Well, he hung with some people who did just what he instructed, a few years later. A handful with a cause celebre and the sly determined vindictiveness of an entitled thrown man. But they added some very big tricks and lies to it with the help of paid political consultants Murphy Turner and two very monied interests in town. One of them doesn't seem to know what is going on, just that he digs someone who used to be a way cooler cat than he has turned out to be. The efforts were far more than you saw in print and more than that telephone poll.
I have heard people accuse Rep. Hill of the same m.o. over the years, like when he, lead by a very local mayor and their consultant, did their sales tax increase for transportation poll.
A fascinating trend in professional poll users is how they always seem to get the answer they want from consultant-led interviews, polls and surveys, no matter what it is, no matter if it would benefit those who would bear the costs of it or not.
I have seen people accuse people of forming a "coup" because one or more couldn't in good conscience vote for someone (or something) that had caused far too much concern to be trusted with the public till, as in putting a hand in it for personal gain. People are given the benefit of the doubt over and over again, but if they keep repeating the same bad behavior, you have to stop making excuses or propping them up.
Regarding Rep. Fred Hill, my opinion is that on the numerous times I've seen him or the few times I've talked to him, he was always, always a gentleman in outward appearance and words but always with an agenda, whether you knew it at the time or not. A folksy humble grandstander with polish, hoe in hand killing a (tax cap) snake, but more like a gentleman farmer not a street fighter, he is a study in political mastery and influence in public, and private post-office consultancy, for the most part.
But, I feel he was in there too long, got used to doing it too much the "real" way behind the scenes, and lost sight of some things that he had sight of before he started working as a lobbyist, or somewhere along the way. That is just my personal opinion and I am sure he disagrees with me.
The email from Rep. Fred Hill to COR City Manager Bill Keffler (and his assistant) on 6/30/2009:
"Hi Bill,
I have been continuing to talk with members about the special session. The feed back is that everyone is eager to get out of town before the fourth. There does not seem to be much of an appetite for mischief. The Ds do apparently intend to offer a CHIPs bill but, they acknowledge that it will get knocked off on a point of order and don’t plan to fight it any further. It is just a political gesture on their part.
I am getting requests from various members for political contributions to their campaign accounts which I will do. But this reminded me that I had intended to talk with you about a PAC for local governments. I am assuming that cities are prohibited from making a contribution to such a PAC??? What do you think? I have a call into Frank on this as well. I would like to create a PAC to help members that are helpful to us. For instance, I am contributing $1000 to Carol Kent. She has been a very reliable member and pleasant to work with. I will make sure that I mention her support for the City of Richardson in my note to her.
I have not seen the letter that you indicated you would write for me. Did you send it?
Best regards,
Fred Hill"
This is "pay to play" coming from former Rep. Fred Hill. That is apparently nothing it appears. It's just how they roll at City Hall. Standard operating procedure.
On the issues, here is an example of when I feel someone can legitimately change their mind. Rep. Hill wasn't always for DART in the beginning. He was very against it. Things change, people change their minds, they get new information and ideas that they feel will work over the old ideas, people talking to them about things, and they may change their positions over time. I got no problem with that if it is genuine and based on the merits of an issue and its context (and not pay to play or similar). He has a right to his opinion and to change his mind. I have a right to disagree with him or agree with him. So do you. What promises he may have made or kept with people is another matter. How people vote, based on the information they can find, whether it is accurate or not, is (and was) up to them.
But people shouldn't be influenced so much that they let things get too far out of line. They shouldn't be tempted or influenced to take liberties with the public's funds, in office or just out of office or anytime, liberties that benefit them so much that they know its slick, they line it up ahead of time very quietly, and the handlers push it through. Hey, that's just business, that's what said by some. Yeah, but it is public business, it is our money being harvested and propotioned and it needs to be way more transparent, intentions as full out as they should be, and not hidden-- If he would have told me and a lot of people that he was making a political donation to a certain helpful politician in his role of lobbying for COR, to help make sure COR got what it said it wanted, even if it came from his funds, I would have said that is not right. He was taking it even further than that. I have seen some of the email exchanges released to the public between him and COR and it just makes me sick.
I think that way more about some other people in control at Richardson City Hall than him because they are hired by the city manager, are the city manager, who is hired by the council and the council is elected, they are theoretically in charge, at least the mayor and city manager are, and they are more than just hired guns, even though the tail is wagging the dog much of the time and the council is not told what is going on behind the CM-Mayor screen.
There's an old saying that locks are for honest people. I never got that when I was a kid. It sounded ridiculous. I did later on and now I really do. It is like when you give someone free rein, they go on and keep riding, like into the sunset. They may or may not mean bad by doing some things, at first, but it gets to be old hat after a while and more and more liberties are taken. That is why a good written ethics policy for public officials is important. It is a good start. It is as much to protect them (from themselves) as it is to attempt to protect the public. That is why an independent outside audit is important.
I think they are slicker than snot and it is not little white lies about how good they are or what they accomplished or how good it is for us to vote for them or mere misstatements or misunderstandings. It is intentional things that really impact each tax payer and the community, especially over time. It is the culture down there. It is the "leaders" they promote and "mentor." You have to be okay with this culture to be "in" with them.
I believe in liberty, but not taking liberties at City Hall with tax payer money and policies like is being done and how it has been obscured, in some cases hidden, first and then when it is found out, it is spun by them in such a dismissive fashion it is incredible.
Richardson needs an ethics policy. It needs to audit accounts of concern to start with. It needs online check book and credit card reporting. A Charter review, periodically (way past due). Appropriate postings of the subject matter of each agenda items (frequently vague). And an administrative policy for the Council, that does not subvert the open meetings act. And a review of its legal counsel and what cases it is currently using taxpayer money to fight in court.
The basic operational matters, at least most of them, should have already been done as a matter of periodic reveiw and at the very least they should not have been opposed and twarted by the council. Not taking care of these things has been an unseen drain financially and continues to be a huge distraction and detraction. It has caused taxpayers, the City, more harm than can be measured.
