Thursday, April 30, 2009

Tom Bache-Wiig; Richardson Coalition supporters

The Nightly Build

A Soft Answer Turns Away Wrath

Thomas Bache-Wiig is a candidate for Richardson City Council Place 4. What do I know about him? Not much. I've read his bio. I've read his answers in the voter's guides published by The Dallas Morning News and the League of Women Voters - Richardson. I've heard him speak at candidate forums. Here's what I remember. He wants to be a servant leader. He gets up at five and reads the Bible and runs a couple miles. He has experience with budgets. He wants to go through the Richardson budget line by line. That's about it. Oh, and that he's had fourteen jobs in the last twenty eight years. I know that from the voter's guide published by the Richardson Coalition PAC. It devoted a total of three sentences to Thomas Bache-Wiig's candidacy:

"Mr. Bache-Wiig is new to the scene. We have only his resume and brief discussions by which to judge him. His resume indicates he has had fourteen jobs in the last twenty eight years."
Not flattering, but nothing overtly negative either. Needless to say, Bache-Wiig did not receive the PAC's "Top Rated" endorsement. How did Bache-Wiig respond? Well, unless an imposter is involved, the answer is not too well. A reader of the Conserve and Protect blog using the name "Tom Bache-Wiig" posted this:
"I really have to pause in the midst of all this campaigning madness, and tip my hat to the Richardson Coalition. My thanks to Chuck Eisemann & Cronies. They've pointed out in their mailer to Richardson voters this week, that all of the positions I've held in full-time ministry for many years as a young man, and then in building my successful career in the radio and television broadcasting and advertising industries, were really just me, 'having 14 jobs in 28 years.' Thanks to Chuck, I now realize that I must not be successful and happy after all, but just a shiftless drifter. Who knew?!"

The next day, the author of the same blog said she had received a copy of a text message that Bache-Wiig sent to Charles Eisemann, a principal behind the Richardson Coalition:

"Hey, Chuck - Cute little piece of Jr. High journalism you've got in the mail! All with a heapin' helpin' of double standards! You're quite a man of the people!"
Does this sound like the response of a man with the temperament to serve on the City Council? Does this sound like a man who wants to bring "servant-leadership" to the Council? Does this sound like a man who does volunteer family counseling and once was a full time youth pastor? It sure doesn't to me. But maybe we shouldn't be too hard on him. Maybe he just missed his Bible reading that morning.

Following the Money in Richardson

One of the recurring issues in the Richardson City Council election has been the role played by a political action committee known as the Richardson Coalition. This PAC has been accused of controlling the council from behind the scenes, of mailing misleading campaign fliers, of hiding their true agenda and hiding who their supporters are. Talk is loud enough to have prompted the PAC to publish an editorial titled, "Follow the Money" in which it defends itself. I found fault with some of the statements in that editorial. But the biggest fault is the most obvious: the editorial didn't deliver on the headline. It didn't follow the money. The PAC failed to list the PAC's own sources of funding. Perhaps that criticism is a technical nit, given that the PAC does have a Web site with a page titled "A Partial List of Our Supporters." But some detractors have latched onto the word "partial" as evidence that the PAC is still hiding something.

To see if there is anything behind such seeming paranoia, I compiled a list of all contributors to the Richardson Coalition since its formation in 2007. The list is gathered from financial reports filed by the Richardson Coalition PAC with the Texas Ethics Commission through January, 2009 (that is, before this campaign season began). The total amount of contributions amounts to over $36,000. Contributors marked with an asterisk are listed as supporters on the PAC's Web site.

Contributor        Address          Date     Amount Eisemann, Charles* Richardson 75083 20071204  $6495 Eisemann, Charles* Richardson 75080 20081015  $5000 Eisemann, Charles* Richardson 75083 20071030  $3505 Von Ehr, James*    Richardson 75082 20071030 $10000 Nusser, Robert*    Richardson 75080 20071030  $1000 Nusser, Robert*    Richardson 75080 20071204   $500 Nusser, Robert*    Richardson 75080 20081015   $250 Macy, Robert*      Richardson 75081 20081015  $1000 Macy, Robert*      Richardson 75081 20071030   $505 Rohm, Tom*         Richardson 75081 20071204  $1000 Bradshaw, Stan*    richardson 75082 20080307  $1000 Chen, Charlie      Dallas     75219 20081221  $1000 Ritter, Martha*    Richardson 75080 20071030   $500 Ritter, Martha*    Richardson 75080 20080515   $250 Tanner, John*      Richardson 75082 20081015   $500 Tanner, John*      Richardson 75082 20071030   $250 Macy, Billie Jean* Richardson 75081 20071030   $500 Russum, Joseph*    Richardson 75080 20071030   $500 Dalton, W.C.       Richardson 75080 20080312   $500 Peters, David*     Richardson 75081 20080401   $500 Tanner, Mimi*      Richardson 75082 20071030   $250 Bell, Kenneth*     Richardson 75080 20071030   $200 Bell, Ken*         richardson 75080 20080220   $100 Stuart, Jean*      Richardson 75080 20080715   $200 Mathews, Joseph    Richardson 75080 20080312   $100 Mathews, Joseph    Richardson 75080 20081221   $100 Russum, Joe*       richardson 75080 20080303   $100 GOPI               richardson 75080 20080311   $100 Kaiser, Bob*       Richardson 75080 20080401   $100 Ball, Thelma       richardson 75080 20080311    $50 Johnston, Charles  Richardson 75081 20081221    $50 Martin, Dale       Richardson 75081 20080715    $25
The only PAC contributors who are not listed on the PAC's Web site as supporters are Joseph Mathews (who is listed as the PAC Treasurer), Charlie Chen (listed as "retired" and having a Dallas address), GOPI (a $100 corporate contribution that was returned) and the three contributors of $50 or less. Again, these reports only go through 2008, so it's possible the PAC has recruited many new contributors who are not listed, but that would mark a change from their 2007-2008 history. So, if you define "supporters" as significant financial contributors (and in an election campaign, where voters should "follow the money," that's what is usually meant), then the Richardson Coalition PAC is very public about who their supporters are.

Note that one of the financial contributors is Bob Macy, who is a candidate for Place 5 and was given a "Top Rated" endorsement by the Richardson Coalition itself. The PAC lists his name as a supporter on its Web site, but failed to disclose this connection in its "voter's guide" that recommended him for city council. That omission is hard to justify.

On the other side of the ledger, the Richardson Coalition PAC reports over $24,000 in expenditures for surveys and minor expenses for its Web site, post office box, etc. It reports no political expenditures for 2007-2008.

So, is the Richardson Coalition PAC hiding who its supporters are? You decide. Looking only at its voter's guide, then the PAC is guilty of that one egregious case of recommending Bob Macy without identifying him as a financial contributor. But given the information it publishes on its Web site, matched against its financial reports, it's impossible to sustain a charge that the PAC doesn't reveal its supporters.

40 comments:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Destiny said...

“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”-Plutarch

Chuck Eismann is just that to Richardson. I admire Tom for being the only candidate to stand up to him publicly after the RC mailer came out.

Obviously though I am already a supporter.

And by the way thanks for being a total d-bag and using my blog against me. I'll remember that...(:

Unknown said...

I find it ironic that an individual complaining about the temperament of someone, who he self admittedly knows little about, impressively manages to simultaneously attack his character in the span of seven short paragraphs. This is yellow journalism at its finest! Ed Cogniwhoever is overtly slandering the character and mocking the religious beliefs of Tom Bache-Wiig based on an unverifiable portion of a text message that could very well be taken out of context. If this is your idea of political coverage my opinion is that yours is worth none. Instead of slandering Tom Bache-Wiig you should stick to whatever is that you're actually good at, which by the way, isn't journalism.

Simply put, Tom Bache-Wiig is against corruption. Taking a stand against corruption is not easy. Yellow journalism, such as this blog post, needs to be confronted. I think Tom Bache-Wiig deserves applause for standing up for the right thing.

I Dig Bache-Wiig!

Anonymous said...

If anyone knew the heart of this man, you'd know he's a fresh breath. Thank you, Tom, for running this race. You've got my vote...

Ed Cognoski said...

Destiny, I didn't criticize Bache-Wiig for standing up to Charles Eisemann. I criticized him for the childish sarcasm he used to do it. Big difference.

If you support Bache-Wiig, rather than be upset at me, you should be happy for the increased exposure I gave to Bache-Wiig's own words, showing him standing up to Charles Eisemann.

Ed Cognoski said...

Will, I thought I sufficiently described the unverified source of the quotes I used. If you have evidence that the quotes are false, or more context for the quotes, I'll gladly publish the evidence.

As for you criticizing my style, I think there may be some merit to your criticism, but remember, I am not putting myself forward to be a "servant-leader" for Richardson.

Destiny said...

Oh yeah, because childish sarcasm is just soooooo uncool.

(sorry, I had to)

Scout said...

"Anonymous", are you suggesting those messages by someone identified as Tom Bache-Wiig are not consistent with what's in his heart? If so, how do you explain the messages?

Scout said...

I don't know, Destiny. "Cool" never occurred to me to describe the tone of those messages from someone identified as Tom Bache-Wiig. Or Bache-Wiig himself, for that matter. But what do I know? I've never claimed to be part of the "cool" crowd myself.

Destiny said...

Sorry, I guess I needed to clarify, I was being sarcastic. (:

Ed Cognoski said...

Destiny, I know how difficult sarcasm (and irony) is to express in writing. No hard feelings then?

Say, do you think you could get Tom Bache-Wiig to comment here himself about whether those quotes are genuine and, if so, whether he has any second thoughts about saying them?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin said...

This is why we need the < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags in HTML...do you suppose we can get the World Wide Web Consortium to add it?

P.S., this is not sarcasm, just humor, as the printed word does need some extra help communicating emotions and feelings...

hahaha! When I try to post this, the website rejects the "sarcasm" tag...let me try with extra spaces...sheesh, a website with no sense of humor ;-)

Bill

Amanda said...

The RC mailer and the characterization of TBW was a problem for me. As a writer and journalist, the last 10 years have marked dramatic change. I can think of at least 40 professionals in the last year who have been RIFFED, fired, non-renewed, etc. To me, this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the immense pressure I am under as a professional. RC doesn't "get" my industry, and I don't get the need to attack TBW.

I checked TBW through my contacts in Dallas media...true, he's had a vast professional platform. From what I know, he did a number of freelance/contract assignments, which is the nature of this business. 14 jobs? Then, I'd say in this business he's doing good...

I had difficulty in your post seperating the PR from RC, and your take on theology. If you disagree or find fault, then say so. Much like the Ryan tax dust up in Dallas, I've got no problem with a candidate protecting their professional turf. This was an attack on his professional life, and not a thoughtful analysis of his views.

Ed Cognoski said...

amanda, thanks for the feedback. You're reading a lot of negative into those short three sentences in the RC mailer. And a lot of positive into Bache-Wiig's sketchy employment history. What people read into these things seems to be determined by the baggage they bring with them.

What I focused on was Bache-Wiig's intemperate response. Although I found it inconsistent with the religious piety he's painted himself with, my Bible reading comment was just a throwaway joke. The point relevant to this election is that the immaturity shown in his response (if it was him, no one has confirmed that yet) is not fitting for someone aspiring to elective office of any kind. No one's yet offered a defense.

Ed Cognoski said...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, here's the way to get that HTML sarcasm markup into a comment:

<sarcasm>
thanks for being a total d-bag
</sarcasm>

Surround your fake markup with &lt; and &gt;

Unknown said...

I don't know....I kind of like having the "exclusive" candidate comments....makes me the Oprah, and you just the Tyra. I think I enjoy this.

Destiny said...

By the way, the above comment was obviously me. Don't go giving my joke credit away since I know how you like to do that. "Conserve" is NOT Bill Denton.

Amanda said...

@ Ed...I wasn't aware you'd cornered the market on deciding what is exclusively "temperate" vs. "intemperate" in local politics.

Rather than speculate on what I read into "three short sentences," just ask. I deal in fact.

Ellesblogger said...

I'm with Destiny and Plutarch. I also agree with Ed that this could give the race greater exposure. But with one week left? How precisely would TBW be able to counter the RC innuendo? If 'faint praise is damning' what is the effect is 'faint slander'? It is particularly sly to slip in remarks when there is no time left. When the moral Mr. Smith goes to Washington he doesn't understand the implication of the political machine until it has him in a vice grip. He finally cracks? No he finally stands up. And after a 23 hour filibuster a newsman reports, "What he lacks in experience he makes up for in fight". Maybe TBW should keep talking and not desist until this town gets the point.
Were his comments immature? Perhaps an irregular tactic to prevent a decision against the will of the majority. "Chuck Eisemann and Cronies" is the stuff of drama and makes even the simplest among us get it.

Unknown said...

Ed I'm glad we agree!

Now that we agree there is merit to my criticism, what's the beef? In your post you basically said that anyone who considers them self a "servant-leader" shouldn't passionately stand up for themselves and what they believe, and that if he does he's just being temperamental. Of course, I don't think you really believe that. I would imagine that you feel completely comfortable standing up for what you believe and pointing out in injustice when you see it, especially when it is directed toward you. So let's be blunt and honest, what is it that you have against Tom Bache-Wiig? Say it plainly. Give your readers and myself something to actually chew on, some content.

Anonymous said...

Ed - you seem to a problem with candidates finally speaking out against what they believe are lies or untruth about themselves or their campaign. I know that politicians - and those who aspire to be - must have thick skins, but c'mon, everyone reaches a point where they must respond, even if it is a bit comical or humorous. Even you have done so in your own blog.

Don said...

Ed, I was impressed with Amanda's comment on Trey's blog that she's an award-winning writer so I asked her what award she won and for what.

She still hasn't answered even though she's commented on other things since, so until she does I have to conclude she's trying to bluff you with a little fib without any basis in fact. Keep up the good work and don't let the blowhard wannabes try to intimidate you with these sorts of transparent tactics.

Anonymous said...

Dear Don - aka RC - I know Amanda and she is indeed an award winning writer.

Don said...

Anonymous, I'm sure your anonymous claim and hers have much in common, which is probably why Amanda is ashamed to answer herself. Ed obviously shouldn't allow himself to be bluffed by either.

Ed Cognoski said...

Amanda, I don't claim to have cornered the market on opinion. I welcome all opinions, including yours. I don't consider my characterization of your reaction as speculation. You did call the RC words an "attack." That's "negative," right?

Ellesblogger, thanks for the feedback. I'm having a hard time figuring out what was slanderous about the RC's description of Bache-Wiig's resume. The RC simply gave a numeric tally of jobs. I agree with you that Bache-Wiig should keep talking. He should explain his remarks (or deny it was he who made them). As it is, the remarks still strike me as immature and intemperate, even after all of his supporters have come to his defense.

Will, I agree with you that people should stand up for themselves. My criticism of Bache-Wiig is with how he did it. I consider his sarcastic messages to be childishly worded.

"Anonymous", were Bache-Wiig's messages intended to be comical or humorous? I missed that. Maybe Bache-Wiig should clarify.

Don, thanks for the kind words. I'm willing to believe "amanda" is an award-winning journalist. But it's a moot point. In the forum of ideas, one's credentials and awards aren't enough to carry the day. Only facts and logic can make an argument compelling. (Note to anyone thinking that I just accused "amanda" of not having facts and logic: you're drawing an unfounded inference.)

Unknown said...

No one ever said a servant leader wouldn't employ sarcasm every now and again. Sarcasm doesn't always denote childish behavior, characterizing it as so is unfair. In this case I think it denotes frustration, and rightfully so.

If the use of sarcasm is enough to condemn a person as unworthy of Richardson City Council Place 4, then guess what, they're all out! Every last one! One instance of sarcasm in defense of his reputation seems to be enough to oust Tom Bache-Wiig, but a insulting remark from the RC gets a pass? Not exactly equal standards, but then again that fits within corruption. One instance of sarcasm in self defense doesn't merit an explanation or an apology. If that's your issue with Tom Bache-Wiig you'll have a hard time finding any other candidate that can measure up to your standard.

Unknown said...

Btw....
Biblical sarcasm:

"About noontime Elijah began mocking them. “You’ll have to shout louder,” he scoffed, “for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened" 1 Kings 18:27

Warren Fox said...

I don't understand this criticism of Chuck Eismann. He did NOTHING illegal. What is wrong with someone supporting a candidate they agree with. You can disagree with Chuck and the Richardson Coaltion, but don't attack their right to free speech.

Any one of you have the right to form your own political action committee. You can endorse whomever you like, and you can even put out your own Voter's Guide.

Ed Cognoski said...

Will, whereas I don't consider childish sarcasm to be consistent with a temperament well-suited to serve on city council, I don't consider a single instance to be a disqualification for office, either. As you say, everyone slips up now and then. In this case none of Bache-Wiig's defenders has admitted that this was a slip up. That's beginning to worry me more than the original sarcastic messages. For balance, I'll gladly repost any examples of Bache-Wiig making more mature defenses of his reputation. Got any?

"Conserve", perhaps you found the Bible passage Bache-Wiig read the morning the RC mailer arrived! Unfortunately, Bache-Wiig is no Jeremiah.

Warren, I've criticized the Richardson Coalition in some of my previous blog items, but I've never criticized its right to campaign, even in ways I don't consider particularly meritorious.

Unknown said...

Sure, I'll remember to jot one down for you next time I see him... (I won't be apologizing for that one either)

Ed Cognoski said...

Thanks, Will. If the quote is more mature, there won't be a need to admit to making an intemperate response.

Unknown said...

That was a quip Ed... I suppose it wasn't witty enough. Oh well. In any case I'll let Tom be the one to reply if he chooses to do so.

As for me, I think this post has run it's course. Night all!

Destiny said...

Elijah.....not Jeremiah. (:

Ed Cognoski said...

Will, my reply was a quip as well. I've been told my sense of humor doesn't translate well. Someone tried to explain Tom Bache-Wiig's comments as an attempt at humor, too, so I guess we're in the same boat.

Destiny, as you say. The authorship of Kings is one debate I'm smart enough to steer clear of.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the RC, did anyone receive Omar's mailer over the weekend? Talk about pandering to seniors! While I have a deep respect for our senior population, dangling a "senior tax freeze" for their vote is over the top, plus his continued slanted remarks about councilman Stewart in his mailers should silence anyone who is still whining about what Stewart said in the RRW forum (although what Stewart said WAS true). In a city where over 25% of the homes already have the "over 65 exemption", a "freeze" would nearly bankrupt Richardson and shift the tax burden to families and the those under 65. And, the irony here is that councilman Stewart was the ONLY councilperson to advocate FOR the "tax freeze" during the last budget cycle - only to be out voted 6-1 on the issue. Earth to Omar: you can talk all you want about a "senior tax freeze", but, if you're elected, you'll never have the votes for it. As Stewart quickly discovered, a "senior tax freeze" is bad public policy...

Ed Cognoski said...

"Anonymous," I had a few things to say about Amir Omar's mailer. See my blog post here.

Anonymous said...

I saw that - I'm referring to a second mailer that folks started receiving on Friday and Saturday - it has a big chunk of ice on the front with a dollar sign in it and on the other side a photo of an elderly woman. It also includes slanted comments about Stewart, naming him specifically. To make matters worse, you might check out Youtube.com - search for 'Wardrup' and you'll find several (Stewart's is after hers) video clips with some nasty verbiage at the end. Looks like Gary Slagel's coalition and Omar continue to get more negative (and desperate). Ed, it's still not too late to endorse Stewart (and Wardrup, for that matter)... :)

Ed Cognoski said...

"Anonymous", thanks for the additional information. It sounds like Omar is continuing to violate his publicly stated pledge to run a positive campaign. That's disappointing. It also sounds like he's continuing to use the senior tax freeze as the centerpiece of his campaign. That's disappointing, too. Stewart campaigned on a similar platform in 2007, had almost no support from others on the council, and has criticized Omar's plan in 2009. Stewart is making progress in my book, whereas Omar continues to fall out of favor.

Anonymous said...

If you use the "Stewart" and "progress" in the same sentence, I have to laugh. If it was up to him Richardson would be all white Christians.

About Bache-Wiig. Irrespective of what you think of Slagel's alleged problems and Wardrup's alleged character issues, they are both head and shoulders above Bache-Wiig in terms of resume. Bache-Wiig has nothing to qualify him for a city council position.

The clips on Youtube are not by the coalition. Look at the account name.

Ed Cognoski said...

"Anonymous", thanks for the feedback. I tell you what, deciding how to vote in Place 7 (Stewart vs Omar) is tough. Right now, I'm leaning towards leaving my ballot blank. But Stewart still has a chance to win my vote.

Do you have any facts in his record or public statements to back up your charge that he wants Richardson to be "all white Christians"? Unsupported slurs don't carry any weight in my book.

I agree that Bache-Wiig's resume is too slim to earn him a place on the city council, especially for him to unseat Gary Slagel to win it.