With a Grain of Salt ... Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain

This morning I have had an interesting exchange of email with a person who identifies themself as a Richardson Coalition member. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. I am going with it because what they say has the ring of truth for as far as I can see. So I guess I will have to wait a while and see if it comes back to bite me as a piece of fiction. So, with a grain of salt included…….

 

What they say pretty much confirms what people have been saying. Chuck Eisemann is the Richardson Coalition and there are others around who basically do what he says. Here is part of the first email:

 

“I just wanted to drop a quick note and say hello, though I'm not yet in a position to introduce myself by name.

I've been reading your blog for several years, however, generally disagreeing with you. In retrospect, I have begun to realize this was less due to the merits of our respective positions, and more due to the hold Chuck Eisemann has on the people around him.”

Apparently, the latest Richardson Coalition mailer and past actions of Chuck Eisemann and the Richardson Coalition have been weighing on him, for some apparent good reason.

“I've done a lot of soul searching over the past several months, and this past voter's guide and the information we put out about Amir made me truly realize how disparate the RC's views are from my own. I am not alone in this feeling: there are several RC members who disagree but simply don't voice their opinions for fear of being the odd man out.”

Maybe because I am an outsider of sorts to this group and from seeing all the questionable spending at city hall, I have been unable to understand why a person would want to be part of the Richardson Coalition. But maybe rubbing elbows with power brokers and rich people could explain the allure for some.

“It is easy to get sucked in by the money and power circulating within this group, and much harder to admit that we are being suckered by Chuck. But that's exactly what is happening. And while he does try to distance himself from looking like our front man, trust me, he is. He will always be our main financial backers, and nothing happens without his consent.… the purpose {of sending the email} saying hello and letting you know that people do appreciate the writing you do and the disparate viewpoints you bring to those of the "establishment". While I do think some RC candidates are good (after all, we supported Amir Omar once!), I think a healthier mix would include "non-establishment" folks who don't have the same business and social entanglements as our current officials.”

The latest voter’s guide I think may back-fire and cause some serious problems for both the Richardson Coalition and Laura Maczka.

“My frustration with RC and Chuck Eisemann have grown exponentially, and I find myself thinking along the same lines of the people we normally discount. "Can we get rid of RC candidates?" "How can we shut Chuck up for one?" etc …In any event, thanks for doing what you do.”

I sent him an email mentioning that several other members of the Richardson Coalition have resigned and it might be something for him to consider. As long as Chuck Eisemann has money to throw around and power to influence people and effectively twist arms, he said people resigning from the Richardson Coalition probably wouldn’t do much good.

“While symbolic to some extent, I don't think the departure of any particular members will affect anything tangible. No matter how many people leave, they are all replaceable, as long as Chuck has money to throw at things like surveys and voter guides (which he always will).”

Most people probably already know this, but the formation of the Richardson Coalition was a way to retaliate against those who voted to have Steve Mitchell as their mayor rather than another term for Gary Slagel. You might remember what is now referred to as the “Eisemann Petition”. It was a petition signed by about 170 asking Gary Slagel to not resign from council after he lost the mayor’s seat in 2007. As well, it was formed to try and hide his behind the curtain dealings and a way to try and keep a low profile with financial donations, attempting to keep his name off of campaign financial reports.

“Chuck founded the Coalition as a show of force against Gary's ouster, and as a way of legitimizing his spending on and engagement in city politics without attaching his name to everything he does. In essence, it's a way for him to keep his name off of people's campaign finance reports and bypass contribution limits imposed by TEC. I'm also doubtful he would have wanted "Charles W. Eisemann" written on Amir's documents a couple years back, for example, as it ties his name to Amir's views (and gives him a direct financial association with a Muslim, which I'm not so sure he wants).

This person estimates that Chuck Eisemann has spent over $30,000 of his own personal money funding the candidates he want in office and that the Richardson Coalition is little more than a front for Chuck Eisemann. With the PAC, he can run below the radar.

“RC is his front, his DBA masked as a PAC, so he can distribute money as he pleases but have someone else's name on it. He's probably given us $30,000 over the past couple years alone, which is more than he could legally have donated to any of the candidates. But he intentionally stays off of our executive board for a reason! He runs things behind the scenes as a "general member" which does not have to be documented and keeps him in relative stealth if he should ever want to distance himself from any negative RC-related publicity. But his name is not on any official documentation other than our donor list.”

They point out that if someone wants to create a little bit of mischief, it would be fairly easy and it is something they worry about.

“By the way, they never registered "The Richardson Coalition" as a PAC. Our lawyers have generally said we can do without it as long as we have the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. But I think it would be hilarious if someone else registered RC as a PAC name and then tried to steal their website. This has been a real concern of theirs, but they haven't wanted to do the paperwork to file RC separately.”

So who is the real power from a Richardson Coalition insider? It seems to be none other than Chuck himself.

“Also, "Coalition Leadership" literally translates to "Chuck". Although there are smaller executive committee meetings that include actual officers (plus Chuck even though he is not on our leadership at all), he calls all the shots. Stan, Ken and Chip basically hold ceremonial titles and do more of the paperwork and copywriting: none have the ability to influence the strategic leadership of the organization.”

Apparently it has long been a plan of Chuck to have Laura Maczka on the council, and she was not willing at first.

“Chuck has been grooming Laura for a leadership role for a decade now (albeit not mayor). If RC officers had decided they didn't like Laura, he would have forced their hand or just taken his money elsewhere to start a new PAC and left RC in the dust. Doesn't matter. He did all of this by himself before RC existed. He just didn't need a PAC because his candidates always won without him having to spend thousands of dollars.

A funny side note about Laura: she really did not want to run for mayor. He really twisted her arm about it. "I've done X, Y, Z for you, all these things, and now the city needs you." She was worried about bringing her kids/husband into this and having them all subjected to the scrutiny. Critically speaking I find it ironic that this morphed into her using the family on her banners.”

Some of the other insiders are apparently very angry about this last voter’s guide from the Richardson Coalition. In a trade of ethics for position it seems Laura Maczka does not want to call out the Richardson Coalition for their bad behavior dealing with the latest voter’s guide.

“I've also had members of her inner circle tell me she was angry with Chuck for RC's actions on this voter's guide, but out of respect for what he has done for her and the RC's support, she will not publicly denounce it. She is cognizant of the manipulation at play and of the message sent by her silence, but ultimately she needs RC too much to back-peddle at this point.”

To me this shows good cause in why Laura Maczka should not be supported. With all other organizations showing support for Amir Omar, more people donating to Amir Omar and the strength of their commitment to Amir Omar with the number of dollars donated, it would seem most people should recognize the game being played and see Laura Maczka as one of the principal players in that game. She knows and sees and yet will not condemn the Richardson Coalition or Chuck Eisemann for their actions.

Chuck Eisemann seems to know how to play dirty politics very well and excels at it.

“Chuck was strategic with the timing of this, leaving too little room for Amir to mobilize a good response or for Laura to distance herself without creating controversy that would hurt her too close to election time. Chuck wins again”

It is not over until it is over. I wouldn’t consider the election a done deal one way or another. And to use the words of the Richardson Coalition member who emailed me, “But, I think Amir will have the last laugh.”