The City Council election is over. Congratulations to all the elected council members. Congratulations to Bob Dubey, our new mayor. But before we close the books on the election, I need to mention some loose ends that really should be tied up, before we move on and they are lost to memory.
The first loose end is the open questions about Bob Dubey's campaign finance reports.
In his report 30 days before the election, I reported that "Dubey lists $21,697.55 in contributions, but the details listed in Schedule A1 (Monetary Political Contributions) only add up to $16,965.00." That multi-thousand dollar discrepancy was never corrected, not in Dubey's correction to the 30-Day report, nor in Dubey's 8-Day report he filed. Not anywhere, not even by a reply by him to my blog post, or by one of his representatives, or even by a supporter. As far as I can tell, Dubey has ignored this discrepancy. So, what's the story, Mr. Mayor-elect? Are you going to take office with thousands of dollars unaccounted for in your campaign finance report? Are you going to run the City the same way?
Another loose end is that campaign mailer, ostensibly from Mark Solomon, endorsing Bob Dubey. Who paid for that? It failed to have a financial disclosure statement printed on the mailer, as required by state law if the mailer, in aggregate, cost more that $500 to produce and distribute. In Dubey's 8-Day report, he reports a non-monetary (in-kind) political contribution of $641.81 from Mark and Lynn Solomon for "Mailings." Is that the mailer in question? The lack of a financial disclosure statement leaves it uncertain. So what's the story, former Mayor Pro Tem Solomon? Are you going to let Dubey take office without clearing the air on whether your in-kind contribution might have been a violation of state law? What say you about all this, Mr. Mayor-elect?
Next, in my article giving my thoughts on the recent election, I said, "[Bob] Dubey presented himself as a champion of diversity and inclusion, a listener, with a promise of openness and transparency. I sincerely hope he lives up to this image in the mayor's seat more than he demonstrated it for the last six years in his Council seat." Another loose end is what prompted me to say that.
Examples of what prompted me are remarks Dubey made in last term's City Council meetings. One was a remark he made at the October 10, 2022, City Council meeting that raises doubts in my mind about Dubey's commitment to diversity and inclusion. It was a public hearing for a request for a special use permit for a Middle-Eastern restaurant. Alluding to the cultural attraction of hookah, Dubey said, "My question is 'Why does the culture need to come to Richardson, Texas?' " Just inartful wording? Or a Freudian slip? I hope that as mayor, Dubey checks himself before uttering things that I believe send the wrong message about Richardson.
The second remark Dubey made that prompted my comment was made at the April 10, 2023, City Council meeting. It was a public hearing for a request for a special permit for a massage establishment. The request was being made by a first-time business owner, a woman of Asian ethnicity who spoke Chinese. Dubey asked, "Is the applicant a citizen of the United States? ... One reason I'm asking is, we hear of trafficking and different things that could possibly be a concern." Dubey should know that being a citizen is not a condition of opening a business in the United States of America. Denying a permit after asking such a loaded question of an ethnically Asian woman would have left the City vulnerable to a lawsuit charging the City with unlawful discrimination. That the question even occurred to Dubey makes me suspect his commitment to diversity and inclusion. That Dubey uttered the question out loud makes me question his competence as an official for the City of Richardson. I much prefer the approach offered by our current mayor, Paul Voelker, who told the applicant, "I totally appreciate that you're a first time business owner. Thank you for investing. Thank you for taking the risk to be a business owner. It's not a simple thing to do, and I truly understand that." It seemed like Voelker was looking for a way to clear hurdles standing in the way of someone wanting to start a small business in Richardson. It seemed like Dubey was looking for a reason to say no. I hope the new mayor acts more like the old mayor than what we saw here.
Finally, in the same article, I said, "There were rumors about unseemly campaign tactics by person or persons closely connected to the Dubey campaign. There were also rumors of Dubey himself over-promising different things to different people." What the heck was that about? Someone asked me if I wasn't spreading rumors myself. Good question. In my defense, I said, "I deliberately didn't mention any rumors before the election in a deliberate effort to avoid trying to influence the results of the voting with rumors. Now that the election is over, I feel free to report that rumors did indeed circulate, but I still don't feel it appropriate to give any details, because I don't have facts (other than the fact that I heard rumors, from both side, the details of which I don't choose to share). Maybe you consider that a distinction without a difference, but that's my defense."
If there are any other loose ends from the election, please share them in the comments or by private message.
No comments:
Post a Comment