A Richardson Coalition member has decided to go her own way,
make decision to think for herself and not follow the leaders of the Richardson
Coalition. She decided to support Amir Omar for mayor. Good for her.
 |
| Ripped Off Amir's FB page Without Permission |
This doesn’t surprise me. The choices people make in
deciding which candidate to support is splitting common voting patterns between
friends.
Some of my friends who would normally vote the same way I am
voting are going a different way and voting for Laura Maczka. I hear more and
more that the members of the Richardson Coalition are going through the same
things, some going along with Laura, and some going along with Amir.
I can support their actions, whoever they vote for. The
friends that I have spoken to about who they are voting for, honestly feel they
are makings an informed and honest choice and doing the right thing with their
choices.
The grasp on power and influence of the leaders of the
Richardson Coalition seems to be slipping. For Richardson, that is a good thing
and well past time for it to be happening.
This election will probably not be a landslide election. It
would surprise me if the difference in total votes were more than a few hundred
votes one way or another. We have what I think are two strong candidates
running for mayor (of course I think one candidate is better than the other and
have said as much). It also appears that the Richardson Coalition endorsement
has done more harm this year than good for the person they endorsed. That is a
welcome thing.
Just goes to show you Coalition haters that your conspiracy theory that Chuck Eisemann is some type of wizard that controls many of the well-respected citizens of this town is FALSE.
ReplyDeleteYou constantly insult a group of people who happen to have contributed a lot to this city's success, who have been personally successful, who are well educated on the workings of city government, who actually volunteer, donate to, and serve on boards of charitable and civic organizations, and who have a good sense of decorum when it comes to dealing with people.
Conversely, the Coalition Haters on this blog think that they can get things done by being vile, nasty, and insulting. Haven't your parents taught you that you attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar?
The majority of citizens in Richardson who vote in May elections are well-informed and well-respected INDEPENDENT thinkers. What you accuse the RC of is what YOU do on this blog - group think, conspiracy theories, a total focus on one issue like rental registrations. You fail to see the good in this town and your methods for changing some of the things that need to be changed are ALL WRONG. No one will ever listen to people who constantly criticize and make fun of people. You might try a new approach. Your ideas, some of which are good, get lost in your delivery.
Trying this one more time. Censored?
ReplyDeleteJust goes to show you Coalition haters that your conspiracy theory that Chuck Eisemann is some type of wizard that controls many of the well-respected citizens of this town is FALSE.
You constantly insult a group of people who happen to have contributed a lot to this city's success, who have been personally successful, who are well educated on the workings of city government, who actually volunteer, donate to, and serve on boards of charitable and civic organizations, and who have a good sense of decorum when it comes to dealing with people.
Conversely, the Coalition Haters on this blog think that they can get things done by being vile, nasty, and insulting. Haven't your parents taught you that you attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar?
The majority of citizens in Richardson who vote in May elections are well-informed and well-respected INDEPENDENT thinkers. What you accuse the RC of is what YOU do on this blog - group think, conspiracy theories, a total focus on one issue like rental registrations. You fail to see the good in this town and your methods for changing some of the things that need to be changed are ALL WRONG. No one will ever listen to people who constantly criticize and make fun of people.
Your ideas (some of which have good merit) get lost in the delivery.
No, just didn't post it. Now it is deleted.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between some of the members of the Richardson Coalition and its leaders. Guilty as charged.
But there is a difference between the leadship and the average RC member that I forget to mention most of the time.
You are for the most part incorrect about Eisemann and his control from the things I have seen and heard.
Some of the membership of the RC are most likely just good, average decent people. So it is a mystery why they would associate with Eisemann and the others at the top of the RC.
For means, nasty and vile behavior, look how the RC treated some very good people. What you see is probably more of a backlash than anything else.
The majority of citizen went against what the the RC wanted and gave the RC a complete thumping. It was a 75-25 vote in favor of direct election. Perhaps you may diagree with most of the voters in that election, but I think it was a very easy to understand proposition: Do you want to elect your mayor? Or do you want the mayor select by the council members?
I don't fail to see the good. I just don't ignore the bad. If it is bad, I want to see it changed.
As for people listening to me or not, that is not the point. If people agree with me fine, if not, fine.
Thanks for your comment Anonymous 11:32
Thank you, DC, for your tempered and civil response.
ReplyDeleteI have only two counterpoints.
Most people, including me, do not know the history of "how the RC treated some very good people." All we see is today's dialogue on this blog, and frankly, a lot of the insults are distasteful and a huge turn off to me for any of your causes. Further, as I tell my kids, you don't fight evil with evil. That just makes you as bad or worse than your enemy, [which is exactly what the devil wants, right].
Secondly, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, the thumping was in a November election. I dare say that had the direct election of mayor come up in May, it would have been much closer. 8,000 voters voted against it and that is the average number of May voters. I contend that May voters are those most versed in city government and they understand that the council is run very much like the state house or a company or organization's board of directors who set policy. In all of these cases, the leader is chosen by his or her peers. My primary objection to direct election is playing out... the cost to run for this one office is now out of reach for the average good citizen, with both candidates spending more than $75,000 to $100,000 on a campaign. He or she with the most money wins, in most cases.
Most of the time, for me, the message is much more important that style. Sometimes the style is a bit too abrasive, mine and other's.
ReplyDeleteAgree partially with you and the effect of direct election. I happen to think the good effects outweight the negative effects.
I will be sorry to see either Amir or Laura to not be on council after this election. I think by far they are the best two of all the council.
I dislike the RC leadership and what they have done in the past enough to where I will not support a person they want or endorse. The leadership and some members have made this so for me.
As for the elections, the more that vote, the better. I say that even if the majority disagrees with my own stances. I do not think better government comes from a severe minority making choices. I am hoping we have a record turnout for this election.
As for the money, political positions are purchses with advertising for the most part. Most people are doing good to know who the president happens to be, and are doing great to be able to list even 1 councilperson.
All the advertising generates interest, so for me, it is worth it. It gets more people to the polls to cast their vote.
Thanks again for your comments anonymous 12:38.
With all due respect, there are many people, myself included, that had this idealistic view of what the posture of representation is in the very beginning. To become informed has changed that.
ReplyDeleteI do find it surprising you do not question that maybe there were events to bring the level "vinegar" you perceive on your own. Many a conspiracy theory has been initiated by actual events. The negative connotations came from somewhere.
To assume that anyone does not have the upbringing to understand catching more flies with honey than vinegar (what I was taught) is an unsubstantiated conclusion and a level of superiority in itself that is unacceptable. I could make the same conclusion on you without knowing you, but if I did it would be made up. If you had taken the effort to engage in a dialog with some folks, there might be different perspectives. I don't know whether you have or haven't.
Direct election came about because of a refusal to listen. It is childish to admit you refuse to listen, which by the way has been the case all the way with the RC in general, unless the delivery is acceptable to you. I don't like some of the delivery of people in my own family, but I do try to catch the message. Am I successful all the time? Of course not. I suffer from the human condition of being human. But my intention is there.
I don't fail to see the good, but I could conclude I might not see the bad in what you see. And I may see failure in that you do not. At the end of the day, the question becomes do we agree on the goal and are the steps to get there working? And what to do if they are not.
It this point, nationwide mandates may or may not be good for Richardson, but I would sure like the opportunity to understand the pro's and con's on the decisions instead of being marketed to accept them. And that is a bigger story!
CDH
CDH, Direct election came about because someone in the shadows paid some out of town workers to gather signatures at the library with vague information. It was a shady operation filled with deceipt. No one should be proud of that "democratic process."
ReplyDeleteSomeone BOUGHT that petition and thus the direct election of mayor ballot initiative. That is EXACTLY what you guys accuse the RC of doing. But, I would say that this was WORSE because whoever did fund this DOESN'T have the guts to step out of the shadows AND BE TRANSPARENT. Citizens have a right to know.
April 12, 2013 at 11:32 AM
ReplyDelete>Haven't your parents taught you that you attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar?
That's EXACTLY what I told the council at the council meeting--Richardson is using negative reinforcement by punishing landlords and renters instead of rewarding good landlords as Garland does. And which city is more successful in terms of reducing code violations across the city, not just rentals?
http://www.ci.garland.tx.us/gov/cd/code/default.asp (We have more specific data.)
>a total focus on one issue like rental registrations.
What's wrong with it? It is grave enough to require our focus.
The city's current practice is violating the constitutional rights of some fellow citizens. If the city staff at least follows the ordinance, we wouldn't have much to say.
It goes beyond city enforcement staff and extends to the municipal court, where the judge only allowed in evidence that would lead to conviction of landlords.
Also, you're mixing up different groups.
A group of us, landlords and renters, who are against forced rental inspections are new to Richardson politics. We don't know the RC well enough to hate it. So please leave us out of your RC discussion. (We're learning a lot on this blog, though. Our neighbors who aren't involved in city politics also say "I don't like the way the city has been run for all these years.")
We were uninformed happy citizens until we were "woken up" by forced rental inspections. (We could have been happily asleep or uninformed, but the city staff chose to wake us up!)
Now that we have been awakened, we've started seeing other things--like a potential bond issue for another natatorium.
Also, my comments often don't post and I have to submit them several times before they post! So I don't think DC is censoring. I think it's Blogger, which I HATE!!!
BTW, I've been personally successful, too. I don't know what you're trying to imply, maybe that those who don't view the city through rose-colored glasses are losers?
April 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM
ReplyDeleteMr North is a friend of mine and I would be glad to ask him whatever you have on your mind. I will tell you that your assessment of his intention in this is not as you posted. Agreed he bought the labor that collected signatures. It is that trading time for money thing. I am sure you understand. Did it go as perfectly as expected? I guess we need to ask him that.
Secondly, as I have posted here many times, this is one area the charter was woefully inconsistent with the Texas Constitution. And there are other areas to really study openly and transparently.
I am unclear on what you mean by stepping out. He spoke to the DMN reporter Ms Minora several times.
He spoke to me and others. He joined me at the Tea Party meeting the other night. Just because he did not speak to you, you appear to have ill feelings of his actions????
I think he acted well within his rights to enact the process. And based on the City Attorney's comments after the fact, there was some misguided information shared on the part of the RC. He spoke at a work session, but I do not remember the date at the moment.
Please expand your conclusions, and maybe Mr North will answer you.
CDH
One other thought on this whole discussion on direct election and perceived improprieties.
ReplyDeleteWe can dial the clock back to 2007 when it was revealed the Council had been having all those illegal meetings outside of the Charter confines. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that one. Just one lawyer who decided to read the Charter. What came out of that was a SPAC called Richardson Citizens for Charter Change. It was made up of 5 citizens, two of which where Chuck Eisemann and Martha Ritter (RC). The rest of the money came from businesses affiliated with the Chamber. Bill Spruoll testified in court that he acted solely on his own, using chamber resources to push 2 of the 3 changes to the Charter.
Just as Bob Townsend said at that time that they had to get this on the ballot by November, so they could get back to business. 5 years have passed and there was no time for a charter review as promised for those changes.
Even the Judge said the language of the meeting anywhere in the world was improper to him, but that was not under his juris decision. The charter needs a Charter Commission and a review.
So there you have a manipulated outcome by the RC. When every Council person was on the SPAC mailout card except Pris Hayes and a second card was sent with the same exact information because they used Jim Shepherd's name without his permission, there is little doubt of manipulations.
Spruoll took the heat. He also testafied he had attended Exec Sessions which is another violation.
I watched Jim Shepherd walk out of a closed meeting saying he could not be in there because of what they were discussing. I am still seething for what they did to him. He was the true representative of the people. That is my idea of leadership. One more person who took a beating in trying to do the right thing.
With all of that said, direct election came about in Nov, not planned but in response to a no go to a review by the Council. And more has been learned on that topic for the future.
CDH
I hear Charter Review thrown around like it is the ultimate priority. Except for the shoddy wording provided by the petitioner for direct election of mayor, what EXACTLY in the charter needs to be reviewed and updated? Please be specific.
ReplyDeleteI saw William Gorden as the first contributor on Laura's list. If that is the former candidate Gorden I wouldn't exactly call him a 'Coalitionist'. Again, this election has caused some strange partnerships. People who are clear RC haters have endorsed LM and some RC sympathizers have endorsed AO. Just remember, AO was imported, groomed and promoted up thru the system by the RC for the sole reason of wrestling back their control. And he was a very loyal RC soldier for 5 of his 6 years on Council. Many of you hated him for it and to now see you as part of his carfeully cobbled together special interest is also quite amusing - and strange. But keep dreaming that he is your fantasy candidate.
ReplyDeleteCDH,
ReplyDeleteWe don't expect Mr. North to respond to anything. He never showed up to one event when he ran for city council in 2011. It is all very bizarre how he is somehow the catalyst for change in this town and yet you are the only person we know that has said you have a relationship with him.
Did he act alone? According to paperwork filed with the city secretary, Mr. North is not alone. He claimed to contribute only $200 to RCA PAC when the cost of the petition takers' labor (as they claimed $1 per signature) along with other petition expenses would be upwards of $4,000. Where did the other money come from?
I really don't understand why some people keep attacking the petition process for the direct election of mayor. Regardless of how it got on the ballet, it was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of voters. The voters are the ones that matter ultimately.
ReplyDelete>I contend that May voters are those most versed in city government
So the idea here is that only "certain people" should be voting on important city matters. This sounds arrogant and insular to me.
>He or she with the most money wins, in most cases.
Based on this argument, no election should take place at the city, state or federal level.
FYI, I didn't participate in the petition (I wasn't even aware of that going on back then). I'm a newcomer/outsider who finds many things in Richardson peculiar.
> I really don't understand why some people keep attacking the petition process for the direct election of mayor. Regardless of how it got on the ballet, it was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of voters. The voters are the ones that matter ultimately.
ReplyDeleteIt's really simple. No one knows who funded the petition. This blog spends a lot of time criticizing the city's "lack of transparency." This petition process was the most covert operation imaginable and yet NO CRITICISM for that here!
>So the idea here is that only "certain people" should be voting on important city matters. This sounds arrogant and insular to me.
Let's see how many voters care enough to turn out for the city election in May. I contend that the ones who do certainly who are more informed. No arrogance, just fact.
>Based on this argument, no election should take place at the city, state or federal level.
I don't even understand what this means.
Convenient amnesia. It seems there was quite the out of town push when the beer & wine petition was done.
ReplyDeleteI remember cute kids with tables set up outside grocery stores gathering signatures like girl/boy scouts selling cookies and Council 10 discount cards.
The sick part was that these innocent kids were being exploited by the tax and spend-aholics at the Chamber of Commerce and city hall. That was an early Coalitionist operation that took Richardson from something special to just another watering hole on the way home.
But, I guess the nay-sayers about the direct election of the mayor petition would have us believe the beer & wine petition drive was somehow noble.
What could be more noble than democratic election of the head of the governing body?
>This petition process was the most covert operation imaginable and yet NO CRITICISM for that here!
ReplyDeleteAs I said, at the end of the day, what matters is the voters, but you seem to discount certain voters.
If Laura wins the mayoral race, though she was against the direct mayor of election, everyone will have to accept the election result.
>I contend that the ones who do certainly who are more informed. No arrogance, just fact.
Fact?! Did you do an exit interview or something to figure out who voted and why? How do you measure how informed the voters are? What criteria do you use?
I hope your criterion is not "those who agree with me are more informed"!
I really have a hard time understanding why you think the direct election was so covert. Since I understand the intent of Mr North to do this and the way this was done, there is nothing really to question. What is it you think I or anyone else should question?
ReplyDeleteHe hired a consultant to help with what he had little knowledge of. Every good business person would do that.
Mr North grew up here. His brother is well know in many circles in the community and metroplex. He had business here several years ago. As far as I can tell, he has been hiding in plain sight. Guess you were not looking.
If you have no questions then so be it. Since you do not want to know anything anyway, I will point out that not showing up, as you put it, garnered 5% of the vote. How did that happen?
What I hear more is you and those you associate were not happy being excluded to the inside track of this event. Unfortunate.
CDH
Did Alan North contribute to the RCA PAC? That is news to me. I will ask Mac on that one.
ReplyDeleteCDH
April 12, 2013 at 10:03 AM
ReplyDeleteNope. Can't see any good in the RC. Looks like they are about everything Richardson shrunk down to meet in the sewer lines.