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.