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.
11 comments:
...you imply that I do not have a life, Ed. (:
Well, it was amazing to see Amir Omar still trying to state that he is not for "one side or the other". C'mon Amir. He always seems to leave out that Chuck Eisemann and friends sponsored this less-than-one year Richardson resident membership in to various organizations around town to give him "exposure". How sweet - and convenient. I guess they did all this out of the kindness of their hearts, right? Let me tell you, when you get help from Chuck, there's always strings attached. Please do not be mistaken, Amir has given an oath to raise his hand for Gary Slagel - no matter what he says publically (or privately for that matter). This is why Chuck and his coalition are working so hard to keep Gary in office and get Amir elected. All you need to do is count to 4 (as in Townsend, Murphy, Slagel, and Omar) to arrive on who becomes mayor. Folks, it's that simple... a vote for Omar is a vote to put Slagel back in to the mayor's chair.
By my count (I stood the entire time in the back of the room), a little more than 40% of the people in attendance were the candidates and their campaign workers, so it was a much smaller turnout than the other forums - which forums, I admit, were larger than expected.
When I arrived 30 minutes early, there was a bowl to hold the 3x5 cards with questions for the candidates - the bowl was already full of cards, but there were no voters there yet, unless you count the small group of people who are vocally opposed to anything coming out of City Hall (one has a currently active lawsuit against the mayor personally over the recent Charter election). And the few questions that were added during the forum came from the one table were this group sat. Oh, did I mention another audience member? He is still suing the entire City Council over the open meetings issue, even though that was settled by 83% of the voters 2 years ago.
So, unlike other forums (fora, if you're old-fashioned), these questions were not from the entire audience and moderated for fairness, but were from one small group of people with a clear political agenda - a world of difference from the League of Women Voters' forum where they bend over backwards to be neutral.
The political agenda could be easily seen in the tone of the questions, which negative tone finally moved Bob Macy - Mr. Nice Guy himself - to complain at the nature of the questions, which were designed to accuse, not elicit information.
That was too bad, since there were a number of legitimate questions, but they were lost in the clear bias of the ones asking them.
Actually, given that the candidates had no idea what the format would be (the hosts kept that a secret), they all did pretty well. Initially, the candidates were marched out into an unair-conditioned hallway (they didn't turn on the air-conditioning in the cafeteria itself until I asked a facilities person to do it - rather strange that I had to do it), and brought in one by one to answer in 30 seconds one question: "Why are you running for Council?". Although some were a bit surprised, they all did their 30 second elevator speeches pretty well.
Then all the candidates were brought in to sit on the stage and pick one-by-one the cards from the aforementioned bowl. They had 2 minutes to respond, or if the question was addressed to another candidate, 30 seconds to say something if they chose before passing it on to that candidate, who would have 2 minutes to respond.
For the most part, despite the pointed tone of the questions, the candidates answered the questions themselves instead of passing them on to another candidate. And, on the whole, everyone did well - I guess that everyone really has the forum process down by now ;-)
The elephant in the room was the Richardson Coalition, whose flyer was received in the mail only days before the forum. Several questions and several candidates were openly critical of the negative nature of some of the comments in the flyer.
One can wonder if the negative comments on the flyer will be just as counter-productive as the negative tone of the questions at this forum.
I think everyone is looking forward to a time when campaign races in Richardson will say only positive things on the issues rather than degenerating into mud-slinging and slander. I know that I am fed up with the false accusations that are zipping around from every direction. Even some candidates who are playing fair and not throwing mud, are being accused of whispering smear campaigns against their opponents - I suppose because the people who are throwing the garbage can't stand the fact that there are some honest candidates who don't.
Well, I can only hope that the voting population of Richardson can see through all the negative garbage filling the air - no matter from what direction - and concentrate on those people who have the right mix of experience, skills, and track record to make up the next City Council...
Bill
"Anonymous", you express a lot of negativity towards individuals involved in this campaign, but you say nothing about the issues facing Richardson. Personally, I vote on the issues, so if you could address those, you might influence my vote. Otherwise, not so much.
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, thanks for the report about the format of the forum. It sounds like the format allowed for "stuffing the ballot box" with questions if an individual or group had a mind to do that. That's why I prefer to have a non-partisan host screening the questions.
On the other hand, council members will face hostile questions from citizens during their term of office, so seeing how they react in a forum like this can be helpful in judging their fitness for office.
"On the other hand, council members will face hostile questions from citizens during their term of office, so seeing how they react in a forum like this can be helpful in judging their fitness for office."
True enough, which I why I made the point to say that all of them did reasonably well, whether the questions were hostile or not.
I think Mark Solomon had the toughest question, though, "How long have you lived in Richardson?" He answered, then made sure to look at his wife (not far from me in the back of the room) and asked, "Is that right?" ;-)
We were sorry to miss seeing you there ;-)
Bill
Ed - I understand your comments on "issues", but let's face it, what Amir - and the coalition for that matter - represents is an attempt to turn the hands of time back in Richardson. That's the issue with them. Sure, Amir may say all the right things (he does), but it is what you don't see that is troubling. The coalition talks about "fresh ideas" when, in reality, they want NONE. This is evident by their endorsement of Bob (RC charter member) Macy over Pris Hayes. Whether you agree or disagree with her, Pris has proposed more new ideas than any new council member. Bob, who is 80 years old, hasn't proposed squat in any of the forums that I have attended. Sadly, I suspect that Amir will loose and, right or wrong, be a victim of his own choices and associations...
"Anonymous" I agree that the Richardson Coalition endorsing Bob Macy over Pris Hayes, by saying it's time for fresh ideas, is absurd, given the campaign platforms of Macy and Hayes. I've criticized the Coalition for this, just as I've criticized some of the other candidates for making change for the sake of change a central part of their own campaigns.
Anonymous, I still yet to hear you come up with legitimate issues that you are concerned with about the so called "Old gang" on the council. You sure to spend a lot of time bad-mouthing them without specific complaints. What is it that you don't like that these 'old' guys did? Is it the four new Dart stations? Galatyn Park? The George Bush Turnpike? Maybe the AAA bond ratings upgrade?
I am a young happily living Richardsonian, who wants to keep seeing Richardson grow and prosper like it has the past 20 years under the leadership of Gary Slagel and John Murphy. I don’t know about you but I am pretty honored to live in one of the four cities in Texas with a AAA bond rating.
The mindset of “out with old, in with the new,” doesn’t make any logical sense. What is change for the sake of change? You don’t fix something that’s not broken. I don’t know if you’ve noticed the pattern, but I think they have gotten re-elected over and over again for a reason.
Anonymous is clearly a perpetuator of the "Stewart-style" negativity that we have seen in this contest so far. I'd like to hear about each candidate's stance on the issues that matter, rather than theories about their motives.
To be fair to the Slagel-bashers, ethics is a legitimate issue. But the attacks haven't been enlightening or productive. The Slagel detractors take it for granted that Slagel is guilty of ethical violations that disqualify him from office. On the other hand, Slagel's backers just ignore the topic. The many voters in between see the issue as one issue among many and attach varying degrees of importance to it. I'm afraid that no one is coming out looking very good.
Post a Comment