Dawnna Duke's Vegas Vacation

Ode to Dukes (4.00 / 4)

There once was a Rep. who was bought
thinks she's a D but she's not
and when the time came
she was in the wrong game
and found she can't vote from a slot

---

by: CU1988 @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 15:33:19 PM CST

Thinking out loud here... (0.00 / 0)

So you're telling me that Dawnna Dukes, who defends her support of Craddick with claims that it has put her in positions where she can help her constituents, is doing nothing on those committees?

It may be just me, but doesn't that give the impression that she in fact supported Craddick for personal advancement, and not for her constituent's benefit?

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 15:47:03 PM CST

What was her excuse? (0.00 / 0)

Please, Please tell me that she had a super important, really good reason for being in Vegas and missing a Medicaid committee meeting.

Or- on second thought don't tell me that.
Because if she DID have a super important, really good reason for being in Vegas...she should have been attending to that- not PLAYING SLOTS.

---

by: eastsider @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 16:37:34 PM CST

Quit Bashing on Dawnna (0.00 / 0)

So what if she wants to go to Vegas instead of sitting on some Medicaid committee thingamajiggy?  Everyone knows nothing gets done in politics and certainly not in committees.  So why not go to Vegas?  I'm sure Dawnna is going to donate her Vegas winnings to help those in her district get the medical attention and care they need but cannot get under Medicaid.  In fact, that's probably why she was gambling in the first place.  There's no easier way to make money quick, and if she loses it, it will probably just get expensed to Craddick, a person that people in her district are too uneducated to know about according to Dawnna's PR agent.  

Plus, look at that outfit Dawnna is wearing.  Are you really going to bash on someone who wears clothes like that to Vegas?  

---

by: mikul101 @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 16:53:33 PM CST

your friend Judy Zaffirini (0.00 / 0)

missed the meeting as well.

guess she doesn't care about the kids either.

i'll wait on the posts attacking her and backing her ouster.

you go first.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 19:14:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

here you go again (3.00 / 1)

Since I know you wouldn't intentionally misrepresent facts, I'll offer some clarification/correction to your assumptions about things you don't know the facts about.

1) Rep. Dukes was at the NCSL Conference in San Diego on Thursday attending a leadership workshop on budgeting when the hearing was held (among other things). Her stopover on the way home in Vegas was slightly more than 24 hours...hardly a vacation. And it wasn't the tradeoff you state: Vegas or Hearing.

2) You should disclose that you and your buddy Kurt Meacham (whose wife is running Thompson's campaign) took the photos. and you should further disclose that although you were too scared to approach Dawnna and ask her this burning question, Dawnna approached Kurt and told him the precise itinerary of her stopover in Vegas and that he relayed the info to you. You must have forgotten that converstation when you posted that she picked one over the other.

3) She did miss the vote in 05, you actually got that one correct...but she was in France for 7 days--not 3 weeks.

3) I'll take your 10-1 odds.

4) I don't know how anyone "breaks" a story about information regarding legal, disclosed expenditures that are available to ANYONE at ANYTIME. I'm sure your boss' reports are more salicious...as are virtually every other member of the House.

5) Y'all can't be feeling too good about your candidate or you'd be pumping him up instead of rolling out ANOTHER attack. I can't wait to hear what your guy has done for East Austin. Better yet, I'd love to hear how long he's even been registered to vote in the district.

I know you don't like Dukes or approve of her vote for Speaker, but I'm shocked that you would use incorrect information, supposition, and baseless conjecture to say "I don't like Dawnna".

Maybe it is because you and your friend Kurt have an interest in her opponent. I don't know. I would tell you that you are well respected as a blogger, but not for garbage like this.

If you really want to go after someone, stick to the facts and things you know to be true, avoid things you know to be false, and if you don't know, ask. You aren't obliged to like Dawnna or anyone else, but you do have a pretty big obligation to your readership to be a bellweather for accuracy and truth.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 17:10:48 PM CST

Conference more important than her elected job? (3.67 / 3)

Hmmm... over the course of a 2 year term, how many days are spent in legislature and committee meetings?  And yet she had to miss the meeting?  Was there at least a Republican from the same committee there to balance things out?

If not, then I'd tend to put her committee position as being more important than a conference, even if it is related to the job.

If she's going to duck out of committee meetings just because she has other plans, then guess what:  The Republicans will learn to schedule these hearings when she's out of town.

---

by: Whosplayin? @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 17:47:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

valid point (0.00 / 0)

Certainly I think the Medicaid hearing was important.

NCSL is an annual opportunity legislators have to hear about best practices and innovative policy solutions from around the country. Most members attend all or part of NCSL every year. Many others attend ALEC, SLC, etc. for similar reasons.

The primary point that was promulgated by Matt was "Dukes chose Vegas over the hearing" and "Dukes hasn't done anything for her district or done anything for Medicaid".

All three are blatantly false sentiments. But, you're right, the job and the committee assignments are important.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 18:27:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even assuming... (0.00 / 0)

that everything Colin says is accurate, it is undisputed that:

1.  She missed a critical vote on education because she was on vacation in France

2.  She missed a medicaid committee meeting because she was at a conference in San Diego

These issues (education and medicaid) are vital concerns in her district.  Are a European vacation and a "conference" in San Diego really legitimate reasons to miss events that could significantly impact the residents of her district?

---

by: hobby101 @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 18:44:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

even assuming... (0.00 / 0)

that this isn't the sock puppet it appears and you know her district's needs, you'll know that Dukes has an outstanding record of service to East Austin and the entire state on education and Medicaid.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 19:12:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disclosure? (0.00 / 0)

2) You should disclose that you and your buddy Kurt Meacham (whose wife is running Thompson's campaign) took the photos.

That seems like a pretty lofty disclosure request for this board.  I've read plenty of posts here that were almost certainly made by a candidate's consultant.  Maybe we should keep a slighly lower standard and just disclose from which campaigns we or our family members have taken money?

I'll start.  Unless you count refreshments while volunteering, no one in my family has ever taken one red cent from a single political campaign.  

Anyone else want to jump in?

---

by: blank @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 19:41:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that is the BOR rule (0.00 / 0)

Matt has even emailed me before reminding me to disclose my relationships with folks I blog about.

If folks aren't doing it, they are violating Matt's rule...not mine.

But kudos to you for volunteering, we need a lot more.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:12:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where Do Find Clients? (0.00 / 0)

Matt has even emailed me before reminding me to disclose my relationships with folks I blog about.

Really?  I've never heard of that rule.  Where do we find out who is employed by whom?  I suppose it doesn't apply to me, but I just put my disclosure statement in my bio.

---

by: blank @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:04:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

omg, that is hilarious (0.00 / 0)

i love the disclaimer.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:05:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks! I try n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: blank @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:43:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A Response (4.00 / 2)

Since I know you wouldn't intentionally misrepresent facts, I'll offer some clarification/correction to your assumptions about things you don't know the facts about.

1) So you are saying that a conference in San Diego was more important than attending the medicaide hearing?  I did a little bit of research and I didn't find anything about a conference.  What did they discuss?  Was it more important than actually representing her constituents?  Since she was in Vegas for the entire weekend (not the 24 hours you contended) I think it might be important to know why she didn't hurry back and get all the details of the committee since she was the sole democratic house member on the committee.

2) Actually, I took the picture on my flashy iPhone.  Never denied and I am happy to say I took it.  It has always disgusted me when elected officials fail to represent their 150,000 constituents.  Since I already knew nothing was posted on the NCSL calendar, I didn't feel it was important to talk to someone who has consistently bent the truth to justify her vote for toll roads and Republican Speaker Craddick.  I hate when people lie to me.

3) I am glad we agree she missed a crucial tax vote that raised taxes for 90% of Texans.

3) Can we also agree four usually comes after 3.

4) She used a credit card so she wouldn't have to disclose her expenses, and then used campaign funds to pay herself back.  I think this goes to the heart of illegal.  If you want we can file a complaint and let the Texas Ethics Commission decide for us?

5) Dawnna Dukes has voted against the interests of her district time and time again.  I am happy to point that out.  You said yourself that she decided to go on vacation instead of showing up for an important vote.  What was her excuse for voting against fully funding CHIP?  How about the trans-texas cooridor?  I am happy to point out why a bad Representative needs to be replace.  Why don't you talk about why she voted for Speaker Craddick.  As the chief spokes person for Turner, Pena, Flores, Dukes, and other Craddick D's what is the reason all of them voted for the ultra-conservative Craddick?  Was it because nobody in their district knows who Craddick is or because they don't care what their constituents think?  Our readers would like to know.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 19:48:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

would you like a fax (0.00 / 0)

I'd be happy to fax the agenda from the NCSL meeting you incorrectly (again) state didn't happen.

You're still not disclosing that the person you were out there with for the NALEO conference (not the vacation you mentioned, according to Kurt) is married to the campaign manager for Dawnna's opponent. Why?

And how much do you want to bet on the 10-1 odds? I didn't see that either.

My mis-type of numerals hardly equates to your many misrepresentations, and you know it. The snide remark is beneath you, but I understand you're frustrated so we'll just let that go.

Just by posting "5)", but not answering any of the questions doesn't fly. How long has your boy been registered to vote in this district? Simple question, simple answer.

And what about Zaffirini?  You excuse her missing the meeting to fundraise? is THAT more important? I didn't see it addressed. I'll bet you won't post a diary attacking her for missing, siding with repubs, voting against Dem issues like 10% and saying things like "Thank God for David Dewhurst".

If morality isn't relative or flexible, wrong is wrong, right?

Even after I tell you she missed the meeting for an NCSL conference, you still refer to her missing it for a vacation...a statement that you now know to be false.

If this is such a big issue for you, why didn't you ask Dawnna when you saw her? Did you even know about the hearing while you were in Vegas? Or did you create an offense to match your "evidence"?

You're really slipping here, Matt. You have such a good reputation for being accurate and even-handed, don't risk it because you have a personal interest in this race and are stretching the truth. You're also stretching your credibility.

Screwing up is one thing. Knowingly posting false information is another entirely.

If you want to defend your boss (who supported the radical right wing-nut, Pitts), go ahead. Tell us all why he is so fair and good for middle class families and working Texans.  You can't, so you won't.

When Harper Brown and Laubenberg were trying to remove crucial CHIP funding for the children of permanent, legal immigrants...your boss was sitting at his desk, so don't come with that b.s. about not fighting for CHIP.

If you want to continue attacking Dawnna, it is certainly your prerogative. I'm sure you can find enough facts and evidence to support your attacks without manufacturing evidence or knowingly posting false information.

When this primary is over and Dawnna is re-elected, we're going to need a united Democratic front to help Noriega, Grant, Criss, Hall and others. You have an important role to play in that, but your vitriol and scurrilous charges towards other Dems are beneath you and beneath the place BOR has established as the leading Dem blog in Texas.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:10:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Another Response (0.00 / 0)

I was on vacation with friends.  To say otherwise is libel and you know it since truth is the only defense and I was in no way shape or form affiliated with NALEO.  Continue down this path if you want, but libel is libel and you have crossed that line.

My friends were there, so I tagged along for good food, good company, and good games.  I have not denied any of this.

Since I had talked to some friends and Duke's staff refused to tell reporters where she was, it was such a shock to see her in Vegas especially after Ross ran that great piece on her breaking ethics laws.  That is the heart of the post.  That after missing a hearing, Dawnna showed up in Vegas.  Interesting.  Instead of addressing that issue or answering my questions, you want to attack me and my friends.

You talk about Zaffirini, and Kurt and his wife to distract people from the truth.  Dawnna didn't show up to a committee she was appointed to.  She had highly questionable ethics violations on her C/E's.  She voted for Tom Craddick. Instead you attack my friends, me and a sitting state Senator you are actively campaigning to defeat.

Let's talk about laying our cards on the table.  I oppose Dawnna Dukes and any candidate that runs against her has my support, but I am not paid by Brian Thompson or anyone else affiliated to this race.  Period. End of story.  If we are going to play guilt by association games, then I will proudly stand next to Kurt and his wife. Will you and Dawnna stand by Craddick and Bob Perry? How about HillCo?

Even after I tell you she missed the meeting for an NCSL conference, you still refer to her missing it for a vacation...a statement that you now know to be false.

Well let's think about this.  I gave you away out, but the picture I took was on Saturday, but the conversation you are talking about happened in the Vegas airport on Monday.  So was this a 24 hour trip or a 3 day trip?  She took a vacation after missing the hearing, explain why. Please.

If you want to defend your boss (who supported the radical right wing-nut, Pitts), go ahead. Tell us all why he is so fair and good for middle class families and working Texans.  You can't, so you won't.

Let's go back to libel law here. I work for myself.

I always disclose who I work for.  Will you do the same Colin? Tell our readers who you work for.  It will help them make sense of this situation since I do not in any way work for any sitting state representative or Brian Thompson.  How about you?  Where are your biases? Why are you attacking me and my friends?  

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:34:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

there you go, yet again (0.00 / 0)

You know this whole approach is beneath you. Your escalating aggression is evidence that you know it, but you can't back down now.

With all of the misrepresentations you have put out today alone, I wouldn't go warning people about libel.

I'll amend to say "your boss at the time". There.

I always disclose who I work for. You and i have talked offline about how important it is. I do. You're the one hiding your affiliation to Thompson, not I to Dukes.

My only bias is for someone to hold one standard for people they don't like, and another for people they do.

You're the one dodging easy questions.

How long has Thompson been registered to vote in the district?
Is your close friend related to someone running Thompson's campaign?
Why is it okay for Zaffirini to skip the meeting to raise money, but not Dawnna to tend to official business?

Don't answer, please. The answers are obvious and evident to everyone reading this thread.

There will be a March 5th when all of this will be over and Dawnna will still be in office. It is important that we don't burn any ships. If you'll re-read my posts, you'll see that I've acknowledged things that might not have been the best for my client, but were honest answers. Have you?

I'm done with this, Matt. I like you and what you do. We just have a fundamental disagreement on this race.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:51:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What affiliation to Thompson? (0.00 / 0)

Is Matt supposed to disclose that a guy he knows is married to someone? Is that it?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:11:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It occurs to me... (5.00 / 1)

that you spend an inordinate amount of time pointing out that various people have done some of the same things that Dawnna's done. Problem is, they haven't done them in nearly the quantity that Dawnna has done. Further, it does nothing to excuse or explain her bad behavior.

>>>I'm sure you can find enough facts and evidence to support your attacks without manufacturing evidence or knowingly posting false information.

When this primary is over and Dawnna is re-elected, we're going to need a united Democratic front to help Noriega, Grant, Criss, Hall and others. You have an important role to play in that, but your vitriol and scurrilous charges towards other Dems are beneath you and beneath the place BOR has established as the leading Dem blog in Texas.<<<

Absolutely. There's a ton out there and it will all be coming out. As for your second assertion, she did DICK ALL for the candidates in 2006. Why the hell should anyone worry about what she will or won't do in 2008? If she's a Democrat, she'll do her best to support other Democrats no matter what happens in the primary.

Are you saying she won't?

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:07:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What is the point of all of this? (0.00 / 0)

First allow me to question a couple of your assertions. First of all, how do you know Kurt Meacham's wife is running Thompson's campaign? I haven't read anywhere that anyone is involved in the campaign beyond Jessica Palvino, the registered campaign treasurer.

Second, how did you come to know the inner workings of Matt Glazer's mind? I've met him a couple of times, and he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would hesitate to speak his mind.

True, it's hard to break a story about something which is public record; however, I credit someone who puts in the time to research those public records. You can say whatever you like, but regardless of whether the entire legislature's financial disclosures are salicious (and by the way, I couldn't find a definition for salicious, did you mean salacious)

sa·la·cious    

1. lustful or lecherous.
2. (of writings, pictures, etc.) obscene; grossly indecent.

OK, I guess unethical could be considered grossly indecent. Back to my point, whether the entire legislature is corrupt (which is a somewhat salacious claim in and of itself), you're candidate apparently is. Do you think this defense would work for marijuana users (everyone else is doing it)?

So anyway, allow me to get back to my point. None of your arguments take away from your candidate's apparent abandonment of East Austin, or the fact that she continues to support Tom Craddick. But of course, as a citizen of Austin, according to you, I have no idea who Tom Craddick is. Allow me to qualify my claim. I assume that you are Colin Strothers, based on your energetic defense of Dawnna Dukes. If my assumption is true, then I am forced to interpret your statement from the Statesman as implying that:

"that whole line of Dawnna voting for Craddick has no traction," said Dukes' political consultant Colin Strother/ "It hasn't come up. This is Austin, probably the most politically aware city in the state, and they have no idea who he is."

...I am so uneducated that I do not know who the Speaker of the House is. I'm not sure that is the best strategy for winning support, but you're the campaign manager.

Bottom line, Matt is making the point that Dawnna has a record of not performing her critical duties as a representative. As for her outstanding record of service, I'm pretty sure the BOR has covered a lack thereof in the past.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:17:23 PM CST

the point is making up things to attack an enemy (0.00 / 0)

Thompson introduced her today at the Metropolitan Club in front of a room full of people as his campaign manager. I'll be happy to retract if he incorrectly identified his campaign manager.

I don't know the inner workings of his mind.

You want to speel chek me? goo four itt.

Since you are the speellng poolize, you'll know that my name is Strother, not "Strothers". Glass houses, Doug.

I certainly don't think the entire legislature is corrupt. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If you (or Thompson) were on the ground in East Austin you would know that the issue hasn't come up while campaigning. The voters know Dawnna and don't know craddick, as a general rule.

So, your boss, Dan Grant doesn't want Dawnna's support or endorsement or help with East Austin voters in the primary or general? I'll bet he does. How does Dan feel about your frequent attacks on a fellow Dem who could be very helpful to him in his race?

But you clearly have now idea about Dawnna's record of service or you wouldn't post such ridiculous statements. I'll scratch you off the supporter list.

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:36:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What, so he's not allowed to have an opinion... (0.00 / 0)

without it reflecting on someone for whom he's volunteering? That's some bullshit, Colin. Certainly no one thinks that what you say about Dawnna and other people should affect our perceptions of Art Hall.

Why the hell do you always change the subject and not address the issue which has been, is and always will be Dawnna and her poor service to her constituents.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:11:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"on the ground in East Austin..... or help with East Austin voters in the primary or general? I'll bet he does." (5.00 / 1)

Colin can you explain why Dawnna Dukes or a representative from her campaign did not have more of a leadership role in the TCDP's 2006 East Austin Initiative?  I was at every weekly organizing meeting and I didn't see her once.  While other candidates and elected officials offered their support and regularly attended meetings, she never showed or sent volunteers our way.  Can you tell us why?

---

by: cv172 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:42:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification (5.00 / 1)

This is Jessica Palvino, Brian Thompson's campaign treasurer.  I want to clarify a few inaccurate statements that have been posted.

Brian was not at the Metropolitan Breakfast Club meeting this morning.  Brian and I went to the Metropolitan Breakfast Club last week, where he introduced me as his campaign treasurer.

---

by: Jessica @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:20:02 PM CST

thanks (0.00 / 0)

the call i got said it was today and that the name was a different one as 'campaign manager'.

this came from someone i trust who is very politically active.

i'll gladly call the person again to verify and happily retract if they were mistaken that this other person was there and identified as campaign manager.

Just for clarification before I call them, so Brian and Amy weren't there today or last week?

---

by: colin @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:26:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification: Part 2 (5.00 / 1)

Colin,

No clarification is needed; please see my previous post.  Call your source and retract your inaccurate statement.

---

by: Jessica @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:36:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One note... (5.00 / 2)

the first one that had anything up about Dawnna's ethics report was John Coby. He's done some amazing work on campaign finance reports.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:17:11 AM CST

Colin (0.00 / 0)

Since you haven't answered my other comment, I'll presume you missed it...

Is Matt supposed to disclose that a guy he knows is married to someone? Is that it?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:01:42 AM CST

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

The meeting last week was scheduled late, after her trip was
already booked.  The meeting was only planned with about 2 weeks notice right before Thanksgiving.

---

by: Cornhusker No.5 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:42:33 AM CST

Digging a hole (0.00 / 0)

Is it me, or Dawnna's guy just digging a hole for him and his candidate?

This is a progressive blog so there probably aren't going to be that many people here who are for Craddick D's, nevermind ones that shirk their responsibilities to play slots in Vegas or France.  Or spend their campaign contributions illegally on personal use.  Or in general got comfortable and quit representing their district or helping other Ds.  

I mean, really, what help has Dawnna really given to other Democrats lately?  How is withdrawing that help even a threat someone would wield--and for what purpose?  Amazing.

This has Frank Madla written all over it.  

In a so-called "change" election, Dawnna's opponent could be a rock and still pull support based on people annoyed and frustrated with lazy, corrupt incumbents.  "Can't wait to hear what he's done for east austin?"  This challenger guy is not the incumbent, what exactly is he supposed to do?  Likewise, most people don't really give a crap about who broke some story or whether the info is public...but learning about how legislators misused campaign cash brings to mind Toby Goodman and Gene Seaman and other slimeballs.  Disappointing that Dawnna seems to have joined those ranks, and the campaign response is "well so and so's mom is managing her opponents race, and we'll win anyway."

Just like Madla, Goodman, and SEaman I guess.  If the rock and his team actually communicate with pissed off voters, it won't matter much who's mom is managing who's race.

---

by: Blah @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:56:03 AM CST

Just as an East Austin resident . . . (0.00 / 0)

I have to say that I know who Tom Craddick is and I know about Dukes' trips to France and Vegas during critical votes and meetings.

I also wrote her a letter at the beginning of last session asking her not to vote for Craddick just to gain a seat on Appropriations. I asked her to put her constituents, her integrity and the Democratic Party ahead of personal ambition. I didn't receive a response from her office.

I look forward to voting against her in the primary.  

---

by: Triangulation of Death @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 14:45:30 PM CST

Please be a little more professional (0.00 / 0)

I don't really have a dog in that primary fight, and haven't given it much thought, although I imagine I'll oppose Dukes for backing Craddick even down the stretch, despite what seems like her decent work on some social and economic issues. And I recognize this blog is equal parts information distributer, political organizer, and a mechanism to stretch the truth and attack the crap out of anyone we don't like.

But, c'mon. You guys gotta grow up a little too. Legislators miss committee meetings all the time. You can ding someone for it. But you can't act like it's the most vile betrayal an elected official has ever perpetrated on his or her constituency. And elected officials - especially those that are part-time - are going to go on vacation sometimes. Maybe those two things even coincide sometimes.

If you're going to attack someone for something like this, at least ask them about it and include their response. And all that stuff about who's paying for it and apparently unethical dealings...Tell us about what really happened. If it's bad, let us know. But don't just make accusations and assumptions and nasty attacks that aren't backed up by facts.

And the lack of disclosure on this blog is a real issue. Matt's a great guy, but he posted all session long without saying who he worked for.  BOR is a great resource, but step back once and awhile and think about whether you are enriching political discourse or dragging it further into the gutter.

---

by: Pedro @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 21:52:32 PM CST

Not quite accurate (0.00 / 0)

Matt like the other front page writers have disclosed who they have worked for and we have always held the policy at BOR that front page writers (who unlike much of the blogosphere use their actual names) disclose anyone who has paid them.

In Matt's case, as well as for me and Phillip who constitute the primary editorial staff, these are all detailed in a permanent "Who We Are" link which is at the top left of every page under our site's logo. This is prominent real estate on this site so I'm not sure where else would be more clear to have that linked. In it, Matt states...

Recently, Glazer worked the 80th legislative session for Rep. Pete Gallego focusing on natural resource issues and moving back to his environmental specialty-water.  He now does freelance work ranging from campaign management to strategic consulting.  Currently Glazer works for John Lipscombe for County Court at Law #8 and sits on the board for True Courage Action Network.

In addition to that, you can click on Matt's username on every single post and comment to read his disclosure statement there as well.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:38:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Open Offer (0.00 / 0)

Every time we get the disclosure requests I offer to answer any questions offline that are not covered here on the site.  As always, my e-mail is Matt@BurntOrangeReport.com.

I try to keep my bio and the "who we are" section updated but I am guilty of forgetting to do that from time to time.

Since I wrote at JAB about three years ago, I have always believed in transparency, and have always disclosed who I work for.  In most cases, I don't even write about the races I am working for because of the gross conflict of interest.  When I do, I say in the opening paragraph of the first few posts and it usually in races with no primary.

If anyone feels that we aren't doing this well enough, please let me know and we will work on it.  However, we are a bias, progressive online publication, and we do not shy away from the fact that we have a dual role of reporting the news and giving our Democratic interpretation of the news. But you make this site the powerful community it is.

I know for a fact, KT, Phil, and I all need your opinions to make this a better site, and I absolutely appreciate your feedback on this issue.

Thanks Pedro!

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:41:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dukes Must Be Removed Like The Cancer That She Is. (0.00 / 0)

Thought you'd want to know...

As a member of CAMPO, Dawnna Dukes voted to toll Austin Freeways, AFTER her sister got a contract signed with the tolling authority.

FROM THE STATESMAN, 2004:
"Rhone (Stacey Dukes-Rhone), according to records and interviews with mobility authority officials, has been doing public relations work since February for the mobility authority under a contract with HNTB, the mobility authority's general engineering contractor for its first project, the U.S. 183-A toll road. That tollway, already under construction, was unrelated to her sister's vote in July.

But Rhone also worked on public outreach on the seven-road plan in the runup to the July 12 vote. Her contract allows her to receive as much as $44,400.

According to Richard Ridings with HNTB, the lead engineer on the project, she has been paid $26,000 so far and has billed an additional $6,000.

Her contract specifies her start date as Feb. 1 this year, and the agency, in a letter to Barrientos released Friday, said Rhone has worked for the authority since Feb. 18. But Rhone did not sign the contract with HNTB until July 7. Ridings signed on July 13, the morning after the toll road vote."

I posted an updated article of this and more here today (12/12/07):
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/

---

by: salsal @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:08:17 AM CST