carol@stormzero.com – Page 2

Desperation

Candidates go negative when they think they’re losing. It never fails. They twist facts, publish half-truths, all to make their opponent look like the devil himself (or herself). Instead of explaining to voters why they themselves are best for the job they seek, they want voters to think the worst of their opponent.

I’ve been involved in campaigns since 1987. I’ve run 13 of my own campaigns and lost only one. I’ve been the target of some pretty nasty opposition. So, I know what I’m talking about here.

1995 Primary Flyer This is a mailer sent town-wide by my opponent for mayor in 1995. These four statements are carefully worded to manipulate the voter. Note the use of bright red and “X” next to each one. Add in the scowling photo (taken when council members were joking around one day) and you’ve got a pretty negative piece.

No, we didn’t vote to raise people’s taxes 27%. We voted for budgets that had increased revenue due to increased development. That huge condo development? It was ordered by the Supreme Court after nearly 10 years of fighting against it. I was treasurer of a citizens group that led that fight.

FYI: Voters saw through this and elected me mayor by a 3:1 margin.

This is negative campaigning. No references. No ordinance numbers. No citations. Just twisted statements to manipulate voters.

You’ve likely received more than a few examples of this with the numerous mailers attacking Tom Glass. They are from Stan Gerdes and the special interest PACs supporting him.

Same story in each one.

Gerdes negative mailer You’re supposed to believe that anyone who runs against an incumbent, Governor Abbott in this case, risks “handing [that office] to liberal Democrats”. Is Stan against giving you a choice in a primary? Sure sounds like it.

You’re supposed to believe that the thousands of dollars contributed to Tom Glass are forced. What do campaign contributions have to do with the job of TX House member anyway? Nothing. So why is he raising the issue?

You’re supposed to believe that Tom’s a neo-Nazi because of donations from an unnamed PAC. Why not name the PAC? Likely Stan’s concerned about a lawsuit.

On the other side of the coin, you read that “Stan passed”, “Stan banned”, “Stan stopped”. No, Stan did not do any of those things. Stan voted along with many other TX House members. Sharia Law has not been banned. Islamic developments have not been stopped.

There are those who think that making others look bad makes them look good. That’s exactly what negative campaigners hope to do. They know you won’t take the time to research their statements. They “walk the fence without falling off”, stating things in such a way that they’ll pass legal muster, but they’ll also manipulate people into voting for them. They pay a lot of money to campaign consultants to do just that.

As I’ve said before: beware campaign literature. Most especially, beware negative campaign literature. In fact, just throw it in the trash. It’s worthless to your vote decision-making.

Your Vote is Yours, not Theirs

Two years ago, I wrote a column on candidates citing their endorsements.

This year, let’s discuss the entities who make endorsements. What’s the value of those? Well, it depends.

Did the organization interview all candidates for an office?

If not, did the organization indicate that they did not?

Did the organization send a questionnaire to all candidates?

If not, did the organization state that they did not?

Did the organization provide an explanation for their choices?

We’re going to use the email sent out from Bastrop County Conservatives with their list of endorsements as an example. The BCC website states:

Process

A BCC committee sources, identifies and meets with potential candidates for office and meets with declared candidates in order to consider them for support and endorsement by BCC. Our Leadership Team then votes to determine which candidates BCC will endorse.

Did the organization interview all “declared candidates” for an office?
BCC did not interview all “declared candidates”. If the organization didn’t interview all candidates for an office, they can’t possibly know which candidate most closely aligns with their values.

If they did not interview all “declared candidates”, did they indicate that they did not?
BCC did not indicate that they failed to interview all “declared candidates”. A simple statement under the endorsement like “We did not (or ‘We were unable to’) interview candidate A or candidate B” helps lend credibility to the endorsement.

Candidates for Texas Attorney General, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Bastrop County Judge, Bastrop County Precinct Chair 1004 (and possibly other races) were not interviewed or even contacted.

The list below doesn’t say that so how would voters know?

Did the organization send a questionnaire to all candidates?
BCC did not send a questionnaire. Another PAC invites all candidates for an interview. If a candidate doesn’t respond, oh well. The candidate had a chance and didn’t take it. If the candidate is non-responsive, they can’t expect an endorsement. That’s fair. Just ignoring candidates for an office, then endorsing some alleged favorite, is of no value to voters.

If they did not send a questionnaire to all “declared candidates”, did they state that they did not?
There is no statement indicating whether all candidates were interviewed or sent a questionnaire. The “process” BCC describes on their website leads the voter to believe that all “declared candidates” were interviewed. But they were not.

Did the organization provide an explanation for their choices?
BCC provides no explanation of how it decided who to endorse. There is not one sentence that explains what about a particular candidate caused them to endorse that candidate.

What good, then, are these endorsements?
None. Personally, I think voters need to know why a candidate was chosen for endorsement, what makes that person more fit for the job than any of the other candidates.

BCC (and any other PAC that provides a list without explanation) thinks GOP voters are lemmings and should just vote for whomever BCC endorses.

The conclusion of my April 22, 2024 blog post bears repeating:

Never be a lemming. Just because this group or that says “vote for our list of candidates” or worse yet, “take our list to the polls with you”, that’s not what you should do in a primary, runoff, or uniform (May non-partisan) election.

Expect information. Better yet, demand information or refuse to be a lemming. Your vote is yours, not theirs.

A Failure of Responsibility

Since when do elected officials, representatives of the people (allegedly), ignore constituents? When I served in office, my goal was more communication with the public, not less (or in this case, none).

Even in the late 90’s when websites were just getting started, I created one for our town, complete with email access for the public. I started a township newsletter. I started “Mayor’s Open Office Hours” once a week in the evenings to meet with anyone who wanted to come in and chat. Whether the comments were positive or negative, I responded. That’s what elected representatives are supposed to do.

List of emails included on first email Why, then, when I emailed every member of the Bastrop ISD Board of Trustees, did I only hear back from the Superintendent of Schools? Someone obviously forwarded my email to her since I didn’t include her in the original email.

Not one elected school board member responded to my first email sent before the day of the protest! Not one elected school board member or the superintendent responded to my email the day of the protest either.

Let’s say I own a manufacturing business. I pay for the physical plant and equipment plus the salaries and benefits of the employees. Then, one day a bunch of them decide to take to the streets to protest some issue. They don’t protest at lunch time. They protest mid-morning. My business cannot continue as usual. I’ll limp along with fewer employees so I don’t have to shut down, but output won’t be the same.

This is exactly what these students did. And, now, without severe repercussions, they have learned the lesson that they can just walk out, ignore their responsibilities, and have little to no repercussion for doing so. The penalty is some checkbox that they were absent that day.

When my employees walk out, I still have to pay for the building, the equipment, the heat, the lights, the staff at all levels. When students walk out, taxpayers still have to pay for the school buildings, the heat, the lights and the staff at all levels.

The educational output is not the same because these students aren’t participating in classes. Class isn’t a one way street with the teacher having a megaphone. Class involves interaction and that is lost not only for those who protested but for those who remained behind.

Perhaps our elected school board representatives think they can hide behind their silence on this issue. To me, their silence screams loudly that they approve of this walkout.

The next Bastrop ISD meeting is Tuesday February 17 at 5:30. I encourage y’all who are furious about these protests to attend and speak out.

“The Board of Trustees holds Regular Board Meetings the third Tuesday of every month beginning at 5:30 p.m. at the Jerry Fay Wilhelm Center for the Performing Arts, 1401 Cedar Street, unless otherwise posted. Meetings of the Board of Trustees are by law open meetings, and the public is welcome and encouraged to attend.”

This is not a first amendment rights issue. These students could have exercised their first amendment rights after school, on a Saturday or Sunday.

This is a lesson in responsibility. Every participant, be they students, teachers, administrative staff or elected school board members, have failed. Sadly, this is just another “F” in the grading of Bastrop ISD.

Tax Dollars Up In Smoke

Below is a portion of a post behind a parent-only section of the Bastrop ISD website. It was shared on a public FB group. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this post because I don’t have children in the district. But the portion I’ve read says to me the response of the district is completely inadequate.

UPDATE: I sent a copy of this blog post to the BISD Board of Trustees. I was assured by Superintendent Dr. Kristi Lee that “students who skip school for a protest or for any other reason are disciplined according to the Student Code of Conduct.” I thank Dr. Lee for her prompt response. I hope parents and students who support this walkout understand that there are consequences.

Bastrop ISD has nothing to crow about. Four schools with F ratings. Three schools with D ratings. Seven schools with C ratings, including 2 high schools. Only one school each with an A or B rating… both high schools. (2024-25 TEA ratings)

I do not pay taxes so children can leave school for a protest. I do pay a boatload of taxes to educate Bastrop children.

I attended high school in the late ’60s and college in the early ’70s. Think Vietnam. We did not walk out during school hours. Political protests? I’ve always taken a vacation day from work to do so on my time. And I’ve attended a lot of them.

Students: want to protest? Do so on your own dime, on your own time. Saturday? Sunday? Be my guest. But on my dime you should be in school, learning.

“It’s important to note that this walkout is not sanctioned or organized by our school or the District.” Great, but now that you know about it, stopping students from leaving school for this purpose is your job.

If you do nothing but tell parents they need to speak to their kids, but allow students to leave, you are abdicating your authority over taxpayer-funded assets and the trust parents put in you for the safety of their children. You are supporting mob behavior and peer pressure. You are risking students being injured off school grounds while they are supposed to be in school, opening BISD to lawsuits. You aren’t doing your job(s), pure and simple.

You need to make it clear to students that you are in charge, that taxpayers don’t give their hard-earned money to pay for protests, and that actions have consequences.

I hope the portion of this Parent Square post that is not included states that any student leaving regularly scheduled classes and/or district property for this purpose will be considered truant and the consequences for that behavior will be applied. Anything less is unacceptable.

Aaron Reitz is the Right Man for AG

I’m not fond of endorsements from famous or connected people. I’ve written about that before. But I do support endorsements from grassroots voters who do their homework and research candidates. In that same blog post, I said “The only endorsement worth anything is that of the voters, your endorsement. You have the power. Don’t be swayed by a list of allegedly important names.“

Y’all know I do my homework. I teach a “Data & Research” class. I authored a PPT on how to research candidates.

I’m strongly endorsing Aaron Reitz for Attorney General. Not only is he Ken Paxton’s choice for the next AG, but he has the tenacity, core values, and strength of character to protect Texas and to manage over 4,000 employees.

Three of the four candidates running for TX Attorney General are legislators. I’ve not written about it in detail, but I’ve been vocal about most legislators not making good executives. The skill set is very different.

To net it out: legislators have to convince others to join them in supporting a bill; they have to compromise; they count votes. Executives have to be able to make decisions after gathering facts. They have to think strategically… play chess… and be many moves ahead of their opponents.

That’s the thinking needed for an effective Attorney General. There is only one candidate in this race that has that capability: Aaron Reitz.

Mayes Middleton

Mayes, calling himself MAGA Mayes, has told you that because he helped push a MAGA agenda through the legislature, he should be AG. No, that just shows he shares Trump’s opinions. It shows he can count votes. It doesn’t show he can execute when the going gets tough.

Joan Huffman

Joan cites her prosecutorial and judicial experience. That experience would serve her well working in the AGs office, but not as AG.

Chip Roy

My opinion of Chip Roy is that he’s a political opportunist. He says what he thinks voters want to hear. But a good look at his record shows otherwise. Roy supported Trump’s impeachment. He defended Liz Cheney.

And, in December 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social:

In case you think that was a one-off, just a year earlier, Trump had posted:

My guess is that’s why Roy pivoted and decided to run for AG. He has name recognition and he wouldn’t have Trump after him. So beware the political person who pivots and changes positions with the wind, saying anything he thinks the voters want to hear. That’s the definition of political opportunist. That’s Chip Roy.

In case you don’t know Aaron or haven’t heard him speak, watch this video:

I hope you will join me (and Ken Paxton) in voting for Aaron Reitz for TX Attorney General.

Pervasive Fraud

There are many types of fraud: theft of government property, theft of government services, fraudulent applications for government funds. Some are small… a few hundred dollars here or there. Some are larger… thousands received under false pretenses. Some are massive… millions or billions stolen right in front of our eyes.

I served as the mayor of a small town. I’ve been employed by government. My husband was foreman of a grand jury dealing with political corruption. We’ve seen and experienced a lot.

The fraud in Minnesota comes as no surprise. The scope of it does. Where was someone in government questioning the millions of tax dollars flowing who knows where? Watching all 43 minutes of this video is shocking and eye-opening.

Investigating fraud has nothing to do with skin color or countries of origin. It has to do with character or lack thereof.

I was in office 6 days when one of the largest snowstorms ever hit the northeast. A few weeks later, after thawing and freezing, many homeowners had significant water damage caused by ice thawing and backing up under eaves. An employee was in my office and we were chatting about this. Without blinking an eye, he suggested that to avoid the issue I head over to Public Works and grab a couple of buckets of “ice ban” (used to prevent icing on streets). If I threw it up on my roof, problem solved. He so casually suggested that I steal publicly purchased materials that it was evident to me he saw nothing wrong with it. The minute he left my office, I shared the conversation with his manager and said “If I ever catch that SOB or anyone else stealing from the taxpayers, I’ll fire them on the spot.” That was in 1996. I reported one employee to the county prosecutor with proof of what should have been considered “theft of services”: doing work for a private company on town time. I was informed, in writing, that this “didn’t rise to the level of a crime”.

This is how it goes in government. A little theft here, a little work for a private company there, repairs on a private home in return for help with getting a development approved… blind eyes turned to it all.

Elgin: $6 million taxpayer dollars missing. Bastrop: $25,000 taxpayer funds handed to an alleged non-profit with no subsequent reconciliation.

This is just what we know about. Tip of the iceberg? Likely yes.

I’ve been teaching a “Data & Research” class to teach those who are interested how to obtain, research, parse, and evaluate government data. There are many ways to circumvent transparency. If you’re interested in attending these classes, email me. These are your tax dollars being “inappropriately used”.

Old 71 Lock Up

TX Representative Stan Gerdes posted the other day how wonderful it is that the traffic lights will now be eliminated on 71 up to Tucker Hill (McDonalds near Travis County). It’s been funded. That’s great for all the commuters, but what about those of us who live off 71?

In a shocking exchange on Facebook, it’s obvious to even the most casual observer that our representative has never been to our neighborhood. He’s never had to leave anyone’s house on the Old 71, in River Crossing, in Double Eagle or The Forest at Colorado Crossing.

He couldn’t have even looked at a map before responding because he assured me that the lights would remain under the new overpasses.

So what? The 2 exits from Old 71 have no lights. Nor do they have access to a lighted intersection… anywhere!

I’ve personally met with TXDot, along with representatives from Old 71 neighborhood HOAs. I’ve attended public meetings and years ago, made suggestions. All to deaf ears. I’m not going to rehash what I wrote in my comment on Facebook but suffice it say, we’re stuck.

Representation requires understanding the situation and the complaint. Representation requires some study before response. Rep Gerdes knows me, knows my background. We’ve worked on a bill together and he knows I spent 8 years on a planning board and have dealt with significant traffic issues. To so cavalierly answer the concern of thousands of constituents is unacceptable.

He has an open invitation to visit my house at his convenience. And, I still look forward to a response as to how people who live here are supposed to get to Bastrop without risking our lives pulling out into 70mph+ traffic, not once, but twice…. once headed west, and then from the turn-around by Berdoll’s heading east.