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.

Richardson Place 7; Racist fliers; Swine flu

The Nightly Build

---

Omar Joins Stewart in Going Negative

From the beginning, I've had a problem picking a candidate for Richardson City Council for Place 7. The race is between the incumbent Dennis Stewart and challenger Amir Omar. I couldn't support Stewart because of his negative campaign tactics. I couldn't support Omar because of his call for a senior citizen property tax freeze. I ended up not making a recommendation at all for Place 7.

As the campaign unfolded, I began liking Amir Omar. In the forums, he came across as an intelligent, informed, composed politician. He did not emphasize the property tax freeze. He refused to get drawn into the mud by Stewart's personal attacks. There was one question at one forum that showed the kind of positive campaign Omar was trying to run. When asked to name one good thing about his opponent, Omar had no trouble saying nice things about Stewart, after first saying the question made him violate one of the pledges he made to himself, a pledge to campaign on his own merits and not talk about his opponent at all. There is a lot to like in Amir Omar.

So, what are we to make of Amir Omar's latest campaign mailing? There, in big, bold print, Omar accuses "our Place 7 City Councilman, Dennis Stewart" of being one of "those." "Those" are "elected officials who talk 'conservative' during a campaign, but fail to vote that way when in office." Omar implies that Stewart, being one of "those," doesn't share the same values as the rest of us. Omar closes with "it's time to defend the values we share."

In one mailing, Omar reneges on his public pledge not to criticize his opponent. He makes the unsupported charge that Dennis Stewart is not conservative. The claim is questionable at best, laughable at worst, but still may play well in conservative north Texas among voters who are not familiar with Dennis Stewart. And Omar again makes the senior tax freeze the centerpiece of his campaign. This is bad public policy. It distorts the tax burden, discriminating based on age rather than ability to pay. It's pandering. It may be good politics in the short run, but it's bad public policy in the long run.

Now that he, too, is guilty of making negative attacks on his opponent, a recommendation to vote for Amir Omar is even harder to justify. D*mn. I really tried to like him, too.

---

Racist Campaign Fliers In Dallas

Just when one begins to despair of the negative tone in the Richardson City Council race, one comes across news like this to remind one of what nasty political campaigns can be like. Come on, y'all. Stay classy.

---

Preparing For the Pandemic

The World Health Organization has raised its swine flu pandemic warning level to 5. Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News, tells how his family is preparing. He's pulled his child out of school and has stocked up on hand sanitizer and food. Is that all? I'm surprised the decline of Western Civilization didn't lead him to do all that and more long before now. In the past, news of Dan Brown releasing a sequel to Da Vinci Code would have been enough to cause Dreher to pack his truck and move his family back to Louisiana. Now, he's not evacuating for a level 5 pandemic. Kudos to the new calm, collected, unflappable Rod Dreher.

P.S. To be clear, this blog item is about Rod Dreher, not swine flu. A swine flu epidemic is nothing to joke about. Rod Dreher, on the other hand, is fair game. He asks for it. ;-)

Richardson's Council Achievements; Specter and Hutchison

The Nightly Build

---

"Thrilling Days of Yesteryear"

Rarely can I recommend reading the inappropiately named Richardson City News. It's not so much that I disagree with the viewpoints expressed there by the site owner, Nathan Morgan. It's more that I can't even figure out what the heck he's talking about. Once in a while, he reprints letters from others and sometimes those are worth reading. This week's letter from an unnamed reader offers something that's been missing from the campaign for Richardson City Council up to now. That's a report card on the performance of past city councils.

To my way of thinking, if you think Richardson is on the right track, you ought to reward incumbents with another term. If you think Richardson is on the wrong track, you ought to vote for the challengers. This reader clearly is not happy with the decisions of prior city councils. See if you agree.

Recent city councils were at least in part responsible for the Spring Valley underpass; the Galatyn overpass; the Eisemann Center; the new TI wafer fab on Renner Rd (not yet in operation); mixed-use developments such as the Block (Arapaho at Jupiter), Eastside (Campbell at Central), the Venue (Galatyn), the Shire (Bush Turnpike at Jupiter) and Brick Row (Spring Valley at Greenville); legalization of beer and wine sales; a smoking ban; zoning laws to restrict adult-oriented businesses as much as legally possible; the relocation or expansion of Countrywide Financial, Blue Cross, MetroPCS, Yahoo, Huawei, Fujitsu and Halff Associates; and a bond rating of AAA (one of only four cities in Texas with that high rating).

This unnamed reader informs us that unless we vote out incumbents like Bob Townsend, John Murphy and Gary Slagel, we risk "go[ing] back to those thrilling days of yesteryear" when the decisions leading to the achievements in the previous paragraph were being made. This unnamed reader thinks those achievements were mistakes. If you agree, vote out the incumbents. But if you think that the list of achievements makes a pretty good report card, then being an incumbent ought to work in a candidate's favor this election. Early voting has begun. Make your own informed decision and vote.

---

Should Kay Follow Arlen?

Paul Burka, on his own blog, posts an open letter to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, pointing out to her that Sen. Arlen Specter's reasons for leaving the Republican Party also apply to Kay Bailey Hutchison's situation in Texas. She wants to be governor but faces a nasty Republican primary in which her opponent, Gov. Rick Perry, has already staked out the far right turf. By running as a Democrat, Hutchison not only avoids all those GOP primary attacks on her insufficiently conservative record. She also would take office as head of a new Democratic majority in Texas, a majority interested in governing, not seceding. OK, Burka could not have been serious about this. Could he?

Tier 1 universities; Money in Richardson politics

The Nightly Build

---

A Good First Step For Higher Education

Emily Ramshaw, in The Dallas Morning News, reports that the Texas House has passed a measure that creates three funding pools for the seven "emerging research universities" in Texas, including Richardson's own UT-Dallas. The bill now goes to the Senate.

This is a good step, but note that funding for the pools is not yet in the budget. Without funding, good intentions will lead to nothing. Encourage your legislators to fund this effort.

---

Following the Money in Richardson

There aren't many issues in the current race for Richardson City Council. The candidates have mostly agreed with each other during the five forums for candidates. The one topic that seems to come up everywhere -- in forums, in campaign literature, on blogs -- is transparency in government. It means different things to different people. An online city checkbook and video streaming of council meetings are often called for, and all candidates support these measures.

Full disclosure of each candidate's supporters is sometimes mentioned, with different sides finding fault with each other. Some Richardson voters (and candidates) see a conspiracy behind the Richardson Coalition, a PAC made up of some of Richardson's most prominent business and political leaders. Talk is loud enough to prompt the Richardson Coalition to publish an editorial titled, "Follow the Money" in which it defends itself against charges of funding the campaigns of candidates it supports. The Richardson Coalition lists the funds it has donated to political candidates in 2007-2009. It's $0.

The PAC does not state how much money it has spent on its own promoting specific candidates, for example the flier it mailed to voters in which it endorsed seven of the seventeen candidates for city council. Such expenditures may not be monetary contributions to candidates, but these expenditures do directly benefit the candidates that the PAC backs. According to reports on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, the Richardson Coalition PAC lists over $27,000 in contributions it received in 2007 and 2008.

After defending itself, the Richardson Coalition PAC goes on to criticize other PACs for being involved in Richardson politics. Specifically, it criticizes the Richardson Fire Fighters Association PAC for making contributions to candidates. According to reports on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, the RFFA PAC lists over $17,000 in contributions it received in 2007 and 2008. The Richardson Coalition PAC says they "will be watching this carefully to insure that this organization does not receive any preferential treatment, regardless of who prevails in the election." Perhaps what Richardson really needs is a non-partisan group watching all the PACs, including the Richardson Coalition, to make sure that money does not have an undue influence on election results. Like the Richardson Coalition urges, voters are well advised to follow the money.

P.S. Early voting begins today. Don't forget to vote.

Richardson forum at Mark Twain

The Nightly Build

---

Last Chance To Do Side-by-Side Comparisons

The fifth and final forum for candidates for Richardson City Council was held today at Mark Twain Elementary. I was not there. (I guess I do have a life after all.) But the comments are on for anyone who was there to report any news that came out of this last forum.

Don McLeroy and SBOE; Richardson Coalition PAC

The Nightly Build

---

For Once, Good News from the SBOE

Terrence Stutz, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, brings us the rare bit of good news regarding the Texas State Board of Education. The SBOE has a near-majority of Creationists who have been working for decades to water down science education in Texas by casting doubt on the theory of evolution by natural selection. The chairman of the SBOE, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, is Don McLeroy, a Creationist dentist from College Station. At a January hearing, McLeroy demonstrated his own lack of a science education by asking, "Isn't the fact that [teeth] fit together so perfectly a weakness of evolution?"

Stutz reports that the Senate might reject Perry's re-appointment of McLeroy as chairman. Confirmation requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Democrats, who control 12 of 31 seats, have signaled they would not vote to approve McLeroy. Hooray! Finally, there's a glint of sunshine on the SBOE. A glimmer of hope that the SBOE might be restored to a body that puts the education of Texas children above personal, religious agendas.

But it's only the beginning of the beginning. McLeroy could still win re-appointment. Or Perry could appoint another Creationist. Regardless, McLeroy would continue to hold his seat on the SBOE. The quality of education in Texas won't be out of danger until Texas voters remove these members from the SBOE entirely: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer.

---

The Giant In Richardson Politics Speaks

So far, the Richardson Coalition Political Action Committee (PAC) has been the unseen giant in the current campaign for Richardson City Council. The PAC is made up of all the power brokers of the Richardson establishment (five former council members, four Citizens of the Year, etc.). It's been accused of throwing its weight around, of being behind numerous nefarious deeds, of pulling the strings of various candidates. But mostly, such scurrilous talk has been in private, in emails, and on the blogosphere. Chris Davis is the only candidate who has bordered on the edge of bringing such accusations out in public. In one forum, she hinted of a conspiracy, suggesting that there is a "coalition" of people in Richardson who want to "go back to the council of old."

Up to now, the PAC has been silent regarding the election. Now, the giant has spoken. The PAC, in a mailer, is going public with its recommendations for City Council.

• Place 1
  • The PAC recommends Bob Townsend, calling him a "steady hand." I agree. There's nothing in his past or his vision for the future that calls for a change.
  • Bill Denton, who would make a fine candidate for an open seat, has not made any case for change at all.
• Place 2
  • The PAC recommends Mark Solomon, saying "his record of dedicated service" demonstrates both his competence and ability and to do the job. I agree.
  • The PAC rejects the other candidates because of their inexperience, not because of their visions for Richardson. I agree.
• Place 3
  • The PAC recommends John Murphy, crediting him with keeping Richardson's finances in good shape, keeping government growth in check while still providing excellent services. I agree.
  • The PAC gives its first "Not Recommended" rating to Chris Davis, saying that her service as executive assistant to our Dallas County Commissioner is a serious conflict of interest. I agree there, too. Chris Davis ought to address that conflict by pledging to resign her position with the Dallas County Commissioner if elected to the City Council. The PAC also charges Davis with unspecified "unethical, mean-spirited and untrue negative attacks against opponents." I consider these charges themselves to be unethical and mean-spirited. The PAC gravely undermines its own reputation by spreading unspecific, unsourced rumors.
• Place 4
  • The PAC recommends Gary Slagel, crediting him with leading Richardson through the collapse of the "tech boom" and calling on him to help lead us through the current economic downturn. I agree that Slagel's experience is valuable and good reason to keep him on the Council.
  • The PAC accuses Diane Wardrup of making "untrue, negative attacks" and distributing "illegal flyers." It makes a gratuitous attack on her, quoting unnamed "co-workers" saying unflattering things about her. Like the unsupported rumors spread by the PAC against Chris Davis, I condemn the PAC's methods here.
  • The PAC dismisses Tom Bache-Wiig as being "new to the scene." I agree. He needs to prove himself with more involvement in civic affairs before being ready for City Council. Why the Council saw fit to use the little space it devoted to Bache-Wiig to say he's had 14 jobs in 28 years is unexplained. It should not have been mentioned.
• Place 5
  • The PAC recommends Bob Macy, praising his "maturity and stability." Here I differ with the PAC. Bob Macy may be a genial man, and he may have served the city well in past volunteer positions, but his performances at the forums gave no confidence in his command of the issues or his ability to lead.
  • The PAC's recommendation here looks even more contrived in discussing the incumbent Pris Hayes. The PAC says she has "performed honorable service" during her term on Council, but says "some fresh ideas would be welcome." The PAC provides no examples of Pris Hayes' ideas that the PAC finds to be stale and offers no examples of fresh ideas of Bob Macy. Why the PAC has to use strained logic in recommending Macy over Hayes is more understandable when you see Bob Macy's name listed on the PAC's Web page titled "Who Are We." Leaving out this connection in its recommendations is irresponsible.
• Place 6
  • The PAC recommends Steve Mitchell, who is running unopposed. I agree.
• Place 7
  • The PAC recommends Amir Omar, singling out his strong support for a "Senior Tax Freeze". For that reason, I cannot recommend Omar. A tax freeze for seniors may be good politics now, but it is bad public policy in the long run. Sooner or later, Richardson will have to fix the distortions it will inevitably cause in the distribution of the property tax burden.
  • The PAC gives its second "Not Recommended" rating to Dennis Stewart, apologizing to the voters of Richardson for its past support of Stewart. Here, I'm inclined to agree with the PAC. Stewart made personal attacks on Omar at one forum, including an attack on the spelling of his name. Simultaneously, Stewart wrapped himself in the flag. Stewart, a former policeman, is endorsed by the Richardson Fire Fighters Association. The PAC omits to mention its recently published editorial criticizing union PACs for contributing to city council election campaigns. The PAC has no business denouncing another PAC for involving itself in city politics while doing so itself. Unfortunately, I can make no recommendation in this race. I don't like the politics of Stewart and the Richardson Coalition PAC and don't care for either the senior tax cap proposed by Stewart or the senior tax freeze proposed by Omar.

All told, I agree with the Richardson Coalition PAC on five recommendations, disagree on one and offer no recommendation on one. But I strongly disagree with the PAC's reasoning and tactics in several of the recommendations. So, although our recommendations may align more often than not, I cannot endorse or recommend the Richardson Coalition PAC itself.

FrontBurner comments

The Nightly Build

---

No One Was Ever Civil On FrontBurner

This week, FrontBurner decided to turn off commenting (for now). Everybody, it seems, now is talking about the comments sections of blogs and online news articles. Even FrontBurner itself seems to have referenced its new no-comments policy in every other blog post since. Ironically, today Wick Allison himself links to an article on The Atlantic about the price of oil and the recession, saying "in this case, the comments are worth reading." (I'd link to the FrontBurner blog post itself but I'd have to go to FrontBurner to get the link, which I don't do anymore because I read the articles on my RSS reader. I only went to FrontBurner itself for the comments.)

People are not just talking about commenting. Some people are doing something about it. At least two sites have sprung up volunteering to be the home of FrontBurner comments (LodoWick and Trey Garrison).

Why this spontaneous show of support for what Gordon Keith calls sniping, snarking, and snarling pettily at each other? (By the way, Gordon Keith himself is not one of those supporters, which I'll get to later.) Bethany Anderson gives the best reasons why FrontBurner's decision was the wrong one.

"Don't discount the power those comments had. They corrected instantly when erroneous information got out. They gave you instant feedback. And, more importantly, they gave you a relationship with your readers."

That's lost to FrontBurner now. But, apparently, even Bethany Anderson can stand only so much commenting. Yesterday, she said "OK, OK, Enough Already".

"So really, enough with the 'Frontburner sucks.' No, it actually didn't suck. It was quite fun there for a while."

Umm... I think what people are saying is that FrontBurner sucks *now*. (OK, maybe some people recognized FrontBurner as being sucky all along, but they are not the ones we're talking about here.) There's irony in Bethany Anderson commenting about FrontBurner's no-comments policy and then commenting about other readers commenting, saying that other readers should quit commenting. That makes me dizzy so I'll stop there.

Gordon Keith turns the tables completely and says FrontBurner doesn't suck, we all suck. Talking about comments on The Dallas Morning News, he says:

"If you read the comments after an article or blog post, you know what I am talking about. It devolves so quickly you wish your ancestors had remained monkeys - at least the shit-slinging back then was more honest. You walk away asking 'wow, are people really this mean and petty?' Yes, they are."

This from a man who admits he works on a "vulgar medium," talk radio. But he says he is "being PAID to do it" which, through some unexplained mechanism, justifies his being vulgar. (Isn't being paid to do something vulgar pretty much the epitome of vulgar?) Like many of FrontBurner's own blog items, the value in Gordon Keith's blog item is found not in the original piece, but in the comments. Reader "Craig" lays out the alternatives:

1. No moderation/editing
2. Moderated comments
3. No comments

With the first you get "hooting and hollering like the baboon enclosure at feeding time." With the second, you get "allegations of censorship." With the third, you lose a "sense of community." That's all the choices there are. Take your pick. There's no perfect solution.

My preference? Option 1, until traffic reaches a level that separating the wheat from the chaff becomes impossible. Then Option 2, with a light hand on the censor's pen. I can't ever see a situation that calls for Option 3, the nuclear option. It's the publishing world's equivalent of mutual assured destruction -- sure, you can kill all the evil commenters, but you'll be killed in retaliation by your customers going elsewhere to find community.

At heart, FrontBurner understands this, which is why Wick Allison promised to turn commenting back on when they get around to implementing an acceptable means of moderation. The lag time it takes them to roll this out this will be an indication whether they have what it takes to survive the 21st century publishing business or whether they are a doomed, relic print publishing company that only dabbles in online.

P.S. Perhaps I should add that one reason the Ed Cognoski blog exists is because I got tired of having my comments deleted by a heavy censor's hand at Dallas Blog. Here I can say what I want. Readers can read what I write or not, as they choose, not as the censor chooses. Not coincidentally, I seldom read Dallas Blog any more. Win-win for both of us, I'm sure.

Richardson council race

The Nightly Build

---

Everyone Is Still Civil After Four Forums

Tuesday evening, the League of Women Voters of Richardson hosted the fourth forum of candidates for Richardson City Council. Sixteen candidates in the six contested races answered questions submitted by the public. None of the candidates broke new ground. No new issues emerged. The audience was well-behaved. If this election is any indicator, Richardson is a contented community. Property taxes are not an issue. Illegal immigration is not an issue. Ethnic diversity is not an issue. East side versus west side is not a divide. Business owners versus homeowners is not a divide. No, the biggest "issue" seems to be whether or not Richardson should put its checkbook online. And all the candidates, all of them, are in favor of that.

Besides making opening and closing statements, the candidates answered six questions, including two "lightning round" yes/no questions.

1. How will Richardson be different in ten years?
2. What three areas would you cut if tax revenues drop?
3. Do you think the city is acting transparently?
4. Do you support staggered terms for city council? (yes/no)
5. Do you support the red-light camera program? (yes/no)
6. What do you propose doing about the 12,000 outstanding warrants at Richardson's municipal court?

Diane Wardrup showed the most dedication by celebrating her 36th wedding anniversary with her husband and the voters of Richardson. Dennis Stewart gets honorable mention for celebrating his 35th wedding anniversary the day before at a city council meeting.

Jimmy Schnurr made the best recovery of the night. After appearing hesitant, flustered and confused in his opening statement, he confidently came back at the next opportunity to explain that his wife was in the audience for the first time and when he looked up and saw her, "she took my breath away."

Sheryl Miller took the first jab. In her opening, she accused the incumbent, John Murphy, of filing his financial report late. Murphy, unbloodied, stayed good natured and ignored the criticism.

Looking ahead ten years, John Murphy and Bob Townsend both pointed to estimates of population growth in Richardson, both in residents and in the even larger daytime workforce. Gary Slagel talked up UT-Dallas as an economic engine that will change Richardson. Jennifer Justice said the school's growth will make Richardson a "college town" in ten years. Chris Davis said that Dallas development is marching up Central Expressway and will soon reach Richardson's southern gateway, which is due for redevelopment in the next ten years. Diane Wardrup foresaw Richardson's population aging and a consequent demand for more single-family homes for seniors, an odd statement given that Richardson is land-locked, built-out, and virtually all seniors in Richardson already own their own single-family house. Bob Macy played up the Richardson Regional Medical Center as a "jewel" that will become even more important to Richardson as its population ages.

The candidates were all over the map concerning where to cut if tax revenues drop. Sheryl Miller had the most original answer, saying, "if tax revenues drop, that would be terrific." Chris Davis would save money by insourcing. John Murphy would save money by outsourcing. Gary Slagel said we should either insource or outsource, depending on the function, as well as leverage technology to become more productive. Bob Macy would look at cutting festivals that don't make money. Pris Hayes would look to refinance bonds at lower rates. Sheryl Miller said cut the pork; John Murphy said the word pork and Richardson's budget don't go together ("We're never going to have a Cowboys stadium in Richardson"). The incumbents generally identified personnel costs as making up the majority of the budget, so cuts, if needed, would have to come from there. Murphy and Slagel offered hiring freezes and attrition as ways to control personnel costs.

Transparency in government seems to be the recurring issue in this election, but even that doesn't seem to favor anyone in particular or challengers over incumbents. All of the candidates are more or less in favor of video-streaming council meetings and publishing the city checkbook online. Sheryl Miller said it's not a cost issue or a technology issue, accusing the council of not wanting voters to know where the money goes. John Murphy claimed that none of the top 50 cities in Texas yet have an online checkbook, but he's in favor of having Richardson be first. Bob Townsend is in favor, too, wanting a quality product that provides information in a useful manner. Thomas Volmer said we have too much information already and need to improve the usability of what we have. Dennis Stewart pointed out that candidates talked about cutting costs earlier, but now championed new programs that all cost money.

All the candidates except John Murphy and Thomas Bache-Wiig are in favor of having staggered terms for city council, with not all places elected in the same year.

All the candidates except Thomas Bache-Wiig and Thomas Volmer are in favor of continuing Richardson's red-light camera program.

The one question that seemed to catch the candidates unprepared was the last question regarding increasing collections on the 12,000 outstanding warrants in Richardson's municipal court. None of the candidates would confirm the number. Bob Townsend drew first response and admitted being "stunned" at the number. Bill Denton said he was "like Bob" and said he didn't know how to increase collections from people with outstanding warrants. Thomas Bache-Wiig injected humor by noting people beginning to leave the forum and saying "most of them are walking out right now." Mark Solomon seemed to be on top of the issue, noting that the city collects $12 million per year from municipal court and has the highest collection rate in the area. Jimmy Schnurr proposed "getting aggressive" with a warrant "roundup" that would pay for itself. Pris Hayes cited an example elsewhere where offenders were lured to a location by a promise of having won a boat, only to be arrested when they arrived. Bob Macy suggested public humiliation, saying that if a police officer shows up at an offender's place of employment, "they cough up." John Murphy suggested considering outsourcing collections on a percentage basis. Thomas Volmer suggested repurposing the city's red light cameras to systematic plate scanning to identify drivers with outstanding warrants.

On the whole, the questions highlighted how similar the candidates are on the issues. Where they offered different answers, it didn't so much highlight differences in government philosophy as it demonstrated how all of them are good at brainstorming solutions to problems. I'm beginning to think that Richardson will be in good hands with a council made up of any combination of these candidates.

Correction: In the original post, I wrongly attributed the statement, "most of them are walking out right now" to Bill Denton. In fact, Thomas Bache-Wiig made the remark.

Stephen Hawking; Texas SBOE; FrontBurner comments

The Nightly Build

---

News of His Death Exaggerated

The famous physicist Stephen Hawking was taken to hospital Monday and was reported to be "very ill." On Tuesday, he was reported to be resting comfortably and his family is looking forward to his complete recovery, according to a statement issued by Cambridge University.

How did local media cover the story? Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, headlined his thoughts, "Stephen Hawking: obit editorial material?" When readers objected to "yack[ing] up someone's obituary before they're dead", Dreher deftly laid off responsibility on his co-workers: "Keven said we should take this to the blog. She was right to do so, because (as Nicole put it), part of this blog's raison d'etre is to show readers how we do our jobs."

Discussing the guidelines the paper uses to decide which figures merit an obit editorial is a fair subject for this blog.

Assigning writers to prepare obit editorials well in advance for significant public figures who may merit an obit editorial is sensible.

But asking the blog, whether a particular person who takes ill merits an obit editorial should he die, is in bad taste. That's true whether or not it's consistent with the purpose of the blog.

Now that we've settled that it's too early to talk about Stephen Hawking's obituary, is it too late to ask that The Dallas Morning News revive its Science section?

P.S. Kudos to Trey Garrison, who caught Dreher explaining that whether or not a famous person's death merits an editorial often comes down to a "matter of space and timing." "You did that on purpose" Garrison said.

---

Terri Leo on the Defensive

The Texas State Board of Education recently took votes to decide the standards for science textbooks used in Texas schools. Conservatives on the SBOE have long championed language that requires textbooks teach "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as evolution. Scientists have no objection to teaching strengths and weaknesses, but some do object to non-scientists like the SBOE members using such language to push schools to teach non-scientific notions such as Creationism, or its pseudo-scientific variant, intelligent design.

The recent SBOE votes on new standards were mixed. Creationists were unsuccessful in retaining the old "strengths and weaknesses" language in the science standards. But the Creationists were successful in inserting similar language requiring Texas students learn "all sides of scientific evidence." Again, there's nothing wrong with that, provided that Creationism and intelligent design are not passed off as scientific.

Will Lutz Terri Leo, a Creationist member of the SBOE, goes on the attack in an op-ed column in Dallas Blog (naturally!). Or is she on the defensive? She objects to recent moves in Austin to shift some responsibilities away from the SBOE. SB 2275, for example, would take away from the SBOE authority over curriculum and texbooks.

Leo defends the SBOE and its anti-scientific actions. She says it is popularly elected (as if scientific questions are best answered by popular vote). She says the SBOE holds public hearings at which all sides are presented (she doesn't say expert opinion is consistently ignored by some members). She says the SBOE has accomplished much (like suppressing environmentalism and multi-culturalism in schools).

But it's what she doesn't say that is the tell-tale sign that she and the Creationists on the SBOE are on the defensive. She doesn't bring up evolution or intelligent design at all. Perhaps the SBOE has finally gone too far, their attempts to push Creationism in public schools have finally gotten the public's attention, the legislature is finally saying enough is enough. It's time to put science curriculum and textbook decision back in the hands of experienced educators and scientific experts and take it away from ideological politicians like Terri Leo.

P.S. Texas voters can end this educational travesty once and for all by voting to remove these members from the SBOE as their terms expire: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer. Do it for the sake of quality science education in Texas.

Correction: The Dallas Blog article was apparently written by Will Lutz, not Terri Leo. See the comments for more information.

---

"Shut up he explained"

Wick Allison, publisher of D Magazine announced on its FrontBurner blog today that henceforth, reader comments will be disabled.

"Many of our commenters have been thoughtful and intelligent, but as months turned into years, Gresham's Law took hold. Comments became increasingly intemperate, irrelevant, and illiterate. Some good people hung on, but many good people left. The concept of user-generated content is fine -- for other Internet sites. But for ours, it has not been a successful experiment."

Like no one could see that coming. FrontBurner, which prides itself on being a "snarky celebration of ignorance," becomes overwhelmed by ignorant, snarky readers. Poetic justice. Hoist on his own petard and all that.

Are there alternatives? Allison hints that, in time, FrontBurner may be technologically capable of allowing comments from invited participants. Perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Yahoo! Groups, which can be set to require comments from new readers to be approved before being posted. Readers who demonstrate their ability to be thoughtful would be approved to post directly. Or perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Slashdot's, where reader comments are rated and, by default, only the highest rated are visible. Or perhaps FrontBurner is just not interested in readers' opinions. This latest action is the equivalent of Wick Allison sticking his fingers in his ears and saying, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't hear you!" Which, come to think of it, is a snarky celebration of ignorance, as well.

Immigration and housing

The Nightly Build

---

Sell Those Surplus Houses to Immigrants

Scott Burns, the onetime financial news columnist for The Dallas Morning News has nothing but good advice when it comes to personal finance, but his batting average is more spotty when it comes to his opinions on financial matters for the nation. In late 2006, he was warning of a coming recession (a solid hit). In late 2007, he recommended voters consider Mike Gravel and Ron Paul for their parties' Presidential nominations (a swing and a miss). Then, just before the 2008 election, he predicted the rise of a third party in 2012, a party pledged to cutting the federal debt (a strikeout).

Yesterday, in a column in The Dallas Morning News, he made a recommendation that, in baseball terms, would be a call for a bench-clearing brawl. It's a way of ending the decline of housing prices. The idea is credited to economist A. Gary Shilling and real estate developer Richard S. Lefrak.

"Their suggestion: Don't think about artificially low mortgage interest rates and other stopgaps. Instead, eliminate the oversupply of houses. And, by the way, don't spend a dime of taxpayer money doing it. How can this be done? Simple: Open our borders to immigrants who can buy a home in the U.S. Let a million immigrants a year do this for two years, and the entire oversupply of homes and condos will be absorbed."

Reader "Doris J" cries, "What a nightmare." Reader "dhp8" channels Patrick Henry, "I would rather have a housing crisis than allow more illegal immigrants in the US." More rationally, reader "A friend Lynn" says, "Interesting in theory, but what are these 2 million people going to do when they get here get on the welfare rolls, with unemployment running at over 8 percent nationally."

Ay, that's the problem. Our nation is suffering, not just from a surplus of houses, but from rising unemployment. Increased immigration solves the former but exacerbates the latter. The result could be a wash economically and a disaster politically, as the anti-immigrant faction would go ballistic (maybe literally, yikes!).

Maybe in a perfect world, one in which we had rational immigration policies that encouraged more immigration of young, bright, entrepreneurial, ambitious people from all nations, we would be able to welcome a million new home buyers to our shores every year. Maybe in that world our existing housing crisis would not look so forbidding. But we don't live in that world. And moving us from this world to that is going to take someone of even more remarkable political skills than Barack Obama. Don't expect him to put Scott Burns' idea in his batting order anytime soon.

TEA parties; Richardson election blog

The Nightly Build

---

Chit-Chat at the Tea Party

In the last couple days, there's been lots of discussion about the "TEA Parties" (Taxed Enough Already, clever, no?) held across the country on April 15 (Tax Day, get it?) OK, not lots. Manufactured media events tend to flare and die quickly. So, before this one is history (is it already too late?), let's recap how a few of DFW's writers covered it.

Steve Blow, who is usually best advised to stay away from substantive issues and did just that on this one (he covered it from his office window at The Dallas Morning News), nevertheless made this snarky observation on The Dallas Morning News Metro blog:

"The view out my window now are periodic clumps of sign-carrying folks headed to the tea party tax protest at Dallas City Hall. They're all coming from the DART and Trinity Railway Express stop at Union Station. These folks do not like taxes but apparently they do like tax-funded transportation."

Jim Mitchell, with a little more investigative digging than Steve Blow (he asked readers for help), made this salient point:

"I'm willing to bet that the federal tax burden, i.e., income tax, is a shrinking percentage of all taxes paid. So instead of tea party folks railing against the federal government, they might be better served to rail against state and local governments for new taxes, higher taxes or fees as this NYTimes story shows. Gee, If you're going to declare war on taxes, it might help to have the right enemy."

Daniel Daugherty, on Unfair Park, reports that the event at Dallas City Hall agitated every right-wing cause there is:

"Folks were told to show up and protest President Obama and the budget and the stimulus plan and federal taxes, only they brought signs and shirts invoking everything from welfare spending ... to their opposition to national health care and gun control. And plentiful among the crowd were signs invoking Jesus and demanding the U.S.'s withdrawal from the United Nations."

Unfair Park reader "jason" noted something about the crowd itself:

"I was shocked and proud of the diversity of the crowd. It was all over the map, from
Over the hill white people with blonde hair to
Over the hill white people with brown hair to
Over the hill white people with gray hair to
Over the hill white people with no hair"

I guess angry white people need a place and time to vent, too. Trey Garrison did some major league venting, from promoting the protests on his blog (including that cute icon of the black man holding a gun to the head of a blue man holding a bag of money, captioned "Socialism"), to live blogging and twittering the protest in Plano, to encouraging everyone to bring their cameras and send their photos and videos to him. Good luck with trying to use that material to nurse that anger and expand the protests.

By the way, Gov. Rick Perry's pro-secession comments at one TEA Party have generated a life of their own. Funny how it's the spontaneous utterances that catch fire while the scripted events are quickly forgotten. Apologists for Perry just extend the embarrassment. Rush Limbaugh, thinking he's helping his cause, says Perry is not a "fringe kook." The majority of DFW media commentary seems to see Perry as the gift that keeps on giving.

---

Another Perspective on the Richardson Races

Hey, there's another blog covering the Richardson City Council elections, and the person behind it said he she was inspired by yours truly to serve his her community. He She doesn't explain why he she chose to blog.

The blogger behind "Conserve and Protect -- A Conservative's Take on Richardson Politics", gives his her endorsements for the seven positions on the council and, no surprise probably, he she and I agree on only two. One is the place where the incumbent is running unopposed, but hey, at least we agree that Steve Mitchell deserves another term. The other is that frustrating Place 7, where we both have reservations about both candidates. Dennis Stewart is running an ill-advised negative campaign and Amir Omar is pandering to senior citizens. This is one race where I wish there were a third option. In any case, even though we disagree more than we agree, I welcome Conserve and Protect to the blogosphere. More news is good news.

Bonus points for whoever first tells me the significance of "565".

Richardson candidates forum

The Nightly Build

---

My Trip to the Mosque

I thought I was going to a forum for candidates for Richardson City Council, but the mosque stole the show. The forum was held in the gymnasium. (Who'd have thought Allah was a basketball fan?) Our moderator missed no opportunity to talk up the mosque. (It's not just a mosque but a community with public services and a school and great relations with the city and neighborhood, thank Allah.) After a round of introductions and a single question, we broke for thirty minutes to allow those who desired to move to the mosque itself to pray. (Men over here, women over there, please.) Afterwards, before the forum could resume, we had twenty minutes of awarding plaques. (Thank you, retired police chief Larry Zacharias and retiring council member Rhea Allison and this mosque board of directors member and that mosque board trustees member.) By the time the program ended two and a half hours after it began, I estimated the candidates had only a total of five minutes each to talk to the voters. Not a single one ran over their allotted time.

In their introductions, the experienced campaigners had the presence of mind to thank the American Muslim Alliance and the Dallas Central Mosque for hosting the forum. Jennifer Justice added the nice touch of opening with "As-Salamu ‘Alaykum." John Murphy one-upped that by recalling his attendance at the ground-breaking for the mosque a decade ago. Dennis Stewart then one-upped that by recalling his days with the Richardson Police and how they took preventive steps to defend the mosque against potential violent backlash after the 9/11 attacks.

As for the questions the candidates answered, I'm afraid to report that there wasn't much of substance there. There was time for only three questions:

1. What does transparency mean to you?
2. How do you spend your typical day?
3. What one nice thing can you say about your opponent?

The first question, about transparency in government, held out the promise of some fireworks. Sheryl Miller came out with guns blazing, declaring "Richardson's bankrupt" and city hall doesn't want you to know and blaming it all somehow on the Sherrill Park golf pro. John Murphy, as usual, parried Miller's attack deftly, declaring the city is financially sound and "not one dollar made it into my pocket." Bob Townsend said, if transparency means televising city council meetings, the city looked into it but decided it was cost prohibitive. One by one, the challengers took him and the rest of the incumbents to task, calling for streaming video, open checkbooks, plain language meeting agendas and a code of ethics. The force of the attack diminished as the long line of candidates talked to the question one by one, until Bob Macy had to object to the implication that "we're not doing a good job now." You'd have thought he forgot for a moment that he was the challenger. Even Pris Hayes thanked him for his comments. Dennis Stewart said that up until this election campaign, "no one has been beating down the door" for more transparency. As a couple of the incumbents pointed out, Richardson has been taking advantage of technology to gradually make more and more city business available online. Finally, Mayor Steve Mitchell said the city simply had to provide some kind of streaming video and an open checkbook online. As he is running unopposed and didn't have to make any kind of commitment at all, I'll take that as a promise likely to be kept no matter who is elected in the other places.

If the first question fizzled out, the second question seemed designed more for comic relief than serious discussion. One by one, the candidates told us how early they got up in the morning and how productive they were. Mayor Mitchell was up twice during the night last night dealing with his young kids. Amir Omar gets to bed at midnight and is up at four to train for marathons. Tom Bache-Wiig is up at 5:30 every morning to read the Bible, then run two and a half miles. John Murphy has his alarm clock set permanently at 5:00 AM and eats Cheerios and a banana for breakfast ("... OK, and a pancake once in a while ... that's transparency"). By the time we reached the end of the row, I expected one of the candidates to claim he never slept at all.

If the second question was comic relief, the third question anticipated the "they lived happily ever after" phase of the election. The candidates all sounded sincerely complimentary as they said nice things about one another. Even Diane Wardrup, who accused Gary Slagel of ethical violations in a questionnaire for The Dallas Morning News, tonight said, "Gary has served the city well for 22 years." I almost looked forward to another prayer break. As-Salamu ‘Alaykum.

ExxonMobil CEO compensation

The Nightly Build

---

Liberty, Justice and the General Welfare

Trey Garrison is adorable. Somewhere in life, he imprinted the notion that if it's legal, it's meritorious, and if it's illegal, even more so because the law just interferes with free markets. The notion that laws and regulations create the conditions necessary for free markets to operate most efficiently is beyond his ken.

Today, Garrison defends the oil companies against Ed Housewright, who thinks that pay raises like ExxonMobil's CEO's 34 percent hike to $22.4 million "fuels the public's disdain of oil companies." On his own blog, Garrison gets ugly:

"Exxon Mobil has posted record shattering profits for itself and earned solid outstanding profits for its shareholder, while continuing to hire and pay employees far above the industry median at all levels, so if the board thinks Rex Tillerson deserves $22.4 million in compensation, it's none of your business, Ed Housewright."

I'm reminded of the line author Ring Lardner gave to one of his characters as a sure-fire conversation-ender: "Shut up he explained." Garrison is not going to change. Somewhere along the line he imprinted the notion that free markets are an end in themselves and not also a means to prosperity. Liberty is just one of the guiding principles on which our nation was founded.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Garrison has taken the "liberty" part to heart, using it to trump the notions of "justice" and "general welfare". His philosophy was probably influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the shapers of the "Chicago School" of economics. If so, he may be interested to learn that one of the founders of this free-market theory, Richard Posner, now a federal judge of the 7th Circuit, is not so sure anymore that the free market isn't, in fact, broken. In Slate, Eliot Spitzer reviews a recent legal opinion by Posner:

"The two issues Judge Posner examined - setting CEO compensation at major companies and determining the fees to be paid to mutual fund-management companies on the base of trillions of dollars of mutual-fund investments - are central to the governance of our financial system. It is remarkable that a leader in Chicago School thought would acknowledge that the market is so broken that it can't be properly trusted on those two critical issues. Yet that is exactly what Judge Posner has concluded."

It turns out that we all have an interest in how the free market works and when, just possibly, it's broken, an interest in fixing it. So, how boards of directors police compensation practices (or fail to) in publicly traded companies is everyone's business. At least everyone who cares about liberty, justice, and the general welfare. And if that's not good enough for Trey Garrison, consider this. Anyone with a pension plan or 401K plan or other portfolio holding stock index funds, and that's millions of us, is a part owner of ExxonMobil. Count me in on that. That makes what the CEO makes quite literally our business.

By the way, in another post, Trey Garrison is promoting the anti-tax rallies taking place all across Texas today. In it, he snidely uses the title Stasi for the United States Department of Homeland Security. Stasi was the name of the secret police organization of East Germany. Sometimes, Trey Garrison's adorability wears thin.

LWV Voters Guide

The Nightly Build

---

Richardson City Council Voters Guide

The League of Women Voters of Richardson has published its Richardson City Council Voters Guide. Like The Dallas Morning News own guide, it gives the candidates the opportunity to answer a series of questions unedited, unfiltered, uncensored. The questions address candidates' qualifications for office, top priorities for the council, proposals to create jobs, policies to encourage young families to move to Richardson, and steps needed to balance the budget.

If you read the News questionnaire, attended either of the two candidate forums held already, or read my previous blog entries on this election, there's not much news in this voters guide. Once more, all of the candidates talk about focusing on the budget during the recession, attracting quality retail and corporate business to Richardson, and renovating our aging public infrastructure, private housing and commercial buildings.

One or two of the challengers make a call for a code of ethics and financial transparency in government. None criticize any of the opponents directly. There's not even much in the way of indirect criticism, either. Credit the candidates for campaigning, at least publicly, by laying out their own positive vision for Richardson, not by driving up the negatives for their opponents. Judging by previous comments on this blog, by flyers circulated at the last candidates' forum, and by unconfirmed reports, there's too much of the latter going on behind the scenes by the candidates' supporters.

There are two candidate forums remaining. Be there!

American Muslim Alliance
Council Candidate Forum
7 p.m., Thursday, April 16
Dallas Central Mosque, Multi-Purpose Hall
840 Abrams Rd.

League of Women Voters of Richardson
and Richardson Chamber of Commerce
Council Candidate Forum
7 p.m., Tuesday, April 21
Richardson Civic Center, Grand Hall
411 W. Arapaho Road

Tier 1 research universities

The Nightly Build

---

UT-Dallas, Engine of Growth

Promoting the growth of UT-Dallas into prominence as a nationally recognized research university is a goal that made a brief appearance in the recent forum for candidates for Richardson's city council. One candidate, Gary Slagel, raised the subject unprompted by any audience question. He identified the Richardson university as being an engine for growth for the whole city. It's an example of an issue the campaign for city council should be focusing on instead of the mean-spirited politics of personal destruction the campaign is descending into instead.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram recognizes the importance of having a local Tier 1 university. The paper calls attention to the fact that DFW is the state's largest metropolitan area and has no Tier 1 research university. UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and University of North Texas have the potential but need state help to achieve the next level of greatness.

There are some tiny steps being taken in this year's legislative session in Austin. The Senate passed a resolution by Sen. Robert Duncan of Lubbock calling for a source of funding for state research institutions. Unfortunately, it would only apply to universities that have already reached that Tier 1 status, not to aspiring schools like UT-Dallas. Senate Bill 9 submitted by Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo corrects that omission, but has its own drawbacks. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

"It would enable emerging research universities and other schools in Texas to compete for more state funding based on such criteria as their number of graduates in certain critical fields, their growth in research funding from business and government sources, their numbers of graduates each year and their ability to search out private gifts. The problem, of course, is that Zaffirini's bill has no funding."

Paul Burka has identified a potential source of funding, but even he doesn't seem to recognize the need for more Tier 1 research universities.

"The Legislature should abolish the emerging technology fund. The state has no business investing in start-ups. This is just wheeling and dealing with public funds that carries a huge potential for abuse and inside dealing. Lawmakers should take the $250 million appropriation and allocate it to the state's major research universities. Unlike the governor's office, the universities DO know who the world class researchers are, and they can use the money to recruit them from other states that are suffering worse budget crises than we are. As for the Enterprise Fund, used for closing deals, I would cut it in half and give the rest to the research universities."

All well and good, except Texas needs a few more Tier 1 research universities. The sad truth is that the Texas legislature still doesn't have a consensus on that. And, with a few exceptions, the candidates for Richardson city council don't seem to notice. And that's a shame. The city's future economic prosperity could could suffer because of it.

Candidate Brint Ryan

The Nightly Build

---

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, criticized Dallas City Council candidate Brint Ryan "for trying to beat his many speeding tickets by using the old request-a-trial-and-hope-the-cop-doesn't-show-up technique." Trey Garrison defended Ryan:

"But a defendant in a criminal case, faced with charges from the state, should be free to use every avenue to defend himself. And we should never forget -- innocent until PROVEN guilty."

Certainly, I agree with Garrison that a defendant has the right to defend himself. That doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do, however. "Innocent until proven guilty" is how the state views a defendant. The defendant himself knows whether or not he’s guilty of, say, speeding. If he's innocent, then he should fight the charge. But, if he’s guilty, he ought to own up and pay his fine. Exploiting the system to escape the consequences is not justice. And all of us ought to be interested in justice, even when we are the ones on the wrong side of the law.

Richardson election recommendations

The Nightly Build

---

The Race at the Halfway Point

The election campaign for Richardson City Council is at the halfway point, with two of four scheduled forums behind the candidates. It's time to review and revise, if necessary, my preliminary recommendations, published on March 10, 2009.

• Place 1: Bob Townsend. This recommendation still looks good. Bill Denton, running as a write-in candidate, doesn't have a good explanation why he's running at all. Townsend might have had reservations about running, but Denton must have, too, as he missed the deadline to be on the ballot. Denton hasn't offered any policy differences with Townsend. Townsend has served Richardson well and deserves another term.
• Place 2: Mark Solomon: This recommendation still looks good. Solomon has the background, knowledge, temperament and priorities to serve the citizens of Richardson well. The other candidates are encouraged to remain active in Richardson politics. With more experience, they all could make fine candidates themselves.
• Place 3: John Murphy: This recommendation still looks good. Murphy has served Richardson well and deserves another term. Sheryl Miller, bless her heart, has a naive notion of government, promising tax cuts for all and improved services to boot. Chris Davis scares me still. She is evasive on her support for DART and on her acknowledgment that illegal immigration is primarily a federal matter. She has an unacknowledged conflict of interest in her employment for Dallas County Commissioner Maurine Dickey.
• Place 4: Gary Slagel: This recommendation still looks good. Slagel has served Richardson well and deserves another term. Diane Wardrup's campaign is based more on driving up Slagel's negatives than on offering a better program for Richardson. Thomas Bache-Wiig doesn't have the background or experience necessary.
• Place 5: Pris Hayes: This recommendation still looks good. Pris Hayes has increased the environmental consciousness of the council and deserves another term. Bob Macy is halting in his answers and does not offer a compelling reason for running or for not re-electing Hayes.
• Place 6: Steve Mitchell: Mitchell is unopposed. He has performed adequately in his first term as mayor and deserves another term.
• Place 7: No recommendation. My preliminary recommendation was Dennis Stewart. Because of his negative campaign against Amir Omar and because he spends more time on platitudes than on spelling out a compelling program for Richardson, I have to withdraw my recommendation. Unfortunately, I can't give it to Amir Omar, either. His proposed property tax freeze for seniors is unwise. His emphasis on it risks ignoring other more important issues.

Richardson candidate forum

The Nightly Build

---

In Public, Mostly Good Behavior

Who knew that Richardson had an automobile museum? A city council candidate forum, sponsored by Richardson Republican Women, was held at the NTX Automotive Museum at 677 W. Campbell Road. No museum signage outside. Inside, a few dozen shiny classic automobiles and fifteen shiny and/or classic candidates vying for the Richardson City Council.

First the good news. Richardson politicians may be divided, but more on personalities, not as much on issues as I feared might be the case this year. Neither of the wedge issues that the Richardson Coalition PAC recently editorialized on, illegal immigration and sexually oriented businesses, were exploited by any of the candidates. Most of the audience-submitted questions evoked no disagreement at all among the candidates.

There were different emphases, but all candidates identified the economic recession and pressure on the city budget as the number one issue facing the next council.

They all support tax abatements to attract business.

They all support a code of ethics for city government (although Sheryl Miller's reasonable question, "then why don't we have one?", was never answered).

They all support the improvement plans for the solid waste transfer station on Lookout Drive (although Sheryl Miller's answer made it sound like she thought the site was a rail station).

None of them wanted to set a fixed maximum on the ratio of apartments to single family homes.

They all support good communication and cooperation with the school districts and had good things to say about RISD (and PISD).

They all thought Richardson should renegotiate our "take or pay" water contract that locks the city into paying for water it doesn't use. Most of the challengers demagogued on this issue. The incumbents rightly pointed out that the city is meeting its primary goal of ensuring the water runs when you turn on the faucet; now we're debating how best to pay for it. Ensuring long-term water supplies requires some commitments to the entities that build the reservoirs and lay the pipes. It's better to have too much water than too little. Getting it just right 10 or 20 years into the future is difficult.

Despite the general consensus on the issues, there were a few sour notes during the evening.

Dennis Stewart was the most negative towards his opponent, pointedly telling voters to ask him about his arrest record, his bankruptcy, and his failure to use his "full legal name" on paperwork he filed to run for office. Observers might take this as a hint at Amir Omar's ethnicity and status as a first-generation American. Curiously, Stewart was the only candidate to close with "God bless America." Amir Omar stayed positive, refusing to respond to personal attack. (In his answer to the questionnaire in The Dallas Morning News voter's guide, Omar did address his arrest.)

Diane Wardrup was obliquely negative towards her opponent, repeatedly emphasizing her interest in a code of ethics, open government and transparency in government. She was more explicit in her answers to the News' questionnaire, there accusing Gary Slagel by name of ethical violations. In the forum, Slagel tried to pre-emptively defuse the expected attacks that never came explicitly, once saying the only property he's ever owned in the city is his house, once saying his business has never profited from his position on the city council.

Chris Davis hinted of a conspiracy, at one point suggesting that there is a "coalition" of people in Richardson who want to "go back to the council of old." If that was a veiled reference to the Richardson Coalition PAC, it was the only time the PAC was mentioned during the forum. Davis also said council members must avoid conflicts of interest. Ironically, she failed to identify her own employment by Dallas County Commissioner Maurine Dickey as a potential conflict of interest.

Out in the parking lot, someone was doing his candidates no good, putting flyers on car windshields. The flyers, not official campaign literature of any candidate, were signed "Ed L Haynes." The sponsors of the debate twice made an announcement during the forum that Richardson code forbids such practice, but the flyers were still there at the close of the evening. The flyers recommended replacing the "remaining dead wood" by electing Davis, Wardrup and Denton. "Politicians, like diapers, need changed often and for the same reason.!!!"

Bill Denton never did satisfactorily explain what he was doing there at all. He is the only official write-in candidate in Dallas County, having failed to file by the deadline to get on the ballot, filing a week later as a write-in candidate. He said he's running because his opponent said he almost didn't file. What? Bob Townsend did file, on the first day. Denton didn't file at all until after the deadline. By what logic does that disqualify Townsend and not Denton himself?

Diane Wardrup, Chris Davis, and Sheryl Miller seemed to think that "time for a change" is reason enough to elect them. There were many references throughout the night to the long tenures of Slagel and Murphy. Maybe that will resonate with voters in general, but the challengers ought to explain why their program for Richardson is better than the incumbents' programs. On this, they mostly failed, as there were consensus answers to most questions, as described above. John Murphy wins the prize for best deflection of this political attack, openly admitting he's attended an estimated 900 council meetings in his career and he thinks his face still looks pretty good.

Bob Macy, who mostly looked hestitant, even confused (something about the city being an airplane with its wings falling off if it gets out of balance - "I'm not saying it's out of balance now"), had his best moment as the only candidate to mention "the jewel of the city", the Richardson Regional Medical Center. Gary Slagel gets credit for most forcefully making the point that UT-Dallas is the engine for future economic growth in Richardson, if we can foster its growth as a tier one research university.

The candidates' programs may not all be wise and their campaign tactics may not all be honorable, but I believe that all the candidates have the best interests of Richardson in mind. All the candidates deserve our thanks for volunteering to serve the city of Richardson in a mostly no-win job. Tomorrow, I'll update my recommendations.

Richardson voter's guide

The Nightly Build

---

What the Candidates Have to Say

The Dallas Morning News' voter's guide is out and offers the many candidates running for Richardson City Council the chance to speak to voters directly. The questions are weighted towards regional issues -- rail, water, illegal immigration -- but there are open-ended questions that allow the candidates to speak to issues unique to Richardson. Noteworthy remarks...

• Place 1
  • Bob Townsend is running unopposed and does not appear in the voter's guide. Bill Denton has filed as a write-in candidate and will not appear on the ballot and does not appear in the voter's guide.
• Place 2
  • Mark Solomon: His resume is long. He is committed to regional efforts on rail, air quality, highway construction, and water planning. He is committed to maintaining leisure and cultural activities in Richardson. He recognizes that immigration is a national issue that cannot be solved by any one city.
  • Jimmy Schnurr: When asked if he favors regional rail, he doesn't give a straight answer. He says pending local option election legislation "may likely create unique and burdensome complications" for Richardson. Schnurr disappoints in his answer. Richardson sits squarely in the corridor between Dallas and the suburbs to the north. Regional rail is critical to Richardson's future development.
  • Thomas Volmer: His resume is thin. He fails to note Richardson's aging population when asked about demographic changes in Richardson. Asked about water planning, he offers sprinkler restrictions as an answer. He identifies lack of open communication and government transparency as issues that divide Richardson.
  • Jennifer Justice: Her resume is thin. She favors regional rail and local option elections to fund it. She identifies Richardson's aging population as a demographic issue, but oddly, talks about providing assisted living facilities and omits attracting young families to Richardson. She recognizes that illegal immigration is a federal matter. When asked about quality of life, she focuses on the environment and not leisure or cultural affairs. She identifies lack of open communication and government transparency as issues that divide Richardson.
• Place 3
  • John Murphy: His resume is impressive. He favors regional rail and local option elections to fund it. He recognizes the need to address the needs of an aging population while attracting younger citizens in Transit Oriented Development areas. Because of actions already taken by the council, he does not see a need to cut services or raise taxes to balance the upcoming budget. When asked what changes in local laws Richardson should adopt to address illegal immigration, he says simply, "None."
  • Chris Davis: Her resume is good. She identifies as her reason for running the fact that the incumbent has served for 18 years. She says she has "fresh ideas." She favors rail only when it pays for itself, considers additional taxes for North Texas rail to be "onerous" and opposes local option elections for voters to decide for themselves. It sounds like pre-DART ideas to this voter.
  • Sheryl Miller: Her resume is thin, featuring some volunteer work and membership in two book clubs. She lists Ebby Halliday as her top contributor. She cites the incumbent's service of "almost two decades" as a reason to elect her. She opposes local option elections to fund regional rail and suggests private enterprise build and operate rail lines as a solution. She identifies "kids on the free luch [sic] program" as a demographic change Richardson faces, without offering any measures to address the issue. She'll address any budget shortfall by cutting "exorbitant salaries, luxury auto allowances" and "pork" in the budget.
• Place 4
  • Gary Slagel: His resume is impressive. He favors regional rail and increased funding through local option elections. He identifies creating a tier-one research university at UT-Dallas as a opportunity for other regional cooperation. He identifies personnel costs, at 70% of the city budget, as the source for spending cuts, if the current economic downturn demands it. He identifies rec center construction and trail development as ways to improve the quality of life. He supports the E-Verify program to ensure the city and its contractors hire only workers eligible to work in the US. He identifies lack of open communication and government transparency as issues that divide Richardson, saying that city leaders must do better at communicating why and when confidentiality is critical and in the best interests of citizens.
  • Diane Wardrup: Her resume is impressive. She wants to make UT-Dallas a tier one research university. She criticizes Gary Slagel for using city supported facilities to operate his personal business without paying proper compensation to the city. She accuses Slagel (and Bache-Wiig) of not supporting open and honest government, financial transparency, or a code of ethics for city council. When asked about regional rail, she says she "agrees with the concept" but doesn't give this voter a sense that she is behind it in fact. She states that illegal immigration must be addressed by changes to federal and state law, not local law. She does not believe there is a single issue that divides Richardson.
  • Thomas Bache-Wiig: His resume is thin. He cites the incumbent's 22 years on the council as a reason for change. His answers are clearly the most verbose of any candidate, so if he draws any distinction between his program for Richardson and the incumbent's, I missed it in the verbiage. He favors regional rail and local option elections to fund it. When asked about demographic changes, he goes back to 1873, then 1925, then 1950 and on and on. Again, if there's something relevant to the current election, I missed it in the verbiage. In a budget shortfall, he won't cut services or raise taxes. He'll attract new business ... if they can stay awake through his sales pitch.
• Place 5
  • Pris Hayes: Her resume is good. She supports regional rail, but does not believe that one approach, such as Transit Oriented Development with rail, can handle all the needs of Richardson. She unenthusiastically supports local option elections to increase funding. She claims Richardson has only minimal budget shortfall at present. She favors addressing some of the negative consequences of illegal immigration by enforcing advanced property code standards and towing uninsured vehicles. She feels that women are underrepresented in city and regional government.
  • Bob Macy: His resume is good. He supports regional rail and local option elections to fund it. When asked about opportunities for regional cooperation, he says he favors a universal smoking ban. He supports refurbishing delapidated housing through a broader housing improvement tax incentive. He would use more tax abatement to recruit new business. In case of a budget shortfall, he would consultants, overtime, and unprofitable festivals. He does not propose any changes to local laws to deal with illegal immigration. He sees no serious divisions in Richardson.
• Place 6
  • Steve Mitchell is running unopposed and does not appear in the voter's guide.
• Place 7
  • Dennis Stewart: His resume is good. When asked what key differences are with his opponent, he says his opponent moved to Richardson and into an apartment a little over a year ago. He says his opponent didn't use his full name on the documents filed for this election. He favors a property tax exemption for senior citizen homeowners. He favors regional rail but opposes local option elections to increase funding. He denies that there have been any significant changes recently to Richardson's demographics. He favors the city's neighborhood revitalization program and broadening its home improvement incentives. He prioritizes increased funding for infrastructure repair - streets, alleys, public buildings. He believes immigration laws are the responsibility of the federal government. He says there are no signicant issues that divide the city.
  • Amir Omar: His resume is good. He admits to once having paid a fine and doing community service for accidentally writing a bad check while running a small business in college. He favors regional rail and its expansion. Regarding greater regional cooperation, he identifies traffic light coordination as an opportunity. He cites increased racial and ethnic diversity as a demographic change Richardson is experiencing. He does not mention an aging population. He does not foresee a need to increase taxes or cut services. He would like to gain its "fair share" of spending by people who work in, but do not live in, Richardson. He does propose any changes to local laws regarding illegal immigration. He identifies a "fairly new rift" in Richardson, but does not specify the issues creating the rift. He says he is not affiliated with either side of the purported right.

I'll give my opinions on all this and my mid-campaign recommendations tomorrow.

DMN cuts; Richardson SOBs; Voter's Guide

The Nightly Build

---

What's Not In The DMN

What's my pet peeve? The Dallas Morning News not covering The Dallas Morning News.

Newspaper publisher James Moroney sent an email to employees this morning announcing that the previously announced company-wide reduction in force was to happen today and tomorrow. Where did I read about this? Not in The Dallas Morning News. Frontburner has the story. And News' employees have their own blog covering the actions.

The employee blog, titled DMNcuts, has the subtitle, "About newsroom staffing cuts at the Dallas Morning News. Because somebody needs to do it." Exactly. Somebody does need to do it. Why The Dallas Morning News doesn't do it themselves is my pet peeve. It explains why The Dallas Morning News is doomed. All the experts know that the survival of newspapers depends on their ability to leverage their lead in local news coverage. Yet, even here, in a case where the news originates inside The Dallas Morning News itself, the DMN is scooped by Frontburner and a blog made up of soon-to-be-ex DMN employees. I hope Moroney assigns one of those writers the job of writing the DMN's own obituary before he lets them all go, because he's going to need it for the DMN's last issue.

I sympathize with the employees who are losing their jobs. The newspaper business is going through wrenching changes. The people running the business are seemingly incapable of adapting fast enough to survive. The people writing the stories pay the price.

---

Sexually Oriented Business Still Restricted

A while back, we commented on the Richardson Coalition PAC's editorial criticizing the Richardson City Council for rejecting as a stated goal the evaluation of further restrictions on Sexually Oriented Business zoning. William "Bill" McCalpin posted his own response on The Richardson Echo, pointing out that, in 2007, the city council adopted zoning changes that restricted such businesses as much as is legally practical under current state and federal laws.

Today, the Richardson Coalition PAC responds, implying that the council isn't doing enough without spelling out what more is needed. The "Webmaster for the Richardson Coalition" (no further identification is offered) claims that the only action the PAC requested was "vigilance," implying that the council has not been vigilant on this issue. Further, the PAC's Webmaster claims the council is reluctant to "consider sensitive and controversial issues." Both of these implications are false. The council did not take its eye off the ball, as the PAC's Webmaster claims. The ball is still in hand and sexually oriented businesses are still restricted. The current zoning laws, adopted in 2007 as a result of this issue, are working. The Richardson Coalition PAC offered no evidence to the contrary before and its Webmaster offers none now. Despite the PAC's efforts to make this into a campaign issue during this city council election, there is no issue here. The council adroitly handled this sensitive issue in 2007 and continues to be sensitive to any changes in the status quo that may arise to make it an issue again.

---

The DMN Voter's Guide Is Out

The Dallas Morning News' voter's guide is out and offers the many candidates running for Richardson City Council to speak to voters directly. The questions are weighted towards regional issues -- rail, water, illegal immigration -- but there are open-ended questions that allow the candidates to speak to issues unique to Richardson. I'll offer my impressions tomorrow.

Ron Kirk; Bando Show

The Nightly Build

---

"It Ain't Undone Yet," Kirk Says

What's former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk been up to lately? I mean other than paying back taxes, kissing up to senators in confirmation hearings and preparing for his Cabinet-level position as US Trade Representative? Well, he's been second-guessing the Army Corps of Engineers.

Todd Gillman, in The Dallas Morning News, interviews Kirk, who says, "I just find it remarkable that you would wait until you've gotten that far along with bridge construction and now raise a concern about the integrity of the levees." Like this is the first time someone's questioned those levees. Katrina should have been a wake-up call to the danger posed by those aging earthen levees protecting downtown Dallas from Trinity River floods. And this spring's floods in Fargo, North Dakota, should serve as a start reminder of the danger of river flooding far from coastal hurricane zones. Kirk pretends that the risks posed by those levees is, in fact, what was behind the Trinity River project all along. "We knew the levees needed strengthening. That was the whole purpose of this program, to restore the structural integrity of the levees."

If you thought those comments would get past Unfair Park's Jim Schutze, you haven't been following Schutze's coverage of the Trinity project. Schutze appreciates that Kirk is an effective lobbyist, but he just doesn't see the public rising up in anger with the Corps, demanding that the Trinity River project go forward, unsafe levees be damned. I'm with Schutze. The Corps aren't the bad guys here. The powers that be that have pushed this ill-conceived plan to build a tollway inside and partially on top of the levees that are all that protect downtown Dallas from ravaging floodwaters are the bad guys. And they haven't had a change of heart yet. "It ain't undone yet," Kirk says.

---

Best Spring Show Yet

The Richardson Berkner High School drill team, the Bandoleras, are putting on their annual spring show. The show, titled "Save the Date," is the best in years. The calendar theme ties the dance numbers and the show as a whole together nicely. The dancing itself is, as usual, superb. The chemistry between the emcees is natural and infectious. The pacing is fast, with welcome appearances by the country dance team, the Ramblers and the Mighty Ram Band's drumline. Lighting and sound were flawless. The comedy troupe's well-rehearsed acts showed creativity and wit. All in all, a great night of live entertainment. There's on more night to catch the show, Saturday at 7:30 pm. Be there.

Pushing toll roads

The Nightly Build

---

Carona to TxDOT: Quit Marketing Toll Roads

Terrence Stutz, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, reports that Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, has introduced a bill to forbid the Texas Department of Transportation from spending money on commercials extolling the virtues of toll roads. Apparently, the voters need a little help seeing the benefits and TxDOT has spent $4.5 million in some friendly persuasion.

In general, government should spend it's time and money doing, not selling the public on what it's doing. Government should function bottoms-up. Citizens should recognize a need. Citizens should vote vote for candidates who promise to address that need. Elected officials should deliver on their promises. Tops-down government, where elected officials identify a need and then spend time and money convincing the electorate that those in government know best, is, in general, a dangerous practice.

That said, I support public service announcements, for example informing the public of the dangers of smoking, or urging citizens not to litter, or asking young men and women to enlist in the armed forces. I also support elected officials being leaders and not just carrying out the wishes expressed in polls and focus groups. To lead, you have to first educate the public on the issue to be addressed. I may not be able to say exactly where to draw the line, but I'm convinced that TxDOT spending millions of dollars telling us how wonderful toll roads are, crosses that line into territory where TxDOT ought not to go.

Sobriety checkpoints

The Nightly Build

---

Catching Drunk Drivers Before They Kill

Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, weighs in on the subject of instituting random sobriety checkpoints in Texas. He's against it, natch. So are most of the commenters. Nevertheless, it could become reality if a bill already passed by the Texas Senate becomes law.

The objections are varied. Some complain of inconveniencing sober drivers. Some complain random stops are an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches. Others argue that sobriety checkpoints are ineffective. Some go so far as to say the whole idea is mainly for show, a way of convincing the public that something is being done. Still others argue that sobriety checkpoints aren't even needed, as the prevalence of drunken driving is exaggerated. The conspiracy-minded see greed behind the idea, that cities look to sobriety checkpoints as a way of raising money from DWI fines.

Nicole Stockdale points out a couple of facts from a 2006 editorial that continue to drive the debate today. First, "In Texas, 1,224 drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater died in motor vehicle crashes last year." And, second, "Texas is among only 10 states that don't allow law enforcement officials to operate such stops."

That tells me that there is a problem, that it's serious, and that unless someone can devise a solution that protects civil liberties, voters are going to accept proposals that don't. It's happening in other states; it'll happen in Texas, too, regardless of the objections cited above. So, from a practical standpoint, people opposed to sobriety checkpoints should start proposing other ways to stop people who have been drinking too much from getting behind the wheel and putting all of our lives at risk. And then the objectors should get their alternative proposals enacted. The public will no longer accept the status quo.