Thursday, April 7, 2011

Diversity





35 comments:

  1. Here's the reason I gave Scott Dunn an F:

    I'm not looking at his politics or whether he's supported by the RCA, the Coalition or the Mickey Mouse Club.

    What I see is someone who is not inclusive. He has defined a segment of law-abiding Richardson citizens as trying to take away everything that's good about the City.

    If it was any candidate who said that, in my opinion, they do not belong in city-wide office.

    Thanks for publishing my notes, Destiny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will, a good, thoughtful assessment, particularly when it comes to Scott Dunn. I would give him an "F" for all the same reasons, plus the fact that he is totally unqualified for the job that he is about to take. It was TRULY painful when Scott tried to explain in a recent forum his qualifications for running. You could actually see people cringing as he spoke.

    I hear that the opponents for the Place 3 seat are already lining up for 2013. Don't think that Scott will take the seat unopposed again. The only difference for Scott is that, next time, he will be an unknown, unqualified incumbent.

    My only advice to Scott, short of trying to find some way to get his name OFF the current ballot, is to enroll in a public speaking class, a city government class, and STOP taking Gary Slagel's, Chuck Eisemann's and Amir Omar's daily calls. Be your own man.

    Jules

    ReplyDelete
  3. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM

    Jules, Sounds like someone(or group) is really on the ball if canidates are already lining up for Place 3. . .for 2013. . .it is never too early to start!! Hopefully this well organized group has people lining up for all 7 seats. . .at least 2 each for every Place in case someone has to pull out!! It just looks a little silly complaining about a canidate when you have nothing better to offer. . . just saying. . . glad to hear they are putting their energy into 2013 instead of talking about a situation that was out of Darryl and Scott's control!! Glad to see people wanting the best for Richardson and instead of Complain and Criticize taking action. . .Good Luck to the Canidates Stepping Up in 2013!!! mmt

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm... I thought you were "Against" organized groups getting involved in elections. No, MMT?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM

    Thanks for remembering Anon 9:48 and yes I am against organized groups. . .it was for the GROUP of COMPLAINERS with NO CANIDATES in the RACE. . .I am glad they are putting their energy towards a canidate they can be FOR instead of Complaining about who they are AGAINST!!! Hmmmm. . .don't ya think!! Yes if they could do it w/o organizing a group. . .that would be great(complainers work better in groups. . they like to go over and over the same thing instead of acting. . .if they go out on their own, they don't have anyone to complain too). . so anything to get them off the same ATTACKS!!! I guess they are just frustrated they were not more prepared with a back up or even got their act together with a write in!! Maybe just embarrassed and lashing out. . . we all do that from time to time!!! Now the group/individual are moving on!! I respect them for that. . . it just took a little time!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. MMT - It always saddens me when someone takes a very superficial position in a complex situation. It is not the way people make decisions when you sway to the extremes of any issue(s). Just because someone steps up to the race does not mean they are qualified to run. Unfortunately we are faced with that this term with the number of people who are qualified as a wonderful volunteers. Is that really leadership? Back up and really listen to what you just wrote. If you are truly open minded and non-judgemental, you will be open to hearing what others say and possibly hear different things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 8, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    Anon 10:40, I think YOU need to back up. . .I am thrilled that more canidates are all ready in line for 2013 . that is a great thing!!! By the earlier remark. . .the people in line are for Place 3. So that would mean they would be opponents of Scott Dunn. . .do I have it right so far??? So what I am saying is . . .instead of complaining about someone that you(or whoever) doesn't approve of. . .you are using your energy on finding someone who will(in your view) make a better councilman. That is a good and positive thing!! And speaking of judgemental. . .I would think an open minded non judgemental person would let a person get sworn in before blasting him. But remember you have moved on and grooming the kind of canidate more suitable to you. Sorry I sadden you. . . but I really think you are sadden for not having an opponent for the canidate in Place 3. And who's fault is that??? And remember to have a spare next time . . just in case!!! mmt

    ReplyDelete
  8. What was I thinking to expect better from you.... :-(
    I am sure YOU think you know who you are speaking of and what YOU are speaking about, but fact is you completely and directly missed the point.

    Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 8, 2011 at 2:46 PM

    Sorry I missed the point. . .I thought I was complimenting you for getting canidates lined up for 2013. Will said the same on another Blog about starting now!! But you have a great day too! And if you come to the forums Anonymous . .would love to see you!! mmt

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, Margaret, you should run for city council. Heard you lived in district 3. You rock. That might be fun to have a father-in-law, daughter-in-law combo serving together. It beats the combo we have serving today.

    Scott Dunn is clearly an inferior candidate who has no business running for city council. But, you know, at least he stepped up - and he gets points for that. However, other folks, like you, who are much more qualified, should have stepped up as well. District 3 contains 25% of the registered voters in this city, so you would have thought that someone would.

    Darrell Day should have NEVER stepped up at the last minute if he thought that a remote chance existed he might step down. Nice guy, but he's finished, politically. Would like to get the REAL story as to why he withdrew. Don't really buy the "family" story he's currently spinning. Lots of rumors out there. Maybe, Bill McCalpin at rumorcheck.org could shed some light on it...!

    Will commented that Scott Dunn came across better one on one. I'd beg to differ. I have spoken with him several times. And, each time, he did not come across well at all. In fact, he came across very negative to me.

    At least, with Dunn, we have found our Bob Macy "replacement". The sad part is that Bob struggled because he was over 80 years old. Scott is 40 years younger, so I don't know what excuse he has for being so in-articulate and ill-informed. Should be an interesting two years.

    Jules

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sometimes it is better to believe we live in this idealistic world of honor and integrity and love than really look at what is. Surprisingly, seeing is always so deceiving. Having been to so many forums over many years, I realize there are many neighbors that truly want to believe democracy is real, also. Sometimes I wish I still did, too. Yet it is better to reject what you do not understand and hold another type of dislike over what you are not willing to acknowledge. All the citizens are losers here. Not just some other than you and yours. You just don't know it yet. EX: Try NOT getting cancer when it is all around you. Unless the world changes soon, it is inevitable.

    And no, you were not complementing anyone in this chain of dialog. It is ok, though. We all have new insights everyday while practicing life.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jules. McCalpin is the reason Day stepped down. He found dirt on Day and threatened to go public if he did not step down. That is why Day was so abrupt with getting his name off the ballot. McCalpin has done the same wit hthe other non-rc candidates. He and the rc are preparing for the smear campaign in the next few weeks. THAT is the type of political antics the RC (Eisemann, McCalpin and Laska use.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ anonyous@12:26 - What an amazing claim to make! It raises so many questions and I wonder how many of them you're able to answer:
    1. What is the dirt Bill found on DD? It must have been really bad if it made DD step down from the race.
    2. Bill 'threatened to go public" so DD stepped down. Gosh, he had DD running scared, huh?
    3. Bill has done the same with other non-rc candidates? Wow, Bill must have a huge staff of people doing nothing but researching the public and private lives of all Richardson politicos! VERY impressive.
    4. Oh, it's not just McCalpin, it's also Eisemann and Laska? Wow. Now I'm shaking in my boots! It's a real conspiracy! oooooooooohh!

    Wow. I'd love to read the emails, letters or any documentation in your possession that actually prooves ANY of your assertions are true. Or, if you have phone taps, wire taps or something else that can proove that these things are true, I'm all ears. But if all you've got is unsubstantiated allegations about all of these people whose reputations you seem so willing to tarnish then I suggest you stay in your paranoid fantasy world and keep YOUR smear campaign to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 10:38 - Seems you are in your own fantasy world because there was never any reference made by me to your conclusions noted in 1 2 or 3 or even 4. You must know more than most. But, just keep on shakin' in those boots if it suits you, neighbor!

    ReplyDelete
  16. D Day is no longer a candidate for City Council. I don't think he's a suitable topic for the conversation on here.

    Of course, everyone is free to write whatever they wish ... but there is enough to talk about re: the real candidates and the real issues.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @anonymous at 10:38 a.m., your claims really amaze me. You mention these tactics because that's the world to which you and the Richardson Coalition live.

    OK, let's look at the facts:

    *Who created a libelous "voter's guide" the last election where they "claimed" to have interviewed each candidate? It was simply filled with lies about well-intending people. Can't wait to see who they "endorse" this time?

    *Who sent out anonymous personal information out on various citizens to all council candidates last time? Wonder who they hired to dig up that dirt? Or, did McCalpin do that for free, like what he did in regard to Darrel Day?

    *Who founded a PAC (or did the PAC found them) to which 90% of the fund were donated by one man, Chuck Eisemann? I guess all us regular residents have $40,000 to donate to local political causes, right?

    *Who created an "award" just to mine email addresses and create some legitmacy for their tarnished name and founder Chuck Eisemann? Most, if not not all, of these "Real Hero" nominees have NO idea they are being used for political purposes.

    The answer is the Richardson Coalition.

    So, given how desparate this group of 4-5 residents, mostly over the age of 70 are, they'd use any kind of tactic possible to keep control of this city. They've already used a few, and probably have more up their sleeve as I write.

    The people involved in the Richardson Coalition have tarnished their OWN reputations. Chuck Eisemann and his posse wrote the "playbook" in Richardson for nasty politicals. Looks like others have learned from THEM.

    The only loosers here are the residents of Richardson who are caught in the middle of an incredible fued between several rival organizations. One thing is for sure, given the age of the ones "behind the curtain" at the Richardson Coalition, an actuary would say that time definitely is NOT on their side.

    Jules

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, I failed to mention that the "Richardson Residents for Responsive Government" PAC aka the "Richardson Coalition" was fined a sizeable amount by the Texas Ethics Commission. They even switched "treasurers" because of it. Now, it is Gary Slagel's son-in-law, Stan Bradshaw. I know, shocking.

    Anyone want to guess the amount of the fine and why is was levied?

    Two free tickets to this Tuesday's Richardson Coalition's Real Heros Award presentation for the right answer!

    Jules

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'll pass on the free tickets (I think I need to wash my cat Tuesday night) - but do you have a link to news stories, etc, regarding that ethics fine?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Okay, so I don't know how to set this thing up so I have a name so even tho' I'll show as Anon, I'll sign a name so everyone can "keep the players straight". I think, Jules, you'll see that I was equally as worried about what might be happening to Darryl Day's reputation as I was about the allegations about McCalpin and others who you say are aligned with the RC. It's very clear that Darryl is not aligned with them. And yeah, like Will asks, do you have a link to news stories about the ethics fine? It would just be great when people make statements about other people or about the Council or about the RC OR the RCA, there was some sort of documentation to back it up. That's the ONLY point I've ever been trying to make.
    Allison

    ReplyDelete
  21. $500 fine. A call to the ethics commission will verify. But as far as I can remember there was never a story about it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Allison, Just select name/URL and then just type in your name. . . it helps even putting "Allison" then all the Anonymous do not look alike!
    Anon,Now just a question: did the voters guide have just who the RC endorsed or did they write bad things about who they didn't want.
    I really hope Chuck does not put one out this time. . .I honestly do not know anyone who would go "OH,Yea C. Eisemann's voter's guide. . this is who I am going to vote for" I really give the Richardson people more credit then that!! mmt

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Margaret, yep, I hear that the Richardson Coalition is working on one for this election now. Seriously.

    Unlike any other organization or newspaper, the Richardson Coalition's "voter's guilde"/endorsement list contained write-ups on all candidates. Next to the picture of the ones they endorsed, they put a "smile" face and glowing words about them. For the candidates they didn't endorse, they placed a "frowny" face next to their picture with very subjective, unkind, or simply libelous statements/lies about them. It was really riduculous, particularly what they wrote about your friend, Chris Davis.

    So, when members of the Richardson Coalition "cry" about "nasty campaigns", they wrote the book on nasty campaigns. Since Chuck Eisemann funded 90% of the expenses to the tune of nearly $40,000, I'd say it is HIS Richardson Coalition. And, in his case, the buck stops with him.

    Maybe, in addition to naming the Eisemann Center after Chuck due to his very generous contribution, we need to name the Richardson City Council elections after him. You know, something like the "Charles W. Eisemann Richardson City Council Election". Catchy, isn't it? Given his "contributions", I think it is only fair since he bought and paid for it - ha!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I got an idea - let's ALL show up at the Richardson Room this Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. for the Richardson Coalition's Real Hero's Awards presentation. You know, like 200-300 of us. Show the Richardson Coalition how loved and respected they are.

    Maybe, we might get to see WHO is really involved, in additional to Grand Poo-bah Chuck Eisemann himself. I hear that they are going to even take their masks off! We already know that Gary Slagel's son-in-law, Stan Bradshaw, is a junior Poo-bah.

    Be sure and come VERY hungry since they say that beverages and lite snacks will be served. Oh, and the cost of admission is simply providing your "email address so we might be able to contact you for future events". Yeah, right, I'll be sure to do that, yeah, a real legitimate email address.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Richardson Coalition already has my email address, as do many other groups in the city (various HOAs, RCA, NPAR, City notification emails, etc.).

    That's one of the ways to be informed re: what's going on. I recommend it. Hey, if you wish to keep your main email in-box pristine, setting up a new yahoo or gmail account takes about 5 minutes.

    Now, about these ethics violations: I'm not going to call the Ethics commission to verify your claim, Jules. I searched here: http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/index.html and found no record of it.

    If you want me to take it seriously, then I need proof. And if you're saying a fine was levied against the Richardson Coalition, yet it is not documented anywhere, then as far as I'm concerned, it didn't happen.

    That's just my filter against internet BS. Others may believe unsubstantiated rumors and claims to be the truth, if they fit their own bias. That's everyone's right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A few questions to consider for the next forum:

    At the first meeting of the new Council, they go into private discussion, then come back to vote for the Mayor. What is said in that private meeting, and do you think the discussion should be public? Why or why not?

    Transit oriented development including apartments and condos are described as the best way to attract substantial retain to Richardson. Please specifically describe why Bush-Renner will not be another Brickrow.

    Regarding attracting or keeping retail in the city, is the conclusion "There's not much we can do" from the Council rep on the City Retail Committee an acceptable answer? (April 5 - Highland Terrace Forum), Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Will, it is true they did get fined for an ethic violation. It was for late filing on the report due for May 2009. It was a $500 fine. The Texas Ethics Commission does not post this type of information. A call to 512-463-5800 will verify the information. If you go to http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/php/filer.php?acct=00062371gpac you will find the report that was require to be filed on May 1, 2009 was actually filed late, on May 18 and a corrected report on May 21, 2009.

    The coalition explanation for the corrected report: "Since Richardson City Council member Mr. Steve Mitchell ran unopposed we incorrectly assumed we did not need to show a portion of the expense for the voter's guide as a donation since he would have won without our support. Our voter's guide did support Mr. Mitchell so therefore we are considering a portion of the expense for the voter's guide to be an in-kind donation to his campaign."

    ReplyDelete
  28. DC-TM, OK, you win the two tickets to tomorrow night's big event at City Hall Richardson Room for the Richardson Coalition's Real Hero Awards. I expect to see you on the front row! Be there at 7:00 p.m. sharp.

    Seriously, this fine and the reason for it should confirm to anyone how deceptive Chuck Eisemann and his Richardson Coalition are. Oh, yeah, they really SUPPORTED him...right out the door of the mayor's office; that was just a sham, a way to give their "rag" some legitimacy.

    Again, politics is politics, but the Richardson Coalition seems to always be the ones who seem to cry "foul" on "nasty politics". Funny, though, it was their founder Chuck Eisemann who certainly set the new standard for it in Richardson. Between Chuck, his money, and their consulting firm, they believe they have things totally locked up and in control. Maybe, they do - and maybe, just maybe, they don't...

    I hear, though, they are pretty concerned about their weakest candidates like Solomon and Hartley. Expect a big endorsement for them in their upcoming "Voter's guide". Can't wait...!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Their concerns should be on Townsend, Solomon, Hatley and Dunn. Townsend seems a bit mean and very gruff. Solomon wouldn't know the truth if it hit him between the eyes, he likes to spout off about things he doesn't have a clue about. Dunn cann't speak coherently. Hatley is just laid back, nothing much to say about him.

    Demattia should worry them. When it comes to facts, he has them, Solomon doesn't. William Gordon comes off as a very pleasant and inttellegent person, a polar opposite from Townsend. Dennis is motivated and outgoing, just the opposite of Hartley.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jules you must be the master of the grapevine because after reading your comments it is clear you "hear that..." a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Neighborhood near Berkner High -- Saw several William Gordon yard signs.

    Style comment - His Red / Black sign combination isn't as clear as I would have liked.

    But - who knows. Might be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @nonymous @ 7:11 - you got that right, honey. I travel in a lot of different circles; live in Canyon Creek; have gardened with Laura Maczka. I am probably the only one who has been to an RC, RCA, and NPAR meeting. See eveyone at the the Real Heroes Award presentation. Can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jules said "DC-TM, OK, you win the two tickets to tomorrow night's big event at City Hall Richardson Room ..."

    Consider this notice that whoever would like to claim my two free tickets is welcome to them. While the people they are trying to honor may well deserve it, in the end, the coalition is just interested in promoting itself and gather more email addresses. Thanks for the offer Jules.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'd like to clear up the allegations made by an anonymous writer. I stepped out of the Place 3 race because my father-in-law's bone marrow cancer took a sudden turn for the worse. There were no other factors. My lovely wife asked me to focus 100% on family right now, and I complied with her wishes.

    I would agree with another writer that it was a mistake to file if there was a chance that the condition would force me to step aside. Yep, I agree. That was a mistake.

    But, anyone who has attended a forum might understand why I wanted to run in Place 3, if there had been any possible way to handle a campaign during this difficult time.

    Darrell Day

    ReplyDelete
  35. The dickheads on here do NOT need an explanation, but thank you for clearing that up. You seem like a "stand up" guy, and I completely respect the decision you made to support your wife and focus on your family.

    After going to two of the Forums: WISH YOU WERE RUNNING! I'd be out there walking the neighborhoods for you.

    ReplyDelete