Source: City of Richardson.
Richardson Mayor Bob Dubey: "If anybody asks, that is legal." The Mayor said those words during remarks at an election forum at the Chinese Community Center on March 22, 2025. Any time a politician emphasizes that what he's doing is legal, my ears perk up. What the heck was the Mayor talking about? Why would he be doing stuff that people might even question the legality behind it? Many voters care less and less about legality (our current President is a convicted felon, after all). But...since the Mayor himself raised the issue, let's go down this rabbit hole anyway. It all has to do with those "POP Sheets" in the photo.
Mayor Dubey explained it himself at the forum:
I'm going to set the mic down, if I could. You see some of these right here that are being passed around. There's two different sheets, and I put them out there for you. And I want, before anybody says, well, that's city documents. This is a document that was handed out to the public at the State of the City address. I personally copied these and spent close to $400 so that you can see the truth about the good things we're doing. And so it gives public information. I'm not using city resources. I'm sharing city information, and I paid for it, so if anybody asks, that is legal. Okay, so it's important because sometimes people want to challenge what you do or how you did it as a way to get you off topic. That's on topic.Source: Mayor Bob Dubey.
First, the usual disclaimer: IANAL ("I am not a lawyer"), so I can't definitely say whether using City documents for campaign purposes is legal or not.
Mayor Dubey defends his actions by saying, "I personally copied these and spent close to $400." That's his weakest defense. The value of those "POP Sheets" is not in the paper and ink they are printed with. It's in the intellectual property in their content and that was generated using City resources and taxpayer money.
Those fliers might have started life as City documents, but Mayor Dubey is now using them as personal campaign material. He didn't say whether he reimbursed the City for any of the City's expenses in producing the content that he's now using as campaign material. He certainly didn't add "POL. ADVERTISING PAID FOR BY BOB DUBEY FOR RICHARDSON MAYOR". Maybe he doesn't need to. Again, IANAL.
A better defense would have been to cite a City policy granting him the right to use City documents for campaign purposes for free. Is there such a policy? My first thought was no.
An "Interdepartmental Policy and Procedure" memo for employees pretty clearly (at least to me) says just the opposite. It prohibits employees from using City images (like in the "POP Sheets") to promote a political candidate. But the Mayor is not an employee so that prohibition doesn't apply to him.
Employees using the City logo or any other City images or iconography on personal media sites shall not depict the City logo, images or iconography, including images on clothing (e.g., City uniforms), in a manner that could be interpreted as portraying an act or statement made on behalf of the City in violation of policy. You also may not use the City name, logo, images or iconography to promote a product, cause, or political party or candidate.Source: City of Richardson.
So then I turned to the City's Privacy Policy. That applies to everyone so it might contain the answer.
The City hereby grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-assignable and non-transferable license to use the Material for noncommercial and personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Material, and comply with all copyright, trademark or other applicable law. You may not reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, display, perform, publish, distribute, disseminate, broadcast or circulate any Material to any third party (including, without limitation, the display and distribution of the Material via a third party website) without the prior written consent of the City."Source: City of Richardson.
The first sentence grants you a license to use City material for non-commercial and personal use. The second sentence then seems to require you to obtain prior written consent of the City before exercising that license. That seems inconsistent, but again, IANAL. That inconsistency is moot if Mayor Dubey obtained written consent from the City to use the "POP Sheets." If so, he should have led with that, and not the irrelevant copying costs.
At this point we could take a deeper dive down the rabbit hole of intellectual property and the 1st Amendment and "fair use" but I'm growing tired of this subject. Let's jump straight to the City of Richardson's own answer to this question.
I asked Greg Sowell, Director of Communications, "Is the City of Richardson OK with candidates copying those sheets and handing out copies at campaign events?" He replied, "The purpose of the POP Sheets is to inform people about City initiatives and developments. As such, the City supports the sharing of this information by others, provided the content is not altered in a misleading way." That settles it. No matter what the boilerplate says in any legalese on the City's website, the City is OK with what the Mayor does.
With that, I conclude that, as far as any court of law might be concerned, Mayor Dubey has nothing to worry about. As for the court of public opinion, their verdict will be rendered on May 3.
P.S. The City's Code of Ethics doesn't cover this subject directly, but it does say, "officers of the City shall at all times strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety." I was made aware of the Mayor's behavior by a concerned citizen. If one person questions whether the Mayor is crossing a line here, there are probably others, too. I prefer mayors who never have to say, "If anybody asks, that is legal."
"What is lawful now?Adobe Firefly.
If one must ask, doubt lingers.
Trust walks a thin thread."
—h/t ChatGPT
4 comments:
The 3 Scenarios. My prediction.
Scenario 1:
If voter turnout hits 14,000 or more — say, 14,001, I’m predicting a clean win. I, Alan C. North, take 7,001 votes (50.007%), just over the 50% mark to seal it outright. Amir comes in second with 4,000, and Bob’s third at 3,000.
Scenario 2:
If turnout drops to a medium 12,000, it gets closer. I grab 5,100 votes (42.5%), Amir pulls 3,950 (32.92%), and Bob takes 2,950 (24.58%). No one hits 50%, so it’s me and Amir in a runoff.
Scenario 3:
Lower turnout 10,000. It’s a near-dead heat: Amir takes 3,400 (34%), Bob’s right there with 3,350 (33.5%), and I’m close at 3,250 (32.5%). No one clears 50%, and with me a hair behind, Amir and Bob move to a runoff.
By the way — Once again, I wasn’t invited to the recent election forum at the Chinese Community Center. Just like with UTD and RAD, no notice, no seat at the table. I’ve come to expect that forums in Richardson are stacked against any candidate who doesn’t come pre-approved by the political establishment.
Even when I am invited, like with the Dallas Morning News it’s more for show than substance. I was included alongside Amir and Bob, but I might as well have been invisible. It was clear they had already decided to endorse Amir before we even sat down. I could feel it in the room and I even said so during the meeting. But that’s fine. I’m not running to impress a newspaper board. I’m reaching and resonating with voters directly.
The truth is, forums aren’t needed. They don’t move the needle. They’re low-turnout, insider-only yawn fests that don’t reflect the real energy of this city. Voters want more than a rehearsed soundbite. they want accountability, honesty, and action.
That’s what I’m offering. And I’ll keep going directly to the people to deliver it.
Alan C. North, as always, your feedback and insights are always welcome here.
Thank you Mark Steger, I appreciate that!
Post a Comment