the Controversial Committee Report
“We don’t raise sacred cows...we just butcher them.”
Yes, dear readers, Irving is a divided city. And contrary to what many may think, the division is not just a north vs. south issue. No, a massive schism does exist in Irving’s leadership as recently exhibited by QueenB VD. Even as a council member, she reflected a dark side of her persona for issues which did not go her way. This week, the darkness was lit brightly by an issue that did go her way.
What the queen managed to do was throw, into the proverbial ‘fan,’ a load of NPD-glee which sprayed across the entire city causing an indelible stain and political stench. Certainly, the queen’s action will permanently ‘brand’ her image at city hall for the ages.
Just when you thought things might settle down in the city, QueenB VD drags out leftover campaign stationary to blast the realm in an e-mail dishing a load of self-serving tripe that could clog the Trinity River. As always, the topic was about her and how magnificent everything she does might be. Her topic this time was her "fuzzy" ethics code which squeaked by with a one vote margin!* One vote margin and she treats her actions as if she just ushered in the 19th Amendment.
What makes this recent mailing by the queen more unsettling are the tactics she employed. Her e-mail blast across the city was not only self-congratulatory, but she ‘called out’ the council members who did not support her travesty of legislation. That’s right…called them out!
Staff of the CCR has yet to find anyone in the community who knows of a similar instance where a sitting council member or mayor has bullied or browbeaten their colleagues publicly in this manner. Former mayor Morris Parrish must be clapping at his celestial residence realizing he has finally been replaced as the lowest scoring mayor on the city’s totem pole of past mayors.
And if you didn’t believe the queen’s self-identified greatness noted in this e-mail posting, then observe how her Flying Harpies and one Vacuous Ogre posted lauds and hosannas on FaceBook in her honor. The queen even had the Flying Harpy patrol circling over ever post to rebut, refute or renounce any viewpoint contrary to her e-mail routing regarding the ethics code.
And one should believe these harpies as they are spouting the talking points the queen has provided them in an attempt to defend her defenseless position of political arrogance. Why? The Mother Superior of Harpies would ensure that you do…or else be prepared for verbal water boarding.
Case in Point 1: QueenB VDs city-blasted e-mail stated how great her new ethics code, which she pimped for four years, was going to fix or resolve all of Irving’s problems. (OK, she finally got one piece of paperwork passed…by a one vote margin.) However, not everyone agreed with her assessment…especially since the code was watered down, non-essential, or meaningless in areas each time when reviewed by the council. That’s politics…agree/disagree, vote yea/nay. End of the issue.
What is not good politics is the mayor of Irving ‘calling out’ council members who did not support her ‘fuzzy’ ethics revisions. The final vote was widely known by anyone who cared to know. The vote was documented in the DMN, FaceBook, coffee shop gatherings and other social media sites monitored and posted on by the queen’s harpies. So, why a city-wide mailing if not for personal-publicity consideration?
Here’s the queen’s self-absorbed notation is her city-wide e-mail castigating her colleagues by name and contact information:
"And while not everyone on the council agreed that we should expand our ethics policy, I appreciated all the input and counsel we received in order to develop a policy that could earn the majority of support. Those who voted in opposition to the stronger ethics policy were:
Councilman John Danish, Place 1 jdanish@cityofirving.org
Councilman Allan Meagher, Place 2 ameagher@cityofirving.org
Councilman Dennis Webb, Place 3 denniswebb@cityofirving.org
Councilman Joe Putnam, Place 4 jputnam@cityofirving.org"
Councilman Allan Meagher, Place 2 ameagher@cityofirving.org
Councilman Dennis Webb, Place 3 denniswebb@cityofirving.org
Councilman Joe Putnam, Place 4 jputnam@cityofirving.org"
It should be noted those who voted against the ethics policy revisions did not do so because they were against stronger ethics as suggested by the queen. That’s laughable considering the individuals noted and the genuine dedication they have exhibited while serving the city. The negative votes registered, by more rational thinkers than the queen and her Pet Rocks, would include such concerns of theirs as: the code revisions were not necessary; the caps were mere window dressing and strictly political in nature (so the queen could again smite her previous opponent); the city and state’s current ethics code regulations cover all concerns city officials must legally observe; the provision to ‘identify lobbyist’ in the city’s new code will not even pass the smell test for being practical or possible; there are no penalties established for violations of the revised code; and having a city panel established to hear complaints registered against potential code violators (which will probably only include the queen’s political foes being reviewed ) will not do anything but continue the political schism QueenB VD has created which divides Irving.
Case in Point 2: While the queen and her Flying Harpy flock addressed the above, QueenB VD also managed to find time to blast the DMN reporter for his failure (her words) in his coverage of the ethics code vote by not proclaiming her actions as surpassing the invention of the Internet. Remember, this was an old campaign issue. And as "fuzzy" as her policy was, she wanted the spotlight to shine brightly for a giddy NPD-celebration dance. Her notes to the reporter (via his tweet account @aviselk) reflected how when it’s the queen’s idea, the queen’s handiwork, or the queen’s edict, all reporting should be noteworthy, highly praising and laudatory of her majesty’s greatness. If the reporter was an Irving subject, he would probably be banished to her Tower of Obedience. (Is it possible slow learning Cornell business students are not made cognizant of the fact newspapers have more printing ink than a home HP laser jet printer?)
If you were one of the luck subjects (staff of the CCR was unlucky and received a copy) in QueenB VDs realm and did not receive a copy of her self-congratulatory notification of the ethics code vote, drop her a line at: bvd234@yahoo.com She will be happy to hear from you and will respond…if not busy with a scheduled photo op.
……………………….Mark Holbrook
* The one vote margin to pass QueenB VDs ethics code revision resulted from her new Pet Rock, Ward. And many surmise he had to vote in favor of this issue due to: Upcoming council consideration where he is in a partnership with two others seeking city funding on a project; and demonstrate he supports ethics to deflect any possible criticism with his partnership involvement…even though he will be required to abstain from participating in discussions or voting on the issue where he has a financial interest. While he may not have a legal conflict of interest, many believe he has a moral conflict as a serving council member. (For the Record: QueenB VDs main campaign supporter is also a member of this partnership attempting to do business with the city.) If the city council approves funds to Ward’s partnership, then this will be another first in the city’s history…a sitting council member receiving city funding for a private venture while serving on the council.
