We Endorse Mindy Montford in the 299th District Court Runoff

2010? (0.00 / 0)

"We also hope Karen Sage joins her at the courthouse as soon as 2010."

How? Is there another race coming up this year that I don't know about? Is someone on the bench going to die or resign? Do you mean 2012 or some other date in the future?

---

by: TexianPolitico @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 14:03:17 PM UTC

typo (0.00 / 0)

but a funny one at that.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 17:59:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you to both candidates (0.00 / 0)

for running clean and positive campaigns. I definitely prefer Karen, but if Mindy wins, we'll still have a great judge.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 16:35:49 PM UTC

Consulting Fees (0.00 / 0)

How did the consulting fees paid to one of this blog's main writers' firm factor in this endorsement? What role did he play in the endorsement process? Is this endorsement based on qualifications, or something else? How do we know if this sort of back-room endorsement deal isn't standard practice or not?

When will BOR come clean and cast away the black cloud hanging over this endorsement?

---

by: saulburowyne @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 19:48:10 PM UTC

"Back Room" (3.00 / 1)

We don't have a back room. Even in this recession, office space still comes dear.

Besides, I don't think we've ever had the entire staff in the same room at the same time, front, back, side, or vestibule.  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 20:01:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Outline (3.00 / 1)

I'll also point to the initial post that outlined this year's process. The only adjustment in the runoff is that at this point, with so many of the writers being involved in the elections on both sides, and in an attempt to get a fuller picture of the entire staff's opinions, everyone weighed in (while still noting where they had conflicts of interests). If everyone opted out based upon some level of perceived or real conflicts, we'd have ended up with like 2 or maybe 1 writer to base an endorsement on which isn't exactly ideal.

Plus, I think it's pretty easy to argue that BOR is more transparent and people know where the writers are than say, the Statesman or Chronicle.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 20:15:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Big Picture (5.00 / 1)

Saulburowyne makes a good point.  KT, Matt, and Phillip- I tried bringing this up to the three of you not too long ago at the Netroots 'N Boots Bash.  I suggested that you require disclosure in every article and comment that is written about a campaign if the author is working for either side in that campaign.  

In a recent BOR post (http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/10225/montford-sage-take-differing-approaches-in-final-days-of-299th-runoff), KT mentioned that Montford hired GNI Strategies without pointing out that Matt Glazer, editor of the Burnt Orange Report, is a principal of GNI Strategies.  Now BOR has endorsed Montford without including this significant disclosure.  Is the fact that you are allowing your readers to point out conflicts of interest after the story has been written what you consider to be transparency?  Are the Chronicle and Statesman the gold standards by which BOR judges itself?  Can you point me to any articles that they have published that were written by a paid campaign consultant and it wasn't disclosed?

You have just endorsed in a judicial race, and I suggest you use a standard that a judge that I once campaigned for taught me about.  I believe what he told me is universal in the judicial realm.  He said, when a judge takes a case, it is not enough that they are impartial in that case.  They have to go above and beyond that and ensure that, in addition to being impartial, they are publicly perceived as being impartial- in order for the public to have confidence in the system.  

I am not posting this article to attack Matt or KT.  I don't know the specific background of how this story developed or may have been overlooked.  I am posting this comment to let you all know that I feel that you are doing yourself a disservice by not requiring full disclosure in every article if the author or post commenter is a paid consultant or staffer.  

---

by: Mario Bravo @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 00:47:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my challenge to you (0.00 / 0)

Find a post that Matt Glazer has written about Mindy Montford. And then of those posts, find one that doesn't have a disclaimer. I'll wait here while you search, which will be a long time, because you won't find one.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:00:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missed the point (3.00 / 1)

The above endorsement article was posted by "Burnt Orange Report."  If you click on "Who We Are" in the "About" section on your homepage, you will find the following text, "BOR's editorial staff -- Matt and KT --..."  So, according to the Burnt Orange Report, Matt is an author of the above endorsement post.

We can argue back and forth as to whether he wrote it or not.  My original point remains.  To the general public, it still looks the same.  There was no disclosure.  It still reflects on BOR's reputation.  I was just trying to give some constructive criticism.  At the very least, your response suggests that you think you've won a debate on a technicality while continuing to violate the spirit of what I was suggesting.

---

by: Mario Bravo @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:27:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I appreciate your critique (3.00 / 1)

I by no means think I won or lost a debate. What I do think is that there is a debate and a discussion worth having and I am here to engage in it.

Burnt Orange Report is a title reserved only for staff wide discussion or view points. It is the same reason most editorial pages in newspapers don't have a byline. We remain honest to the spirit of the old press style of publishing there. In that sense, when Burnt Orange Report comes up as a writer, it should imply that Michael, Todd, Matt, KT, Phil, Kath, David, and any other writer agree or consent to the content of the post.

That said, Phil, KT, and I have been doing BOR the longest of the active writers. That is why we are all listed in the "Who we are" section. In that section it lists that I am a partner of GNI Strategies and has since last November.

Again, I will stick around to continue to respond to comments and questions.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:32:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

Matt, my debate comment was in response to KT's post.

---

by: Mario Bravo @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:57:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Response (0.00 / 0)

I wrestle with that problem all the time. I find myself writing more and more about statewide and national stuff and less and less about the local races. Which I guess is the way it should be when you are working to get Democrats elected and helping non-profits use a new era of technology.

The truth is, calling me a "main writer" is pretty funny now. I hardly write at all because I am conflicted out of so much. I impose a tougher set of guidelines on myself than KT or anyone else ever could. I don't write for or against clients. I don't censor anyone for their beliefs or comments as long as it adheres to the community guidelines and I don't push any writer to take a particular stance one way or the other on any topic.

All that said, it is true my company is working with Mindy Montford. The two principals are Katie Naranjo and Austin Lytle. I am not working on the day to day of that contract, do not attend meetings, and have rarely posted any information about the race on any of my personal social networking sites.

We (GNI), and I, make it a point to disclose all our races and be transparent. We are on twitter, facebook, and while our website is only moderately updated, we try to keep our client list up there too.

All that being said, I disagree with Mario about disclosing in every post who we work for and what we do in our day to day lives.  BOR doesn't pay me anything. Not a dime and not a cent. When Mario and I worked on opposite sides of a campaign (I worked with Lee Leffingwell and he managed Brewster McCrackens race for a while) I told him his position would only create a false sense of disclosure. It has to be all or nothing.

If we disclose who all we work for, what happens if we leave 1 name off? One name nobody will ever catch? What if a firm or company signs me up and has me sign a non-disclosure of services agreement? Then, do I need to come off the site entirely for taking a corporate or governmental client? Should I disclose people I go train or speak in front of? Do I disclose people I am trying to sign and give my competitors a heads up?

These are tough questions, but I have found the best way around them is to not write about the people that pay me and answer questions honestly and openly when asked.

So, in light of these tough and hard questions, I write about how bad Rick Perry is. How good Bill White is. I talk about John Cornyn and Pete Sessions being total failures and horrid for our state. I promote good policy and refute lies about the health care bill. While I do some work for TCDP, is everyone okay with me promoting Kurt Kuhn, Karin Crump, Judy Jennings, Mark Strama, Eddie Rodriguez, Valinda Bolton, and all our candidates?

There is nothing malicious here. The site endorsed Mindy. Before the endorsement went up, Phil wrote at length why he is voting for Karen. To date, in 2010, I would guess Phil has written more for BOR than the rest of the staff combined. That's a pretty good sign of were the site stands on this endorsement, the quality and skill of both candidates, and the division in the community.

We get these same questions ever endorsement. And every endorsement we give the same answers. Check the comments or past diaries.

The reality is, our staff took a vote. It was as close if not closer than the reader poll. Phil wrote a post. BOR as a staff wrote a post.

From a purely personal note though, I am honored you all think my 9 month old company is a big enough deal to create this sort of ruckus.  

I hope this answers everyones questions and concerns. I am giving a 4 hour presentation tomorrow and a good friend is getting married this weekend, but I will try and check back for the next few days to keep answer comments, questions and concerns.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:09:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Men of Mystery (3.00 / 1)

I suggest you all become men of mystery, like that "man of mystery," Phil. I thought this was an opinion blog, anyway. I don't see any reason why someone can't just ask if they want to be clear about your working relationships.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Congratulations. Almost there.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:39:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Totally Agree (0.00 / 0)

That's why we keep our e-mail on the site. I respond to tweets like crazy and I don't censor or restrict my personal facebook page.

I am always happy to tell people who I work for and who has signed my company. If me or my company can't work tirelessly for someone, then we wouldn't take them on.

While it may seem like I am being hostile or closed right now, it's only because I am trying to pick my words very carefully.

If anyone wants to know who I am working for, just ask. :)

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:43:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Matt, I shouldn't even be part of this discussion since I don't have a clue about these two candidates.

This argument about transparency seems to come up every election cycle, doesn't it? So, raising a ruckus is A-OK!

I have even been inspired to read up a little on this race! and very quickly I found a somewhat shallow comment posted to this recent statesman article:

I don't care which one of them gets the office. They are both good looking honeys.

I think BOR is a good looking honey, too. Thanks. ;)  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:28:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Glad to help you wrestle (0.00 / 0)

To be clear, I am not suggesting you list all clients all the time.  What I am suggesting is, if you are currently working under contract with candidates A, B, and C, and you write an article about C or C's opponent, that you disclose that you are currently working for C in that article.  

I am glad that you disclose that you work for GNI Strategies in your "Who We Are" section.  However, I don't think you should rely on the readers to do a bunch of research to connect the dots and see that
1) you are the editor of Burnt Orange Report
2) you are part owner of GNI Strategies
3) In a previous post someone happened to mention that Mindy Montford hired GNI Strategies

I feel that all of the above should be disclosed in the above endorsement post as it is relevant to the story in that post.  Some of the above details may strike you as obvious.  However, I suspect that you want to grow your readership and recognize that not all of these new readers are "insiders" who already know all of the above, and can connect the dots without reading background material and previous posts.  

We are speaking specifically about this article right now, but the point I am trying to make is about a future policy that I am suggesting.  Several of you know that I had brought this issue up in the past.  When pressed, I couldn't point to any specific example without doing a lot of research.  However, the issue just re-presented itself.  I am glad that we are having this discussion and hope that it leads to a BOR staff discussion.

Good luck with your presentation tomorrow.

---

by: Mario Bravo @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:26:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i see your point, but (4.00 / 2)

it isn't always that easy.

everyone who posts on here that works in the industry gets accused of bias and conflict.

after disclosing something once, my experience is that you don't necessarily feel the need to disclose it EVERY time you post.

bloggers who work as consultants have a very difficult position.  i don't particularly find Kos credible because of all of the consulting gigs and the selective outrage that must be triggered/suppressed by something/someone.  but i haven't found that problem here.

some folks disclose more while blogging ("i've known so-and-so for x years", "i'm proud to volunteer on his/her campaign")...while other folks conceal their identity and log-on just to be trolls and hijack threads.

generally speaking, i think that the BOR crew does a fair job of disclosing the things that they do.

but, save for a few people, i don't think that there is a fanatacism that results in blind obedience based on what the BOR crew says. i think folks take it into account, but do their own thing any way.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 20:46:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Respect (3.00 / 2)

This allegation is entirely inappropriate.  The writers at BOR are always very open about whom they work for, and I've seen numerous posts where the individual writer working for a campaign does disclose it.

From personal experience in a political campaign that employed Matt Glazer, that doesn't guarantee the endorsement.  In a race I was involved with 2 years ago with Matt, BOR actually endorsed the challenger to the incumbent candidate we supported.  It was a dual endorsement, but that doesn't exactly help an incumbent much.

Also, when I'm beginning to consider which candidates to support, I actually look to see who is hired as the candidate's campaign staff.  If someone like Matt Glazer or Katherine Haenschen has agreed to work for a candidate, that's a pretty indication that the candidate might share my values.  Matt, Katherine, KT, etc. aren't the type of people who would work for just anyone who would pay them.  You have a choice in who you work for.

The truth about this race, which is clearly written in the endorsement, both Mindy and Karen would be great, but someone has to win.  Everyone I've talked to is split on this race.

---

by: Bobby Levinski @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 16:36:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the kind words. (0.00 / 0)

It means a lot.  

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 15:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spinning the poll results is silly (0.00 / 0)

Writing

giving Montford an outright majority in our Reader Poll and at various points the lead for both Sage and Montford in a more limited registered users poll

is like saying "Stanford and UConn both had leads at various points in the NCAAW championship game". Karen won the registered users poll fair and square -- give her credit.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 21:37:18 PM UTC

Well it's not like there was a specified end date for the poll (0.00 / 0)

But not that it matters, given that Mindy won the full Readers Poll outright with 52% earlier. Point being, it's a wash.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 00:34:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

Sorry that your judgment was not that good this time..We can only hope for the better in the future.  Sage is the one you should have supported.

---

by: WUSRPH @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:29:02 AM UTC

University Democrats (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone know what the general reasoning was for the University Democrats to endorse Karen Sage in this race, even though they endorsed Montford when she ran for DA in 2008? The article in today's Texan mentions that Sage is an adjunct UT professor, but Montford also stressed her ties to the University at the UD's candidate forum in 2008, so I am wondering if anyone knows what the dynamic of the endorsement decision this time was.

From Thursday's Texan:

"Charlie Baird had a parenting class; he had anger management classes, job fairs. It was all about giving defendants the tools that they need to be successful," she said. "That's really why I decided to run for his bench - because that's what I had been talking about. That was my vision, and I want to continue to [create] those innovative solutions."

The concept of justice has played a predominant role in Sage's campaign, and Sage said she defines justice as a search for truth and treating everyone equally under the law.

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:07:50 AM UTC

She's been to a lot of meetings (0.00 / 0)

http://www.udems.org/blog/inde...

---

by: Jim Wick @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:36:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

She's been there since the start of candidates going to meetings, back when many of the judicial candidates were running in different seats and before Mindy had certainly announced her interest in even running. She worked it and earned it.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 21:29:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Commenting through my UDems gig (5.00 / 1)

Here I talk through my responsibilities as University Democrats Public Relations Director (who agrees with his club's endorsement)...

Karen has done an excellent job getting to know us and proving to us that she is the right candidate for the job.  By the time we voted for our endorsement, almost every member of the club was convinced that Karen would be a high quality judge.  Very few had that confidence with Mindy at that point.  (You have to remember that the active membership of the club now is very different than it was two years ago.)  

I'm not saying that the University Democrats do not think Mindy Montford would make a good judge, but as a club we are absolutely certain that Karen Sage would make a good judge.  

Karen's dedication has shown few bounds.  She spent months sharing her experience and thoughts on justice with us.  On Wednesday she joined us in the West Mall as we passed out flyers and told people to go vote on the FAC.  She's with us as I type this, too.  In my 3 years in this club, I have never seen a candidate join our on-campus efforts to get out the vote.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 17:50:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]