Is Racial Discrimination Still A Problem in the RISD?
Like many cities and school districts in the South, the Richardson ISD has been under court supervision, since 1970, to ensure that racial discrimination is not a factor in district policy. On Monday, the school board voted to formally ask the federal courts to end that supervision.
My first reaction to the news was, is that supervision still in place? Richardson's diversity is one of its best features, and I believe that feeling is generally shared. The Richardson ISD is the state's largest "Recognized" school district and has achieved that distinction three years running. That can't be without focusing on the education of all students, in fact, without giving extra attention to the under-achieving students. Racial discrimination is incompatible with such results.
Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports the school board's request to the courts, then asks readers for their opinion. Twenty four hours later, there was no reader comment. That supports what I suspected, that racial discrimination is just not a hot-button issue in Richardson.
I was all set to give resounding support to the school board's request to end federal supervision. Then I read the remaining concerns cited by the chair of the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. RISD still employs a relatively small percentage of minority teachers. Student discipline still has inequalities. There are still "racially identifiable" schools. And what might happen to the magnet schools if court supervision is removed?
It made me wonder if it's only because court supervision is still in place that the issue is even being discussed. Otherwise would the RISD try to identify opportunities for further progress? What risk is there that Richardson will slip backwards without such oversight? Richardson's diversity is a big plus for the city, in my view, but what the city has achieved probably is due, in part, to the threat of federal court intervention.
Richardson could be proud if federal court supervision is no longer deemed necessary after all these years. On the other hand, I won't mind a bit if it's maintained for now, if only to remind us now and then to continue on that path of a more perfect union.
How Many Votes Will Ebby Halliday Cast?
Two candidates for Richardson City Council Place 3 both claim to be endorsed by Ebby Halliday. Sheryl Miller's Web site claims "ENDORSED BY REAL ESTATE LEGEND EBBY HALLIDAY." Chris Davis' Web site lists as her first endorsement, "Ebby Halliday-Acres [sic] -- Real Estate Icon." Either Miller or Davis is fibbing or else Ebby Halliday-Acers is having trouble keeping track of her endorsements. Not that it matters. Ebby Halliday lives in Dallas and won't be voting for either Miller or Davis.
Richardson City Council Recommendations
Election Day is Saturday, May 9. Polls close at 7:00 PM. My recommendations for Richardson City Council are below. Reasons for the recommendations have been discussed at length on the blog over the past month. (There's even a comment where I reveal which way I will be voting in Place 7, although my "no recommendation" here still stands.)
- Place 1: Bob Townsend
- Place 2: Mark Solomon
- Place 3: John Murphy
- Place 4: Gary Slagel
- Place 5: Pris Hayes
- Place 6: Steve Mitchell
- Place 7: No recommendation
38 comments:
Thanks for "holding your nose" (your words, not mine) and voting for Dennis Stewart! Is Dennis perfect NO - but he is honest and has integrity. He served this community for nearly 3 decades as a police officer, lived in Richardson nearly as long, and served admirably on the council for the past two years. He's a real stand up guy. I suspect that he has learned a lot during this current council term, and will be an even more effective council member in the next term, assuming he is reelected. OK, I take back all of my comments about thinking you were an RC plant - happy?! :) Signed "grassroots gertie"
grassroots gertie, thanks for the feedback. Happy.
"Ed",
What sways your vote toward Mark Solomon in Place 2 (besides the fact he is backed by the RC)? In your "race at the halfway point" blog you stated the others would make fine candidates with more experience. What experience does Solomon have over the others that sets him apart besides the Parks commission? I would think Jimmy Schnurr's background in zoning and land use would be more beneficial as a Council member. He also had an "Honorable Mention" in the RC flier which you failed to mention.
" The PAC rejects the other candidates because of their inexperience, not because of their visions for Richardson. I agree."
I have had many of the candidates come to my door, but no Mark Solomon. Does he feel that the backing of the Coalition will be enough to get him elected?
I look forward to your response because this is the most important race in the election, in my opinion. The winner of Place 2 may ultimately be the swing vote for our next Mayor.
Jon
Jon, Mark Solomon's experience is listed on his Web site.
The Richardson Coalition's endorsements played no part in my own recommendations, which haven't changed since I first published on April 9, well before the Richardson Coalition PAC made its own endorsements public. As I said when the PAC published its voter's guide, "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."
I have been to the website and all I see of any significance is the Parks commission. Yes, he is on his community's HOA, but the rest is all fluff.
It is not an attack on you if agree or disagree with the PACs recommendations, I was just hoping for a little more insight to the Place 2 race since you haven't really expanded much beyond which PAC backs the candidates. I realize Jennifer and Thomas may be a bit young and inexperienced in the political arena, but I am very intrigued by Jimmy and what he has to offer for Richardson.
Jon
You should think about running for office the way you avoided the questions in my previous post!!
That's a joke.
Jon, I saw three questions in your comment.
I answered your first two questions about Solomon's experience. You just happen to think less of that experience than I do. So be it.
Your third question was, "Does [Solomon] feel that the backing of the Coalition will be enough to get him elected?" I sure hope not, but you'll have to ask him that question, as I don't pretend to know any of the candidates' private feelings about the election.
I am glad that someone has finally raised the question with Solomon. He has tried to play both sides. As an initial Solomon supporter and long time friend, I am finding that this strategy of his may completely backfire on him. You know the old saying "when you try to please everyone, you please no one". I don't think that he is a card-carrying member of the RC, but he has failed to step up and answer the key question which seems to distinguish one side from the other: his mayoral vote. My fear is that voters on both sides will fail to embrace him because of this. And, word has it that he is more than willing to raise his hand to put Gary Slagel back in the mayor's seat. Consequently, my friends and I are voting for Jimmy Schnurr. Sorry, Mark, I hope we can still be friends. "Bob"
"Bob", thanks for your feedback. Some vocal voters want to make this election all about the Richardson Coalition. I'm not one of them. In my mind, forcing candidates to declare themselves allies or foes of the Richardson Coalition does a disservice to Richardson. Candidates who can work with all the different parties in Richardson productively and without animosity will do the most good for Richardson.
If you are interested in the actual numbers on RISD progress, this presentation is available.
http://www.richardson.k12.tx.us/UnitaryStatus.pdf
This appears to be a presentation made by a consulting firm on behalf of RISD. Also remember a large part of the City of Dallas is educated by RISD. The makeup of both cities, especially on the boundaries has radically changed since the 70s.
Lots of changes in the last 35 years, but also lots of progress IMO
If that link is hard to copy into your browser here is a tiny version of the same link:
http://tinyurl.com/p7na3s
Just noticed two "spam" emails in my mailbox: one from Gary Slagel (with former police chief Zachariah's endorsement - I know, "shocking" and references to an RC survey taken) and another from the RC themselves. Interesting that they both use "Express Email Marketing" to email this stuff out. I couldn't imagine that Gary Slagel and the Richardson Coalition could be working together - surely not...yeah, right!
"Bob",
I couldn't agree with you more that Solomon is trying to play both sides. "Pleading the 5th" to the question EVERYONE seems to want a straight answer for told me all I need to know about him (and Jennifer Justice). I am also voting for Schnurr, and have encouraged friends to do the same.
"Ed", you say he needs more experience... does 12 years of municipal experience dealing with various city councils as a zoning/land use attorney and prosecutor carry any weight with you? That seems like a very valuable asset to have in any city.
"Curious in Canyon Creek"
SteveG, thanks for the links. I love it when people bring facts to the discussion.
"Curious in Canyon Creek", Schnuur's legal experience is a big plus in my book. I'd like to see him get experience on commissions and task forces and workgroups, with local businesses and schools and homeowners' associations and then he'd make a winning candidate in my book.
"Anonymous", the RC endorsed Slagel. Slagel's list of endorsements contains many RC members. That Slagel and the RC use the same mailer shouldn't come as surprise.
Interesting comment, Ed:
Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports the school board's request to the courts, then asks readers for their opinion. Twenty four hours later, there was no reader comment. That supports what I suspected, that racial discrimination is just not a hot-button issue in Richardson.
I submit that the lack of comments supports only this: There had been no comments. A 24 hour time span on a blog, with the obscure title "Do you think that RISD is ready to be declared 'unitary'?" does not support anything else.
Interesting use of non-facts to support your bias, though. Text book stuff.
Enjoy the election results and the probable runoffs. My guess, once the dust clears:
Coalition 2
Citizens 5
best regards,
Will
Ed,
Your criteria is that candidate’s must be part of the “good ole’ boys network. Get appointed on a board or commission and get in line for your council term. Ed, how is Richardson ever going to get fresh ideas if a candidate has to be part of the “club” already? Even though Solomon has presented no genuine ideas and has tried to play all sides (including the Coalition), you endorse him simply because he was appointed to a city board. Schnurr brings over a decade of municipal and legal experience to the table. As a zoning attorney, I’m sure part of his job is working with council members, city staff members and neighborhood groups on a daily basis – this is far more valuable than an insurance guy that was appointed to a single city board. I’d rather have the person that was the legal advisor to the city council for the largest city in North Texas. Having talked with Schnurr at my doorstep, he is a highly intelligent, energetic, fresh voice in this city. AND he didn’t waiver on answering a straight forward question about who he is going to support for mayor (Steve Mitchell). I guess as a straight-shooting attorney, he knows better than to “plead the 5th.” I’m just sorry that Solomon was able to sell you an insurance policy that will only insure this city taking a step back into the past of another Gary Slagel regime. We’ve all seen where that has taken us - $350 mil. of infrastructure needs, no quality retail, and a whole lot of vacant “high-tech” office buildings.
"Curious in Canyon Creek"
Guess I'm the one over posting now on your blog :)
Here is what I did
* Place 1: Bob Townsend
* Place 2: Mark Solomon
* Place 3: John Murphy
* Place 4: Gary Slagel
* Place 5: Pris Hayes
* Place 6: Steve Mitchell
* Place 7: Amir Omar
I think Richardson is a first class city, and I am proud to be a resident. I think the incumbent board deserves another term. I think some of those new strong candidates should have picked non-incumbent seats to run for (assuming they could do so), and not focused their efforts on negative campaign tactics against the incumbents who have done well for this city.
I have personally discussed these campaign tactics with the candidates themselves and others whom I respect. My conclusions are reflected in my votes above.
Just because you assert someone is a crook, or a bad person, does not make you, Mr or Ms New Candidate, a better choice. You must do more than just accuse. You must show what you have to offer. This is especially true in light of the fundamentals: solid financials, excellent city services, etc.
I do believe that the people who are running love this city, and want to work for it. I look forward to the results.
"Bonne Chance"
Will, I said "supports" not "proves." Compare to the blog item about Martha Ritter's behavior at early voting that attracted 27 comments. I'd say that supports a claim that Richardson residents do find the Richardson Coalition to be an issue. Calling numerical tallies like this "non-facts" like you do requires an inventive definition of the word facts.
As for your election prediction, the "citizens" will win no matter who is elected, even candidates endorsed by the Richardson Coalition.
"Curious in Canyon Creek", we obviously differ on how to weight different experiences in each candidate's resume. And on how important it is that candidates align themselves with one mayor candidate or another. I won't say you're wrong. Your criteria for choosing who to vote for differs from mine. Personally, I consider our differences to be relatively unimportant and that pleases me. I believe you find them to be very important and I find that to be regrettable. But I guess that's where we are.
SteveG, thanks for the feedback. My thinking is generally aligned with what you say here.
Will, I said "supports" not "proves."
Please read my post again. It does not contain the words prove or proof... so it appears you are misunderstanding my statements. Or purposefully mistating what I wrote.
As for your election prediction, the "citizens" will win no matter who is elected...
In my humble opinion, if the Hon. Gary Slagel wins, the citizens of Richardson lose. Just my opinion based on personal observation and living in Richardson for 30 years. I respect your opinion and thanks for the effort in keeping this blog-forum available.
Will, believe me, I wasn't purposefully misstating what you wrote. I thought you had misunderstood me, so I was clarifying.
RISD is working too well. It is against the students' civil rights to educate them and provide a safe, learning-conducive environment. Let's micromanage it, sue it, and make it more like DISD. Everybody wins, if by that we mean that everybody loses.
Yay.
(They would take my Libertarian card away if I didn't shout "vouchers!" at this point :-).
bloggermouse, just curious, but shouldn't a card-carrying Libertarian be against public schools *and* vouchers both, since both involve gov't involvement in education, at least through funding?
Ed,
I tend to agree with your picks, except for place 5: Pris Hayes. I think she is a very nice lady and cares deeply about the city, but she is so tentative that its hard to tell if she is actually confident with her own positions. The one position that she seemed passionate about, the smoking ordinance, was an infringement on private property rights. The parks aspect of the ordinance seemed outright punitive. No one can truly argue that having a cigarette in a park is a threat to non-smokers.
Bob Macey seems to be a more practical choice. His view of less government interference in personal life seems more align with Richardson. Check out his website, bobmacey.com, for his resume and record of service, it's quite extensive.
Many who comment on your blog seem irate over the Richardson Coaliton's opinion. The Richardson Coalition, which is made up of citizens with a record of service to the city, is as entitled to an opinion as any one else. Certainly as entitled as the Richardson Fire Fighter's Association or any homeowner's association. Grown-ups understand this and those that don't may not be ready for politics.
And for the so called "conflict of interest" with Bob Macey's support of the RC, he was involved with the Richardson Coalition since last election. If you look at his donations, courtesy of Nathan Morgan's gossip blog... http://204.65.203.5/public/357026.pdf , you will see that he donated to the Coalition in October of 2007.
Warren Fox
Warren Fox, I like Pris Hayes because I think she brings a missing ingredient to Council. For example, in the forums she was the only candidate who brought up the environment as a priority. As another example, consider her Twitter from yesterday:
"Richardson TX: on Sat May 9, VOTE! & then attend Animal Shelter ADOPTATHON Festivities 10a-4p"
Which other candidate gives equal billing to the animal shelter on the most important day of any candidate's career -- election day?
Bob Macy has a good resume, but he didn't impress me with his grasp of issues or command of the audience during any of the forums.
I agree that the Richardson Coalition PAC is entitled to their opinion. I sometimes criticize what they say, but I never criticize their right to say it. As for their financial support, I published a list of all their supporters in 2007 and 2008 in one of my previous blog posts.
Yes, a purer Libertarian might want to stomp out the public school system, but I have a strong pragmatic streak that leavens my Lib tendencies.
I'll settle for allowing our tax dollars to be portable, thus rewarding good schools and putting the screws to crappy, dangerous schools.
BTW, I like Hayes for the same reasons you shared with Warren.
Mr. Eisemann had to strong arm Steve Mitchell into putting the smoking ordinance on the agenda with help from Rhea Allison who then flip flopped about five times. Mr. Eisemann described his frustrations with public smoking. I agree with him and I agree with the 7-0 vote by Slagel, Murphy, Hayes, Townsend, Mitchell, Stewart and Allison to update the smoking restrictions.
I sign my post as “Eisemann Supporter”
It's a sad statement about where the power resides in Richards$on:
"Mr. Eisemann had to strong arm Steve Mitchell..."
and yet you are still an“Eisemann Supporter”
I image the Coalition is kicking themselves for not running a candidate against Mitchell. Might was well get every dissenting opinion swept out at once hmmmm?
"Eisemann supporter", I agree with Will. "Strong arm" is not a complimentary term.
Will, we'll see how many 6-1 votes there are on Council the next two years.
Will and Ed, if someone who is the leader is not leading, he has to be influenced or led to do so by someone who IS a true leader. You have heard the term, lead or get out of the way. A true leader brings everyone to the same conclusion, or suffers the consequences. There will be no more split votes. Richardson will have a united front.
Will, your innuendo that money has anything to do with leadership is erroneous.
Ed, your nitpicking over those with the guts to use brass tacks communication is just that.
Eisemann Supporter
Warren Fox is correct when he writes "The Richardson Coalition, which is made up of citizens with a record of service to the city, is as entitled to an opinion as any one else. Certainly as entitled as the Richardson Fire Fighter's Association or any homeowner's association. Grown-ups understand this and those that don't may not be ready for politics. "
Eisemann Supporter
"Eisemann Supporter", I stand corrected. When I said "strong arm" is not a complimentary term, I was speaking for myself. You've taught me that "strong-arm: to coerce by threats or intimidation; bully: They strong-armed me into voting for the plan." is considered a positive trait by some others.
Eisemann supporter(s) - it's about time that you old folks started reading the blogs, as your buddy Chuck was getting pretty beat up out here. Just remember, RC, given your ages, time isn't on your side...oh, and it's just a matter of time before Richardson is back on TV with scandalous stories on your friend, Gary Slagel...yeah, he's a real "leader". And, your comments "about being no more split votes" are chilling - where are we, the USSR?
Obviously, "Eisemann Supporter" doesn't attend council meetings. They have it wrong. Aside from the mayor vote, the 4 that actually always voted together were Slagel, Mitchell, Murphy, and Townsend. From a philosophical standpoint, these four had a very good vision for the city. Good or bad, it was Allison, Hayes, and Stewart that frequently dissented. So, I guess, with those three gone, there won't be any disagreement. You won't get any out of Solomon, Macy (for sure) or Omar. They'll know their place. Honestly, under this current council most of their votes were unanimous. That's just how things have always worked - and will probably continue to be that way. Anonomous 2011
"Anonymous" 5:28 PM, I agree that the Richardson Coalition PAC had almost no presence on the blogs. I have no idea if that was deliberate or an oversight.
"Anonymous" 5:28 PM and 5:40 PM, I am less interested in whether the votes are 7-0 or 4-3 and more interested in whether the majority stands for the best interests of Richardson. We'll have to wait and see how that goes.
Why can't anyone fathom the idea that people under 30 voted for Slagel and co.? Not everyone in this city is old.
Warren, good point. I think there has been a lot of over-simplification about this election. I'm sure I've been guilty of this on occasion, as have others.
Post a Comment