The usual critics cried foul. Do they have a case? After the jump, let's consider.
The critics just plain don't like Bill Keffler. They accuse him of cronyism, graft, embezzlement, authoritarianism and windbaggery. But, curiously, the latest attacks on the raise he was given by the city council are based on narrow, legal grounds -- the Texas Open Meetings Act. The objections to the city council's action appear to be some combination of the following:
- The city council discussed this personnel matter in executive session.
The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly permits executive sessions for the purpose of conducting an employee evaluation. An opinion of the Texas Attorney General interprets this exception to open meetings to encompass the setting of the salary of an employee. So, this complaint is weak.
- The city council didn't recapitulate the private deliberations in open session.
I've never before heard the argument that elected officials might have a right to deliberate in executive session, but afterwards they have to tell the public who said what. This complaint just seems bizarre. Executive sessions are allowed for personnel evaluations, so, no, the public doesn't have a legal right to know what the arguments are. Some might not like it, but them's the rules.
- The public didn't have an opportunity to speak to the matter.
Apparently, in this complaint, the public hearings held on the proposed budget, which included the plan to award raises to city employees, was not enough opportunity for citizens to speak. (Many did speak at these public hearings, but I don't recall if anyone specifically talked about the city manager's salary.) And the visitors section of the very work session whose agenda included the item to conduct an evaluation of the city manager was also not enough opportunity for citizens to speak. (In fact, no one asked to speak.) Maybe the thinking is that the city council should pause before each vote and ask if anyone in the audience has anything to say before the vote commences. I'm not aware of any state law that requires that. This complaint seems commendably idealistic, but legally weak.
- The agenda wasn't specific enough.
The agenda said the council might take action as a consequence of its evaluation of the city manager, but it didn't specifically call out the possibility of a raise. Legally, just how specific does the posted subject of a meeting have to be? The Texas Open Meetings Act, not surprisingly, is vague. Courts have ruled that the agenda has to be sufficiently specific to alert the public that some action would be considered with respect to the subject named. In our case, in which notice that an evaluation of the city manager would be discussed, it seems reasonable to suppose that a raise might be one possible outcome of a performance evaluation. This complaint, if tested in court, might yield further clarification from the courts on how specific agenda items need to be, but I doubt our critics would prevail. This complaint also seems legally weak.
71 comments:
The TOMA mandates that the rules of the governing body must provide the opportunity for public input on EVERY issue being considered at EVERY meeting of the governing body. Here we have good citizens arguing that an obscure mention of a future agenda item, the details of which were not fully disclosed, and the opportunity to address that issue during an earlier meeting is somehow a legitimate opportunity for public input as mandated by the TOMA.
It is unbelievable that people go so far astray to justify public business being conducted in secret. Have we not learned that corruption thrives in such environments?
It should also be noted that Attorney General, John L. Hill, the author of the 1975 Opinion, JH0496, cited regarding the acceptability of private discussions of an individual school employee salary in these exchanges was a liberal Democrat.
Bear in mind, an AG Opinion is just that, opinion. This circumstance has never been decided by a court.
Just another exploited grey area.
Nathan, thanks for your feedback. Just for clarification, is it your suggestion that we ignore the Attorney General:
1. just this time
2. just when the atty general is a Democrat
3. just when you disagree with his opinion, or
4. all the time
Honestly, the arguments outlined strike me as the type of arguments made by someone who is looking for any reason possible to attack the current incumbents - a tempest in a teapot . . . a mountain out of a mole hill.
People should recognize how lucky we are to live in Richardson, it is one of the best run municipalities in the State of Texas and yet there is a small but vocal group that can do nothing but harass the city fathers.
What is it they are really unhappy about? Or are they simply a bunch of sore heads?
Gary, thanks for the feedback. I can't answer your questions. I make an even worse armchair psychologist than an amateur lawyer.
"The TOMA mandates that the rules of the governing body must provide the opportunity for public input on EVERY issue being considered at EVERY meeting of the governing body."
Nathan, could you show us where the Texas Open Meetings Act says this?
What I see is
"A meeting that is 'open to the public' under the Act is one that the public is permitted to attend. The Act does not entitle the public to choose the items to be discussed or to speak about items on the agenda."
(VIII.C "Rights of the Public")
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/openmeeting_hb.pdf
Your quote directly contradicts the AG's manual on Open Meetings, so please provide us links to the exact language that justifies your position.
Bill
Oops, Billy, my bad. That provision is in the Richardson City Charter, which carries the full force of Texas law, seeing as how Legislative action enabled the people of a municipality to enact local laws in the form of Charters.
Richardson City Charter, Section 3.10. Open Meetings.
"All meetings of the City Council and all committees thereof shall be open to the public except as otherwise permitted by State law, and the rules of the City Council shall provide that citizens of the City shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meetings, in regard to any matter there considered."
"TO BE HEARD AT ANY SUCH MEETING, IN REGARD TO ANY MATTER THERE CONSIDERED"
There was no opportunity to know, much less be heard on the matter of increasing the compensation for the City Manager at the meeting when the raise was introduced. The Mayor did not even call for discussion on the motion! Move, second, vote. That's all. See the video if you still refuse to accept the truth here.
However, please accept my humble apology for the inconsequential error of referring to the TOMA instead of the Richardson City Charter.
According to your citation, it would seem that the AG has a different opinion as to what the public has a right to address in meetings of the Richardson City Council. The problem for your argument is, the Richardson City Charter, which happens to be the codified law, says different. Are you suggesting the citizens should abide by an opinion over the specific written rule of law here? Why, I am surprised at you.
Nathan: "There was no opportunity to know, much less be heard on the matter of increasing the compensation for the City Manager at the meeting when the raise was introduced."
Reread the original post. The agenda specified that the council would evaluate the city manager and take action. Court rulings and an attorney general opinion suggest that this agenda was specific enough to consider a raise as part of the evaluation. The agenda allowed for citizen input during a visitors section. As I said, your legal argument is weak.
Also, Mark. I think Billy has found the justification for the City Manager denying citizens an opportunity to raise issues of concern at meetings of our City Council.
"The Act does not entitle the public to choose the items to be discussed"
That's probably why we're considered only "guests" at meetings of our elected officials.
Bear in mind the alleged source of this citation. It appears as a quote from a training publication that may have more than a few other opinions to be found questionable. Check out the "who may attend closed meetings" recitation if you care. What it says, and I happen to agree, is that the only authorized attendees are members of the governing body, except as necessary for the testimony process. City staff routinely attend, participate in, and even lead closed meetings of our governing body. That kind of violates the spirit of purpose the Legislature held for closed meetings, in my eye. Lots of secret business appears to be conducted between the staff and governing body behind closed doors. This "evaluation of city manager" issue is but the tip of the iceberg.
Uh, Mark. Where is that court ruling to which you refer? All I saw posted was that legally untested 1975 AG opinion about a school employee salary which liberally applied the "sufficient notice" requirement in the TOMA to imply "evaluation" could be interpreted as any tangential topic under the sun, moon and stars, including undisclosed action on consequentially changing compensation. Why should we settle for these hidden agenda items when telling the entire story is so simple? Why the secrecy in such a simple matter?
Nathan, read the state-issued Open Meetings Handbook put out by the state's attorney general. It lists several court rulings on how specific (or not) agendas have to be. Your legal argument is still weak.
The specific issue of raising the compensation of the City Manager was not known to the public until the Council emerged from their secret deliberations. There was no opportunity for the public to provide input or address this previously unknown topic prior to the Council motion and vote.
Is this an example of open government or blatant obfuscation of a matter of public business that conveniently denies public input?
Objectively, the facts of this circumstance points to a less than respectable policy of curtailing public input.
The Richardson City Charter mandate regarding public input has not been decided to violate State law. Therefore, it appears to be the ruling document in this situation, in spite of any handbook interpretation or untested case law.
Now, if you can point to case law to the contrary, I'll concede your point.
Nathan, reread the original post. The agenda specified that an evaluation of the city manager would be discussed. It seems reasonable that a raise might be one possible outcome of a performance evaluation. You're free to disagree, of course, but I suspect you're in the minority. If you have a new argument, feel free to post it. But let's not rehash arguments already covered in the original post.
Nathan, reread the original post. The public did have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Each meeting has a visitors section at which the public may speak, including the meeting whose agenda called for an evaluation of the city manager, which is reasonably interpreted to include a possible raise as one outcome of such a review.
Again, you are just repeating arguments already covered in the original post. I'm through repeating myself. If you something new to contribute, I'm all ears, but otherwise, reread the original post.
Meanwhile, I will await your presentation of case law that decides the Richardson City Charter violates either the Texas Constitution or Statutes regarding the mandate that citizens have a reasonable opportunity to address any matter there considered.
The matter considered, being an increase in compensation for the City Manager, did not afford an opportunity for public input. Beyond a motion to take the action, the issue was not addressed in an open meeting. This did not afford the opportunity for public input.
Read the section of the Handbook that describes prohibiting closed meetings for the purpose of limiting public input. Watch the training video for more interesting discussion comparing Richardson transparency policy to AG opinion.
Nathan, now you're not only not reading the original post, you're not reading my comments, either. Of course the City Charter does not violate the law. As has been explained multiple times, the public *did* have a reasonable opportunity to address the agenda item. That the agenda said "evaluation of the city manager" and didn't say "consider giving him a 2% raise" does not constitute a violation of the city charter, the Open Meetings Act, or any other law.
I said I was through repeating myself, but here I am again repeating myself. There's really no need for you to repeat yourself, as if saying it just one more time will make it true. We just happen to disagree on a legal opinion. So be it.
Mark, the root of the infraction is that the Council took action on an matter that was not discussed in an open meeting. This is not a question of whether or not the Council can discuss tangential issues regarding employee evaluation behind closed doors. It is, however, whether or not they can take action on an issue that was not on the Agenda or discussed in open meeting.
Sure, the Agenda said they would evaluate the city manager behind closed doors. Do you honestly believe that for the Council to take a vote without public discussion of any issue discussed behind closed doors meets the requirement for "sufficient" public notice detail. Really?
Nathan: "Mark, the root of the infraction is that the Council took action on an matter that was not discussed in an open meeting."
See the second bullet in the original post.
Mark, addressing your second bullet, I am not suggesting the Council not hold secrets from their constituents regarding public business comments made in executive session...when permitted by law.
I am saying that any matter voted upon, for example, the specific matter of the vote to raise the City Manager's pay, should be specifically on the Agenda, like any other properly noticed item of public business, and a public discussion should occur prior to a deciding vote. Is that too much to ask?
Other than these side issues, is there some specific reason you can point to that the public should not be explicitly privy to notice? I'm not talking about vague reference to general topics like the TOMA particularly warns about. Given proper specific notice of a pending vote to increase the salary of the City Manager and public discussion on the issue, is there some reason the public should not be afforded an opportunity to deliver input? This is not a dictatorship. Is it?
Nathan, the matter was on the agenda. The public did have an opportunity to speak. No, the council did not discuss the matter in public, but it's under no legal obligation to do so.
You want the law to require more specifics in agendas. You want the law to require govt bodies to discuss matters in public. You want the public to be given more chance to speak than just the visitors section. All that is well and good, but nothing in current law obligates the city council to give you what you want. For the umpteenth time, your legal arguments are weak.
Mark, I will give you that sufficiently vague reference to the matter of the potential for discussing city manager compensation was on the Agenda in the form of "Evaluate City Manager".
And, I will give you that, in 1975 the AG wrote an opinion saying he thought a discussion of compensation was within the bounds of his definition of "evaluation".
However, permissible DISCUSSION of anything defined as "evaluation" BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DOES NOT EQUAL PROPER PUBLIC NOTICE of any conceivable issue for the purpose of the mandatory public decision making process.
This position of yours sides on concealment, not the liberal application of the TOMA toward openness, as the good people of Texas intended.
Nathan, your first and second paragraphs concede that the matter was on the agenda and properly a subject that could be discussed, not in open session, but in executive session. Your third paragraph then contradicts what you just conceded.
The matter was on the agenda. It was deliberated in executive session. A motion was made and voted on in open session. All in accordance to every applicable law. Using upper case doesn't change the legalities of the matter. Your legal case was weak all along and you've added nothing at all to make it any stronger.
An opinion extending the meaning of "evaluation" to include compensation (or any other conceivable sub-topic) for the purposes of secret deliberations is a separate issue.
I have not seen your case law references that says a governing body can initiate and execute a vote on an item not specifically noticed on the public meeting agenda.
The Agenda did allude to a secret broad discussion.
Taking public action on an unnoticed item not addressed in public is different than discussing it behind closed doors.
These two issues are not one.
If the Council vote was on "City Manager Evaluation", then there would be no argument because that was on the Agenda. But, they didn't. They initiated and voted on a related, but different issue, compensation. That was not on the Agenda.
Nathan: "Taking public action on an unnoticed item not addressed in public is different than discussing it behind closed doors."
First, if you didn't notice it, it's not because it wasn't included in the agenda. Second, the law permits this matter to be discussed in executive session. The law does not require that it also be discussed in open session. The law does require the public to have a chance to speak. That requirement was met by the visitors section of the meeting which had this matter on the agenda.
Nathan: "If the Council vote was on "City Manager Evaluation", then there would be no argument because that was on the Agenda."
See the fourth bullet in the original post.
Mark, Like I said earlier, why the trickery? What is the problem with being open and honest? Why defend the actions of those who seek to deprive the citizens of easy access to public business? What is the purpose of making public business difficult for the citizens to engage? What is the noble purpose behind this argument? Do we enable the benefit of public input? Or, do we hide the true agenda from the people while claiming the moral high ground based on the opinion of legal scholars? Open government is good government.
Nathan: "Like I said earlier, why the trickery?"
Does this question mean you are through with your legally weak arguments? I think a better strategy would be to admit that legally the city is in the clear here, but in the interest of more and more transparency in government, the city ought to do more than just what's required by law. It ought to be trying to be more and more transparent all the time. But that's not the argument you've been making. You've been hanging your entire case on a legally weak claim that the city is violating the City Charter or the TOMA or maybe some other state law. Which it is not. That's a losing argument for you. And it distracts from a goal -- ever more transparent government -- that many people just might sympathize with.
You are assuming others agree with your position.
Please forgive my absence; I was determined to have a pleasant Thanksgiving...
Nathan, you may have noticed that I always adressed you as "Nathan" or "Mr. Morgan". You, in turn, refer to me (as your sleezy friends do) as "Billy". That is not my name, and you show yourself to be low class in addressing me this way. The first requirement of civil discourse in a free society is that people actually be civil. Do try harder.
I am delighted that you have finally admitted that you were wrong about something; this puts you, however minisculely, on the path to right-thinking. Please don't forget this lesson as we move on.
In terms of your claim that the City violates the Charter by not permitting comment on "any matter there considered", the difficulty - as I know you understand perfectly well - is that you believe that you have the right to interject your opinion at any and every point in the agenda. The problem with this thought is that if you had your way, the Council's ability to get anything done would grind to a halt, until the Council had heard your personal opinion on anything and everything at any time.
But look, Nathan, the Charter doesn't say "To be heard at any such meeting, in regard to any matter there considered, AT ANY TIME IN THE MEETING"; it merely says that the Charter will permit you a reasonable opportunity to state your opinion on any subject. And the City does so - at the beginning of the meeting - like nearly every other municipality and governing body in this State.
The Council is present at the meeting to do the people's business. They can't do our business if they have to run everything they say or do by you first. Imagine multiplying you by several hundred or several thousand (a frightening thought) - how could the City Council get anything done if it had to hear from several hundred or several thousand people during the meeting on each agenda item? It would be impossible, and you know it.
That's why the City is a "representative democracy". In the final analysis, when push comes to shove, we have elected representatives to make the final vote...and we have to let them do that, whether or not you like their decisions...
You demand all the rights and privileges of a City Council member, without having gone through the effort of getting several thousand of your fellow citizens to vote for you. You know, Nathan, there is an easy way for you to have the right to speak your mind on every single agenda item - get yourself elected to the Richardson City Council. Oh, wait, you can't, you live in San Antonio.
Bill
"The Act does not entitle the public to choose the items to be discussed"
NM: "Bear in mind the alleged source of this citation. It appears as a quote from a training publication that may have more than a few other opinions to be found questionable. "
The source (not alleged at all, as anyone who knows how to use a browser can see the source at https://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/openmeeting_hb.pdf ) is an official publication of the Texas Attorney General's office. Your attempts to casually dismiss such a publication as a mere "training publication" that has "questionable" opinions without giving any specifics exposes the weakness of your arguments. If there was something actually wrong with what the official publication says, then please state it clearly and provide authoritative evidence on why you are correct, not your vague opinions that some unidentified things are questionable.
Vague statements like yours here are immediate red flags for the educated reader that there is something wrong with what you're saying.
Bill
MS: "You've [Nathan] been hanging your entire case on a legally weak claim that the city is violating the City Charter or the TOMA or maybe some other state law. Which it is not. That's a losing argument for you."
Indeed, this is the crux of the problem. Nathan doesn't like the way that the City (or any municipality, actually) or the State Legislature or the Attorney General's office or the courts interpret the law. The problem is that instead of Nathan saying, "I think the law ought to be different", he says, "every one is violating the law" when they clearly are not.
This destroys any credibility that Nathan might have had, if he can't differentiate between the Law and his opinion of the Law.
Bill
OK, Willy, I'll try harder.
For all your legal justification supporting public servants keeping the people in the dark about public business, I have yet to see your moral argument that this behavior somehow supports the underlying principle that government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
I mean, I perfectly understand how and why public servants would want to co-opt the trappings of a government office to suit their own aspirations, but I am having a hard time understanding why good citizens of any community would even consider allowing anybody to do that, much less argue that those public servants who have managed to bend and shape a maliable legal system are somehow sacrosanct in their accomplishment of doing so.
The legal approach to this question of morality would appear weak to a compass adrift in polarizing punditry. Saying the argument put forward is "weak" also says there is at least a modicum of merit. I will thank you for your confession.
If there is that scintilla of validity causing your admission, then it is incumbent upon those public servants to oblige the TOMA requirement to liberally err on the side of openness. Laws were made to protect morality, not to enable exploitation of any weakness.
To deny this suggests our public servants should be equipped with with a moral compass pointing south that seeks out and exploits grey areas to suit any nefarious purpose. That's not the good government the founding fathers had in mind.
As for your position that open government and free exchange of ideas in a public forum should not be the standard, I will have to use your logic. If you don't like the law, change it by some other means than impetuous resolutions by those having special interests that water down its spirit.
No citizen can address a matter that has yet to be disclosed. If, in the case of Richardson City Council Rules, a "visitor" is relegated to speak only at the beginning of an action-oriented meeting, there is no possible way to know "any matter considered" deliberated later in the meeting, much less enable reasonable opportunity to provide informed public input.
This is not a matter of quantity of public opinion you so fear. It is about quality of public opinion that is systematically denied by process. There is no evidence that public input would take any longer than the presentations routinely delivered by special interests in Council meetings. It's simply equal time (as if "equal" was the requirement).
The law that prohibits limiting public input is not yours to ignore because you don't like it.
Your assertion that what I like is something less than the rule of law promotes the exploitation of its grey areas for immoral purpose as unobjectionable.
Nathan, I am disappointed that you decided to again show your low class ("Willy") - why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you show all the lack of class of David C.?
As for the bulk of your response, frankly, you wander all over the place. Why do you find it so difficult to focus on one theme?
So let's pick one. You said
"No citizen can address a matter that has yet to be disclosed. If, in the case of Richardson City Council Rules, a "visitor" is relegated to speak only at the beginning of an action-oriented meeting, there is no possible way to know "any matter considered" deliberated later in the meeting, much less enable reasonable opportunity to provide informed public input."
Hmmmn. You claim that no citizen can address something that is yet to be disclosed, yet you haven't provided an example of when this happens. After all, you are now aware that the discussion of the evaluation of the City Manager implies the discussion on his/her compensation (and has since 1975), so it can't be a shock to you that the "Council will reconvene into open session, and take action, if any, on matters discussed in executive session" following "Evaluation of the City Manager" just MIGHT mean an action in open session about the City Manager's compensation.
Well, Nathan, on October 3, 2011, it was on the agenda that the Council planned to have an executive session on "evaluation of the City manager"...did you come to the Council that evening and express your concerns?
Hmpf, on October 10, 2011, it was again on the agenda that the Council planned to have an executive session on "evaluation of the City manager"...did you come to the Council that evening and express your concerns?
Gosh, on October 17, 2011, it was again on the agenda that the Council planned to have an executive session on "evaluation of the City manager"...did you come to the Council that evening and express your concerns?
On November 7, 2011, this same agenda item was published, and this time, the Council came out in open session and voted on the City Manager's compensation...did you come and express your concerns on this evening ?
And you know, of course, that City Council members publish their City email addresses at http://www.cor.net/CityCouncil.aspx?id=6094 - did you contact the Council members at any point since October 3rd about your concerns?
You see the problem? You make the argument as if you had no opportunity to address this issue whereas the truth is that you have had more than a month to address the issue - but you didn't do so...and somehow, it's the fault of the Richardson City Government.
The problem is that you confuse the opportunity to provide input with the opportunity to grandstand in front of the Council...and you even HAD the opportunity to grandstand in front of the Council (on 11/3, 11/10, and 11/17) and failed to do so...you are simply wasting our time in complaining that the people didn't have the chance to express their opinions...the truth is that YOU didn't have the chance to express your opinions IN THE WAY YOU WANTED...without regard to the fact that you had plenty of opportunities to do so, but it would have been too difficult...because YOU LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO.
Nathan, you are wasting our time. You have already left Richardson physically...now please leave Richardson in spirit!
Bill
Chill Willy. Why do you keep repeating yourself?
In spite of your lame attempt to justify the shadowy tactics of your exalted rulers by berating me, the messenger, the fact still remains that opaque is not transparent.
Whether a thousand 1975 possible connotations of the word "evaluation" can be drawn by inference is not the issue. The problem is that there are those who insist that this level of disclosure is sufficient (and acceptable) to notify the average citizen of the Richardson City Council's intent.
There is a simple test to your position. In the 70's there was also a TV game show called "Password". In spite of what the liberal Democrat Attorney General, whom you have chosen to favor over our fellow citizens, said about his legally crafty definition of the term "evaluation", I dare say that no common person would would respond "pay raise" if that word was the clue.
But, you are correct in your argument. 36 years ago the liberal Democrat AG who you agree with did publish his opinion that, as far as he was concerned, his definition of "evaluation" means "pay raise".
Yes, that's right, serving under Governor, Dolph Briscoe, the same Governor who was brought down during the infamous Sharpstown scandal, the foundation of integrity for your argument, is they guy who wrote the opinion (never tested in court) that you cite.
For those who don't know, the Sharpstown scandal involved public servants from local bankers to the Governor who were found to be involved in secreting public business. That's right, the very guys that inspired the Texas Legislature to enact the Texas Open Meetings Act.
The AG opinion you cite is the kind of thing our public servants got away with before the TOMA. And, here we are, 36 years later, listening to YOU trying to justify an errant AG opinion so that you can claim the high moral ground on behalf of errant public servants of today in this argument. I'm not buying it. And, I doubt anybody with an ounce of moral conviction and intellectual honesty would either.
But you can try. Nobody's stopping you.
Well, now we see the problem: you know better than the properly elected Attorney General, who not only has a law degree but also has a group of attorneys (called the "Opinion Committee") who do the background work to prepare these "opinions"...but you, in your infinite wisdom but lacking any sort of legal training, know better. And like all members of the "gotcha gang", when you disagree with someone, you can't help but attack them and personally insult them.
Liberal Democrat? I think the former Attorney General would have been quite amused to hear himself called that (he died in 2007). Besides, the current Attorney General also agrees with this opinion (see the Texas Open Meetings Act Handbook)...does that make our current Attorney General a liberal Democrat, too? Seems kind of odd...since he's a Republican.
As for the comment that this opinion was never tested in court, so far as I know that's true - BECAUSE NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE NEED TO. You claim that no one would interpret 'evaluation' to include 'compensation' whereas the opposite is true - there has never been a court case (to my knowledge) because EVERYONE thinks the AG's opinion is correct so no one has ever seen the need to challenge it...
And if you review the RumorCheck that I wrote on this subject two years ago - http://www.rumorcheck.org/Compensation_Package-1.html
- you will see that a quick Internet search at that time found dozens of governing bodies - including a dozen State agencies - discussing compensation in executive session...is it really reasonable that everyone else in the State is wrong - lawyers, city attorneys, council members, county commissioners, state board members - yet somehow you, with no law degree or even legal training, is right? It staggers the mind that you can honestly think that everyone in the State is wrong but you.
P.S., the AG that you bashed for the original opinion, John Hill, was later elected to be Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Isn't it strange that the "people" would elect such an ignorant person (in your mind) to such a position? Have you ever considered the possibility that the large majority of Texans actually know better than you? No, no, of course not...
Bill
Willy, You are letting your emotions consume what little better judgement you may have. There is still no good reason for public servants to be less than candid with the citizens they are paid and elected to serve.
I don't get it. You speak of the need for transparency out of one side of your mouth, then cuss those who show evidence of concealment out of the other side of your mouth. What's up with that?
Your high-brow slander of academic credentials does not impress me. For all your bumptious pontificating comments, you have yet to make an accurate statement regarding the level of my advanced education. You have called me "low class". I'll tolerate that from someone of your ilk over being a horse's hiney any day.
Hmmn, Nathan, I made 5 points in 5 paragraphs...and you didn't respond to any of them. Instead, you weaved and dodged and desperately tried to change the subject.
So let's take one thing that you said and examine it: "For all your bumptious pontificating comments, you have yet to make an accurate statement regarding the level of my advanced education."
OK, what did I say about your level of advanced education? I said (and we can all read it above): "is it really reasonable that everyone else in the State is wrong - lawyers, city attorneys, council members, county commissioners, state board members - yet somehow you, with no law degree or even legal training, is right?"
Clearly, what I said is that you have no law degree and no legal training.
According to what YOU told the Texas Supreme Court, this is literally true - your degree is a BS in Business and Public Administration (UTD, 1985), and you have had additional studies - if your list is accurate - in:
- Dallas County College - computer sciences
- U of T, San Antonio - business
- U of H - international economics
- Johnson County College - finance
- Avila College - accounting
- New Hapshire [sic] State University - general business
Now, Nathan, in the list above, did you list ANY law degrees?
No, you didn't.
OK, Nathan, in the list above, did you list ANY study in law or what a normal person would consider a legal course?
No, you didn't.
Oh, wait, you did say "Self Study, National, State & Local politics and law"! Why surely any reasonable person would presume that "self-study" must mean "legal training", wouldn't they?
Of course they wouldn't! "Legal training" to the ordinary person would mean that you took courses taught by an instructor relating to a legal degree, whether a JD or even a paralegal certification...you never took any legal TRAINING, by your OWN admission.
Nathan, you are telling me that I have yet to make an accurate statement about your level of "advanced" education. Since I clearly and undeniably made my statement in complete agreement with the bio that you supplied the Texas Supreme Court, this begs the question:
Did you lie then to the Texas Supreme Court about your academic credentials, or are you lying now when you say that I misrepresented your academic credentials?
You can't have it both ways, Nathan...
Bill
P.S. for everyone else, you can see Nathan's bio as supplied to the Texas Supreme Court at the bottom of
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/10/10049301App.pdf
Go on, read it...you'll see what I mean about Nathan inflating his resume...see if you can pick out the places where he did it...
Willy, I didn't realize you were in such a slobbering love affair with me. Now you are starting to spit.
What is your hang up? Are you more bent on berating me, or defending the bad behavior of your buddies at City Hall?
Get a grip, man. I hear there are some effective drugs used to treat your condition.
Still, there is no good reason for public servants to be less than candid in their communication with the citizens they serve. Accept it and move on with your life. Believe me, it is much more painful when they sneak around. Give up and help move toward transparency and open government. You'll feel better for it. It's alright my friend. There's nothing to worry about.
Nathan, the problem is that not only do you make wild, unsupported, and ultimately false accusations about the behavior of public officials, you also base these false accusations on statements of "fact" that are themselves untrue. People deserve to know that when you make a statement of "fact", it is more likely to be false than true.
Oh, like what?
Well, just the other day on your website, you claimed that 5 of the 7 Richardson City Council members live on the west side of Central. This is false - 3 of the members live on the east side, which you would have known if you hadn't have moved to San Antonio last year.
Then on your website, you announced that the Richardson Coalition spent an "unprecedented" amount of money on the campaign. This is also false - the so-called Richardson Citizens Alliance outspent the Coalition by a 3.5 to 1 ratio, which you would have known had you bothered to look up the campaign reports.
Even in this very discussion above, you claimed (or at least strongly implied) that AG John Hill was part of the administration that was responsible for the Sharpstown Scandal...the only problem is that this is completely false. If you had done ANY research at all instead of writing the first thing that jumped into your mind, you would have seen that the Sharpstown Scandal broke in 1972-72, but John Hill didn't become Attorney General until January 1, 1973.
In fact, Nathan, had you done ANY research at all, you would have found this line in the Texas State Historical Association's 'Handbook of Texas Online' (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mqs01):
"Reform-minded moderate Democrat John Luke Hill of Houston, a former secretary of state, left a successful private law practice to defeat the popular three-term attorney general, Crawford C. Martin, who had been criticized for his handling of the stock fraud scandal and for his own relationship with Frank Sharp."
Now, Nathan, I realize that it is a complete waste of time to try to get you to admit that you are wrong far more often than you are right...but so long as Mark let's this discussion stay here, people who find this thread will realize that you have made false statement after false statement after false statement...and they will rightfully be extremely leery of anything else that you happen to (in your words) "pontificate on"...
I agree that transparency is important...and it starts with people recognizing your consistent and absolute dependability on misrepresenting the facts...and the evidence will be forever preserved here and on the pages of RumorCheck.org...
Bill
Congratulations, Willy. It only took you a few days to discover the timing of the Sharpstown scandal and those who took over during the open government revolution that lead to the Texas Open Meetings Act. I was wondering how long it would take you to run down that rabbit trail.
One of the few glaring transparencies here is that we obviously see things differently when it comes to the obligation of public servants to be candid and forthcoming in their activities in the name of the citizenry.
It would seem you think it is perfectly moral for a regimented concealment or obfuscation of information from the public to exist in the City of Richardson. Exploitation of grey, undocumented areas in the law is the mark of those who seek to take advantage of the public, not serve them.
I, on the other hand, have consistently argued for open and transparent operations, even in the tiniest of corrupted municipalities, the likes of Richardson.
Contrived perceptions and irrespective responses are your hallmark. Instead of challenging your inanity at every baited opportunity, I choose to let your out of context malignments speak for themselves. That is how you earned the the title "Wild Bill" among those who see through the political stagecraft. You have a masterful degree in this profession of which you are proud, no doubt.
I still hold that those of your ilk are unable to recognize the impertinence of your objections because they are too busy rolling their eyes, propensed by those in your circle to disbelieve through skilful abuse of public resources for the purpose of manipulating public opinion.
It appears that behavior once attributed to politicians and pundits has spilled over into the realm of public employees. In the township of Richardson, it seems a feeding frenzy has manifest.
You are good at this thing you do, Willy. I just don't think I could sleep at night if I was afflicted so. I am growing in my understanding of how you manage to.
"I was wondering how long it would take you to run down that rabbit trail."
So, Nathan, you are admitting that you deliberately lied to the readers here in order to see how long it would take to discover the lie?
Because the only other explanation is that you are incompetent and unable to do basic research, but refuse to admit that you made a mistake.
Which is it, Nathan? Why are you unable to tell the truth? It's clear to everyone here that you have just admitted that your John Hill/Sharpstown comment was untrue...so the only conclusion can be that you are either incompetent or deliberately deceiving the public.
Well, Nathan, you are SO in favor of transparency and openness, so tell us - did you make the false statement because of sheer ignorance and laziness, or because you wanted to see if you could fool us?
Bill
There you go again, Willy. One of the universal axioms in life is that people accuse others of the things they do themselves. If you added a few more numbers to your predictable rants, you could have your own 12 step program. How does that go again? Step #1?...
I have not stooped to calling you a short, fat, ugly and frustrated hobbit. But if you continue to call me names, I might have to come up with some colorful descriptions for what people see in you.
As usual, Nathan, you dodge the question. You admit that you misspoke on your statement on John Hill. Did you misspeak because your scholarship is poor or because - as your subsequent statement suggests - you intended to deceive the readers here?
Come on, Nathan, be honest. Tell everyone here which it is. Why did you claim that John Hill was part of the problem when everyone knows that he was part of the solution?
Bill
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! You are sounding like a Monty Python comedy movie.
As usual, Willy, you dodge the question.
This issue, in spite of your denigrating diverting comments, is not about me or any human frailty I may have in common with the rest of the human race. The good people of Richardson have had enough of your condescending attitude, mangled renditions and contrived responses. This is precisely why people pay you no mind and why it appears impossible for you to reconcile the legitimacy of any public concern.
Frankly, I'm not surprised your Richardson Coalition associates keep you on the pay off roll and their hit parade list.
Admit it, Willy. You attempted to divert the exchange on this thread to personal attacks in hopes that it would hide the immorality of the position you are attempting to defend.
My experience with you has been that you fiercely object to any notion that your sanctimonious brethren abide by the spirit of the law even when faced with irrefutable examples of shiftless behavior to the contrary.
That's ok with me, because I know you. I can trust that, no matter what the issue, you will conjure up some distraction from a legitimate concern for public integrity.
But, let me not slide into the same mud pit of personal attacks. Let us instead try to regain focus on what best serves the public demand for total openness and transparency.
The position I have maintained is that the good citizens of Texas (except those with something they would like to conceal) would argue that candid disclosure of all business being conducted in the name of the public is considered the moral standard. This side show of debating the minutia buried in legal wranglings has no impact on that underlying foundational principle.
The spirit of this now long-winded exchange remains openness and transparency in public business.
I will restate my conviction that there is no good reason public servants should be less than candid with the citizens.
Arguing that a 1975 AG opinion on the term "evaluation" is sufficiently candid for the purpose of voting a pay raise may comfort some shallow threshold of morality with legal plausible denial of concealment.
However, in the eyes of the average citizen, the absence of a candid description in the public notice falls short of the respectability of intellectual honesty.
There is no good reason to hide behind the grey areas of the law and exploit the good will of the public in conducting its business. Is there?
In another post, Mark Steger referred to discussions like this as "rabbit holes". That is, as soon as one avenue of attack was closed off (i.e., when the poster was proven wrong on some "fact"), the poster immediately changed directions and started some other line of attack, never mentioning the error. Even better, the poster makes a dozen or so statements, so there is always another direction to head to when proven wrong here or there.
People reading this thread - if any have the courage - will recognize that you have intermixed reasonable sounding statements with untrue statements, in the hopes that no one will notice that you have constructed flawed syllogisms. With the smoke screen you put out, it's difficult for anyone to ferret out the truth.
As you may recall, a "syllogism" is a logical argument. It consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Thus, one might say
1. "All A is B",
2. "All C is A",
3. Therefore "All C is B".
This is why I reduce the argument to simple elements. We need to see how you are constructing your arguments to see if they make any sense.
Above, I referred to an editorial you recently wrote on your website:
1. "5 of the 7 Richardson City Council members live on the west side of Central."
2. "the Richardson Coalition spent an "unprecedented" amount of money on the campaign"
3. Therefore, "East side residents can thank the Richardson Coalition for the lack of representation on the City Council."
What's the problem with this argument? Well, the major premise (#1) is false and the minor premise (#2) is false. Yet you continue to insist that the conclusion is true, even as your argument has been destroyed.
This is hardly the only time you've done this...in fact, you did it again just the other day:
1. "The Hospital Board is one of many in a long list of boards and commissions established through the City Council."
2. "Like all City boards and commissions, the Hospital Board is subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act."
3. Therefore (to paraphrase you), the City is illegally hiding the meetings of the Hospital Board.
Well, Nathan, if your premises are correct, then your conclusion would be reasonable...but, as usual, your premises are not true.
The "Richardson Hospital Authority" was created by the City in 1966. I have not had a chance to complete the research, but it is clear that it was founded as a non-profit for the purpose of advancing health care here in the City. It is neither a rule-making nor taxing entity.
However the RHA was founded, it does not qualify as a City board or commission today. Why? Because the Richardson City Council names only 3 or 4 directors to the board of 11. Clearly, this is not a City Board, because otherwise the City Council would name all 11. Instead, the RHA is an independent entity organized under the laws of the State of Texas that the City happens to name a minority of directors to.
So, of course, the RHA is not listed as one of the City's Boards or Commissions - because it isn't one. Your major premise (#1) is false.
(cont)...
(cont)...
But your second premise is also false. Not only is the so-called "Hospital Board" not a City board or commission, but not all City boards and commissions are subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act anyway.
How could you have missed that "advisory boards" are not necessarily subject to the Open Meetings Act? To quote the Act:
"An advisory committee that does not control or supervise public business or policy is not subject to the Act, even though its membership includes some members, but less than a quorum, of a governmental body." Of course, a caveat is made for "a governmental body that has established an advisory committee routinely adopts or “rubber stamps” the advisory committee’s recommendations, the committee probably will be considered to be a governmental body subject to the Act."
However, I am pretty sure that the Richardson Library Board's decisions are not "rubber-stamped" by the Council.
In any case, in terms of the RHA, you should also read the following paragraph from the Act:
“Nonprofit corporations established to carry out governmental business generally are not subject to the Act because they are not within the Act’s definition of “governmental body.” A nonprofit corporation created under the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act to provide services to a county’s senior citizens was not a governmental body because it was not a governmental structure, and it had no power to supervise or control public business.”
So your minor premise was wrong on two counts: (1) the RHA isn't a City board or commission, and (2) not all boards and commissions (or non-profits) are subject to the Act anyway.
Now that everyone sees that your major premise and minor premise in one of your recent postings on your website were untrue, are you still going to insist that your conclusion that the City is hiding something is true?
This is what people need to understand...it is YOU that is hiding something, because you attempt to baffle the public with your "BS" in the desperate hopes that no one reads what you write carefully enough to see how full of holes your logic is.
Until you come clean and admit that you consistently and deliberately make false statements leading up to your conclusions, I see no point in wading through all the nonsense and drivel you have written above... let's simplify the argument...so that people will see the truth...
1. Do you still insist that the RHA is a City board or commission?
2. Do you still insist that all boards and commissions are subject to the Open Meetings Act?
Come on, Nathan, be honest for once! You fouled up again…just admit it, so that people can have some faith – any faith – in your conclusions.
Bill
P.S., someone at the RHA reports that they advertise their meetings in the local newspaper...which makes sense that since they aren't a City board, they would do their own advertising...I'll confirm that when I can...
I am sure that they do this in an abundance of caution...just as the City of Richardson does when it advertises all boards and commissions meetings, even though it seems likely that some of these meetings are not technically subject to the Act.
But since you moved to San Antonio over a year ago, Nathan, I guess you missed the RHA advertisements...it's a shame that you are so far away and don't have a clue as to what actually goes on in Richardson...
Bill
Willy, You wrote over 1,000 words above and STILL did not address the issue or answer the question.
Is there, or is there not some moral ground to your argument that public servants should be less than candid with the citizens they serve in matters of public business?
It's a pretty simple question. Why do you insist on bloviating a myriad of examples of how it is done instead of answering the question?
Oh, Nathan, you kill me! You want me to answer a question about candor...when you yourself are the least candid person who used to live in Richardson!
In this thread, you have:
1. Misquoted the Texas Open Meetings Act
2. Falsely stated that AG John Hill was (1) “liberal” and (2) part of the Sharpstown Scandal
3. Stated that an official publication of the AG’s office was a “mere ‘training publication’ that has ‘questionable’ opinions”
4. Stated that “City staff routinely attend, participate in, and even lead closed meetings of our governing body” without providing any evidence of this
5. Claimed that evaluating the City Manager doesn’t include discussing compensation, when the AG’s opinion clearly allows it
6. Claimed that there is a “law that prohibits limiting public input” when there is no such law
7. Claimed that “there is no possible way [for the public] to know ‘any matter considered’ deliberated later in [a Richardson City Council] meeting” when you have provided NO examples of the Council considering items that were not on the agenda
8. And even claimed that I misrepresented your academic background, when I took my statements from your own sworn statement before the Texas Supreme Court (which I notice that you did not dispute)
In short, you have time and time again misrepresented the facts in the desperate hope that the public won’t research your misstatements and realize that your “candor” consists of making false statements and drawing even worse conclusions from them.
Until you come clean and admit that you repeatedly (and often deliberately) make dishonest statements, having a discussion with you on “candor” would be absolutely pointless.
Save your grandstanding for the very small group of people who don’t realize how often you have deliberately misled the public...now, thanks to Mark Steger hosting this blog, the people have a very clear idea of the truth about you...
Bill
Still haven't conjured up some moral ground for your position, I see.
C'mon, Willy, try to focus on the issue and stop attacking me with your twisted sense of reality. Your indignant rants do nothing to advance the goals of public service. Give some effort to curing your intellectual dishonesty. You'll be better for it, my friend.
First you say "I will restate my conviction that there is no good reason public servants should be less than candid with the citizens."
Then you mutate your statement into "Is there, or is there not some moral ground to your argument that public servants should be less than candid with the citizens they serve in matters of public business?"
What's the problem? I never said any such thing...go ahead, Nathan, please search up above and tell me where I said that.
This is your 9th dishonest statement in just this thread alone...
As I have said all along, until you admit your dishonest statements above, this conversation is not going anywhere...what's the matter, Nathan, why is it so difficult for you to admit that you are wrong?
You admitted it for the first item, when you acknowledged that the Texas Open Meetings Act didn't say what you said it did ("Oops, Billy, my bad.").
You admitted it for the second item when you all but admitted that you deliberately misled the readers on John Hill's history ("I was wondering how long it would take you to run down that rabbit trail.")
Now, Nathan, you have seven more false and dishonest statements in this thread to admit and apologize for...do that, and we can have a civilized conversation about the Open Meetings Act...but until you can be honest, there is no point in discussing serious topics with you...or shall we step through again all the dishonest statements you've made outside this thread...you know, just so that we can all be "candid"...
Bill
Yes, Willy, you are curiously silent on the issue of morality here. Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring people in the face. Address the issue and try your best, as if you haven't already, to avoid personal attacks.
The issue is simple to understand, but for your benefit, I'll restate it (again).
In summary, there is no public integrity argument based on high moral standards that justifies public servants being less than candid with the public on matters of public business.
To address your inability to respond as to validity of this fundamental public service principle, personal attacks and willy nilly statements about private citizens does not make the issue disappear. We all see your slight of hand here. Stop avoiding the issue and attempting to deflect attention with your meaningless assertions.
I stepped out of this conversation almost three weeks ago, but I'll step back in now only long enough to point out that the issue in the original blog item was a legal one, not a moral one. I haven't heard anything in this long conversation to rebut my analysis that the legal challenges to the city's behavior are weak. Whether one thinks the city can do better is a worthwhile topic, one that I've raised in other blog items, but it's not the topic of this particular blog item.
Interesting...I first got involved in this thread - as all can see above - by politely asking Nathan for the source for some statement of his on the Texas Open Meetings Act.
It turns out that Nathan was wrong in his quote.
I left the thread for quite a while to enjoy Thanksgiving, and returned to ask Nathan to be civil in public discourse, and to point out that Nathan had had plenty of opportunities to make his views on Mr. Keffler's compensation known to the Council...but had failed to do so.
In the ensuing discussion, Nathan, you weaved and dodged and desperately avoided defending any of the erroneous statements you made for fear that people would realize what you really are, and finally settled on the strategy of pretending that I had stated some "position" on some issue and then proceeded to criticize it.
But the truth is above for all to see: you have made countless false statements that you never bother to defend once your error has been pointed out. Until you earn the right to engage in civil discourse by admitting your mistakes, decent people have no requirement to provide amusement for you...what's the matter, Nathan? Is there no one in San Antonio who will put up with your nonsense?
Bill
Willy,
I'll not belabor the justification presented earlier supporting my position, although "weak", in some eyes, still valid and not "wrong".
The exchange here shifted to one of morality because of the absence of it in your argument. Laws are established to protect morality, not exploit it.
Nobody wants to ride beside you on this emotional roller coaster berating others whose only interest is to improve an ailing system of municipal governance.
I am sorry for your loss. Thanksgiving must have been difficult for you. But, please come back to Earth and work toward cleaning up the bad behavior in Richardson instead of being angry at people who point out that it exists.
Nathan,
Everyone can clearly see:
1. That you have failed to show where I had stated some "position" on some issue, even though you claim that I did.
2. That you have failed to even attempt to show that any of my statements about your misstatements was untrue.
3. You have failed to show any evidence of "bad behavior" in Richardson...you make assertions that are totally without merit.
The adults who read this blog will realize that you have had ample opportunity to address each of these things, yet you refuse to do so...because you can't.
No wonder you moved to San Antonio, your face is so red with embarrassment, we can practically see the glow from here...
Bill
Willy,
Try as you might, there's no erasing your legacy of attempting to belittle citizens who have legitimate concerns about the manner in which public business is conducted in the City of Richardson. Your persistence is impressive.
This practice has been a hallmark of Richardson politics long before I picked up the sword and shield to defend myself against it.
Your ranting and petty comments are typical of that page out of the political science play book. Your claim to fame is now justified. You are an educated and loyal political hack who has no compunction about deriding those who have ideology apart from your friends. In other words, a simple mouthpiece saying things the people outed for bad behavior dare not.
Richardson deserves better. Texas deserves better. But, in order to get better we need to do something about the liberals and the cancer eating away at morality. You are a prime example of what is wrong in this little town. There is surely a position on the Forbes list of most miserable towns anticipating your photo.
I will repeat:
1. Nathan, you have failed to show where I had stated some "position" on some issue, even though you claim that I did.
2. You have failed to even attempt to show that any of my statements about your misstatements was untrue.
3. You have failed to show any evidence of "bad behavior" in Richardson...you make assertions that are totally without merit.
Instead, you have made the following demonstrably false statements just in this thread:
1. Misquoted the Texas Open Meetings Act
2. Falsely stated that AG John Hill was (1) “liberal” and (2) part of the Sharpstown Scandal
3. Stated that an official publication of the AG’s office was a “mere ‘training publication’ that has ‘questionable’ opinions”
4. Stated that “City staff routinely attend, participate in, and even lead closed meetings of our governing body” without providing any evidence of this
5. Claimed that evaluating the City Manager doesn’t include discussing compensation, when the AG’s opinion clearly allows it
6. Claimed that there is a “law that prohibits limiting public input” when there is no such law
7. Claimed that “there is no possible way [for the public] to know ‘any matter considered’ deliberated later in [a Richardson City Council] meeting” when you have provided NO examples of the Council considering items that were not on the agenda
8. And even claimed that I misrepresented your academic background, when I took my statements from your own sworn statement before the Texas Supreme Court (which I notice that you did not dispute)
Instead of proving that any of my statements were wrong, you chose to continue to insult me, in the desperate hopes that the readers here are too stupid to see that you have failed completely to (1) prove any malfeasance at City Hall, and (2) refute any of the statements I made pointed out your errors.
But the decent people of Richardson are far smarter than you give them credit for...so I suggest that you stay in San Antonio, where maybe somehow, some way, you'll convince someone that listen to your constant stream of false accusations and misinformation is actually worth listening to...
Bill
Willy,
No matter how many times the information is presented, and how may ways it is confirmed, you never are satisfied. Face it. You are a political hack with little better to do than to contradict those who show concern for misbehavior of public servants.
We all know you are bucking for an appointment. I'm afraid, with all this mindless bloviating, you might be reducing your chances. You are showing your backside for everybody to see.
There is nothing anyone can do to cure this illness from which you suffer. You will have to sort it out yourself. One thing is for sure. You have a very confused way of thinking, so absurd, you may not be mentally qualified to stand trial.
There is no need to respond to your silly accusations. They speak for themselves.
Nathan, you have not presented any information, you have given nothing that can be confirmed, and you have made no attempt to dispute any of my statements of your culpability...it's clear to everyone here that you don't defend yourself because you can't, except by weaving and dodging and casting insults...
I will repeat:
1. Nathan, you have failed to show where I had stated some "position" on some issue, even though you claim that I did.
2. You have failed to even attempt to show that any of my statements about your misstatements was untrue.
3. You have failed to show any evidence of "bad behavior" in Richardson...you make assertions that are totally without merit.
Instead, you have made the following demonstrably false statements just in this thread:
1. Misquoted the Texas Open Meetings Act
2. Falsely stated that AG John Hill was (1) “liberal” and (2) part of the Sharpstown Scandal
3. Stated that an official publication of the AG’s office was a “mere ‘training publication’ that has ‘questionable’ opinions”
4. Stated that “City staff routinely attend, participate in, and even lead closed meetings of our governing body” without providing any evidence of this
5. Claimed that evaluating the City Manager doesn’t include discussing compensation, when the AG’s opinion clearly allows it
6. Claimed that there is a “law that prohibits limiting public input” when there is no such law
7. Claimed that “there is no possible way [for the public] to know ‘any matter considered’ deliberated later in [a Richardson City Council] meeting” when you have provided NO examples of the Council considering items that were not on the agenda
8. And even claimed that I misrepresented your academic background, when I took my statements from your own sworn statement before the Texas Supreme Court (which I notice that you did not dispute)
Instead of proving that any of my statements were wrong, you chose to continue to insult me, in the desperate hopes that the readers here are too stupid to see that you have failed completely to (1) prove any malfeasance at City Hall, and (2) refute any of the statements I made pointed out your errors.
But the decent people of Richardson are far smarter than you give them credit for...so I suggest that you stay in San Antonio, where maybe somehow, in some way, you'll convince someone that listening to your constant stream of false accusations and misinformation is actually worth listening to...
Bill
Willy,
I'm afraid you are a lost soul. I know not from what part of your brain is the source of the misconstrued thoughts that come out in your rants.
Anybody who knows the facts sees through your desperate attempt to mangle reality to fit your contrived stories.
They are such silly stretches of the truth, nobody need respond.
The only thing demonstrably clear here is your inanity, my friend. I will continue to pray for you and a cure for your blind loyalty.
Nathan, your total refusal to answer any of my points means only one thing to the decent people of Richardson: you can't because you know that you are wrong on every point.
Enjoy San Antonio...you've been there over a year, you ought to be settling in quite nicely...
Bill
Willy,
Still short on morals? Why am I not surprised?
Your manufactured renditions of events portrays a troubling reality, that being your assumption people have bought into your contrived line of reason.
It is painfully obvious to those who bother to read your tripe that your character has evolved into one with no better sense than to pick apart issues raised by concerned citizens and portray them as some sort of public enemy for your own gratification. That's a sickness from which you have suffered since our first conversation.
I wish you well, but you are so badly mistaken that it will take more than well wishes to cure the plague you spread.
Nathan, can you not see how ridiculous you are? You claim that I write "tripe", yet you never refute anything I write!
The more you respond to these threads, the more obvious it is to everyone that (1) you make false statements, (2) when challenged on these false statements, you respond by dodging the challenge, and (3) when pressed further, you respond with personal insults.
Nathan, it's simple. Identify one single statement that I have made, and explain with independent evidence how it is false...that's really simple...why can't you do it?
Bill
Willy,
Stop yelling. You are making a scene. I have said time and again, your wild claims are amusing, but do not deserve the dignity of a response. You have made it painfully clear that it's difficult for you to understand. We get it. You don't understand. That explains why you continue to shoot off your mouth with these inane comments of yours. We get it. You are repeating like a broken record. I don't know how much more simple minded I can dumb this down for you.
I'll repeat:
"Nathan, it's simple. Identify one single statement that I have made, and explain with independent evidence how it is false...that's really simple...why can't you do it?"
Nathan, it's embarassing to see you doing this to yourself. Can't you see how everyone is going to wonder why you can't or won't answer a single question?
Bill
Willy,
Your frustration, although entertaining, is not shared by anyone. Your same lines and your same dishonesty raise the same ridiculous questions in your mind. Everybody has grown weary of your incessant rants and nobody cares about your crazy accusations, much less rehashing them. Stop wandering aimlessly and come back to the real world.
On November 11, 2011, Nathan Morgan claimed on his website that (1) 5 of the 7 Richardson Council members lived on the west side of Central Expressway, and (2) that the Richardson Coalition spent an "unprecedented" amount of money on the campaign.
Both statements are false.
Please see http://www.rumorcheck.org/5of7.html for the proof...
Bill
Willy,
You are obsessed.
Post a Comment