Thursday, July 9, 2009

Do We Still Dig Bache-Wiig, or Has the Tom Tom Lost His Way?

Based on the e-mail below, I must say, I think he's right on track.

An excerpt from some light reading I am currently doing...

{An e-mail to Gary Slagel from Tom Bache-Wiig...with love, I'm sure}

"...Also, regarding your comment to me in the email below, about me being a good guy, Gary. I am who I seem to be, which, by the way, is far from perfect. I like you as a person, Gary, but there is too much baggage in your political past. I, and others who question your motives, am not responsible for creating this pall of doubt you've cast upon yourself. Your decisions and improprieties of the past beg the kind of softball questions I asked below, and they will continue. We all make mistakes, Gary, I know that. But your batting-average of not being cast in the brightest light over the past several years stretches the limits of imagination in believing that you are just a victim of circumstance.

Back to the present day: last Monday's (7/6/09) successful move to put yourself back on the Mobility Coalition is emblematic of one of several things: a man who has no sense of what looks bad; a man with no core sense for the appearance of impropriety; a man who doesn't care about an appearance of impropriety; a man who lacks the ability to see that a move or decision has an appearance of impropriety, or a man who stands to gain in ways other than virtuous civic duty, by taking the position back that he was forced to resign under pressure just three years ago - for an appearance of impropriety. Any one of these, in and of themselves, is disconcerting. I don't see an up side here.

Please don't tell me this is a position held only by Mayors of municipalities - that would not be the case in the Mobility Coalition's current make up. And please don't recite the events of last Monday night, as though they were just a happy happenstance - that Steve simply acquiesced and ceded the position to you, with no objections from anyone else on the council. I am not interested in being played and insulted with a "Who, me?!" response. I know how this works. No one there is going to object to anything you do. It's not exactly a new scenario, Gary. It's a pretty threadbare ol' chestnut in bad, local politics.

In addition, you've seen to it that Steve was stripped from the herd - off to the side. You marginalized him when just six of you, alone in a room, apart from any other voters who'd just put him back on the council, unseated a very popular Mayor, who had just run unopposed, and received the approbation of the City in the election. Was it a coincidence all six of you happened to feel the same about Steve as Mayor, when the voters of Richardson had indicated otherwise? Of course not. That literal "back room" deal, even as much as the law and Charter allowed you to do it, was the checkmate to a two year long political chess game. That's a kind analogy.

Back to last Monday's move: not one of the other five councilmen are ever going to side with Steve. He's at least still in a game which many would've given up by now. And in last Monday night's bad move, I'm convinced a few of them didn't even know what was going on when it happened, which is bad enough in itself.

So I don't disappoint you again, I will tell you in advance that I am not keeping my thoughts on these matters to myself. I am sure they will get around, back to you. But I share them now with you, directly.

You want "very disappointing?" Read the record of your stunt on Monday night.



Tom "

Shoooooooooooooo, this is some Maury caliber drama, fo real.

Well good for you Tom. Your stance on Red light cameras may still be totally wack but you are definitely shooting straight on this issue, and I dig it!


  1. Bravo, Tom! Gary (and the citizens of Richardson)need to hear this. Thank you for standing on the truth and the side of what is right.

  2. Gary Slagel thinks that he is invinceable; above the law - certainly, above any kind of reasonable ethical standard. Sadly, the bar is so low for politicians today, Slagel thinks he's probably is pretty good shape compared to others. Wrong. He's cocky and confidant, but he's also foolish and sloppy. The DRMC, part I (3 years ago where he's forced to resign) and part II (where he ousts Mitchell without a even a wimper from any of the other councilmen except Mitchell) are only two examples. Rest assurred, more will follow. I am told that this stuff is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Slagel and corruption.