the Controversial Committee Report
“We don’t raise sacred cows...we just butcher them.”
One thing that brings great joy to staff of the CCR is trudging through info received and attempting to determine if it might be fact, fiction or rumor. While we would like to wordsmith more rumors (snicker), it appears most of the items received turn out to be facts.
And thus, staff was genuinely surprised this past week when two rumors turned out not to be fact, but one did lead to the discovery of a factual consideration.
The first item staff had to consider was: Is it true the Four Seasons Resort would provide a presidential suite each weekend for a year to QueenB VD — for her personal use — if she managed to have the council provide the nearly $500,000 funding again next year for the sparsely attended Texas Wild tennis tournament in Irving? Probably false, but a good rumor!
The queen will not need the Four Seasons Resort’s skimpy accommodations, as she will be having her personal Tennis Center built on the Texas Stadium site. The current schematics for her Tennis Center call for a royal viewing suite, in addition to a 1,200 square foot attached living area, to host galas, development sponsors (OliverMcMillian, Hines Reality, etc.) and political campaign sugar daddy donors (Simon, Ellis clan, Ryan, Levy, etc.). Just think of her Tennis Center as…Wimbledon Stadium with a bedroom!
Also, there is no truth to the rumor that QueenB VD was banned from riding horses at the Las Colinas Equestrian Center. This rumor had its foundation in that every time she returned to the center, she was riding a dead horse. What confused folks was the ‘dead horse’ the queen continued to ride was ‘her ethics policy’ revision she has been trumpeting the entire reign of her almost-service to the city.
Attempting to keep the peons and serfs of the realm pleased, the queen periodically intones her magical words (especially during campaigns) of transparency, ethics reform, and no more single source developers. Right now, it appears the queen is batting 0-3! Isn’t making another attempt to score PR points on her ethics revisions just more royal blather without substance, or even the reality of reaching a necessary or needed conclusion?
QueenB VD has had her questionable revised ethics policy studied, reviewed, cussed and discussed in council work sessions, public forums (with scant attendance or attention), and mentioned at every drop of her tiara. It appears mane flipping will again cause her tiara to fall at the July 23 council work session, and once more as a ‘public input’ item on the July 24 council agenda. The latest revision to her ethics policy was December 12, 2012…meaning extensive photo ops and traveling around the country on the city’s dime must have prevented a more timely, thorough review and consideration until now.
And why does the queen want to pass her implausible ‘revised ethics policy’ to supplement the policy the city has been using with due diligence all these years? (Before you answer this rather simplistic question, think King Henry VIII and what he did to those [especially wives] who did not pledge total loyalty or fealty to his every whim and fancy. That should cause your head to roll!)
Breaking down the draconian issues the queen attempts to pump into a rather good and stable city ethics policy, consider just the following two ‘head rollers’ she has in her revised policy:
Placing a cap on campaign contributions. (One would have to believe queenly edicts might outweigh or supersede the US Supreme Court as this could be considered a limitation of ‘free speech.’) Could the queen really be serious about this revision considering the buckets and bundles of cash from sugar daddy contributors and those special interest groupies having an agenda for her to pursue? How will she manage to skirt around those disclosure issues while having strings attached to her royal scepter?
Contract disclosure of all parties involved when seeking a city contract. (This sounds good, but how does a business initially know which subcontractors might be necessary or determined at the time of filing the contractual agreement specifications? And then, the requirement to report any changes, during the life of the contract, is also proposed. Overkill?) The queen wants to know details that are unknown, nor critical considering the stipulations and requirements already included in all city agreements. (Maybe she wants to see every name possible to ensure no political enemy is doing business with the city! Sorry Herbie and Billy Bob, you’ll need to take your traveling flimflam show elsewhere,)
When one takes a magnifying glass to the ridiculous issues QueenB VD wants to burden an already good ethics policy with, there has to be an ulterior motive. And as one reads all of the fluffy and constrictive items she has proposed — which could burden, restrict, or be detrimental to the efficient operations of city functions — the "why" question pops up again. One possible answer could be the queen is attempting, via the use of this policy revision sham, to compile a "gotcha" list for use against those who oppose her edicts or have worked/campaigned against her. Would this really be an irrational thought? (This could be much like the old Richard Nixon dirty tricks bag and black list he maintained. Citizens should be glad the queen doesn’t have the IRS, NSA, or the FBI under her jurisdiction.)
All of the queen’s policy revision efforts could boil down to being a tremendous egotistical-smoke screen, to keep her ‘cloak of invisibility’ whole, by blathering she cannot get her inane ethics provisions passed (which shouldn’t be) due to a cranky council that will not bend to her self-anointed supreme will.
Actually, citizens would be better served if the queen would just disclose all of her private meetings with developers or those who have or might be seeking business with the city. Wouldn’t this shine a brighter light on some of her activities and a call for genuine ethical review and reform?
Now, if the queen did all this, it would be an alive horse she could prance around the city on for all those photo ops!
……………………….Mark Holbrook
