Goodbye, Wendy. Hello, Joel.
by Steve-OThe citizens of Fort Worth offered a fond farewell to outgoing District 9 City Council representative Wendy Davis last night. Council chambers were packed with well wishers who wore blue t-shirts inscribed with “Thank you, Wendy” or something like that. Newly minted District 97 Rep. Dan Barrett was there to show his support for Davis. Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks offered some last kind words. Davis herself offered some last emotional words. She was presented with rocking chair, a silver bowl and a quilt.
Of course, that was nothing compared to the going-away present offered by Mayor Moncrief.
The Mayor offered his parting gift at the pre-council meeting when he refused to let incoming District 9 representative Joel Burns participate because the Mayor chose not to recognize Burns’ New Year’s Day swearing in as having legal standing.
So as the other City Council representatives met, Burns sat off to the side. At the evening City Council session, Burns took the oath of office and took his place on the dais.
Confused? Good. This is District 9. We would be nothing here without drama.
If you’ve been following along at home, you can skip past the bullets. It’s kinda boring. For those who are a little lost, I’ll recap a little:
You’d think Davis and Burns would be in the clear at this point. You’d think that they’d jumped through every imaginable hoop. Of course, you’d also think that they wouldn’t have to go through all this foolishness. On all those points, you’d be wrong.
The reason is simple. For those of you who haven’t connected the dots already, I’ll help. Bryan Eppstein has represented Mayor Moncrief before.
So, to repeat an oft used phrase from these first eight days of January, what we have here is a big bunch of bullshit.
You may have guessed that I’m a little angry, but I’m not the only one. One guy I talked to last night wondered, “Why do I have to wonder who my city council member is?” Another woman said, “I thought firefighters were supposed to be the good guys?”
For the record, firefighters are good guys, except when they are carrying the water for overpaid political consultants or embattled incumbents who have accomplished little.
You could say the same this thing about the City Council. They are is supposed to be free of partisan politics, too. Mayor Mikey let the politics seep right in when refused to recognize Burns’ legal right to be there. Politics? At City Hall? As Elaine Benes might say, get out.
So, on a day that should have been all about Joel Burns, who won a tough campaign and became the city’s first openly gay City Council member, it was about someone else.
Mayor Bryan Eppstein. Mayor Kim Brimer. Mayor Mike Moncrief.
But the question most asked last night was “Why?” Did Mayor Mikey want to take one last shot at Davis? Was he helping out his old pal Eppstein? Did he want to send Burns a message about who calls the shots around City Hall? All of the above? I dunno. I prefer my autocrats to be bloviating and obvious, like Tom Craddick. Mayor Mikey is subtle like a short story in The New Yorker.
But this I know. Mayor Mikey had a chance to put the kibosh on this bullshit once and for all. He didn’t have to do anything. Instead, the Mayor chose to get involved. Thanks, Mikey.
But, fear not, there is a positive note to strike. I’ve had the chance to speak to a lot of people who understand the specifics of Wendy Davis’ case and the legal mumbo-jumbo involved. Political-type people. Lawyer-type people. And they all say the same thing. This is going to dry up and blow away. And then they smile a knowing smile.
It’s going to be an interesting election. Stay tuned.
Tags: Joel Burns, Mayor Moncrief, wendy davis
13 Comments, Comments or Pings
AndyN
“Moral fibre? I invented moral fibre! Mayor Pappy O’Moncrief was displaying rectitude and high-mindedness when that egghead you work for was still messing his drawers!”
This city really blows my mind. The divisions here do not seem to be along political affiliations but more along those who wish to use government to enrich developers, oil companies and big business versus the rest of us. It is a sad thing that most of the general public doesn’t give a whoot about their day-to-day local politics either.
I don’t mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but what are the odds that some big gas production company asked Mayor Mike to run for Mayor a few years back, needing someone to mollify the reaction to urban gas drilling that they knew was coming.
We need a little re-form.
Jan 9th, 2008
ears1foru
Sorry but the Mayor was just following the CITY CHARTER. You know what it says and it is very specific as to when and where swearing in takes place. Do you want a councilperson elect to be able to decide when and where they get sworn in??? If you think Eppstein directed this do you think Joel didn’t hear from J.D. his partner who is employed by the Tyson group about swearing in early. J.D. was the contact person for Wendy’s campaign. What Joel needs to hope is that this issue does not go to court so that he has to swear under oath that the early swearing in was his idea, like he told the Star-Telegram or he has started his city council service as a liar.
Jan 9th, 2008
Steve-O
That certainly is one way of looking at it. But, if that is the case, how come the city attorneys, who are very good at their jobs and the Mayor praised at the council meetings, interpreted the the City Charter completely differently and told Joel that he was free to be sworn in at any time after the votes were canvassed on Dec. 27? Joel Burns didn’t decide this arbitrarily. He had a legal ruling. Your comment is completely misleading and false. Please stick to the facts. Don’t tailor them to fit your argument.
Jan 9th, 2008
NotSoFast
Steve-
I really enjoy reading your thoughts on this and other sites. you are clearly smart and insightful and passionate about what you believe and i appreciate your adherence to your principles. That being said, i felt i had to stop you here and point out that i believe you are guilty of the offense with which you are charging ears1foru. While i do disagree with some of the points you made about what is going on in district 9 and who is behind it, i can leave that to differences of opinion. What I feel compelled to point out to you is the fallacy of your response post above. you challenge ears1foru to stick to the facts, when his argument is based on something tangible, i.e. the provisions of the Charter of The City of Fort Worth. You hang your response on this statement:
“But, if that is the case, how come the city attorneys, who are very good at their jobs and the Mayor praised at the council meetings, interpreted the the City Charter completely differently and told Joel that he was free to be sworn in at any time after the votes were canvassed on Dec. 27?”
What are you, besides JOEL’s account to the FWST, basing this supposed authorization from the city attorney’s office on to make your argument? Have you seen the legal ruling you reference? has the city attorney stated publicly that this would difinitively be a legal procedure for swearing in a new city councilmember in Fort Worth? The city attorney is referenced as having stated it “appeared” to be legal, but that he had not spoken to Mr. Burns. In fact, the last statement i saw from the city attorney was his declining to answer the question from the same FWST reporter regarding who was(at the time) the current city council member representing district 9, Wendy or Joel.
This is not an attempt to admonish, but rather an effort to keep the discussion, as you point out, based on facts. I hope you see it that way, and keep up the good work!
Jan 10th, 2008
Steve-O
NotSoFast:
You make some valid points. However, where I took ears1foru to task was for making comments that run counter to what I learned through my original reporting. I am not basing this on secondhand sources such as the Star-Telegram.
The city attorneys are now being quite evasive and at the time being refused to be pinned down publicly on this issue. If you ask a city attorney when Joel Burns started becoming the District 9 rep and Wendy Davis stopped being the District 9 rep, all you get is stony silence. Why is that? I live in District 9 and I believe I have a right to know. I believe it’s because they are caught in the middle of a political tug of war and they’re hoping that this all goes away. And it still might.
I am confident in my reporting, but I am never done asking questions. If I discover something that contradicts what I originally wrote, I don’t have a problem sharing this. I promise this.
What I am most frustrated about this event is what people have seemed to have lost sight of in this whole Brimer/Davis chessmatch — Wendy Davis announced in August her intention to resign and run for state senate. Joel Burns was lawfully elected to the City Council in December. I believe that both have tried to act as responsible public servants. As a resident in City Council District 9, I wonder why the person who won the election can’t just take his office and begin representing me. As a resident in State Senate District 10, I wonder why I can’t have a choice between Brimer and Davis.
Sure, I am biased. I will vote for Wendy Davis. If you are reading this now and believe that this fact undermines any credibility I have, I am OK with that. At least I am being honest. But I believe what is going on runs against the basis of American democracy. That is not an overstatement. Let the people decide, not the lawyers and the handlers.
I am outraged. We are watching as democracy is being hijacked and I won’t sit by and pretend it’s not happening. If Kim Brimer can run fairly against Wendy Davis and win re-election, he will have earned the right to return to Austin. If Brimer returns to Austin because Davis is DQ’d by political hijinx, we should all be outraged.
It’s like they say in football, settle it on the field.
Jan 10th, 2008
NotSoFast
I could debate the finer points of this issue with you for days, and i am certain we would both walk away with a better understanding of the issues at hand and mutual respect for one another. but in general, I agree with what you are saying and fully understand your point about letting the voters decide. I just am not sure you understood my point or answered my question to support your position with regard to “taking ears1foru to task”. I think you are saying without saying you have first hand information from some credible source (the city attorney, maybe?) that supports your point. But you didn’t say that, and ears1foru did provide the basis for his statement. Therefore, your statement about ears1foru not basing his statement of fact appears to without merit, since he provided the basis of his claim and you did not.
One question that arises from your response, which is well taken, is why do you believe the city attorney’s feel as though they are in the middle of a political tug of war? Is it just the mayor who refused to recognize the original oath or more of the council? and wouldn’t the city attorneys have conferred with at least one of them (Wendy) before giving authorization to Joel? In my opinion, that is where the guidance of the city charter does become important and where ears1for u makes a valid point. As a voter, I would rather the people I elect answer to those questions than the legal opinion of one attorney.
Again, thanks for helping to give us a platform to have these discussions and share our thoughts!
Jan 10th, 2008
Suzette
Who pays the City Attorney’s salary? If we the tax payers pay their salary and they are giving bad advice…that’s a real bummer!! In my experience in dealing with the City Attorney’s office, they like to stay safe, work the middle, not take a strong stand, and lean toward want the Mayor wants. If I help pay your salary, you damn well better be doing a good job. If you are going to play the middle and play ALL sides, you better win in court. If not, shame on you and you don’t deserve a dime of my hard earned tax dollars!
Jan 10th, 2008
DELLA Brooks
The entire city is a mess of crooks and liars are crooks so what do we end up with each election night, NOTHIING BUT CROOKS BECAUSE ONLY CROOKS RUN FOR OFFICE IN THIS DEN OF CHEATS AND MONEY-HUNGRY PEOPLE WHO ONLY SEE WAYS OF MAKING MONEY FOR CORPORATE FRIENDS AND THAT LEAVES NOTHING LEFT TO SERVE IN THE DEN OF CROOKS BUT OTHER CROOKS!
WE ARE IN ONE HELL OF A MESS AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET IN ON THE MONEY OURSELVES! aDDING CROOKS TO CROOKS GETS CROOKS AND WITHOUT DELELTING, WE WILL KEEP RIGHT ON ELECTING CROOKS AND PRETENDING THEY DID A GOOD JOB FOR THE ENTIRE CITY!
Questions will not be answered about where all the federal granted monies have gone and they certainly have not gone to us who are poor and annot afford to have a loan from this City for liens to be placed on our homes because that will only keep the wheel of taking that the owner of homes has paid for and being cast out into the streets or some ignorant program thought up by some fool at the City who does not really care one way or the other as long as Blacks get out of places corporations want for their projects where our houses now sit and I am talking about BLACK OWNED HOMES ON T HE EAST SIDE OF I35 WHERE KATHLEEN HICKS IS THE CITY COUNCIL “MISREPRESENTATIVE”!
THIS WOMAN IS A REAL PIECE OF WORK AND WENDY DAVIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON HER AND SHE HAS GOTTEN AWAY WITH LITERALLY DESTROYING BLACK HOMEOWNERS FROM SE FORT WORTH TO ACROSS ROSEDALE TO E.BERRY STREET WITH LIES AND DECEIT JUST LIKE RALPH McCLOUD AND JOHNNY AND SHIRLEY LEWIS AND THEIR DAUGHTER! WE ARE IN TROUBLEL OVER HER IN DISTRICT 8 AND KATHLEEN HICKS IS THE REASON WHY AND WENDY DAVIS IS NOT ANY EXCEPTION TO THE DEN OF CROOKS!
Della Brooks
Jan 11th, 2008
ears1foru
Wow..after the rave back to Steve-O’s comments. First I supported and donated to Burns, I supported and donated to Wendy’s Council runs, but the truth remains that the City Charter is very specific as to swearing in procedures. It states that following the canvas of votes at the next council meeting, newly elected Council members SHALL be swore in AT City Hall. I do not have a law degree but I can read. Additionally if you want to be mad at the Mayor be mad because he did not call a special council meeting (which he can do with the support of a few other members) or I believe a majority of the Council can as well. Blame Brimer or Eppstein all you want to but if everything was their idea, 1) Council race had to go into runoff, 2) City had to move the election back a week to when Perry called the District 97 runoff, 3) Christmas and New Years needed to fall on a Tuesday so Council meetings were not held. Had Moncrief called a special meeting, had the city not moved the election etc. this would not be an issue. I really believe that in the end Wendy will be removed from Ballot, although Brimer’s camp accomplishes goal either way. Davis has to spend time and money to stay on ballot…money harder to raise, do you give to a candidate against an incumbent that may not be on the ballot…all that comes into play.
Jan 11th, 2008
Steve-O
Sorry for the delay in commenting. Busy day.
ears1foru:
I owe you an apology for coming back at you the way I did. Obviously, we view this issue very differently. I can understand why you see things the way interpret this issue the way you do. I respect your opinion, but I also disagree.
DELLA:
Um, thanks for sharing your opinion. One thought: Decaf?
NotSoFast:
Thanks for your responses and the time you have put into thinking about this, NotSoFast. I am still not sure I am understanding your point. If you question is do I have first-hand information about Joel Burns getting a ruling that supported his swearing in on New Year’s Day, the answer is yes. I have sourced this fact. I am not basing this on second-hand information. However, many people I talk to do not want to be directly identified, lest they get in serious trouble or lose their jobs. This fact was also previously reported in the S-T on Jan. 1. Because this is a previously established fact, attribution is not required. Please let me know if I didn’t answer your question.
Jan 11th, 2008
ears1foru
Well I see that the firefighters filed suit late today…guess we will find out what the Courts say. I do agree that this blog has been the most up to date and best informed thanks for that. It amazes me that this issue is not on the front of the metro section every day asking if Moncrief knew what was coming down (I understand he did), how 850,000 people could be left without a strong D candidate, and there are about 6 people debating it…then again I remember the old question ask an average person to name 4 cabinet members almost no one can…ask them to sing the theme song for “Green Acres” your in business.
Jan 11th, 2008
ears1foru
Whoa just read Firefighters press release found at Quorumreport.com, click on hot buzz then click on the press release…you do not have to have a password.. It does read like Eppstein “burn all crops attitude.”..refers to Burns “domestic partner”…adds numerous charges and everything else…it looks to be a long nasty campaign..if Wendy can stay on ballot.
Jan 11th, 2008
Steve-O
Thanks for your updates, ears. I think something we both can agree on is what you just wrote: this story is terribly under-reported. Do people in the community just not care?
Stick around. There are plenty more fireworks to come.
Jan 12th, 2008
Reply to “Goodbye, Wendy. Hello, Joel.”