Tuesday, February 26, 2013

One Week Old Record Shattered

As of about a week ago, Amir Omar broke the record for getting the most donors for any Richardson City Council campaign. After accomplishing that feat, in one week, he wanted to double that record. According to his Facebook page, it took him a few hours more than seven days, but it appears he has broken that record too.

It seems his support is very broad. If the number of donors translates into votes on Election Day, then after the next election he will be the next mayor. From my perspective, that will be welcome news.

It seems the bonds between Richardson’s politicians and the Richardson Coalition and their man (or men) behind the curtain is getting weaker especially since their thumping in the charter change election. In their drive to maintain control from behind the curtains they have taken what could have been a good council representative and converter than person to what to them will be no more than cannon fodder.
There is no second place in this contest, it is winner take all.


  1. She might win, but probably not. If she really wants to remian a public servant she should seriously consider dropping out of the mayor's race and run for reelection in her seat.

  2. Agreed. Based on her recent sensible comments at work sessions, I prefer that she stay on the council rather than some of the others.

  3. Anon @2/26/ @2:04 P.M.

    Your comment is thoughtful----but if you would rather have "some of the others" not on the Council you would be referring to?

    Mark Solomon? Running for another term because of what singular positive activity as a councilman? Major contributions: Riding in the Christmas Parade, Never hearing a management proposal he didn't like, hoping to learn to turn on his microphone (not that he needs to), and increasing his insurance business.

    Scott Dunn: Running for another term because of what major initiative he supported? Well what could it be? If there isn't one maybe it's becuse he likes having people have breakfast with him every morning, the freebies, the name tag that identifies him as "Scott Dunn, Councilman Place 3", being called "Councilman"? And, like Mr. Solomon, he hardly questions staff on any of their proposals. In fact, Mr. Dunn has said after being challenged on his universal support of City management proposals, "They (staff) are professionals, and have been doing this (running the City?) for a long time - they know what they are doing."

    The advantage of questions is obvious - just because someone has done something successfully for a long time doesn't mean much. Long term embezzlers like Madoff weren't asked questions for years. Questions are important. And it might help a lot if Mr. Dunn did some information digging of his own. (Finding and using a public speaking coach might help).

    Steve Mitchell -

    Was Mayor once, got run over, and is the Council champion of being on both sides of any issue coming before that body. Would be nice if he took a stand on somethng other than his feet.

    Kendall Hartley:

    A presumably nice man who just sits quietly through Work sessions and Council meetings. It is not true that he asks no questions. He does ask some if they seem to be or are related to the appraisal business. Then he votes.

    What initiative or issue has Mr. Hartley contributed that have made Richardson citizens better?

    Unfortunately, none. Mr. Hartley doesn't seem to like controversy, so offers no interaction with his colleagues on issues. . Those citizens would be just as well served by a life-sized cardboard cut out with a string controlled movable right arm pulled by management to vote for whatever the question may be.

    Laura Maczka: Running for Mayor. Didn't think she had to, with the Council voting 6 to 1 that "there wasn't time to effect a direct election of the mayor in 2012. Now, rather than making nice noises of concern about issues, and not rocking the boat, she is of necessity taking a stand on some of them. Needs to do more of that to win.

    Amir Omar: Also running for Mayor. Says he has ideas to move Richardson to a better future. Says what they are. Has come up with initiatives rather than riding the "go along to get along" ideas of the past. Opposed mostly because of his religion, and because he does want to rock the boat. He might win. If he does and is successful in those ideas, electing the mayor at large was a smart choice. Then single member districts might be the next good idea. At least four Council persons would have to keep their district members happy, not just the big base west of 75 and north of Campbell.

    Bob Townsend: Running for Place One. Doesn't want to give up the goodies. Or maybe he just got tired of having his picture over those communications that inferred he wrote them.

  4. Amir Omar is not mostly opposed because of religion. He is opposed because of his threat to old power, and because of his leadership style which is my-way-or-the-highway micromanagement.

    The first one should please Richardson residents. The second should give residents great concern. Think your ideas will be pushed by Omar or do you think that when his ideas need major adjustment that he will listen you you? If you do, then think again.

    This should not be taken as an endorsement of Laura because she has her own problems.

  5. Anon @11:45 AM

    I didn't want to name names because I knew someone like you would spell it out better!

  6. Anon at 2/27/2013 @ 12:30 P.M. Anyone with even a whiff of political insight or understanding
    couldn't have made the comment you made about Omar. But that's what makes the world go around.

  7. Anon @ 2/27/2013 @ 8:22:

    So who could spell what out better?

  8. Townsend still up for fogging the executive bathroom mirror? That's somehow not surprising. He's become the gag gift that keeps on giving.

    Not surprising the Mayor's race is overshadowing the minion races. Richardson has declined back to the days when leadership was inconsolably corrupt and the citizens threw their hands up in disgust and just plain gave up.

    There are potentially many citizens who could be better council members but their lifestyle requirements do not include wallowing around with farm animals.

    Pity, Richardson has had all the natural resources necessary to be great.

    What poisoned the well was a small number of bad actors who wore white hats while hi-jacking the key to the city.

    The squander will not end until the culprits stop perpetuating the madness.

  9. Thanks for sharing this. More power to you!

  10. There is no reason to offer a vote to anyone other than the Mayor's race this time. The others do not do anything and currently have nothing to stand for. Anon 11:45 pointed out the facts so well.

    There are several issues that have circled around over the years. The Council just asks a staff member to write their answers, presumably because they do not know. Have you ever asked a council member how many parties, events and galas they plus spouse have been wined and dined during their term? Anyone of them ever offer you an invite to the Mayor's Christmas Party every year? That costs $6-10K in taxpayer money every year. We already know they like to EAT at city hall. P-Cards are reporting $25-35K in food purchases per month. Do you wonder if Dan Johnson is eating 3 squares/7 days a week on the City credit card like Keffler used to do?

    Being on the Council is one big party filled with bad business decisions. How can you lose money on every deal they bring to the table, including the 29 year one called the Golf Course, and reward themselves so handsomely?

    Of recent times, the rental registration ordinance has become a major bone of contention. The staff and council have taken on a NATIONAL position that has no merit in Richardson. Just because the Federal level wants to take away Constitutional rights, why does Richardson need to conform to the same nonsense?

    Refusal of the charter review for years because it does not fit their working agenda. My mistake, I thought it was a citizens' agenda. That is why these people market for votes and money. I often wonder if all the violations would come out during a review, so better not to address them.

    How about the water fund increases that have about doubled over the last 5-6 years because they sweep millions from the fund year over year to be spent on some unknown. If that money had never been transferred and left to handle the costs, we would not have increases in costs. That aside from the fact the charter offers the water fund is a service at cost. It can't be cost based when you make up expenditures that do not exist to sweep money to the general fund.

    Now they are in Austin hobnobbing with the state people all for the betterment of Richardson. How does that work again?

    Seems to me the only betterment is for the individual present.