The Richardson Coalition, a political action committee whose slate of candidates swept the Richardson City Council elections this year, is praising recent plans by the council to broadcast and stream council meetings. The PAC's latest editorial is titled, "Transparency... Finally, some progress!"
"While it is a fact that there is already a great deal of transparency in our city affairs, we have had a real need to make a significant improvement. For the past two years there has been much talk and not much action in this very important area."
After the spit-take, I had to go back and check that it was, indeed the Richardson Coalition that published this editorial. The candidates who did the most to make transparency an issue in the recent council election campaign were universally opposed by the Richardson Coalition. Thanks to these challengers for making it an issue, all of the candidates, including those eventually elected, had gone on record during the election campaign supporting the video streaming of council meetings.
But not the Richardson Coalition itself. On its Web site, the Richardson Coalition publishes issues it urges the city council to take action on. Transparency is not among them. Searching its editorial archives, the only time the word "transparency" appeared before now was in an editorial criticizing the Richardson Fire Fighters Association for supporting candidates in the election.
Finally, some progress, indeed. Now that it's almost a done deal, the Richardson Coalition is at the head of the parade cheering this progress. Next time, show some leadership.
14 comments:
Standard political maneuvering. Take credit for all the good ideas no matter who came up with them in the first place.
Sherri, thanks for the feedback. Bandwagons can have that appearance.
Well, Ed...this is why residents of the RC opposed the RC mailer. The candidates endorsed by the RC did NOT support "transparency." The only thing they have to gain by more tranparency is more ethics issues.
"Anonymous" at 8/03/2009 5:58 AM, this is what I wrote after listening to all the candidates at the League of Women Voters forum: "All of the candidates are more or less in favor of video-streaming council meetings and publishing the city checkbook online."
The Richardson Coalition itself did not urge the council to implement these or any other measures to increase transparency.
RC's "Finally" editorial was a spit-take for me, too. Serious chutzpah.
It's another indicator that RC is disingenuous at best.
bloggermouse, I didn't use the word chutzpah in my blog, but the word definitely was in my mind.
After much silence, the RC is back - and just as disingenuous and deceitful as always. In their most recent uncredited "Editorial", they are praising the work of the "current council" on "transparency" in one breath, and, in another, talking about how transparent the city already was - all while making it sound like the prior council did nothing in this regard. Huh? We needed progress in "transparency", but already had it?
Seems like the RC has a very selected memory, or, perhaps is trying to revise history. The prior council, particularly it's newest members who the RC opposed, was the first to bring up televising/streaming council meetings. It was it's oldest members, Slagel, Slagel puppet-Townsend, and Slagel puppet-Murphy that opposed it. And, wasn't it Slagel puppet and RC charter member Macy, who all during the recent council forums said things were "just great"?
These RC octegenarians are simply out of touch with reality. They will do all they can to keep Slagel in power as long as they can - and if that means continuing to deceive people, then they will.
I'm with Anonymous I in the statement that "the only thing that they have to gain by more transparency is more ethics issues." That is so true. If we had more transparency, no telling what other ethical issues might come to light for Gary Slagel.
In case anyone needs a refresher course on the ethical challenges facing Slagel, see www.garyslagel.info . This site contains all the information that you ever needed to know about our "illustrious" mayor.
barb, that's a good observation about how the Richardson Coalition is inconsistent in its judgment of the accomplishments and failings of the current council and previous ones.
"Anonymous" at 8/03/2009 1:18 PM, Gary Slagel was not the only council member eager to discuss how to use money "freed up" by instituting a new utility fee. Making it all about Gary Slagel overlooks the other members of the council, who have some power and responsibility, too.
Ed, Do you realize you are sounding more and more like that cornews guy? Maybe "giving tin foil hats a good name" is a better slogan
"Anonymous" at 8/04/2009 7:21 AM, ... Ouch, that hurts.
I've been accused of being a shill for the Richardson Coalition. I've been accused of being William J. 'Bill' McCalpin's alias. Now I'm being accused of sounding like a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist. I guess it just goes to show that I'm not a safe vote for anyone.
What most surprises me about the current issue is how isolated I seem to be in thinking that if the city shifts a tax to a new fee, it ought to do it in a revenue-neutral manner. Impose a fee ... reduce the tax that's no longer needed for that purpose. Why should that be considered the crank's position?
Oops. I just noticed that in my replies I've been talking about the issue of the new storm water drainage utility fee and the subject of this post is about transparency in government. I apologize for any confusion this might have caused anyone.
In response to the last Anonymous/RC posting, I find it amusing that the Richardson Coalition seems to think that anyone who disagees with their deceptions and outright lies wears "tin foil hats". Hardly. Perhaps, they need to adjust their hearing aids - the general public is starting to catch on to their mischief. Just remember, RC, your members are old and time isn't on your side!
"Anonymous" at 8/05/2009 10:03 PM, to be fair, I doubt the anonymous posts on this blog are by RC members, but I admit I can't prove that. The Richardson Coalition does not call its detractors names. In fact, it doesn't engage its critics in debate at all.
Post a Comment