The following email was sent by Chris Bell, who as you know was once an At Large City Council member in Houston, to each current member of City Council:
Dear Members of Houston City Council:
Please consider the message that will be sent if At Large Position 3 is allowed to remain vacant for over a year: “The seat is meaningless so it doesn’t need to be filled.” Do you consider your seat on City Council meaningless? I doubt it seriously and therefore you should do everything in your power to make sure At Large Position 3 is filled as quickly as possible.
Of course it’s unfortunate the situation wasn’t handled differently and that such an expensive special election could not have been avoided. Would I rather see three or four million dollars spent in my neighborhood than on a special election? Certainly. But more than anything else, I want to see Houston’s system of government protected and if you start treating seats on City Council as meaningless, the system will be destroyed.
Please speak out and do everything you can to get Mayor White to move forward with calling the special election in accordance with current law. It’s the right thing to do. Thank you.
Chris Bell
I agree. The money is not as important as the principle. It sucks that various political shenanigans have put the city in this position, but the law is the law, and it should be followed. I’m willing to support an effort to modify that law for the next time this happens, but we’re stuck with it for now. Mayor White, please reconsider your decision.
“I agree. The money is not as important as the principle.”
Hehe… Chris Bell putting principle ahead of money? What’s the matter – John O’Quinn isn’t offering to pump seven figures into the city of Houston to finance the “principle” of it? =)
Chris Bell stands for principle when its 1) politically expedient or 2) arbitrary grandstanding. Usually, his acts of attaching import to “principle” are merely a precursor to getting less than a third of votes in an election.
So what’s he running for now?
What, was Kevin too busy to leave an irrelevant, missing-the-point comment? (Well, the Cowboys are on TV right now, so that’s possible.) Good to know that he’s got a B team in place for times such as these.
Nice! Refusing to address the content and irony of the comment while implying that my time is spent as merely a mouthpiece for Dr. Whited.
That’s awfully big of you, Charles! Not sure where the antagonism is coming from, but its amusing nonetheless. Always good to see the “progressives” continuing to cast the first stone.
You know, Kuff, this is *technically* yet another thing we can blame on none other than Tom DeLay.
🙂
What content? You never addressed the matter of whether or not the law should be followed, and whether or not it was worth the cost. All I saw was a personal attack on someone who, as an actual resident of Houston, has a stake in the matter. And that’s what I responded to.
OK, since you’ve asked politely. Follow the law? – Yes. Worth the cost? – Sure! Although perhaps you should take that with a grain of salt since I’m a paid campaign consultant. =)
I stand by the comments I made regarding your assertion that Bell attaches more import to principle than money. I find it humorous why you would give kudos to Bell here for standing up for principle, when you failed to condemn him (indeed, you blogged ecstatically about the event) for not living up to his own campaign promises in accepting O’Quinn’s millions.
If you want to discuss irrelevance, I would point to this reprint of a rather meaningless e-mail by someone who hasn’t been on council for nearly five years, and who has no greater interest in the matter than any other citizen of H-town. Unless a city council member personally forwarded you this e-mail, I have a strong suspicion that it was e-mailed to you as part of a broader, publicity seeking attempt by Bell. Do you care to share how you got a hold of it? If it came from your inclusion on a Bell political e-mail list, well… =)
Given that you thought it was important to reprint Bell’s interjection into this matter, I see no reason why my comment is any less relevant to the subject of your post than Vince’s comment. Both are intended to portray the unintended humor and ironic consequences of the past actions of politicians. At least I mentioned Bell in mine. =)
Well, thank you for addressing the substance of the matter. I appreciate it, however much I disagree with it.
For the record, I was forwarded the email by someone who had been forwarded it by someone else (the chain goes farther than that). Had I received it directly, I would have said so.