And the Coalition Speaks Again...

.... against direct election of the mayor.

 

At first glance, their email might look pretty neutral and matters of fact, if you ignore some stuff and the tone. But how about looking at the word count, seeing where they spend more of their time explaining.

 

Word Count Percentages:

 

Neutral on Selection/Election of the mayor - 15.42%

Pro Selection of the mayor - 15.16%

Anti-Direct Election of the mayor - 69.94%

 

We know exactly where the coalition really stand when it comes to how they want the mayor of Richardson chosen. They are solidly anti-direct election of the mayor. Gotta wonder why, don't you?

 

After the jump, their email.  

.

 

 

As many of you know, a petition was recently circulated promoting a change to the way Richardson selects its mayor. This proposal will be voted upon in our November election and we would like to provide some clarification about the issues involved.

First, let us make it clear:

• There are advantages and disadvantages to our current system of mayoral selection and also to the proposed procedure.
• One of the strengths of the American way is that citizens have the right to petition their government for change.

In our view, either system will work for our city. The beauty of democracy is that the citizens get to decide how we are governed.

Current System (Representative Democracy):

Richardson currently has a representative democracy, like the House and Senate of the State of Texas and the House and Senate of the United States.

It is also how almost all corporations are organized, as well as how some other Texas cities are governed.

In the current system, our citizens elect the City Council and the Council designates the mayor. In the unlikely event of misbehavior by the mayor, the Council can act to remove him/her.

The current system also insures that the mayor will be the team leader for the Council. This is a very important element.

Important note: one lawyer in our community has reported that the current method violates the State Constitution. This is simply not true. As well-informed people know, Richardson is governed by the State's "home rule" statutes and has the flexibility to handle mayoral selection as we wish.

Proposed System (Direct Election):

This proposal would elect the mayor at large, by direct election.

In the unlikely event of misbehavior other than official misconduct (example: overt violation of the city charter) by the mayor, the Council cannot act to remove him/her. This is an important "check and balance" that would be removed by the proposal.

In both methods, there is no change in the powers of the mayor, including the power to declare a state of emergency, etc.

However, there are some subtle drawbacks of direct election:

1. Direct election means that a small group with lots of money has a much better chance of winning a mayoral seat than the current system, in which it takes four of the seven council members to elect a mayor. This is entirely possible. For example, one individual (Mr. E. A. "Mac" McDowell) during our last election put up just under $60,000 to fund a Political Action Committee in an unsuccessful attempt to take over our City Council by replacing our elected members with his slate of candidates. He also provided funding for this petition to change our city charter and worked to defeat our 2010 bond program that was overwhelmingly approved by our residents.
2. Direct election may price many good candidates out of contention for mayor. The average council race today costs approximately $5-10K, while if you look at cities around Richardson that have direct election, the mayoral race is typically $50-100K. This effectively prices the average citizen out of the race.
3. The current method allows the council to pick the council member that it deems the best "leader and team manager." In effect, the council is making a public statement of support for the mayor and the fact that they recognize him/her as the leader. This nullifies the possibility of the mayor and council having differing objectives, resulting in a very ineffective term. (Think of a recent mayor of the City of Dallas.) In fact our current system gives Richardson a long-term strategic advantage.

What would the proposed change improve?

Another way to look at this proposed change is, "What does it improve?" The only explicit powers the city charter gives the mayor over any other council member is that the mayor chairs the council meetings, and acts as the city's figurehead for ribbon cuttings, signings, etc. The proposed charter change does not modify this. So its not clear what would be

improved with direct election? Do we expect lower taxes? Better city services? More quality development? Better city planning?

The fact that a much higher potential for conflict between the mayor and the council occurs with direct election would suggest that the current system has a much better chance of maintaining or improving the city's performance than the proposed change.

How Was This Petition Paid For?

Follow the Money

To maintain secrecy, the change petition takers were paid through a consultant in Austin, perhaps to conceal the identity of their sponsors. Some of the takers reported that they were part of the "Occupy Ft. Worth" organization. Others were from Garland and Dallas, but none reported being from Richardson.

One of these individuals when confronted indicated, "We all are mercenaries." Several reported that they were paid $1.00 per signature and that their boss also received $1.00.

If that is accurate, and we have no way of knowing that, with 5,000 signatures, the cost to get signatures would have been at least $10,000

and the consultant expense ($4000), as reported in state filings would have been additional.

It should be noted that the PAC in its July required report, reported contributions of only $1,750 and expenses of $4,000 all to its consultant. There were no loans reported. So who provided the funding for this effort? We are wondering how the difference is funded.

It is a matter of official records that one of the main individuals behind this petition (Mr. Alan North) has not voted in 90% of local elections in the recent past. We recommend that you take some of your valuable time and read the following research:

http://www.rumorcheck.org/AlanNorth.html

http://www.rumorcheck.org/SixDegrees.html

THE REAL QUESTION:

The real question about this is, "What could possibly be the motivation of those who are trying to force their will on our citizens outside of the regular order of business?"

If there had been a record of misbehavior, we could understand better. However our city has:

• Received a AA bond rating for several years and is one of the few in the state or nation to achieve this rating
• Received awards for financial and operating transparency for years.
• Implemented programs benefiting all parts of our city with balanced bond and budgetary expenditures for many years.
• Received many leadership awards for our city management and council

The Coalition's Position

Our view is that either the current council selection of the mayor or direct election is workable for our city. We feel that the current system has worked well for years, is a legal, sustainable way to run our governance and we see no reason to change it.

We also feel that there is a clear misunderstanding about why our current system works as well as it does, and this proposed change will most likely hurt rather than help our current governance.

We suggest you read:

www.rumorcheck.org/letter4.html

We are fortunate to live in a democracy where we can govern our own fate. Let's all get out and vote our will.