I want to start this blog entry with a thank you. I want to thank Councilman Chuck Garner for giving me this teachable opportunity. Yes I know that it is he, not me, who is a college professor. But his recent blog titled "Correcting a Misconception" opens this door for me. If you haven't read Chuck's blog I encourage you to do so - especially before reading this entry.
The core premise of "Correcting a Misconception" by Chuck is that I(Robert) "find evil intentions where they don't exist to assume the worst about people when you(Robert) don't really know them." He then cautions "that Mike O'Bric fell into that trap" and " to some extent I (Chuck) did too during my campaign and for a while after." He closes with " But don't you and I both know better now?". With that, let the teaching begin.
I may struggle with format here, but will endeavor to provide a number of teachable moments for Chuck's benefit. Maybe it is best to lay some foundational truths.
Foundational Truths
Truth---What I have openly said is that MOB invested in the four new members campaigns, through differing combination of funds, in-kind contributions, and time. Three of four had identical campaign signs, I personally saw MOB putting out all their signs, their mailed campaign flyers had the same bulk mail stamp ( thank you CSI), two candidates directly listed MOB on their mandatory fund reports, etc. Chuck Garner is one of those beneficiaries.
Truth----Gil Lillard told another former council member, Rodney Kroll, that this group had met to strategize (pre-election).
Truth----MOB stated his agenda through numerous mailed letters, and in a campaign flyer with all four of the new members name on it. They are all aware of his effort and contributions on their part, all were aware of his goals. To say otherwise is dishonest.
Truth----I have repeatedly said that the council ( not new or old members, but the council as a whole) should never have spent tens of thousands of the taxpayer's money for the external investigation once the internal investigation found no basis of MOBs allegations. Ask Councilmen Don Baker or Scott Giddenings, men I consider friends, and they will tell you I disagree with their vote and logic.
Truth---The council members by profession: Garner- college professor with a doctorate degree in science, Weber--a retired general and now CEO of a private enterprise, Scibielski --a medical doctor, Kitner an architect, Baker a lawyer, Giddings a sales manager, and Lillard owner of an insurance office. All professions that require intelligence and discipline to reach their respective level of success. All work in fields that require careful study of a situation before making statements that affect others.
Truth---Although not public information, MOB was given multiple deadlines by the city council to produce evidence for his allegations. He never produced any evidence.
Truth---It is historical that people/entities donate time and money to politicians in return for influence and the promise that a message they believe in will be carried forward by the candidate.
Truth--- Chuck wrote in his blog about voting a "Party Line".
Truth--- The four new members voted purposely to exclude any member with experience from leadership. The way they did it reveals that it was planned prior to the meeting.
Truth--- Before the first council meeting, Chuck writes that it is rumored that a high city official is putting out a rumor against the new members. He asks for those that support the change that the NEW council members represent to come to the meeting in a show of numbers. Additional words used communicate indignation that someone would lie about him.
Truth---The rumor above came from MOB, not a high city official.
Truth---The sitting city council has yet to reveal the true actual cost of the investigation.
Truth---In his blog, Chuck states MOB, at the first council meeting, asked that Yost be investigated. He now states that is not the reason for Yost's investigation, yet the written council meeting agendas state the investigation is based on allegations made by a Citizen ( singular).
Truth---I went before the council and gave a small piece of evidence of Karen denying the city funding via her handling of revenues at the Arboretum while she was manager. This request was made in June,before the vote to seek an independent council to investigate the baseless allegations against Yost. I was promised an investigation with results made public. The lack of council action demonstrates a double standard and discrimination.
Truth---Chuck's blog left out the admission by Gil Lillard, in open council, that he would discriminate against me and not allow the same amount of time allowed MOB to speak at the first meeting.
Truth---I must stop here or I won't get to the lesson.
Teaching about Character
Chuck, I don't believe you know better. I honestly don't. You model a situational ethics system that believes ethics can shift to best suit your benefit. Look at your words and actions since last March. You ran to remove Yost from office. Before taking office you acknowledged that fact publicly in the paper but backtracked and said you would be more thoughtful. Yet before taking office you, an elected official, spoke of an anonymous rumor from the city manager and get excited that he would portray you unfairly. As a candidate you received an ethics statement (that you should have signed) saying among other things that you would not campaign using false information. Yet you quote an inflated dollar amount for the last municipal building built. The dollar amount you used was supplied by Michael O'Bric, the same figure he used. You intimate no voter knew about the building, yet I have pulled from the Trib archive a full page article to the contrary. When I personally brought up Karen O'Brics misdeeds and asked for her investigation, how did you respond? Did you make any effort walk across the street and look at records? No, the first thing you did was quote the O'Brics as the clearing source of information on your blog. Then you had to annotate 3 additional entries due to your error, yet never do you say you made a mistake. After taking office you write the argument that too many appointments have been made to past councils, insinuating they are timed to "unexpected resignations". When I respond with why that practice was used successfully in the past, showed how it had value and saved the city money, you once again add additional notes to backtrack on your previous entry. I could go on, but let me leave you with this final fact--that after the council had received Mr. Knights report you wrote an email trying to convince other council members to temper the response that Mayor Weber would put forward. Two huge problems here- one you are months into your councilship and you are violating the rules of closed session by publicly discussing this issue via email. Secondly, it reveals you still aren't accepting the results for what they are. Yet here you are, trying to sell me on the fact you were unanimous in your spirit and actions.
Now the damning part of all this is your post "Correcting a Misconception". Damning in the fact that I believe you believe your own inventions. You want citizens to think you were working hard to solve a problem that existed before you came on council. You leave out the fact that you helped create the problem, you helped inflame the allegations with your door to door comments on the campaign trail. You want citizens to believe because a college instructor makes a comfortable living, that means you're above influence. Yet time and again you did not investigate public records, but instead used information supplied by Michael O'Bric as your definitive resource. You publicly ran City Manager/Police Chief Yost through a professional and personal wringer, but now worry about your own image to the point of rewriting your political history. You use language to make things easier for your ego to deal with your poor choices ---"virtually no contact with Mike O'Bric"-- " to some extent I did too". You have a doctorate in science, a field that requires discipline and research. Yet all that was absent when you met Mike O'Bric, and he somehow "tricked" you ( without any proof as we all now know).
Chuck, this is my opinion, but you are too smart to be tricked by the outrageous claims of MOB. You no more believed a public official could take 100 days of vacation anymore than you believe a college professor could take 100 days of vacation. I believe you wanted either the position or power so bad that you "drank the koolaid" ( Jim Jones reference). At a minimum you were flat out lazy -- Do Baylor students pass your course with the bad data/no research approach you've modeled? Finally, you counseling me about MOB is just, well embarrassing. For you. I suggest you don't lecture anyone about acting like MOB with your history.
This would not be a teachable moment unless I offered you a successful path, give you the correct answers. If you will model these behavior's, people will start to respect you and possibly believe what you say. Here are the Top 10 Behaviors to Model:
1. Do Your Homework - When a subject comes up, don't be lazy. As a councilman, you have access to public records. Do your homework.
2. Stay Away from Rumors- Don't spread rumors. As an elected official, deal with the facts. To help, see bullet point #1 above.
3. Look People in the Eye and Talk Straight - Stay away from "kinda" "sorta" statements; if you don't know the answer, tell people so and promise to get the answer. See #1 again.
4. Hold Yourself to the Same Standards and Actions You Expect From Others - If you call for someone to be judged, be ready to be judged for your choices. Look down the road before pulling the trigger.
5. Don't Trade the Long Term Benefits of Others for Your Short Term Personal Gain.
6. When You're Wrong, Apologize without Conditions - Like a compliment that goes " I like your hair, BUT.." a weak apology is seen as no apology. Mend you fences with the strength of a sincere, heartfelt response. Paul did it, and you can too.
7. Understand that Reputations are Earned not Reported or Painted.
8. Do the Right Thing Even When it's Not Popular.
9. Never Hide Behind the Group - Never vote for or against something that you wouldn't do if voting alone.
10. Know What's a Conflict of Interest and Abstain - In public life, there are legal limits and ethical limits. If you take money from someone, it is not enough to say "I'm above reproach". You must refrain from voting on that person. If that bothers you, then you shouldn't take their money in the first place.
Chuck, the city needs honest, ethical servants that are comfortable with the truth. Earn a good reputation and I will support you. Stay with your current ways and expect opposition. If you really care about healing, apologize to Yost the way you investigated him - PUBLICLY.
"Chemically" speaking, you now have the formula for honor, respect, and restoration. Mixing the right ingredients in the right way is required. We'll be watching for the proper reaction.
Next Blog, I will provide the report of MOB's support.
