Saturday, April 16, 2011

Place 1...

It's pretty pointless for me to even go to these forums anymore, seeing as my mind is already made up in 6 of the 7 races. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't playing (read as 'dominating') Solitaire for a majority of Thursday night's event at the Turquoise Center. Seriously, I'm getting so good I could probably compete locally...if something like that actually existed. which would be awesome.

However, I do pause my play whenever Mr.Gordon or Mr.Townsend speak. There's this ever fleeting hope that one of them will convince me to like them more than the other. See, I like them both, I've just yet to be really impressed by either. I'm always hearing about how brilliant William Gordon is, and I'm always wanting to throw back a few margaritas with Bob and Lynn. So this has led to me devising my own system of pros & cons on which to base my vote. My system is constantly adding new absurd components, but this is what I have so far...

Speaking voice: 
Everyone already knows how I feel about Bobby T.'s wooden teeth and stellar oral acoustics = +1
William Gordon on the other hands tends to screech at the audience near the end of the forums. I think this is a strategy to convey intensity and passion, but it grates on my ears = -1

Style:
William G. has some super sweet kicks = +5
Bobby T. dresses like he's prepared to drop dead at any given moment and doesn't want his family to have to go through the trouble of changing his clothes before he's placed in his pine box = +2 (since you have to admit, it's very considerate)

Rants:
{Both candidates bitch equally about the city so this is a tough one.}
Bobby T. works 50 hours for 50 dollars a week. He basically compares serving the city to working in a Taiwanese sweatshop = -10
William Gordon, while his arguments may be valid, still screeches. like a lot. It makes it hard for me to focus on said points. My husband has the same problem. He's quiet and doesn't have a good screaming voice so when he tries, it sounds painful = - 7

Sense of humor:
William G: Excruciatingly lawyerish = 0
Bobby T.: Very funny, but never during council meetings (man, I'm gonna miss the Murph) = +2

So now let me tally this up....carry the 1....y = 23 squared.....aaaaaaaaand, it's a tie.

I'm still totally, completely, thoroughly unbowled over by the both of you. So way to out unimpress me fellas, and give me a reason to continue attending the forums....I mean, a reason aside from becoming a level 10 Solitaire Jedi that is.

35 comments:

  1. I say let Bobby T retire after serving 10 years and vote for Wm G. At least he is asking some probing questions and not saying everything is just rosy in the COR.

    Still can't forget Bobby T's giving the middle finger to someone who disagreed with him. Not classy at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 16, 2011 at 3:55 PM

    Just a ?? Why would a person who is wanting more TRANSPARENCY from his city NOT willing to provide it to the citizens he wants to represent. Under HOW MUCH FUNDING HAVE YOU RAISED IN YOUR CAMPAIGN-OMITTED- Only candidate not to answer besides Alan North. NAME 3 TOP CONTRIBUTORS-OMITTED-again only one not to answer except Alan North. Under PREVIOUS PUBLIC OFFICES SOUGHT/HELD-Wm put RISD Board of Trustees. OMITTED 2003 City Council Place 7. . .OMITTED 2005 RISD Place 6. . . .OMITTED 2007 City Council Place 6. . . .OMITTED 2010 RISD Place 3-withdrew because need time to work on lawsuit suing City of Richardson but will have time to run for 2011 City Council Place 1 while still suing city because will already be at City Hall. Now if Bob is willing to put his Birthdate . . . why can’t William Gordon answer the questions he left incomplete. Bob put figures as of 4/7/11 so he would not have to OMIT the answer could be very TRANSPARENT. After missing two forums did he let us know what companies he is trying to bring to Richardson(or were they CLOSED MEETINGS). Maybe all of this will be addressed at next Forum!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gosh mmt, you are showing your nuttiness, again, and very overtly. You need to get a grip!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM

    I would say Bobby T. is just more experienced about answering these questions but after seeing how many elections William Gordon has entered. . . I would think he would know about TRANSPARENCY. . .or does he just want it but not willing to be transparent himself. I am sure he has an answer. And I know Anonymous will have plenty of answers!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    So you cannot answer it either Anon. . . .maybe you can help Wm with his transparency!! I can just see it now if Bobby T had omitted what William did!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Destiny, regarding your comments about both candidates, but William Gordon in particular, I enjoyed your superficial and capricious reasoning. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Destiny, bravo, your commentary always brings a smile to my face. Honestly, I stuggle with Place 1 as well.

    Bob Townsend has little to show personally from his 10 years on the council, other than agreeing with Gary Slagel on each and every vote; he was always that faithful 4th vote for Gary. I, personally, am not sure if he was just a "puppet" for Slagel or simply just agreed. Who knows? But, it is probably time for 80 year old Townsend to go. The option, though is a little scary.

    William Gordon troubles me with the lawsuit against the city, along with his "Sheryl Miller" type campaigns every election cycle. At least, with Sheryl, she always ran for city council. With William, one year, it's the school board, the next year, it's the city council - back and forth. Dude, pick a venue, master it, then stick with it.

    My fear is that I may end up leaving place 1 blank - which does no one any good - but the dearth of good candidates (both new and incumbents) is quite apparent (e.g. Scott Dunn). I already plan to leave place 3 blank, and encourage others to do so as well. Scott Dunn already has it, but we need to send a message that he is a one-termer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Margaret, Gordon did not leave his answer blank for top contributors or funds raised. He said he would be filing the reports. Dennis said the same thing, reports will be filed.

    Really, he said he withdrew from a previous race to work on a lawsuit? According to your ex-father-in-law, the suit is done and over. Which is it, the suit is still alive, or dead? You have quite an imagination with yuor revisionist history.

    Thanks for the chuckles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 17, 2011 at 9:23 AM

    Chuckles, No Dennis said he raised in excess of $15,ooo. . . try again. Out of all the canidates you only found one?? Remember William is suing for TRASPARENCY. . .that's something to chuckle about!!! And tell me where it says the lawsuit is on going. Yes I know Bob said it is over. . . it says that when you google it. . .but the sources are just the City, M. Steger Blog, DMN and every article I saw except DC . .I would respect him more if it was over. Why does he have time to pursue it on the City Council and not on the RISD School Board. Can you explain that if it is still on going!!! Sign with Chuckles everytime. . .easier to know which A is which!! Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  10. OK, just curious, has anyone who has commented above even looked at these candidates' finance reports? They were due this past Thursday. This means that this past Friday was the only day that they could be viewed to date. I highly doubt that anyone of you made a bee-line to the city secretary's office on Friday. Maybe, you did.

    Margaret, I connect with your comments, but where are you getting your information? I hope that you aren't just getting it from your ex-father-in-law, Bob Townsend. That would not be a very objective source of ANY information.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 17, 2011 at 10:24 AM

    It is on the Dallas Morning News Voters Guide. . .look on DC's Blog or Mark Steger's Blog or just Dallas Morning News Voters Guide. No, have not talked to Bob about this. . .just sent him an email to see if he had read Mark's Blog yesterday( about the tweets all coming at same time about the DMN voter guide. . that was surprising!!) Sorry no bee-line to the city secretary's office just saw Voter's Guide!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Margaret, you seem as confused as always. Gordon's law suit was about the city council illegally holded closed executive session meetings when the charter said it could not be done. I can understand why you would not want to admit that fact, given your father-in-law was a part of the city council breaking the law. But then again, maybe he was ignorant of the law and new read the charter. Or maybe he did read the charter and decide it was ok to break the law. Was he ignorant of the law? Or did he willfully violate the law?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 17, 2011 at 11:59 AM

    Anonymous, you seem as confused as always(your words, but they fit here). I never claimed anything!! Mark Steger seems to be very informed on the case. . .I believe him. . "Voters approved an amendment to the City Charter in 2007. In one sense, that could be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the city. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as clearing up a contradiction between state law and the city charter, in which case state law prevails. Regardless, you have not won your lawsuit. So, it's not accurate to say that the city was guilty of illegal behavior. You can claim that, but only if and when a court rules so, does it become fact. You know, innocent until proven guilty."
    Anonymous you believe what you want. . . noticed you did not comment on Williams transparency on the voters guide. . . what can you say!! Also I noticed William did not respomd after Mark made his point. You know, all that matters is what the citizens believe on May 14th. We will see!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. He did address that with his statement he would be filing the required reports. If you want to know the details, I am certain Pam will share them with you. But, you didn't bother to go there and find out, did you? you would rather p&m about his answer.
    The charter was also illegally change. There is a second lawsuit about that. The chamber put out a mailer where all but one council member endorsed the charter change. Gosh, another point where the council was ignorant of the law, or decided to just break it. Same old attitude from them of "if you don't like it, sue us." And how much have these two suits cost the taxpayers for the courrent council's ignorance/willful vioaltion of law? Care to comment?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

    All I am saying(for last time) . .is why not put it out like all the other canidates when you are willing to go to court for transparency!! Why didn't he list all of the times he ran for the city council and school board(like Dennis and everyone else did). Just a little hypocritical to leave so much out when he is running on TRANSPARENCY! Oh you just pointed out how much he cost the city. . .Great. . I guess he would want to leave that out or how much he owes the city for court cost!! Just what we need on our Council!! I trust the citizen to make the right choice!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. From what I understand, as soon as the council realized the inconsistency with the charter and state law, they immediately ceased having any executive sessions.

    The council proceeding to put the issue to the voters in the form of a charter change. Remember, when the charter was created in 1955, the term "executive session" didn't exist; if they didn't want to publically discuss something, then, from what I understand, they just did it privately.

    Fast forward to 2007, a high majority of voters agreed with the change in charter wording which allowed executive sessions. So, why the lawsuit? Again, once the inconsistency was discovered, they stopped the executive session, then had a voter-approved referendum changing the wording of the charter

    Gordon should give this thing a rest; it is old news that no one cares about. However, I assure you that enough voters do care about the the fact that he has had an ongoing lawsuit against the city for nearly 4 years, and will vote against him. Plain and simple. So if he wins, will he drop the lawsuit? If he looses, I can assure you that it will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW - I am not really a Bob Townsend fan at all. I'd like to see him go, but William Gordon is not an acceptable option.

    Seriously, couldn't the RCA do just a smidge better on their candidate selections? Gordon and "Beam me up, Scotty" Voightsburger are lost causes. John DeMattia and Dennis Stewart (who isn't a part of their 'slate' but has taken money from them) are the only two winners that I see; and they both have great shots against two weak candidates. They are good men who are going to ask the hard questions. Diana Clawson - Desiny is cringing here - isn't a bad option to Omar either.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Margaret McLarnon TownsendApril 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    Voice of Reason. . . seems to have a Voice of Reason. There are some weak spots on both sides (sides being who the RCA endorses and their opponents. . .are the RC endorsements out??). Maybe we can support the winners of the 2011 elections, while getting ready for the 2013 elections. From many earlier posts, I hear we have some great people lining up for 2013!! I remember in Political Science we learned "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve??"!!! Even in Richardson!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. The lawsuit would not have been filed if the council would have stopped holding closed meetings when Gordon brought this matter to their attention. Rather that cease the closed session meeting thay told him that is just the way things are done, even though it was prohibited by the charter. The council and city officials then told him if he didn't like that response, then file suit. To blame Gordon for the city officials dumb and pitiful actions shows you do not understand how the events played out. Of all the people commenting on this issue, the most sad are those of Margaret. Her father in law was one of those who help caused the suit by not simply admitting the violation and ceasing to hold closed meeting, before the suit was filed. had the city officials done that, there would never had been a suit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Anonymous above - what you have said is simply not true. As soon as this inconsistency was brought to the attention of the council, the executive sessions STOPPED, period. I can't speak to what Keff may or may not have said, but, at the end of the day, they stopped when it was brought to the council's attention.

    This is why this lawsuit is SO ridiculous. Not only did the council stop having "executive sessions", they even put the issue before the voters, who overwhelmingly approved the change in the charter language, to confirm the council's ability to have them. Sorry, but Anonymous above simply does not have their facts straight.

    If you are against the incumbents fine - there's lots of reasons to be against them - and I hope that most of them loose - and even some of the candidates (Maczka - Slagel-ette). Given all this, this lawsuit, seriously, should have never been filed. It has forever tarnished a decent candidate (William Gordon), and gives the Richardson Coalition ammo whenever they need it. Bet you that they even mention it in their upcoming Voter's guide. Can't wait to see it - NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok, anonther anonymous here. I believe the suit was filed because the city refused to release the documents and information about the illegally closed meetings. The AG sided with Gordon that the information was not subject to release, but stated it must be a court that orders the release of material from the illegally close meetings. The city's choice to not release this information is the cause for the suit. As the previous anon said, this suit was brought because of the council's choice not to releease that information. Bob Townsend was a party to the choice to not release the information, as were the other council members and the city attorney. The case has yet to go to trial, with all of the ciy appeals to put an end to it. Finally, after several years, it will be going to trial.
    People may claim Gordon is tarnished by his actions, if the people do not realize the truth of the matter. You may wish to hear first hand from Gordon about the suit: http://dc-tm.blogspot.com/2011/04/william-gordon.html.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with Margaret. I was not very transparent in my responses. I believe the vast majority of my responses to the hundred questions or so that I have received have been very forthright and well-received, but I dropped the ball on two or three, and will learn from those mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why didn't the dime jump off the hill after the nickel?..... Because the dime had more cents!

    OK, Destiny, I'll work on my humor! (smile)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I will take a big leap and say 'Voice of Reason' never had a meaningful conversation with either one of the people who filed the 2007 lawsuits in reference to the changes in the charter. I would also say VofR never attended any of the hearings either. You are repeating facts that are not facts. And I will assume the same of Mr Steger since he has never had a conversation with either one of the people who filed lawsuits until these postings across several blogs began of late. And I doubt he attended any of the hearings either. It seems really odd to have a blog to dramatically express your views and make up the conclusions as gospel, but we are in America. The land of marketing extraordinaire! And now MMT is repeating Steger's facts that are not facts because she believes in him. Not that his facts are truthful, she just believes him. It is always nice to have someone believe in you, don't you think?

    It is just plain silly to assume you know the events leading up to a suit filing if you only heard one facet of any story. Much less the mountain of stories that have traveled around in the last 3 1/2 years.

    Lawsuits come about when a breakdown in communication happens. The prior council offered one sided communications for a long, long time. And that is openly noted by the number of PAC creations with a message not heard in other venues. More people who begin as volunteers gradually realize there is an order to who is doing the telling and who is supposed to be listening. Another part of the communication break down comes from a lack of knowledge by many on the council.

    Many, many times Bob T could not answer my questions on issues I really felt he should have and he had to go to staff for an answer. Sometimes you might get an answer in return. Doesn't make him a bad guy or a bad council person. It just makes him uninformed.

    What this says is in a world where information is so readily available at the click of a mouse, is obvious. Why doesn't he know when he is supposed to be the representative of those who he wants a vote from? Though it may sound like I have singled Bob T out, this is really about all council members.

    Where else but in the USA can you run for public office with out one bit of knowledge or expertise of government protocols, laws, finances and leadership armed with the ability to make decisions affecting those you do not know and not have any level of accountability to those you campaign (or market) a vote from? Any other profession allow that?

    Every election, somehow there is a great deal of confusion over liking a person and liking that person as a council member. There are all these justifications that stretch from one end of the spectrum to the other without a moment to languish somewhere in the middle.

    I make example of Mr Gordon filing a lawsuit and everyone having an opinion as to his reasons for doing so or the events leading up to his decision or what has happened through the process. At the very minimum he felt something was in violation of the laws in our local democracy and is passionate in his convictions by asking a higher authority for an answer.

    I like Bob T, but I do not like him as a councilman. I agree with Destiny, he might be fun company to have a cocktail with. But, he does not meet my criteria as a councilman. And my first criteria is to follow the laws of governance and the second is to be the communication portal of the citizens between staff instead of staff to the citizens. So since my only other alternative is to vote for William, I that is what I will do.

    If you want to argue over who is right and who is wrong, define your criteria first. You will find that your differences are not so large. And you will find there really is no wrong or bad people, just a difference of how you want the job of council executed. The big question is do you know more or less than the person you are about to vote for?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The so-called "Voice of Reason" talks about the lawsuit being senseless. Evidently not, or it would have been thrown out of court.

    Instead, there seem to be some significant questions about whether the Richardson City Council has conducted public business in private.

    It's an important question, and I'm glad that someone brought it up. From what I understand, Gordon has brought this lawsuit as a matter of principal and I laud that attitude.

    Whether or not Destiny's likes Gordon's public-speaking style, we need more City Councilmen with the guts to stand up for what's right.

    ReplyDelete
  26. thanks for deleting my post

    ReplyDelete
  27. Huh? Are you talking to me? I didn't delete anything.

    What time did you post it at?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Voice of Reason/MMT/Mr Steger - It is unfortunate that you have never had a conversation with either citizen who brought on these lawsuits to understand any of their perspectives. Because they ARE yours too, whether you realize it or not. You seem to have belief that is based on (??), and declared it a truth. And based on your responses, you did not attend any of the court hearings or read any of the transcripts or court filings. If so, your facts would be different, no matter what your opinion.

    Seemingly, neither did Mr. Steger, though he has a strong opinion on something he was not a party to or present for, either. I could label him an elitest, but he knows who he is better than I.

    And MMT, to just believe Mr Steger and his unsubstantiated perspective because you like him, or know him, or respect him is a chain of thought even more absurd. There is a vast space of infinite gray between opinion, belief and truth. Hold you own opinion based on what you know. It is the one you know best.

    These lawsuits have a much stronger premise than the simplistic justification that a error was brought to the attention of the council and they stopped having closed meetings. Or the council had staff and the city attorney create a loosely defined committee to decide the wants of the citizens and present it to the citizens in the form of a ballot. Or it is past history, so get over it.

    A community that lacks the knowledge or information to make an honorable and responsible decision(vote) is not a fair playing field. It is a manipulated one. This is not the only infraction of it's kind. It is the one requesting an opinion of a higher authority in one particular instance.

    The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly states the provisions for a closed meeting:

    Sec. 551.004. OPEN MEETINGS REQUIRED BY CHARTER. This chapter does not authorize a governmental body to close a meeting that a charter of the governmental body:

    (1) prohibits from being closed; or

    (2) requires to be open.

    Our charter clearly stated that ALL meetings shall be open to the public.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  29. This was not an idle mistake. The documents requested by Mr Gordon were from a small period of time when ALL meetings SHOULD have been open to the public for 2 decades. To declare an infraction as moot because the change was made after the fact, it not absolution. We have a wealth of highly, highly paid people (attorneys, city managers, CPA's, auditors, etc) to make sure all laws of governance are followed. The 'error' was one of "ask for forgiveness instead of asking permission".

    Recognize and understand YOUR city attorney stated in court many different ways and times of their violations. Mr Smith went so far as to state the council could have as many illegal meetings as the wanted, as long as their decisions were ratified in public. The Judge disagreed. THANK YOU!!

    And if you were "in the know", so to speak, you would have known Mr Gordon followed governance protocols by asking the AG for their opinion.

    Lawsuits most always evolve from a lack of communication. In this case, one side was not heard and the other side did not want to hear. Much thought and emotion and risk was taken by Mr Gordon to do what is right. If the city had released the documents requested as defined by the The Texas Public Information Act, there would be no lawsuit. The AG stated a judicial opinion was required if the city chose not to cooperate, so he has followed the protocols of law. And the city staff and council chose not to cooperate. I still hear the voice of John Murphy....If you don't like our decisions, then sue us. Sounds like a wall in communication to me.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  30. And be mindful, the Council who violated these rights were Mitchell, Stewart, Murphy, Slagel, Hayes, Allison and Townsend. And this same council voted to continue these lawsuits to the end without conceding any wrongdoing. And another council election brings in Mr Omar and Mr Solomon who also voted to continue the lawsuits to the full extent of the law with another 7-0 vote. If there was any admitted wrong doing on the city's side, Anon poster above must really provide the corroboration for that one.

    So the next question is whether a 'win' is defined by legalities of the lawyer rules or whether the act of illegal meetings happened and there fore the documents must be ordered to be released?

    With respect to the candidates in place 1. Mr Townsend may be a very nice man and like Destiny, having a cocktail with him might make for an amusing evening. But that does not make him a good councilman. Doesn't make him a bad one, either. It becomes a matter of criteria. So list your criteria and we will compare notes.

    Several issues have come about that BT has had to refer to staff on. Sometimes you get a response back. A standard line is "We will agree to disagree". What? The one most disturbing decision Mr Townsend was most vocal about was the refusal to audit the golf course, declaring he was just fine with the operations. That is not a representative of the citizens in my opinion. My criteria.

    There are many things he has said in the forums year over year that are incorrect also, but you would have to know the specifics to know whether he was uttering a truth or an untruth. This is biggest flaw in our system.

    Where else but the good old USA can you run for office without one bit of knowledge of governance and public finance; make monetary decisions for people you do not know; declare untruths out of ignorance and call yourself a representative of the public. If this were truly a democratic process, we would have the option to vote "none of the above" and demand a knowledgeable candidate to act on our behalf. Not casting an either/or vote does nothing except make you feel better, I guess. They call it voter apathy.

    The idealist in me would value the opportunity to BELIEVE the best decisions have been made to protect my rights and my property values over the years I've lived and owned property in Richardson. And for years prior to my introduction to City Hall, I held that belief, too. Not today.

    So Mr Townsend, you are probably a nice man. A loving husband. A good father and grand father. As a councilman, the criteria is different.

    So I will vote for Mr Gordon.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Voice of Reason/MMT/Mr Steger - It is unfortunate that you have never had a conversation with either citizen who brought on these lawsuits to understand any of their perspectives. Because they ARE your perspectives too, whether you realize it or not. You seem to have belief that is based on (who knows??), and declared it a truth. And based on your responses, you did not attend any of the court hearings or read any of the transcripts or court filings. If so, your facts would be different, no matter what your opinion.

    Seemingly, neither did Mr. Steger, though he has a strong opinion on something he was not a party to or present for, either. I could label him an elitest, but he knows who he is better than I.

    And MMT, to just believe Mr Steger and his unsubstantiated perspective because you like him, or know him, or respect him is a chain of thought even more absurd. There is a vast space of infinite gray between opinion, belief and truth. Hold you own opinion based on what you know. It is the one you know best.

    These lawsuits have a much stronger premise than the simplistic justification that an error was brought to the attention of the council and they stopped having closed meetings. Or the council had staff and the city attorney create a loosely defined committee to decide the wants of the citizens and present it to the public in the form of a ballot. Or it is past history, so get over it.

    A community that lacks the knowledge or information to make an honorable and responsible decision (vote) is not a fair playing field. It is a manipulated one. This is not the only infraction of it's kind in Richardson. It is the one requesting an opinion of a higher authority in one particular instance.

    The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly states the provisions for a closed meeting:

    Sec. 551.004. OPEN MEETINGS REQUIRED BY CHARTER. This chapter does not authorize a governmental body to close a meeting that a charter of the governmental body:

    (1) prohibits from being closed; or

    (2) requires to be open.
    (continued below)

    Our charter clearly stated that ALL meetings shall be open to the public.

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Voice of Reason/MMT/Mr Steger - It is unfortunate that you have never had a conversation with either citizen who brought on these lawsuits to understand any of their perspectives. Because they ARE your perspectives too, whether you realize it or not. You seem to have belief that is based on (who knows??), and declared it a truth. And based on your responses, you did not attend any of the court hearings or read any of the transcripts or court filings. If so, your facts would be different, no matter what your opinion.

    Seemingly, neither did Mr. Steger, though he has a strong opinion on something he was not a party to or present for, either. I could label him an elitest, but he knows who he is better than I.

    And MMT, to just believe Mr Steger and his unsubstantiated perspective because you like him, or know him, or respect him is a chain of thought even more absurd. There is a vast space of infinite gray between opinion, belief and truth. Hold you own opinion based on what you know. It is the one you know best.

    These lawsuits have a much stronger premise than the simplistic justification that an error was brought to the attention of the council and they stopped having closed meetings. Or the council had staff and the city attorney create a loosely defined committee to decide the wants of the citizens and present it to the public in the form of a ballot. Or it is past history, so get over it.

    A community that lacks the knowledge or information to make an honorable and responsible decision (vote) is not a fair playing field. It is a manipulated one. This is not the only infraction of it's kind in Richardson. It is the one requesting an opinion of a higher authority in one particular instance.

    con't)

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly states the provisions for a closed meeting:

    Sec. 551.004. OPEN MEETINGS REQUIRED BY CHARTER. This chapter does not authorize a governmental body to close a meeting that a charter of the governmental body:

    (1) prohibits from being closed; or

    (2) requires to be open.
    (continued below)

    Our charter clearly stated that ALL meetings shall be open to the public.

    This was not an idle mistake. The documents requested by Mr Gordon were from a small period of time when ALL meetings SHOULD have been open to the public for 2 decades. To declare an infraction as moot because the change was made after the fact, it not absolution. We have a wealth of highly, highly paid people (attorneys, city managers, CPA's, auditors, etc) to make sure all laws of governance are followed. The 'error' was one of "ask for forgiveness instead of asking permission". Please understand YOUR city attorney stated in court many different ways and times of their violations. Mr Smith went so far as to state the council could have as many illegal meetings as the wanted, as long as their decisions were ratified in public. The Judge disagreed. THANK YOU!!

    And if you were "in the know", so to speak, you would have known Mr Gordon followed governance protocols by asking the AG for their opinion.

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Texas Open Meetings Act clearly states the provisions for a closed meeting:

    Sec. 551.004. OPEN MEETINGS REQUIRED BY CHARTER. This chapter does not authorize a governmental body to close a meeting that a charter of the governmental body:

    (1) prohibits from being closed; or

    (2) requires to be open.
    (continued below)

    Our charter clearly stated that ALL meetings shall be open to the public.

    This was not an idle mistake. The documents requested by Mr Gordon were from a small period of time when ALL meetings SHOULD have been open to the public for 2 decades. To declare an infraction as moot because the change was made after the fact, it not absolution. We have a wealth of highly, highly paid people (attorneys, city managers, CPA's, auditors, etc) to make sure all laws of governance are followed. The 'error' was one of "ask for forgiveness instead of asking permission". Please understand YOUR city attorney stated in court many different ways and times of their violations. Mr Smith went so far as to state the council could have as many illegal meetings as the wanted, as long as their decisions were ratified in public. The Judge disagreed. THANK YOU!!

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  35. And if you were "in the know", so to speak, you would have known Mr Gordon followed governance protocols by asking the AG for their opinion.

    Lawsuits most always evolve from a lack of communication. In this case, one side was not heard and the other side did not want to hear. Much thought and emotion and risk was taken by Mr Gordon to do what is right. If the city had released the documents requested as defined by the The Texas Public Information Act, there would be no lawsuit. The AG stated a judicial opinion was required if the city chose not to cooperate, so he has followed the protocols of law. And the city staff and council chose not to cooperate. I still hear the voice of John Murphy....If you don't like our decisions, then sue us. Sounds like a wall in communication to me.

    And be mindful, the Council who violated these rights were Mitchell, Stewart, Murphy, Slagel, Hayes, Allison and Townsend. And this same council voted to continue these lawsuits to the end without conceding any wrongdoing. And another council election brings in Mr Omar and Mr Solomon who also voted to continue the lawsuits to the full extent of the law with another 7-0 vote. If there was any admitted wrong doing on the city's side, Anon poster above must really provide the corroboration for that one.

    So the next question is whether a 'win' is defined by legalities of the lawyer rules or whether the act of illegal meetings happened and there fore the documents must be ordered to be released? The legal process continues.

    Mr Gordon would be a great representative of citizens rights.

    ReplyDelete