 |
| From Flowers |
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Election Wrap: Petition
Now that Richardson's mayoral election is over, there are a few loose ends to tie up.
Richardson Citizens For A More Democratic Government: That's the name of the PAC behind the petition drive that put direct election of the mayor on the November, 2012, ballot. The petition was not a factor in the outcome of the recent mayoral election, but it was the sole reason we even had an election in the first place. So, it deserves a little post-election review.
There is still more than little mystery surrounding the PAC behind the petition. The public story is that the PAC was created by Alan North, who hired Austin political consultant Chris Cutrone to organize and run the petition drive. But the financial statements I've seen don't explain where all the money came from and where it all went. Call my interest less a conspiracy theory than just plain curiosity. I'd like to know just how it all went down.
For the better part of a year, Amir Omar denied rumors that he had anything to do with the petition drive. Then, in the last weeks of the mayoral election campaign, he gave a radio interview to Alan North's brother, Larry North, and revealed that Alan North had called him after the Richardson City Council voted in January, 2012, to drop discussion of direct election of the mayor. Omar said he advised North that the only thing North could do to change things would be to organize a petition. And that's just what North did. What else Omar and North talk about in that phone call? Were there any contacts before or after that? Again, call my interest less a conspiracy theory than just plain curiosity. I'd like to know just how it all went down.
I hope someday Alan North writes a memoir. An open and transparent telling of the story would make for fascinating reading, selling several copies I'm sure. He could title it "Petition: Spending Thousands of Dollars to Get Laura Maczka Elected Rather Than Selected Mayor."
Richardson Citizens For A More Democratic Government: That's the name of the PAC behind the petition drive that put direct election of the mayor on the November, 2012, ballot. The petition was not a factor in the outcome of the recent mayoral election, but it was the sole reason we even had an election in the first place. So, it deserves a little post-election review.
There is still more than little mystery surrounding the PAC behind the petition. The public story is that the PAC was created by Alan North, who hired Austin political consultant Chris Cutrone to organize and run the petition drive. But the financial statements I've seen don't explain where all the money came from and where it all went. Call my interest less a conspiracy theory than just plain curiosity. I'd like to know just how it all went down.
For the better part of a year, Amir Omar denied rumors that he had anything to do with the petition drive. Then, in the last weeks of the mayoral election campaign, he gave a radio interview to Alan North's brother, Larry North, and revealed that Alan North had called him after the Richardson City Council voted in January, 2012, to drop discussion of direct election of the mayor. Omar said he advised North that the only thing North could do to change things would be to organize a petition. And that's just what North did. What else Omar and North talk about in that phone call? Were there any contacts before or after that? Again, call my interest less a conspiracy theory than just plain curiosity. I'd like to know just how it all went down.
I hope someday Alan North writes a memoir. An open and transparent telling of the story would make for fascinating reading, selling several copies I'm sure. He could title it "Petition: Spending Thousands of Dollars to Get Laura Maczka Elected Rather Than Selected Mayor."
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Election Wrap: Money
Now that Richardson's mayoral election is over, there are a few loose ends to tie up.
Some people tried to make something of which candidate collected more money from outside Richardson or outside Texas or whatever, but I personally didn't see that as a factor in the election. I saw that as mostly a proxy attack on Amir Omar's religion, which I covered earlier.
As for the total amount of money raised, that wasn't a factor in the outcome either. Sure, the Richardson Coalition PAC paid something like $25,000 to mail their noxious voters guide to probably every registered voter in Richardson. No scrimping there. Overkill. But Amir Omar wasn't hard up for money, either. In the last weeks of the campaign, it seemed like every day there was another mailer from Omar in the mailbox, even more insistent than the last in its allegation that a gaffe at a tea party forum revealed a secret plan that Laura Maczka has for covering Richardson in cheap apartments. (I'm surprised he overlooked the idea of reusing a photo of Maczka in a hard hat -- taken in front of the soon-to-be-demolished Continental Inn -- to imply that she was out there building those cheap apartments herself.) I don't need to know the exact amount spent by both candidates. It was a lot. Something like $150,000 or $250,000 will have been spent on Richardson's first direct election of the mayor in a half century. (Belated tip of the hat to Richardson's founding fathers for saving us from that for at least a half century.)
Maybe I should correct myself. Money *did* make the Richardson mayoral election go around, but like a carnival ride that goes around and around and never gets anywhere. And here's the irony: for the backers of direct election who thought this would increase democracy, know that the cost of entry into electoral politics in Richardson just went up big time. Electoral politics in Richardson are likely to get less democratic in future, not more. Who has the deep pockets who can pay that cost of entry? Land developers, for one.
That brings me to the one money angle to this election that, had I noticed in time, I just might have made something of. Laura Maczka collected $5,000 from a developer who has come before the City Council seeking zoning approval for development projects in Richardson, and may do so again in future. That's sketchy, especially when it's this guy. It may not be illegal, but it just looks bad. Really bad.
It turns out that money didn't make Richardson's mayoral election go around.Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Get a little money money money
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound
That clinking clanking clanking sound
Is all that makes the world go around
It makes the world go around!
Source: Cabaret.
Some people tried to make something of which candidate collected more money from outside Richardson or outside Texas or whatever, but I personally didn't see that as a factor in the election. I saw that as mostly a proxy attack on Amir Omar's religion, which I covered earlier.
As for the total amount of money raised, that wasn't a factor in the outcome either. Sure, the Richardson Coalition PAC paid something like $25,000 to mail their noxious voters guide to probably every registered voter in Richardson. No scrimping there. Overkill. But Amir Omar wasn't hard up for money, either. In the last weeks of the campaign, it seemed like every day there was another mailer from Omar in the mailbox, even more insistent than the last in its allegation that a gaffe at a tea party forum revealed a secret plan that Laura Maczka has for covering Richardson in cheap apartments. (I'm surprised he overlooked the idea of reusing a photo of Maczka in a hard hat -- taken in front of the soon-to-be-demolished Continental Inn -- to imply that she was out there building those cheap apartments herself.) I don't need to know the exact amount spent by both candidates. It was a lot. Something like $150,000 or $250,000 will have been spent on Richardson's first direct election of the mayor in a half century. (Belated tip of the hat to Richardson's founding fathers for saving us from that for at least a half century.)
Maybe I should correct myself. Money *did* make the Richardson mayoral election go around, but like a carnival ride that goes around and around and never gets anywhere. And here's the irony: for the backers of direct election who thought this would increase democracy, know that the cost of entry into electoral politics in Richardson just went up big time. Electoral politics in Richardson are likely to get less democratic in future, not more. Who has the deep pockets who can pay that cost of entry? Land developers, for one.
That brings me to the one money angle to this election that, had I noticed in time, I just might have made something of. Laura Maczka collected $5,000 from a developer who has come before the City Council seeking zoning approval for development projects in Richardson, and may do so again in future. That's sketchy, especially when it's this guy. It may not be illegal, but it just looks bad. Really bad.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Election Wrap: Endorsements
Now that Richardson's mayoral election is over, there are a few loose ends to tie up.
In my opinion (without polling data to back it up), the Richardson Coalition PAC's voters guide, with its bankruptcy/divorce allegations, was the decisive issue in the campaign. The second biggest factor (my rankings are my wild-ass guesses) was religious prejudice, which is hard to measure, especially as public displays of prejudice are outnumbered by privately-held prejudices. The third biggest factor in deciding this election was the list of endorsements Laura Maczka assembled.
There's a school of thought that argues that endorsements shouldn't matter. Sometimes endorsements even have a perverse opposite effect, like the commenter who rejected my own endorsement, saying, "Thanks, I needed help eliminating a choice." But I'm not here to argue whether endorsements *should* matter. In my opinion, they *do* matter, whether you like it or not.
Maczka had the influential Richardson Coalition PAC behind her, as I discussed in earlier blog posts. She had all the incumbent council members in her camp. She had Mayor Bob Townsend and former mayors Gary Slagel, Steve Mitchell and Martha Ritter as well as numerous former council members. She had The Dallas Morning News. Full disclosure: she even had my endorsement, explicitly because of those endorsements by returning council members (I felt the council's own preference for who should be their council leader deserves respect). She had so many endorsements she was able to send a mailer geo-customized for each neighborhood, featuring a nearby prominent civic leader (council member, former council member or mayor, HOA president, etc.) saying something nice about Maczka.
On the other side, Amir Omar had the fire fighters, the police, and the realtors. Not too shabby there, but Maczka dismissed those as "unions" and "special interests" (despite welcoming those same endorsements in 2011). In the end, Omar's endorsements were no match for Maczka's.
She had such an impressive array of endorsements that, even if the Richardson Coalition PAC had put out a fair and balanced voters guide, even if there hadn't been a whisper campaign about religion poisoning the atmosphere, I think it can be argued that Maczka could still have won the election based solely on her endorsements. Instead the Richardson Coalition PAC adopted a campaign of overkill. Not satisfied with just playing up Maczka's positives, not satisfied with just winning, it was as if they were out to destroy Amir Omar personally. I know it's been said that politics is a blood sport, but I always thought of that as meaning people will do anything to win. Now, I have to expand the definition to people going beyond what's needed to win solely in order to destroy others. That's one behavior that I cannot endorse.
In my opinion (without polling data to back it up), the Richardson Coalition PAC's voters guide, with its bankruptcy/divorce allegations, was the decisive issue in the campaign. The second biggest factor (my rankings are my wild-ass guesses) was religious prejudice, which is hard to measure, especially as public displays of prejudice are outnumbered by privately-held prejudices. The third biggest factor in deciding this election was the list of endorsements Laura Maczka assembled.
There's a school of thought that argues that endorsements shouldn't matter. Sometimes endorsements even have a perverse opposite effect, like the commenter who rejected my own endorsement, saying, "Thanks, I needed help eliminating a choice." But I'm not here to argue whether endorsements *should* matter. In my opinion, they *do* matter, whether you like it or not.
Maczka had the influential Richardson Coalition PAC behind her, as I discussed in earlier blog posts. She had all the incumbent council members in her camp. She had Mayor Bob Townsend and former mayors Gary Slagel, Steve Mitchell and Martha Ritter as well as numerous former council members. She had The Dallas Morning News. Full disclosure: she even had my endorsement, explicitly because of those endorsements by returning council members (I felt the council's own preference for who should be their council leader deserves respect). She had so many endorsements she was able to send a mailer geo-customized for each neighborhood, featuring a nearby prominent civic leader (council member, former council member or mayor, HOA president, etc.) saying something nice about Maczka.
On the other side, Amir Omar had the fire fighters, the police, and the realtors. Not too shabby there, but Maczka dismissed those as "unions" and "special interests" (despite welcoming those same endorsements in 2011). In the end, Omar's endorsements were no match for Maczka's.
She had such an impressive array of endorsements that, even if the Richardson Coalition PAC had put out a fair and balanced voters guide, even if there hadn't been a whisper campaign about religion poisoning the atmosphere, I think it can be argued that Maczka could still have won the election based solely on her endorsements. Instead the Richardson Coalition PAC adopted a campaign of overkill. Not satisfied with just playing up Maczka's positives, not satisfied with just winning, it was as if they were out to destroy Amir Omar personally. I know it's been said that politics is a blood sport, but I always thought of that as meaning people will do anything to win. Now, I have to expand the definition to people going beyond what's needed to win solely in order to destroy others. That's one behavior that I cannot endorse.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Election Wrap: Religion
 |
The elephant in the room was religion. Neither of the candidates raised the subject of religion in any forum or in any email or mailer. That's not to say rumors about religion weren't raised in whisper campaigns. I am hopeful that the public silence is a sign of social progress and that one day bigotry won't be tolerated even in private conversations.
Still, I believe that religion was a deciding factor in at least some voters' minds. Were there enough such voters to be a factor in the outcome? It's hard to answer that. I don't think we'll ever know for sure, unless one of the candidates did some polling on the issue and shares the results now that the election is over. I'm not counting on that happening.
So, I'll just have to be grateful that religion was not considered a legitimate issue for either candidate to raise in public. Not verbally, anyway. Peace! ;-)
(Photo: Laura Maczka greets early voters at the Civic Center.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)