From FBStar: POOR Journalism or Deliberate Mistake May Hurt Mayoral Candidate Poats?
(click title link above for entire section on this)
"Mo City secretary questions accuracy
Dear Star News,
I must say I am flabbergasted at the information on the front page of the May 3, 2006, edition of The Fort Bend/Southwest Star, regarding the Missouri City election. It states, “Missouri City only has mayor on ballot.”
If someone had but contacted me or a staffmember in my office, we would have gladly provided accurate election information. In addition to the mayoral race in which we have two candidates -- Allen Owen and Greyling Poats, we also have two other positions on the ballot -- At Large Position 1, with candidate Jerry Wyatt, and At Large Position 2, with candidate Buddy Jimerson. Both of the At Large races are uncontested.
A simple phone call would have afforded accurate reporting on Missouri City election information.
City Secretary Patrice Fogarty
Publisher’s note: Although the headline was indeed unfortunate, we do not consider uncontested races necessary to detail. And despite repeated attempts, we were unable to get Mr. Poats to return a telephone call. I believe the story mentioned he was running. So the only people ignored were the two running uncontested races. We apologize for the inaccurate headline.
Bev Carter, publisher
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader questions Bev’s journalism;
Bev responds
Dear Bev:
I am in the habit of reading your column on a weekly basis to keep up with the political machinations within the county. Today’s column was, however, the furthest thing I have see you do in 15 years, from anything that might be called journalism.
I understand it’s a column, and therefore is just an opinion piece, but I found it odd that you cast aspersions on Liz Mitton and then failed to tell us what alledged heinous falsehood she spread.
Your column was reduced to blatant innuendo, all in an obvious attempt to prop up Mr. Smelley’s campaign in exchange for returning your personal friend, Dr. Baitland, to her former position.
Your airing of your personal grudges in this manner is a diservice to your readers and certainly a discredit to other “Editors” and “Pubishers”.
Since you cannot report on the school board race because you too have a horse in it, perhaps it would be best if you ceased covering it.
Bev, we trusted you to be above local politics, not a player in them. We certainly cannot trust the Star for fair and accurate reporting, now can we?
Sincerely,
David R. Fucich"
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, May 12, 2006
22 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
Was anyone surprised by the status quo endorsements in the Bev rag? Ck the contributors on the list of district and city candidates she endorses and then look at the industry that purchases the majority of her ads.
I believe you will find that the literature on small town newspapers and ad pressure is supported in this case. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
7:05 AM
For our friends:
A young lawyer, in the process of opening a new private practice, was very anxious to impress potential clients.
Upon seeing a man enter the lobby of his office, he immediately picked up his phone and spoke into it, "Eight hundred thousand dollars? You're kidding me. You're going to have to do better than that. Our bottom line for settlement is a million. Don't waste my time with anything less."
Slamming down the phone, he then turned to the man who had just walked in, and said, "Now, what can I do for you?"
"Nothing," replied the man. "I'm here to hook up your phone."
Doesn't Bev & Owen both live in Quail Valley subdivision and are endorsing the same candidates?
Found this one on FBW.com:
Found this on FortBendTalk.com:
More FB Star Games with Local Candidates!!!
Star Endorsements--
Anonymous said...
Was anyone surprised by the status quo endorsements this week in the Bev rag? Ck the contributors on the list of district and city candidates she endorses and then look at the industry that purchases the majority of her ads.
I believe you will find that the literature on small town newspapers and ad pressure is supported in this case. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
7:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Mo City secretary questions accuracy
Dear Star News,
I must say I am flabbergasted at the information on the front page of the May 3, 2006, edition of The Fort Bend/Southwest Star, regarding the Missouri City election. It states, “Missouri City only has mayor on ballot.”
If someone had but contacted me or a staffmember in my office, we would have gladly provided accurate election information. In addition to the mayoral race in which we have two candidates -- Allen Owen and Greyling Poats, we also have two other positions on the ballot -- At Large Position 1, with candidate Jerry Wyatt, and At Large Position 2, with candidate Buddy Jimerson. Both of the At Large races are uncontested.
A simple phone call would have afforded accurate reporting on Missouri City election information.
City Secretary Patrice Fogarty
Publisher’s note: Although the headline was indeed unfortunate, we do not consider uncontested races necessary to detail. And despite repeated attempts, we were unable to get Mr. Poats to return a telephone call. I believe the story mentioned he was running. So the only people ignored were the two running uncontested races. We apologize for the inaccurate headline.
Bev Carter, publisher
______________
CRD comment: Right after this apology, Bev runs an article that even confuses voters more about the mayors race and runs endorsements of more status quo people (you know crony candidates).
7:09 AM
Anonymous said...
"I believe the story mentioned he was running." --Carter
Actually the article didn't mention Poats. She's starting to sound like some of the people she sells ads too.
7:18 AM
Anonymous said...
Here's a Star related letter to the editor:
Reader questions Bev’s journalism;
Bev responds
Dear Bev:
I am in the habit of reading your column on a weekly basis to keep up with the political machinations within the county. Today’s column was, however, the furthest thing I have see you do in 15 years, from anything that might be called journalism.
I understand it’s a column, and therefore is just an opinion piece, but I found it odd that you cast aspersions on Liz Mitton and then failed to tell us what alledged heinous falsehood she spread.
Your column was reduced to blatant innuendo, all in an obvious attempt to prop up Mr. Smelley’s campaign in exchange for returning your personal friend, Dr. Baitland, to her former position.
Your airing of your personal grudges in this manner is a diservice to your readers and certainly a discredit to other “Editors” and “Pubishers”.
Since you cannot report on the school board race because you too have a horse in it, perhaps it would be best if you ceased covering it.
Bev, we trusted you to be above local politics, not a player in them. We certainly cannot trust the Star for fair and accurate reporting, now can we?
Sincerely,
David R. Fucich
______________
CRD comment: I think David says it all. Shame on Bev!!!
FBISD Stan Magee’s email to Lisa Rickert
Date March 30, 2006
From: Stan Magee
To: Lisa Rickert
Cc: All Board Members
Lisa, it is very difficult for me to write about the following items which I feel need to be of concern to you, as the highest officer on the Board of Trustees. I do not feel that I am alone in my assessment and I do hope you will, at least, consider the points I am about to make and understand that I am not directing anything towards your character or you personally. Things just need to be said and this is the best way I can say them at the time, under the circumstances. I feel that you have abused your position as President and I offer the following reasons why:
1. The JOC Contract has become a personal crusade for you since you voted against it in June, 2004, You have been willing and adamant to stand against anyone who disagrees with you concerning RHJ, even to the point of personally calling the vendor directly and voicing your disappointments. I feel we should, as responsible Board Members, not get so deeply involved into a situation that we cross over the line to start contacting vendors and voicing our personal complaints, or even ask them tough questions outside the Board Room. This has become a political “football” and has caused divisions in the community and within the District and has even stirred one or two in the community and within the District and has even stirred one or two people to try to get elected to the Board just to join your crusade.
2. Your involvement in a PAC or Non-PAC in New Territory led you to sign a document using your title as Lisa Rickert, President, FBISD Board of Trustees. I notified the Texas Ethics Commission to see if that is an acceptable practice and was told by an attorney that it was not; that an elected official is not to use their elected office as any type of influence involving political elections. When you signed the document that way , you involving political elections. When you signed the document that way, you involved every Board Member, whether we wanted us to be involved or not, and whether you agree with the assessment or not. This has become, what I see, as inappropriate, irresponsible Board behavior.
3, Without getting a consensus of Board Members on February 27, after a short break, you met with Jeff Horner and decided to postpone the rest of the Board Meeting. The Community Relations Department couched this as a Board Meeting. The Community Relations Department couched this as a Board decision when it was only your decision. You elevated an incident with Dr. Pedraza and Mr. Bryant to the level of, “so disturbing that I am going to cancel the remainder of the meeting.” I spoke with Dr. Pedraza twice after she had a heated conversation with Mr. Bryant and she said she was fine and ready to continue the meeting. I also heard Dr. Pedraza tell Mr. Bryant to, “sit down and let me speak.” Mr. Bryant and Dr. Pedraza were calm and cooperative with each other a few minutes later, and I saw absolutely no reason why you would cancel the meeting. This decision you made demonstrates irresponsibility on your part by not allowing each Board Member to be involved in the decision. In addition, an item which was on the Agenda that night, should be automatically be forwarded to the March 6th Agenda, but it was not. I am referring to the JOC Contract. It should have appeared under Old Business, but you allowed it to be removed, thus allowing no Board Member to address the situation from the February 27th Agenda. This is possibly a violation of TOMA. You have a duty to keep every item on the previous agenda, which was not covered, going forward to the next agenda. Fine, if the administration decides to not renew the contract; the item must remain on the Agenda from the previous meeting to allow resolution by the Board. Every person who knows anything about Robert’s Rules of Order will tell you what Old Business means: items not covered/discussed/voted on in the previous meeting.
4. You do seem to have a problem with correctly applying Robert’s Rules of Order. Several times, other Board Members have had to prompt you to follow the right procedure, such as a motion to reconsider, a motion to table and counting the results of the vote correctly, just to mention a few. You should have a working knowledge of these procedures and not have to look at legal counsel for everything you do in a meeting.
5. You become argumentative when Board Members, while following the Board Operating Procedures involving placing an item on the agenda, have to persuade you as you try to coerce them from placing the item, for whatever reason. You should just place the item in the proper place on the agenda and the Body Corporate will take guidance form legal counsel when the item comes up at the meeting. The email/verbal exchanges are not needed but cause disagreements which are not healthy for unity and teamwork.
6. You recently spoke to the news media about the JOC contract saying something like, “...it is my understanding form our legal representative that we no longer are doing business with RHJ.” You took privileged communication and went public with it. Jeff Horner himself wrote to us all an said I closed session that we should not disclose privileged communication to the public in any fashion. That was another act of irresponsibility and abuse of Presidential authority. How would you be able to deal with any other Board Member about disclosing sensitive/confidential information when you do the very something?
7. You got personally involved with Board Committees, again attempting to assert your authority, by managing them form a distance, without attending a meeting to hear what was being discussed; then, at the last moment, sending the wording out to outside legal counsel (even though our Staff Attorney, a member of the Texas and American Bar Associations, is a seated member of the committee, and approved the wording), placing undue stress on our Administrative staff to do something for you at the last moment. Poor planning and Organization are not good leadership skills.
The wording of PRC was read in open session of February 13, 2006 and you waited until February 23, 2006 to tell Administration to send it to Jeff Horner, and his revisions did not come back until 4pm on February 27th, the day of the Board Meeting. Remember your agreement was: that you would not present items which involved legal review, ect., to reach Board Members on Friday or Monday prior to the meeting, but the Wednesday before. You also tried to tell a committee chair who to include/not include on the committee. This does not fall into the category of Presidential power, assumed or inferred. If the President will say who gets or not gets onto a committee, then why have a chairperson? Why not just let the President choose every person and then chair all the committees? Look again at the definition of ex-officio member and you will find that the President, by title, is a member of the committee, nothing more; nothing less.
8. On March 22,2006, you informed all Board Member candidates NOT to campaign on school property, you indirectly invited your candidate, Liz Mitton, (people very close to you have said that you have endorsed this person), to a political function held at Elkins High School. The invitation did not come directly form you but you made sure she was aware that the political function was being held. This is not the mark of a strong leader who upholds Board Policy and follows the fair and ethical rules of the Texas Ethics Commission. This same person came to the Town Hall Meeting with a campaign sigh in her had, a magnetic, campaign sign on her automobile, and wearing a name badge which promoted her campaign. As far as the EHS event: Giving a speech is not against the rules (according to TEC Codes) but wouldn’t it be better to advise someone not to attend when the event is being held on school property? Agreeing with them to attend, places candidates in a position to “bend” the rules and show up with printed material which does violate TEC Code, and is a Misdemeanor-A violation, which you said should be adhered to.
9. You agreed in consensus with all the Board Members that you would notify us on the Wednesday, prior to any Board Meeting, if anything went to outside legal counsel. Much of this is mentioned in item #7. You broke your own agreement you had the wording of the PRC Committee’s recommendation to the full Board changed by Jeff Horner, when you notified the Superintendent on February 23, 2006, to have her forward the already approved wording and recommendation, to outside counsel, and the revisions did not reach Board Members until Monday, February 27, 2006, at 4pm in the afternoon, two hours prior to the meeting. The PRC Chair was never contacted, nor any of the members; so, you took it upon yourself to commit tax dollars toward something which did not involve a legal policy and you ignored the staff attorney form FBISD who is sitting member of the PRC, who had already given the ok to the wording. In effect, you disagree with the community members on the committee and made a selfish decision to circumvent the committee and all Board Members to satisfy your own mind about the recommendation. You don’t want unity and teamwork Lisa; you want unquestioned service and loyalty and your own way on practically every item before the Board. And, if you can’t get it, you commit tax dollars to get Jeff Horner to agree with you. This is bad Boardmanship.
10. You asked the Board Members to retreat to closed session on February 27, 2006, during discussion abut the JOC contract; then you proceeded to chastise and verbally attack Lee Petros, Associate Supt. for Facilities and Planning, resulting in a Board Member leaving the session, citing the President’s violation of TOMA, since what was occurring was not on the Agenda. Fine, if you need to speak sharply to Lee Petros, but the time and place were very questionable. On more than this one occasion you have gotten very close to violation of TOMA. This is just not acceptable as our leader.
11. On January 28, 2006, you allowed a Technology Vendor to make a presentation to the Board, but other bidding vendors were not ever invited to attend. Is this fair to everyone involved in the process? The Board had NOT made its final choice yet for the vendor to perform the job.
12. You revisited an item on the February 27th agenda, after the motion had previously failed on that particular item, earlier in the meeting, due to a lack of a second. That item should have not been placed on the agenda until the next Board Meeting. You circumvented Robert’s Rules and brought the item back into the agenda, after a break, when you had the opportunity to get another person to make the second. This gives the appearance of posturing for the President to have her way; and it is not an example of fair an impartial leadership.
13. You asked board Members for items to be placed on the retreat/workshop agenda for January 27-28, 2006. At least two Board Members sent you items or notified you to place certain items on the agenda and you chose to place none of them on that agenda. How can you accomplish unity when you ignore at least tow Board Members’ requests? During the retreat portion of that meeting, with Mr. Don McAdams ( and I thought retreat sessions were supposed to be in closed session), an item went around the table twice and everyone present spoke twice prior to my speaking once. You tried interrupt me when you thought I had spoken enough. It was ok for you to speak as long as you want and I remind you that you spoke for (37) minutes in a dialogue with Lee Petros, prior to that meeting. Bottom line is: let Board Members have their say and don’t try to cut them off just because you personally disagree with them or they say something which might cause you discomfort. That weekend meeting was so poorly managed that two Board Members did not show up on the second day. Administrators admitted not being prepared because it took you so long in helping design the agenda. Additionally, you were very reluctant to tell other Board Members why they were not coming back on Saturday. During the break periods, you were always huddling with one lady, from the audience, and not at least spending time with fellow Board Members. Since part of the session had to do with “retreat,” what kind of togetherness were you supporting with Board Members?
14. You allow outside legal counsel to sit in closed session and discuss agenda items (as though he were the 8th Board Member.) He was even allowed to instruct a Board Member how to vote on an item when we all returned in open session. Additionally, we have spent three months with interim counsel and no continuance of RFQ’s from Administration. The Acting Superintendent stated to me that you instructed her to not worry about the RFQ’ for now since we will just let the new Superintendent choose the next outside counsel. Her comment in closed session on March 27th was that Don McAdams told the whole Board to wait. Mrs. Knox challenged that immediately, but, don’t you find it a bit odd that the Acting Superintendent would not mention your name being connected to the situation? Why do we not utilize the District’s Staff Attorney on more items? Do you trust her to do the job? If you do not, then why did you approve her contract renewal? If so, then why do you insist on taking everything to outside counsel?
15. You accused a Board Member openly, on March 27th, of playing audience. That is a very poor attitude and display of leadership. Don’t blame certain Board Members who have the right to say what they feel or think, even if you don not remember what has been said on a particular item, and even if you happen to disagree. You are assuming too much power!
16. On March 31st, the day after the Town Hall Meeting, you sent me an email of an extremely close friend to Liz Mitton, accusing me of disclosing confidential information about the proposed August 21st start date of the new school year, by the Acting Superintendent. I find it very suspect that you chose to listen, and even take the time to notify me of something said to you as a third party. This is, at best, hearsay, rumor, he said-she said and smacks of political posturing by that person, in hopes that you will act on it without any factual knowledge whatsoever. Lisa, if I called or emailed yo every time I heard from someone about your disclosing confidential information, I would be notifying you regularly. One case in point: when we were involved in the TEA investigation, you released very sensitive information to Liz Mitton, local “blogger” and self-proclaimed journalist. Your comment at the time was: ”I did not want that to go out until later.” Then why did you release it to her prematurely? One more example: I sat at your kitchen table before I was elected to the Board an you spoke of closed-session items that you were angry over. I have a witness on this happening. And, you point an accusatory finger to “sinners,” while at the same time you are committing the very same “sins?” By the way, anyone who knows how to add and subtract can go the TEA website and see where waivers are approved and, if we are not listed there, wouldn’t that mean we are not approved? This is public information. Secondly, the waiver went to the Administration before we were notified by Dr. Pedraza. How do you know that someone in the Administration didn’t intentionally or unintentionally release the information? I would be in bad shape if you were the judge in a court case I was involved in; yo judge based on hearsay, rumors, innuendos, speculation, third party recollection, and what your political friends say; not based on fact or evidence. What a dangerous threshold. Thirdly, the information on a Friday packet is not described in law as protected from the public unless it involves student names, employee names or purchase of land. But, to answer you again; No, I did not talk about a waiver denial. The person who wrote you an email knew about it as did two other persons at the Town Hall Meeting. So, who informed them? It is time to stoop the blame game Lisa.
You send emails to chastise, demean, control and argue with Board Members. What ever happened to just calling someone or emailing them, or saying at a Board Meeting, “ I want to thank you all for a job well done an I am looking forward to our meeting again?” You always want members to call you back. Try initiating the call yourself sometimes, speak positively and supportively and you will find out that ‘catch more flies with hones than with vinegar.’ I managed employees, workers and volunteers at HL&P for (10) years, plus high school and college students for 22 years, and I can tell you for a certainty that you will get nowhere, as a leader, unless you are willing to believe in and work with your co-workers; not try to “boss” them around. Finally, I would like yo to know that these are my expressed thoughts and feelings and I have every right to express them. I will not engage in an email or conversational charade with you. I was elected to the School Board the very same way you were, by the people. I will expect you to respect me the very same way I do you. It would do you well to read the Board Operating Procedures because they give you very limited authority. That is why we are called a Body Corporate or a Body whole. I personally feel that you have overstepped that authority since May, 2005; and, instead of bringing Board unity, you have further divided us, causing a splintering effect on many issues. But, that is my own personal assessment. I will continue to do my job on the Board as I vote to help the students, teachers and taxpayers of FBISD. That is why I believe I was elected. I will respect your office of President and I trust you will respect me as a Board Member. Perhaps we have some material for our next Board retreat/teambuilding session.
Reader questions Bev’s journalism;
Bev responds
Dear Bev:
I am in the habit of reading your column on a weekly basis to keep up with the political machinations within the county. Today’s column was, however, the furthest thing I have see you do in 15 years, from anything that might be called journalism.
I understand it’s a column, and therefore is just an opinion piece, but I found it odd that you cast aspersions on Liz Mitton and then failed to tell us what alledged heinous falsehood she spread.
Your column was reduced to blatant innuendo, all in an obvious attempt to prop up Mr. Smelley’s campaign in exchange for returning your personal friend, Dr. Baitland, to her former position.
Your airing of your personal grudges in this manner is a diservice to your readers and certainly a discredit to other “Editors” and “Pubishers”.
Since you cannot report on the school board race because you too have a horse in it, perhaps it would be best if you ceased covering it.
Bev, we trusted you to be above local politics, not a player in them. We certainly cannot trust the Star for fair and accurate reporting, now can we?
Sincerely,
David R. Fucich
Dear David,
Let’s make one think abundantly clear--Dr. Baitland has never been a personal friend of mine. I do not know her home phone number, I’ve never visited in her home, we do not trade e-mails etc. I think one time I was seated at her table at a charity function because the sponsors of the event didn’t have anywhere else to put the press so they scattered us out to all the tables that were not completely full. I drew Baitland.
Except for that one after hours experience (and I believe she left early) I challenge you to find one witness who has ever seen me talking to Betty Baitland outside the board meeting room. In fact, I’ll offer a cash reward to anyone that has ever seen me with her. Until her forced “retirement,” I probably hadn’t talked to her a half dozen times--and always about school business.
I can speak with authority about FBISD because I have covered it for 28 years. I’ve watched five superintendents come and go--Elkins, Le Beuf, Chopa, Hooper, and Baitland.
I’ve always made it a point not to be personal friends with any political person. The closest I’ve come has been Marsha Gaines (Tax Assessor) who is now retired. Before Marsha ever ran for office, she worked for me at the Star and the Fort Bend Business Journal. In fact, she continued to do so while running for that office. I’ve probably known County Clerk Dianne Wilson the longest and we are friendly, but not personally. We just support many of the same causes and candidates.
Additionally, telling me I do or don’t have a horse in that race is asinine. I have a horse in every race in Fort Bend because I am a taxpayer, business owner, and my major occupation is reporting and analyzing the news. Having horses is my job.
Dr. Baitland wouldn’t return to Fort Bend ISD if everyone begged her.
Returning Dr. Baitland would not be wise at this point because a majority of the board, Rickert, Magee, Caldwell, Bryant would not work with her. I asked that question of candidates, not because I was trying to get her job back, but to see how they stood on the issue.
Dr. Baitland may not have been perfect (I’ve see few superintendents who could walk on water) but she was a head above any other superintendent we’ve ever had.
I don’t believe my column was full of blatant innuendo. No one has EVER accused me of being coy or timid, or just inferring something. I say it like I see it. I don’t have room in this letter or the Star to go into the many times Liz Mitton has lied. Examples would take up nine pages. However, I would suggest you ask just about anyone who has ever had anything to do with her outside Dulles. If you look up “lie” in the dictionary, Liz Mitton’s picture is used.
I don’t have any personal grudges, or perhaps everything is personal that I write about because I write a PERSONAL OPINION COLUMN.
Thank you for your opinion and for taking the time to express it.
Beverly Carter
FBISD teacher voices concern
Dear Editor,
The new focus in FBISD is a dress code for teachers. Next year, we will not be allowed to wear capri pants or sandals. I’m not talking about tacky pants and flip flops - I mean fashionable, dressy clothes and nice shoes. Why not solve all the problems and require us to wear school uniforms?
What a boost for teacher morale, which by the way, is the lowest it has been in my 20 plus years in the district. My fellow educators and I do not receive any less respect from the students when we wear jeans and t-shirts on spirit Fridays, capri pants and sandals or a dress with hose and heels. Do they truly believe we receive less respect when students see our calves and toes and therefore feel the need to ban carpri pants and sandals?
If someone would bother to check the local department stores they would find stylish clothes and shoes such as these that, not only do teachers enjoy wearing, but the students enjoy seeing. I receive countless compliments on my clothes and shoes and I am not dressed like “one of the kids” nor am I disrespected in any way.
When will someone figure out that it is not about the clothes, it’s about the leadership from the top that trickles down to us that determines the way the children learn. Hasn’t anyone noticed how many teachers have left FBISD? Why not try giving us a boost instead of another slap in the face?
Since we can no longer stand up for ourselves for fear of retaliation, teachers need someone to step up for us for a change instead of beating us down and driving us away. FBISD used to be “THE” district everyone wanted to work for and now people can’t get out fast enough. We have become the laughing stock of Katy and Cy-Fair. I would love to know the head count of all staff that leave at the end of this school year. Is anyone willing to make that number known?
A Concerned FBISD Teacher
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Found this one on FBW.com:
Found this on FortBendTalk.com:
More FB Star Games with Local Candidates!!!
Star Endorsements--
Anonymous said...
Was anyone surprised by the status quo endorsements this week in the Bev rag? Ck the contributors on the list of district and city candidates she endorses and then look at the industry that purchases the majority of her ads.
I believe you will find that the literature on small town newspapers and ad pressure is supported in this case. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
7:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Mo City secretary questions accuracy
Dear Star News,
I must say I am flabbergasted at the information on the front page of the May 3, 2006, edition of The Fort Bend/Southwest Star, regarding the Missouri City election. It states, “Missouri City only has mayor on ballot.”
If someone had but contacted me or a staffmember in my office, we would have gladly provided accurate election information. In addition to the mayoral race in which we have two candidates -- Allen Owen and Greyling Poats, we also have two other positions on the ballot -- At Large Position 1, with candidate Jerry Wyatt, and At Large Position 2, with candidate Buddy Jimerson. Both of the At Large races are uncontested.
A simple phone call would have afforded accurate reporting on Missouri City election information.
City Secretary Patrice Fogarty
Publisher’s note: Although the headline was indeed unfortunate, we do not consider uncontested races necessary to detail. And despite repeated attempts, we were unable to get Mr. Poats to return a telephone call. I believe the story mentioned he was running. So the only people ignored were the two running uncontested races. We apologize for the inaccurate headline.
Bev Carter, publisher
______________
CRD comment: Right after this apology, Bev runs an article that even confuses voters more about the mayors race and runs endorsements of more status quo people (you know crony candidates).
7:09 AM
Anonymous said...
"I believe the story mentioned he was running." --Carter
Actually the article didn't mention Poats. She's starting to sound like some of the people she sells ads too.
7:18 AM
Anonymous said...
Here's a Star related letter to the editor:
Reader questions Bev’s journalism;
Bev responds
Dear Bev:
I am in the habit of reading your column on a weekly basis to keep up with the political machinations within the county. Today’s column was, however, the furthest thing I have see you do in 15 years, from anything that might be called journalism.
I understand it’s a column, and therefore is just an opinion piece, but I found it odd that you cast aspersions on Liz Mitton and then failed to tell us what alledged heinous falsehood she spread.
Your column was reduced to blatant innuendo, all in an obvious attempt to prop up Mr. Smelley’s campaign in exchange for returning your personal friend, Dr. Baitland, to her former position.
Your airing of your personal grudges in this manner is a diservice to your readers and certainly a discredit to other “Editors” and “Pubishers”.
Since you cannot report on the school board race because you too have a horse in it, perhaps it would be best if you ceased covering it.
Bev, we trusted you to be above local politics, not a player in them. We certainly cannot trust the Star for fair and accurate reporting, now can we?
Sincerely,
David R. Fucich
______________
CRD comment: I think David says it all. Shame on Bev!!!
. . . ;-)
GoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsGoPoatsEndCronyismGoPoatsEndCronyism...
FBN more:
1 voterwise - May 13, 03:12 pm
“In addition to the search for a new superintendent, the newly constituted board will find itself dealing with growth issues, as Fort Bend remains one of the country’s fastest-growing counties.
A rezoning of school boundaries is under way, in an effort to even the population among existing schools and to appropriately locate new schools as new population centers develop.”
Bob,
You couldn’t have incapsulated the issues facing this area better! Thanks for keeping an open forum and hopefully soon the SOS website will be back up and providing another voice in the local district’s politics. It isn’t healthy for any community to have one communications source.
Keep it up!
And who besides yourselves will read the SOS website since Mitton has been so severely rejected by the electorate in FBISD?
Does she expect to get her reporting job back at Fort Bend Now? I think Bob Dunn has been doing an excellent job covering FBISD and he is not biased like Mitton.
I agree on your second paragraph, but not your first. Mitton got 2400+ votes which is more than 4 of the current seated board members and of course you over-look, as usual, the 11,000+ who didn't vote for your people (which I believe is more than the 10,000 who did). Your people must win them over before the next election and district elections are all to frequent.
See these other reform victories that Bob reported too:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/elections/1152/municipal-election-chart
New math?
I guess someone needs to look up what cumulative means. Additionally, your attempting to reframe the discourse again and deliberately ignore the central point of that argument --not unexpected (even predictable, poor debating technique though).
Try to distort this one. Only 5.98% voted in the county election leaving approx. 247, 404 out of the race. The 4-6% turn-out is within the normal range and not considered high voter turn-out (by some countries standards of democracy very low). Or this one, about 56% did not vote for one of your candidates and 44% did not vote for your other one (pretty large block of voters). Is that more elementary for you?--Oh, btw do you enjoy all the puns (or did you miss those too?). . .
Keep spinning and keep those voters home right spec. interest? Again, no one is going anywhere and the "cliques" data will be refuted as soon as its reported. Keep trying!
. . . ;-)
New math done by "cliqueaphobes"
Anonymous said...
But other reform candidates around the county won! Congrats guys/gals! . . .;-)
7:40 AM
Anonymous said...
Nice try in SPMUD2, but they were watching you guys (it gave some a great laugh here). Keep trying and we will keep reporting it!
7:53 AM . . . ;-)
8:04 AM
. . . ;-)
Or. . . .Groupthinkaphobe . . . '->
For JK and the "clique":
A trial had been scheduled in a small town, but the court clerk had forgotten to call in a jury panel. Rather than adjourning what he thought was an exceptionally simple case, the judge ordered his bailiff to go through the courthouse and round up enough people to form a jury. The bailiff returned with a group of lawyers.
The prosecutor felt that it would be an interesting experiment to try a case before a jury of lawyers, and the defense counsel had no objection, so a jury was impaneled. And the trial went very quickly -- after only an hour of testimony, and very short closing arguments, both sides rested. The jury was then instructed by the judge, and was sent back to the jury room to deliberate.
After nearly six hours, the trial court was concerned that the jury had not returned with a verdict. The case had in fact turned out to be every bit as simple as he had expected, and it seemed to him that they should have been back in minutes. He sent the bailiff to the jury room, to see if they needed anything.
The bailiff returned, and the judge asked, "Are they close to reaching a verdict?" The bailiff shook his head, and replied, "You're honor, they're still doing nomination speeches for the position of foreman."
Post a Comment
<< Home