Austin Place 1 Finance Fiasco!

I don't know. (0.00 / 0)

But I hear Perla's quite a hottie, so she'll probably have no trouble.

---

by: MeanRachel @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 15:41:28 PM UTC

Q: How do you run a COA council race with 25K for the last month? (0.00 / 0)

A: Put it all on tv and pray.  That is pretty much what every other successful and unsuccessful campaign has done the last few years.  With the exception of Greg Knaupe's campaign in 2005.  His campaign team were idiots and tried to do it without tv.  What a bunch of morons.

Part two of this post is my yearly gripe about how the COA handles reporting.  Austin does not have a searchable C&E database.  Houston has a great one.  Texas has an okay one.  Austin has nothing.  After three years, the clerk throws the hard copies away.  No one reads those things except for about 12 dorks like me, KT, and KT's cat.  But dammit, we have rights!  And pretend you read something here about open government and transparency.

My pledge is to vote for the candidate that promises to fix this lack of a searchable database.  Or I will endorse the opponent of the candidate that promises to fix this.  Which ever one they want.  

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:08:09 PM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

That is what Perla is going to do -- put it all on TV. And really, if her tv is good, she still has a chance. But it will be tough.

I also think we need a searchable C&E database. If I recall, that was one of the things Rick Cofer had suggested during his campaign and I am surprised one of the other candidates haven't picked up on it.

However, I do not agree with this:

With the exception of Greg Knaupe's campaign in 2005.  His campaign team were idiots and tried to do it without tv.  What a bunch of morons.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:16:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Respectfully disagree (0.00 / 0)

We were morons.  

---

by: Mark Littlefield @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:51:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey now (0.00 / 0)

That was a mistake only because of the smoking ban being on the same ballot which brought out all those new voters who suddenly realized there were people on the ballot as well.

Maybe the better question is, if you had $25k (and sure, it might be more than that with some more fundraising since the report but there is still staff expenses etc)... would you put it all on TV or all into mail in this election? I would almost argue towards mail unless Austin's cable buying or broadcast buying has gotten cheaper or more targeted. Isn't that only like a week of buying if you wanted to make it dense enough to make a splash?  Maybe David O. can advise lol.

Oh, and my cat died a couple months ago so she's not reading the report either.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 21:55:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

could be another reason (0.00 / 0)

maybe it was because that guy never smiled and always wore a suit. I saw his picture in the paper and it screamed REPUBLICAN!

---

by: BeatrixKiddo @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 22:38:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the real reason Knaupe lost (0.00 / 0)

is that he ran into the electoral juggernaut of Jennifer Kim and her high-powered consultant Amy Everhart. :)

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 23:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While I appreciate the compliment... (0.00 / 0)

It's not that difficult to beat morons.

I kid, I kid!

---

by: Amy Everhart @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:31:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perla's running (0.00 / 0)

a solid field campaign as well. TV will help, but these elections are about turnout, pure and simple. Since Riley's message and background play strongly with the neighborhoods that tend to turn out in greater numbers, I'd say he has an advantage. Remains to be seen if Perla can leverage her message to turn out the less-likely on the perimeter and hold her own inside the Bubble.

What's up with this schoolyard bullshit, anyway, KT?  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 17:55:22 PM UTC

Remind us Robert... (0.00 / 0)

...of which campaign was first to level a "schoolyard bullshit" charge against the other about their finance reports?

Was it the one that actually didn't report anything wrong, or the one that was late and also had to amend it's filing?

Like, why would you even make that charge without a) reading the full report and b) knowing that even if true, your own report isn't clean?  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 21:12:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remind us, KT (0.00 / 0)

What "wondered aloud" means, exactly - since your source has no quote or link to any quote from the Cavazos campaign, we don't know who said what when about Riley's report. If it was a goofy mistake on their part, who cares? And why would a guy like Riley respond so defensively and derisively? Isn't your chosen candidate supposed to be above this kind of thing?

Also remind us who has spent so much of their bandwidth deriding precisely this kind of meaningless insider gotcha bullshit in their own endorsements, and yet can't resist seizing on the very same when it has the potential to make his horse look good or their opponent look bad.

If there's no place for this kind of silliness in this campaign, why are you so anxious to give it a wider airing - especially something so nebulous and unsourced? What's your point? Is there a pressing need to draw bright lines all of a sudden between two stellar candidates? Or can you just not help yourself?

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 22:30:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not just wondering aloud... (0.00 / 0)

..it was also printed in In Fact Daily (which is subscription only). The "issue" originated from Perla's campaign with the intent of getting the media to talk about it. You can't complain that the media is talking about it if that was your intent but it happened to backfire. No backsies!

Erroneous complaint . . . Sometimes, campaign finance reports get muddled. But a suggestion from the Perla Cavazos campaign that opponent Chris Riley had made a $10,000 error in calculating his cash on hand proved erroneous. Riley last week reported raising more than $76,000 in the latest period for a total of $102,000; he reported spending more than $63,000, leaving the Cavazos campaign to conclude that he only had around $38,000 left, not the $48,000 reported. However, Riley campaign manager Kathryn Haenschen said," "Our report is accurate...we stand by our report." The problem, Haenschen pointed out, was that the Cavazos campaign failed to take into account the page listing Riley's personal expenditures of around $11,000 on the campaign. The reason this does not show up as a loan, she said, is that Riley is not expecting reimbursement . . .

As for your other point, you  must be reading someone else's endorsements because I don't believe that this site's endorsements spent any " bandwidth deriding precisely this kind of meaningless insider gotcha bullshit". I can't reply to a charge that has no basis in fact.

Hm. That sounds familiar.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:16:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Familiar to what? (0.00 / 0)

I see "a suggestion from the Perla Cavazos campaign", and "...leaving the Cavazos campaign to wonder...".

So where's the nugget KT? WHO wondered? WHAT exactly did they say about Riley's report? Is there a press release, a transcript of a phone call, a quote from a campaign staffer in print or on another site somewhere? We still have nothing other a one-sided report from the Hustle and now another citation from a subscription site that specializes in insider gossip - and neither of them cite a specific source or quote from Perla's campaign. Or do we have to pony up $399 to find out more than the Riley campaign's side of this silliness? Is any other media outlet talking about this - like one that more than a few insiders read?

All I've seen thus far are Riley's peeps - and now his lap dogs, apparently - running with this.

In any case KT, it is schoolyard bullshit, and IMO, beneath your usual standards. The response of "they started it!" is also beneath your standards, for that matter. Could it be that someone on staff just made a dumb mistake, without talking to anyone in charge, and this is all being over dramatized? We still have no way of knowing, but regardless, I'd say 'fiasco' is a bit of an oversell.

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 17:27:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With a preemptive meaculpa for any perceived snark in the following comments. . . (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure who is actually running her campaign (and at this point it doesn't matter), but who came up with the bright idea of road side campaign signs with a full body photo of Ms. Cavasos along with pepto-bismol lettering?

1) I'm guessing that the cost of those signs ate into her campaign budget big time.

2)  Unless you are parked five feet away from the sign you can't really tell what she looks like.  The black and white photo is mostly in shades of gray giving the picture a washed-out appearance.  The pink lettering might work for an antacid aid, or the Barbie aisle at Target, but it doesn't work here.  Strong simple graphics with two bold colors (and, no, pink doesn't count) would have served their purposes much better and probably cost much, much less.

3) Money used for campaign signs that aren't a quick visual "feed" within 3 seconds by drive-by traffic could have been put to much better use by an effective direct mail effort. She now has 25K left and I don't think that will cover one mediocre direct mail effort, let alone a well-developed, hard-hitting, massive direct mail effort.  And it's been a while since I looked at the cost of the Austin media market, but I'm guessing that 25K won't go very far.

---

by: FeministsRFun @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:13:15 PM UTC

I love the signs (0.00 / 0)

The pink and gold looks great, very catchy.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:17:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Road signs aren't that expensive, (0.00 / 0)

but finding good locations and putting them up is very labor-intensive.  A good multi-color design, like on Larry Joe Doherty's signs last year, is worth the cost. (No comment on whether Perla's signs qualify.)

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 22:33:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just FYI (0.00 / 0)

Those big 4x8 signs were paid for independently by the firefighters, not Perla's campaign.

As for the picture or the colors, no comment. But I have heard a lot of people talk about how much they love them.

---

by: Amy Everhart @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 23:17:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like them... (0.00 / 0)

but then again, Freddy Got Fingered is on my all-time top-10 movie list, so I might not be the go-to guy when it comes to taste.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 23:24:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor 4x8 Sign Artwork for both Place 1 Campaigns (0.00 / 0)

Riley's is a little better. The "Carol" 4x8 sign design is the worst all. But what do I know, I usually use a red background and bold white letters in my 4x8 sign designs, same as Coca-Cola.

For future campaign managers and future candidates please remember this, artwork that looks good for letterhead and campaign handouts does not necessary make it a good artwork for 4x8 signs and/or yard signs. Reading a sign while you are driving fifty miles per hour is different process than reading something you are holding in your hands.

BTW, the 4x4 signs the firefighters did for Jennifer Kim the first time she ran for office were poorly designed also. I designed and produced the 4x8 signs Kim had for the runoff election that year paid for by the Austin Apartment Association. They had very bold white letters and a blue background. Keep 4x8 sign designs simple and keep them readable.  

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 23:57:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I seem to remember (0.00 / 0)

Suits signs that were yellow and black?  

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:35:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Old school colors of the former East Austin Anderson High School before Desegregation (0.00 / 0)

I liked the "Yellow Jacket" color scheme for my 1996 Sheriff's race. BTW. County Commissioner Ron Davis still uses the same color scheme for the same reasons.

So that brings a new question to mind, does McCracken's choice of yellow and black for campaign colors show an attempt to connect with old East Austin or is it the corporate colors of one of his major solar manufacturing  backers?

---

by: ssuits @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:50:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree -- good colors (0.00 / 0)

Didn't know that piece of history though, very interesting.

McCracken used yellow and blue in his earlier campaigns, not sure of the significance (if any, besides they look good) of his campaign colors.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:59:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just another McCracken flip flop (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, I just had to have fun with this one. Doubt if there is much significance in his choice of campaign colors. I do wonder if the change from dark blue to black was intentional or just a printer's mistake?

Misprints on rush sign and bumper sticker orders just before a candidate announces have changed a candidate's campaign color scheme is some cases. BTW, when I ran for Sheriff in 1992, I used your dad's color scheme of white and black plus campaigned out of his Rio Grande office along with Judge Morris Overstreet. I may still owe him some rent money.

---

by: ssuits @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 02:21:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's really funny (0.00 / 0)

I was only four years old at the time, but maybe a visited the office a time or two that year, who knows?

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 00:07:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amy is exactly right (0.00 / 0)

Austin Firefighters paid for those signs.  

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 23:29:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The pink is cultural! (0.00 / 0)

FeministsRFun,

Pink is very much a common color in Chicana/Chicano culture.

You might associate it with your hegemonic cultural views, but Perla has a strong Mexican-American background.

Her signs remind me of the amazaing Museo Alameda Smithsonian building in San Antonio.

See it here:
www.thealameda.org

I think the signs are lively and bold, just like Perla!

---

by: meredith @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 19:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like pink too and the building at the website you listed: (0.00 / 0)

But 4x8 signs are not art, they are political advertising that should be to the point and very readable. Using B&W or color photos on 4x8 signs is a practice I hope does not catch on in Austin politics. One final point, unless your artwork is very good and your color selection very crisp, stay away from 4x8 sign designs with white backgrounds. I base these observations from my many years of experience in designing, printing, and having 4x8 signs installed on every other street corner it seems.

I am overwhelmed with the visual assault of poorly designed 4x8 signs being used this election cycle. Especially when the candidate I oppose the most has the best signs.  As much as I hate to say it, Brewster McCraken has the most effective and well designed 4x8 signs. Both of Leffingwell's 4x8 sign designs look good, but their artwork is too busy.

---

by: ssuits @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 21:43:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

spot on (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 23:21:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

Keep Austin Weird. Seriously.

I've had an innumerable amount of requests for Perla's yard signs. People love them has much as their giant agave plants!

It was a bold move by the campaign and I still stand by it, as do countless others. If Perla loses it will not be because of her signs. It will be mostly because she was not independently wealthy and didn't receive barrels of money from "pro-developer types"...which is a real shame.

I was in San Antonio last weekend and there were so many "to the point and very readable" signs that I couldn't tell one candidate from the next. Is that what we want in Austin - cookie cutter candidates? Anyway, I think it was Randi Shade who broke the ground on un-conventional signs, and she won!

You can go on using your conventional wisdom, but Perla is not conventional. Clearly, you're the 4x8 expert and no one can take that away from you :) This is just how I see it.

---

by: meredith @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Right (0.00 / 0)

Signs will not decide this race, they are just for name ID. Endorsements help also, but the Place 1 candidate with the best television ad buy coupled with the best message will be the one that wins on May 9th. This Place 1 race is very far from being over. Any credible poll would show a huge amount of undecideds in this particular race.

---

by: ssuits @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 14:48:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Need districts!! (3.00 / 1)

"The only question I have is how do you run a highly contested council campaign going into the last month with just $25,000 on hand?"

That's the problem with Austin city politics, isn't it? You could do it if Austin had districts, in fact you wouldn't even have to get on TV.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 18:18:54 PM UTC

Perla was late. Chris is overcompensating for something. (0.00 / 0)

Here's what I see.

A. Chris Riley is having trouble raising money and he didn't feel comfortable loaning himself money...so he tried to hide it.

B. Perla Cavazos's campaign turned her report in late.

As I see it...

Perla was late...and since everyone feels the need to mention that she's a woman...really...what woman hasn't been?

Her campaign made a dumb mistake...period.

Chris on the other hand...engaged in a calculated campaign maneuver...to boost a less than anticipated margin...and clearly is overcompensating for something.

Now here's how I figured that out...

To me three questions arise from Chris Riley's most recent campaign finance report.

1. Signs.  Chris how can you pay to put signs up on the 3rd but not actually buy the signs until the 30th?  Since the election code requires you to report your "purchase" when you agree to buy something...then the only situation in which your campaign finance report is within the bounds of the law would be if you agreed to pay Mr. Delwin on the 3rd of March to put up your signs, but didn't actually order any signs until the 30th of March.  BUT wait a second...I've been seeing your Sky Reality knock-off's all over town since early March...hmmm...looks like an calculated misreporting to me. (and in response...I believe that it would be appropriate to say...OH...SNAP!)

2. Phones.  Chris might I introduce you to Skype or Verizion or Time Warner or anybody else.  I mean first of all not getting campaign phones until the 30th of March seems a little late to me...but hey I'm not your campaign manager.  But second of all...DAMN, $1,013.62 for just 40 days of phone service (and possibly internet)...seems like a total rip-off to me.  Oh...wait, then again I suppose that like your signs this could just be another misreporting.  But since the money is coming from your personal funds I've got to ask...Chris...this is becoming a pattern, are you trying to hide a loan in your report?  Because you know...that's kind of illegal?  (SNAP, SNAP...)

3. Rent.  Now Chris, you blew it on the phone...I mean really $1,013.62 for just the first At&t bill wow...but KUDOS on the sweet rental deal.  I mean you've got that great location right off of 6th street...it looks like a really nice office spot...and I've seen you in there for months...but you just paid your first rent...$725...on March 30th...wait a second!  You've been in that office for months...and according to your last filing...this is the first time you've paid rent.  Was this another mistake or are you receiving an in-kind contribution for free rent or are you just AGAIN failing to live up to your ethical requirements.  (Now to be honest here, maybe you didn't get your office until recently...and maybe this really is all you've paid...but given the pattern of your report...I think it's a question worth asking.  And since I can't be sure of your error, as I am with the Signs and Phones...then in this case, I will refrain from Snap-ing)

You know I started off with three questions...but now I've only got one.

Chris how can I count on your to lead Austin anywhere if you and the staff you hand selected can't manage to fill out one of the simplest forms from the hands down best government agency (The Texas Ethics Commission) in Texas?

I think it's also worth saying that Perla did not file her report on time.  In fact her campaign filed it 4 hours late and then ended up filing a full amended report 16 hours late.  And while that is also a violation...I have to say that in my mind a late report is a stupid campaign error.  I mis-reporting of "expenditures made from personal funds" that seems to hide a candidates loan and provide some "cash on hand" boosting...that's not a dumb mistake...it's a calculated campaign maneuver.  

Katherine...you sure that you really want to "stand by" your report...

Perla's report was late...and that was a dumb mistake.
Chris's report has two blatant inaccuracies...that seem to be a strategic attempt to hide a candidates loan...that was calculated.

And lastly...Katherine...if Chris doesn't plan on being reimbursed for his loan then why did you guys check the boxes.

Sorry...but the math on Riley's report...just equals a misrepresentation of the truth.

(Oh...Snap...)

So the real bottom line is Chris has $38k and Perla has $25k.

Yeah...he's got more...but I guess more wasn't enough.  Chris felt like he had to overcompensate for something...

---

by: bradenframe @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:13:40 AM UTC

bradenframe is overcompensating for something.. (0.00 / 0)

sounds like perla's campaign is behind and getting outhustled in the field department so she's unleashed her attack dogs.

looks like someone needs some inflatable poll numbers.

---

by: sos @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:26:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: (5.00 / 1)

Braden I am supporting Perla too but I really don't think anything like this helps either side. In fact, attacking Riley's campaign like this could turn current Perla supporters to Riley.

There is a way to make arguments without calling people out by name and ridiculing the other candidate.

Pretty much everyone I've talked to seems to agree that both Perla Cavazos and Chris Riley are great candidates.

This is going to be a close race and the debate should be the about the issues and the two candidates' distinct visions for Austin's future ... not petty accusations from either side.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 00:56:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed. (0.00 / 0)

In fact, attacking Riley's campaign like this could turn current Perla supporters to Riley.

Perhaps. And vice-versa, with respect to the original post.
However, bradenframe's 'attack' seems to have a bit more meat to it than KTs.

Maybe I should put on some popcorn...  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 17:37:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is very true (0.00 / 0)

Both sides stand little to gain from this.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 18:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David, you are clearly the nice guy... (0.00 / 0)

but don't you think that some of these discrepancies need to be addressed?

KT did not refrain from lambasting Perla's campaign.

 

---

by: meredith @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 13:28:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but (0.00 / 0)

I think this whole thing is beneath BOR and KT. I don't have a dog in this hunt, and realize the OP was somewhat tongue in cheek, but still

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 23:24:11 PM UTC

Bottom Line (0.00 / 0)

Maybe my original post was too long for my point to get across.

So here it is.

Perla's campaign made a really dumb move and filed late.
Stupid...yes...but it wasn't unethical.

Chris's campaign made a calculated move to hide money from the public.  The very definition of unethical.

I am confident that if the Ethic's Commission were to investigate Riley's report, they would find nearly half a dozen ethical violations.

And if anyone really wants to discuss the issue of the finance reports...I'm in...

---

by: bradenframe @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 16:25:02 PM UTC