If you had the impression that the Richardson Coalition was some kind of civic volunteer service organization, it may have been because the Richardson Coalition fostered that impression by sponsoring programs like the Richardson Real Heroes award. But if you look closely at fine print at the bottom of the Richardson Coalition web page, you'll notice "Pol. Adv. paid for by the Richardson Residents for Responsive Government, a Political Action Committee (also commonly known as the Richardson Coalition PAC)."
Yep, the Richardson Coalition is a PAC, organized to collect money in order to influence elections. Up to now, the only elections the PAC has attempted to sway were Richardson city council elections.
Up to now, that is. After the jump, the PAC expands its reach.
This year, the Richardson Coalition PAC used its impressive email list (assembled in part from seeking nominations by email for that Real Heroes award) to send out recommendations for the upcoming GOP party primary elections. Taking sides in one political party's primary election is about as partisan as it gets.
It's probably too much to ask that the Richardson Coalition PAC adopt basic truth in advertising by always identifying themselves as a political action committee (in the main text, not just the fine print), but I hope they'll at least no longer use the word "non-partisan" in future press releases like this one: "The Richardson Real Heroes Award was created in 2010 by the Richardson Coalition, a non-partisan community group dedicated to promoting economic progress and the preservation of the city's values and quality of life."
Somehow the Richardson Coalition PAC has involved the Leadership Richardson Alumni Association in its Real Heroes program. At least LRAA says it "finds ways to assist." Why is Leadership Richardson helping a political action committee at all? Leadership Richardson itself is a creation of the Richardson Chamber of Commerce. The chamber itself has a legislative agenda, and has always been involved in politics, but I have not seen the Richardson chapter endorse individual candidates. The mutual support between the Richardson Coalition PAC, Leadership Richardson, and the Richardson Chamber of Commerce risks giving all three organizations a reputation of political partisanship.
By the way, one of the races that the Richardson Coalition PAC is making a recommendation in is for Texas Senate District 16. Most (all?) of Richardson lies in Texas Senate District 8. Is the Richardson Coalition PAC trying to extend its influence to elections in neighboring cities?
OTOH, nothing said above should be construed as approval or disapproval of the specific candidate recommendations by the Richardson Coalition PAC, all of which I just happen to agree with. So... never mind. ;-)
15 comments:
Hmpf, it wasn't until I read your posting that I realized that the Coalition got the wrong state senatorial district for John Carona (they showed "102" in my two emails, but he is really District 16). And although there are many confusing maps, it sure looks like today that all of Richardson is in state senatorial district 8 and none in 16.
However, there was no point in making a recommendation for district 8, since that seat isn't up for election this year.
"Is the Richardson Coalition PAC trying to extend its influence to elections in neighboring cities?" Probably not...it's just that John Carona's district 16 used to include most of Richardson prior to the most recent redistricting...A lot of people probably still think of Carona as their state senator...Certainly, the Coalition strongly supported what Carona did for Richardson in the past, so this gesture is no real surprise...
Bill
Bill, thanks for the comment. In fact, Texas Senate District 8 is up for election this year due to the seat being vacated by incumbent Senator Ken Paxton. However, there is only one GOP candidate for the nomination for Senate District 8. The Richardson Coalition PAC's recommendations were only for contested nominations.
hahaha! Even I am still mentally stuck in district 16(!). Yeah, you're right. I wasn't going to vote for Paxton anyway, so I glossed over his name elsewhere and since I don't tend to vote in uncontested races, the whole thing shot by me...hahaha.
Well, who knows, maybe the Coalition is looking forward to getting Carona back in some future redistricting ;-)
Bill
A reader points out that the Richardson Chamber of Commerce received funding from the City of Richardson. That ties the city itself to partisan politics through the chamber and its creation Leadership Richardson, which provides support to a political action committee, the Richardson Coalition PAC. It's an indirect connection of course, all legal (probably), nothing to see here, move on -- but it's also all too incestuous for my taste.
By the way, I think Leadership Richardson and Real Heroes are good programs. I just wish they were completely independent of political action committees.
The Coalition's influence comes from the Chamber under the direction of the corner offices. Period. It has been used by the Council and staff for decades.
Spruoll's original contract and first year of salary came out the City budget in order to maximize Bill's TMRS retirement. After that effort was obtained, his contract called for his action to set up a retirement account for the Chamber employees. The contract was executed and signed on COR letterhead by none other than Mr Eisemann and former City Manager, Mr Keffler.
Another case and point Richardson Citizen's for Charter Change. It was organized in the Chamber by the Coalition leadership. And complete approval of all council members. Well, almost all. It seems they had to do a second mailing to remove the name of one former Council member. They used his name without permission. Imagine that.
Spruoll took the initial Treasurer role and admitted in court testimony he used Chamber resources to complete his task and then reimbursed the Chamber after donations were collected.
Resources to fund this SPAC were 6 individuals, one from Plano (all chamber members)and key Coalition members. The other 98% of the revenues came from business members of the Chamber.
Businesses do not vote, but they sure carry much leverage, don't they?
You would have to review the chamber's charter and 501(c)6 guidelines to find out if that is legal or not. Not, if you wanted to know.
Yes, the taxpayers here support the Chamber under a vague service agreement in over $1mm a year. This is expended mainly (80%) on key salaries. And then there is a management fee of $76k. I am sure there must be all kinds of ways to provide over sight of vague. I wonder? It you are funding 4-5 people, how much real management is needed.
Has the Chamber ever openly supported a specific candidate or used chamber resources to help a chosen candidate in the past? You bet. Mr Chenowith even has pictures. But I doubt that will ever happen again.
In any event, PIA says that is any taxpayer money funds any organization, it is open to ORR. Look it up if you want the exact language. Implementation is rather difficult in Richardson. Mr Spruoll has been less than helpful to down right rude when asked.
What I do find most interesting is how an entity that is a NON-entity (Richardson Coalition) can operate under the heading of a PAC called Richardson Residents for Responsive Government.
I often wonder why they have not been called out for it in an Ethics violation. But then again it might be a bit of embarrassment when they like to file so many against others.
CDH
The Richardson Coalition PAC's recommended candidates had one win (Button), one loss (Carona) and two TBDs pending runoff elections (Branch and Koop). All in all, not an auspicious start for this PAC's first foray into partisan politics.
"A reader points out that the Richardson Chamber of Commerce received funding from the City of Richardson."
This is true. Our Chamber receives substantial funding from the City, in lieu of paying an outside marketing firm to promote the City.
"the chamber and its creation Leadership Richardson"
Yes, as far as I know, the Chamber created and runs Leadership Richardson.
"which provides support to a political action committee, the Richardson Coalition PAC."
What? Where do you see the "support" that Leadership Richardson provides the Coalition? Is it in some Ethics filing that I've missed? Has LR been donating time or money to the Coalition?
This appears to be quite an unsubstantiated leap...
Bill
Bill, the link substantiating that LRAA provides assistance to the Real Heroes program, which is run by the Richardson Coalition PAC, is there in the original post.
Your line of reasoning is this, I think:
1. The City funds the Chamber – to the tune of 70% or so
2. The Chamber funds Leadership Richardson - it founded and operates that program
3. The Leadership Richardson Alumni Association (LRAA) “supports” the Real Heroes program
4. The Real Heroes program was created and is operated by the Richardson Coalition
5. The Richardson Coalition is a political action group
6. Ergo, the City of Richardson is helping a political action group
Most of these statements are true – the exception being #3 which needs a lot of clarification – but the conclusion is false.
Why?
Because it presumes that the Leadership Richardson Alumni Association is a creature of the City. It’s not. Mark shows that Leadership Richardson is funded indirectly by the City but fails to note that the LRAA is NOT funded or even controlled by the City, the Chamber, or the Leadership Richardson program itself.
Point #1 – The LRAA is independently incorporated in the State of Texas.
Point #2 – There are sixteen board members. As it happens, at the moment, three of them are city employees (and a fourth a Chamber employee), but neither the City nor the Chamber in any way exert voting control over the board.
Point #3 – Neither the City nor the Chamber provide any financial support to the Alumni Association. Their money comes 100% from their own fundraisers and dues.
Conclusion: the LRAA is an independent organization, not owned or controlled by the City.
Furthermore, the statement that “LRAA ‘supports’ the Real Heroes program” is considerably overstated. It is true that on the Programs page of the LRAA website, there are 5 programs listed; however, the LRAA does not give money to any of them. Except for Wildflower! it also doesn’t formally offer volunteers for any of them, either. Indeed, had it not been for this one page on the LRAA website, I don’t think that you would have had any reason to think that the LRAA did support the Real Heroes program.
There is an explanation, but I am not going to speak for the LRAA (although I am a member all the way back to Class XI). Instead, Mark, I will invite you to do what I did – just call the president of the LRAA, D. R. “D” Schieferstein, and ask him to tell you what that page should have said. You’ll find out that your concerns are way overblown, and, perhaps, after you speak to D, you can come back and tell your readers about it…
Bill
Some updates...
First, while the 70% City funding was loosely confirmed for me this afternoon, a former Chamber chair explained to me this evening that there are four different divisions of the Chamber, each financially separate (although all reporting to the same board). If I understood correctly, only one receives direct funding from the City (perhaps the 70%) - the overall amount from the City for the Chamber as a whole is closer to 30% (or less).
Second, Leadership Richardson is one of those four divisions. Given how the funds are separately allocated and reported, it's not clear to me if LR receives money from the City directly (although as part of the Chamber umbrella, there is certainly indirect benefit).
So the structure of the Chamber is more complex than I had indicated. Perhaps a phone call to Bill Sproull might be helpful as well - i.e., don't take my word for it, but talk to the source, just like for the LRAA...
Bill
Bill,
If you really wanted to know the truth, maybe a few open records requests might take the child-like idealism out of your above comments. There are many documents that dis-prove your comments. One other key piece is Mr Spruoll's testimony (under oath). It would remove all doubt! Transcripts are public record too!
Cheri Duncan-Hubert
Cheri, could you be any more vague?
Which comments of mine could be disproved? I can't exactly do an open records request on "whatever Cheri was implying".
Bill
Bill,
This must have been a little vague to you. You expressed a certain number of statements from conversations instead of getting the actual documents for the vagueness you expressed. Why not get them and remove all doubt?
But then again, maybe that is not a direct thought for you as it would for me.
CDH
Bill,
One other comment you made...
This is true. Our Chamber receives substantial funding from the City, in lieu of paying an outside marketing firm to promote the City.
Actually, the City pays a marketing firm $2500 a month on behalf of the Chamber. That is on top of the $7500 a month it pays for taxpayers to market the city.
Paid on behalf is a very interesting concept, don't you think?
CDH
Bill,
Open records on the items you made comments on. My implications have nothing nothing to do with the comment.
It shouldn't be that hard for you to find. After all you think you can ferret the truth and share that with the community.
Cheri
Post a Comment