city hall becoming aware of the processes, most of the voters in this town know very little of what our rights are based on, nor how we are impacted by them. There are many areas of concern I hold, but that would be novel and we are limited on the number of words here.

    For 10 years I, as well as others, have asked for a review. Once the realities of the Charter came to light in 2007, the Council gave the authority to the City Attorney and Staff to change the issues that directly affected what they want to do. And that came in the form of closed meetings, specifically. At that time the Charter said ALL meetings shall be open to the public. And the Texas Open Meetings Act they used as justification to enter into closed meetings told a very different story.

    In Chapter 551, governing the TOMA, it says: Sec. 551.004. OPEN MEETINGS REQUIRED BY CHARTER. This chapter does not authorize a governmental body to close a meeting that a charter of the governmental body:
    (1) prohibits from being closed; or
    (2) requires to be open.

    So for the better part of 20 years, all of those closed meetings were prohibited by the Charter. That is until 2007 when the city attorney formed a committee of staff, not citizens, to develop the language of specific articles to allow closed meetings.

    With all the begging and pleading to hold a charter review it was our current Mayor who said, at that time, they did not have time to do a charter review because they have to get this on the ballot by Nov 2007 and get back to business. Their business of closed meetings, some of which may have been valid issues for the use of exec Session.

    So earlier this year when Laura M, current Mayor Pro Tem and new to the council; and the current Mayor, Bob T; as well as 5 other Council members, announced they did not have time to review the Charter another look at the Texas Constitution and statutes was warranted. Omar was the LONE council member to vote for a review.

    cont......

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't know about you, but for me to give my precious vote to someone to be my representative with the responsibility "to act in the best interest of the municipal taxpayer"(Yes that is in statutes too!) and to be told once again the SINGLE document that is the handshake between the citizens and the governmental leadership is a LOW priority sends a subtle message that is most disconcerting.

    It you read the Charter, Article 6, the first responsibility of the City Manager is to make sure ALL laws and ordinances are enforced.

    This is business. The City of Richardson is a Municipal Corporation as evidence of that. Contrary to public discussion by the council this IS business and it does not have to be complicated. Sometimes I think they make it complicated and comparative for very obscure reasons. There are rules to the procedures to this business. And when both sides, (citizens, voters and staff) are clear on the rules then we have a better city and less fighting over issues that are irrelevant.

    Everything McCalpin wrote that there is a choice or debatable point is not correct. Texas Constitution, Article 6, Section 3 sys: Sec. 3. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS; QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS. All qualified voters of the State, as herein described, who reside within the limits of any city or corporate town, shall have the right to vote for Mayor and all other elective officers.

    As confirmation, I go to the Texas Constitution for the validation of that. Article 11, Section 5: The adoption or amendment of charters is subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by the Legislature, and no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State. If McCalpin can show us where and how any other document usurps this, that might be a point to discuss. But he can't. He has spent an extraordinarily large amount of time trying to make non-issues relevant.

    So instead of creating another false divide in our community and creating more chaos, let's come together and:
    1) learn the rules;
    2) get rid of the ones that are no longer valid;
    3) correct the ones that are conflicting;
    4) create better guidelines for business activities (golf course, Eisemann, Water, etc);
    5) transform Richardson from surviving to thriving.

    This action is the start.

    CDH

    ReplyDelete
  18. My reading and interpretation of the state constitution and statutes is that the city method of selecting mayor is not in violation. Your interpretation is certainly valid and reasonable but is not the only one. I would suggest that the fact that the city's interpretation has never been legally challenged supports the validity of my interpretation. Now, there will be a vote and I expect the voters will miss the subtle benefits of the current system and approve the proposed change.

    All the supposed ills that will be corrected by this change will not. Those ills are really just choices that a few don't like but a greater number do. Most folks do not have issues with the Eisemann or golf courses or . . . A mayor selected directly by the same voters who select each and every Council member will not change the path of city affairs.

    I would also contend that the city is thriving and not just surviving. Richardson has aged from a new suburb to a middle aged urban city. We will have issues that Frisco, Allen, Little Elm don't have -- yet. But issues get addressed. Plans are made to revitalize and the economic environment of the city allows these plans to be carried out. Public safety is outstanding. Public amenities such as the parks, recreation centers, library, performing arts, and golf are high quality. Business is thriving. The city is being managed well.

    JM

    ReplyDelete
  19. JM - It is difficult to take your position seriously when you make statements without any specific points of reference to any articles to defend your comment. And I am most unclear as to why you think litigation would prove a point either way. Judicial decision is justification for the next case and reigns on individual biases. Every council member, city secretary, city manager takes an oath of office to defend, protect and uphold the Texas Constitution. The AG seems to agree with that too. Wouldn't it be much better if everyone understood the Charter and Ordinances and we grow together from there?

    And I would contend the few that don't like aspects of city business is equal to the few that do like certain aspects. It is really baffling a disparity has to exist it all. That seems to be the preferred choice. One can only guess why. It's what my granddad called divide and conquer. We can disagree over issues, but results always has the last say. For me that is the financials.

    It is the majority of the citizens that are grossly unaware of the specifics of "fiscal well being". It is alot of work to learn. Most won't tackle it.

    Based on what you wrote I have no idea what "well managed" means to you, though I suspect someone who has no idea what governmental finance entails might take on your bland assessment without thinking about it. Or they could take mine. Truth always lives in the details.

    You are correct in the duties of a direct elected Mayor and one who is chosen behind closed doors is minor. It is having the right to choose that matters. As I said above, it opens the door to the Charter, Texas Constitution and Statutes. It is truly a sad day when less than 5% even step up to vote and it becomes harder and harder to find candidates. That is reality.

    It is also interesting that you hold the belief the city is thriving when City Hall has a different perspective. The Retail chair, as well as some in P & D, admit there have been decisions of the past that have left Richardson behind. Big box retail will never come. At least this economy has slowed down the possibilities. The up and coming young professionals are not replacing the elders who are passing in our city either. It is nice to talk the "high hopes" and to put your best, positive foot forward. But realistic awareness promotes new ideas and possibilities for thriving.

    Oh, and with the constant comparing to other cities on virtually everything, all the time, Richardson is just average. Where you get high quality is another puzzling comment. Agreed there are some nice structures built, but if the operations of these facilities say whether Richardson survives or thrives.

    One of our guys is a police officer, so we are acutely aware keen people to people skills breeds good public safety.

    You cheer lead well. Some people like the positive veils of secrecy. I'm just not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. CDH
    It is easy to look at the economic development of the past couple years to see that Richardson is doing well. The business climate in Richardson is not stagnant. Why not compare to other cities? This whole discussion is about relative situations. Everyone who makes a choice to locate a home or business makes comparative judgements. Your comment that City Hall does not believe that the city is thriving is simply wrong.

    You seem to imply that judicial decision is irrelevant yet basic civics describes a role to adjudicate differing interpretations of law and misapplications of law. If Richardson's method of choosing mayor is so agregious I am flaborgasted that it has never been challenged in the courts.

    "Cheer leading" implies mindless support. That is not the case with my comments. Certainly Richardson is not perfect and some choices, in retrospect, might have been better decided differently. Perfection might be a goal but it is not achievable. Kneejerk negativity doesn't help either. What Richardson has been achieving are darn good outcomes in comparison to what other area cities are achieving.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In my earlier comments (O 16, 7:14am) I got side tracked and left off some thoughts. There is no right or wrong in the charter proposition for direct election of the mayor. I don't think it will have a negative effect although I do believe it has that potential. I think the opposition to the proposition has the wrong focus. The motives and details of how the proposition came to be don't really matter. There was a process available to put this change in motion. That process was used and the voters will give their opinion in a few weeks.

    The current way of selecting the mayor is not unusual in our representative democracy. All citizens have opportunity to vote for each Council member so you do vote (or vote against) the person who becomes mayor. You don't vote directly for President. Instead you vote for Electors and they vote for President. You vote for your legislator but you don't vote for the Speaker who leads the House.

    JM

    ReplyDelete
  22. As for a comparison of how good the changes have been in Richardson, let compare sales tax collection.

    Sales tax collection has increase 22% since 2004 for Richardson.

    Sales tax collection has increased 39% since 2004 for Plano.

    Richardson seems to be being left behind when it comes to business and sales tax revenue.

    I am sure there are many other metrics than can be compared, but sales tax collection seems to be a simple one.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sounds like Plano and Richardson are both doing well. Growth is evident in both cities. Plano does have a bit of an advantage during the specified time because they were still a city building out on green field. Recent Plano budgets indicate that their growth is slowing as it increases in towns further north.
    JM

    ReplyDelete
  24. On the surface a 22% rise in sales tax may be impressive, yet we are living in current times of of huge diminished buying power. On the surface those two numbers for Richardson and Plano might say some growth is going on. I said might.

    So let's look at the Inflation calculators for all the money printing going on. CPI used to be a good measure of inflation, but that changed with the Clinton administration. There have been 18 changes to the calculations of CPI.

    The last 2 years the powers that be took food and energy out of the computation as adjustments. We could debate the logic behind that one all day, but we are on a single task right now. So if you don't eat and you don't have electricity in your home or drive a car, I guess there is no inflation. Yet, transportation delivers food to the grocery stores and oil to the refineries, and gas to the pumps, etc. And the consumers are responsible to cover those costs so any business can see a profit. At the very minimum, surely you agree the price of gas before Obama took office was almost half of what it is today?

    Same with the City. Those same inflation factors affect the city in it's spending too. So just because you see a number increase in the collections does not mean it really is growth. Every analyst would agree the point.

    But let's just make it really simple, after all it is just MATH. You say sales tax has increased 22% since 2004. That is 8 years ago. So divide 22% by 8 years and the annualized answer is 2.75% per year. Simple math.

    So here is a link to the Bureau of Labor statistics.
    http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

    If you enter $1 and give it a range from 2004 to 2012, what is the buying power of that $1 in 2012. Answer is $1.23.

    See, it is just Math. By the way, I am curious? Do you keep copies of the CAFR's and budgets back since 2004? And have you compared the growth of the budgets relative to the increases in Ad Valorem and Sales Tax? Just wondered if you noticed the growth of the spending has far out paced the growth of Property Taxes and Sales Tax by a significant margin since 1999?

    And what about salary growth for staff? Has the pace of salaries kept up with neighboring cities?

    What about debt. Has debt grown at a large pace than Ad Valorem and Sales Taxes? Has debt paced itself with the growing budget growth? And what about the growth comparison of debt other cities that is used so often?

    Lot's of questions for a simple comment you made on thriving in the City. We could make it complicated and blame all kinds of effects on the lack of growth which has happened. And we could blame past leadership for making decisions that didn't work out so well. Or we could blame other cities in the metroplex who have not done so well either, but at the end of the day. Blame has ZERO value and is a wasted opportunity to find better opportunities.

    You say that your reading of the Texas Constitution

    And lastly, you keep running to blame once again on the direct election of the Mayor. In the big picture who cares what happened in the past. Let's fix it now and move on. There are plenty of other things to spend time on. People signed the petition and for the most part had no idea on how the Mayor was chosen anyway. There might just be some more stellar leadership out there worth the process.

    CDH

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh and one other thing I thought of on the sales tax issue.

    You do realize taking out the Continental Inn and Coffee Shop dropped sales tax by $5-6K per month for this budget period. And for all those years the City would not allow a CO for the old Pancho's left years of unearned property taxes, not to mention the property taxes. Commerical property values are tightly wound by the businesses operating within them, but I am sure you know that.

    So if they take out the Taco Republic and anything else along there, there is a brief lag that will affect this years numbers to the downside.

    Look at Brick Row. Though it may look better, it is barely beating Ad Valorem of what was there before. A far cry from the TIF One dream numbers. And on top of that there is an addition debt owed of $17mm at 7% compounded interest to ad insult to injury. Be very thankful Brick Row took grass on turned it into a reasonably successful development.

    That reminds me of something. Was Eastside there in 2004? One would have thought it's addition to the city stockpile would have increased Sales Tax revenues more than they have.

    ReplyDelete