It caused a big stir last spring when the author of the anonymous APR revealed himself to be Kelly Fero, a long time Democratic consultant who was advising Rosemary Lehmberg's campaign.
Terry Keel then filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission. Keel argued that Fero's post had violated the state's truth in political advertising laws.
Earlier this week, the Ethics Commission ruled that it did not violate state law. The ruling establishes a precedent for the protection of anonymous bloggers and the rights of bloggers who are affiliated with political campaigns yet maintain their own personal blogs.
Keel, who tracked down the creation of the Web site, argued that Fero violated the state's truth-in-political-advertising laws by hiding his identity. The Ethics Commission, however, dismissed the complaint, saying there was no violation because the anonymous posting made no representation of its true source.
The commission acted at its Dec. 4 closed-door meeting, but letters announcing the decision to both sides were not released until Tuesday.
Jason Nassour, Keel's lawyer, criticized the ruling in a written statement.
"The conduct was unethical," Nassour wrote, "and the Ethics Commission's failure to enforce statutes forbidding this conduct will undoubtedly lead to an increase of these sorts of unethical campaign practices."
In the spirit of the holiday season, Fero told Laylan Copelin of the Statesman, ""Mr. Keel's had a bad year, but I hope he has a good holiday."
This ruling gives bloggers something else to celebrate this holiday season, too.
Rep. Dan Gattis declared that he is "uncommitted" in the race, moving him out of Craddick's camp to "Toss Up." That brings our new Speaker's race public tally to:
Not Craddick 76, Craddick Ceiling 61, Toss-Up 13
Previous Tally: Not Craddick 76, Craddick Ceiling 62, Toss-Up 12
The SREC adopted a motion for public ballot for Speaker. But, as Kronberg noted, they use secret ballots in their own elections. No one is surprised by the motion, or the hypocrisy.
Rep. Byron Cook and Rep. Ed Kuempel -- two Republicans -- filed for Speaker. Each of them were outspoken critics of Craddick before. There are now 12 announced Speaker candidates and 13 announced supporters for Tom Craddick for Speaker.
One aspect that few have written about regarding the Speaker's race is -- where's the lobby? Normally, these few months are used by lobbyists to identify who will sit on which Committees, and which Members of the Committees they should send their legislation to. But with the Speaker's race up in the air, there are many lobbyists stuck either hedging their bets (which is annoying for them) or waiting until someone takes command of the race (which is even more annoying for them). Just something to consider.
As always, official numbers and links are below the fold.
So yes -- one of the House Parliamentarians is using an exposed-anonymous name to post a letter that argues that he should keep his job. But hey -- whatever works. From the comments (emphasis added is mine):
This letter was issued by Rep. Harold Dutton to Burt Solomons:
After reading in the newspaper quotes attributed to you that were extremely disturbing to me and other members, I initially considered it best that I not put my thoughts in writing. I don't recall the actual quote in the newspaper but after reading the quote, I remember letting the dog do his business on it and I quickly discarded the paper with the dog poop. However, I also remember thinking how in the hell does Burt Solomons know what I want, do or think. Or what gives him the right to disparage me? I haven't spoken to you since last session and unless you have some cosmic powers I am not aware of you can't know what I have been doing, thinking or desiring. Yet you attack me and several Democrats without speaking to either of us.
I did question who is Burt Solomons talking to and more especially who is he listening to. Do you remember the king who had no clothes? It's worst to have no thoughts-of your own.
As you critique my past support for Tom Craddick, let me put it bluntly, with a majority Republicans in the House, I stayed with Craddick because I failed to grasp why I would change a Midland Republican for a Waxahachie Republican. You can throw in-- a Carrollton Republican -- if the shoe fits.
I assume the media accounts are correct that you are running for speaker. That's good. I just wish we had a rule that if you run for speaker and lose, then your seat is vacated and you must leave the House. That would force speaker campaigns to be less tasteless. It would certainly reduce the number of show horses and blowhards, leaving only serious candidates who must speak with each member and more especially listen to every member. Certainly it would be most unlikely that a candidate would begin a campaign by disparaging other members. I think you get my drift. Running for speaker does not cloak you or anyone else with the right to be stupid. That should be reserved for those who would vote for you.
The media quote you as suggesting that the House is so divided and can't come together under Tom Craddick. What? And you begin your campaign by attacking members and now you have even targeted the parliamentarian. If that's your method to heal the House and bring members together, you leave me speechless-almost. When I last checked the speaker appointed the parliamentarian. So, all you have to do is become speaker and you get to choose your parliamentarian. As my coach was fond of saying-stay focused. Abandon the pit bull attack.
Your December 5 Memo further states that your House colleagues joined you in calling for Terry Keel' resignation. First, as one of your House colleagues, you do not speak for me. Secondly, Terry Keel and I had some rather spirited debates on the House floor but I always maintained the highest respect for Terry Keel as a lawyer and a legislator. I still do.
Leadership is defined as "the catalyst that changes struggle into progress." So far, your leadership style seems to be consumed by a last session hangover. Let that go. When your rear view mirror becomes larger than your windshield, Texans don't progress-we just struggle. Every Speaker candidate and each member of the House must commit themselves to transform our independence into an interdependence that fosters a better Texas. Democrat or republican, that's the kind of member Texans want-and deserve. Speaker, too.
Harold Dutton
I've got to say -- arguing that someone is being too negative and acting like a pit bull, only using negative pit-bull attacks to make your point, doesn't make the most effective of arguments. For me. But Rep. Dutton's point and opinion is an argument that carries as much weight as any other's, and his arguments are real and felt not just by him, but by other Members.
Rep. Dutton, though, isn't arguing for Craddick as Speaker. Remember this quote:
Dutton suggests that Democrats embrace Craddick because on his watch, Republicans have frittered away the 26-seat majority voters gave them in the 2002 elections.
Could be, Dutton said, that Craddick gets two more years on top and Democrats recapture their House majority in the 2010 elections.
My experience was Rep. Dutton is that he spoke his mind, whoever and whatever the position may be. I say that to suggest to our readers that his letter isn't necessarily a defense for Craddick, but just an honest assessment of how he feels Rep. Solomons has carried out his campaign to this point.
Rep. Solomons has taken an aggressive approach. There's some logic to that approach -- you can't beat a hardball politician if you're not willin to play hardball. Craddick sure isn't leaving anything to chance, and though he has yet to release more than 13 names of support a full month after Election Day, I'm sure he's still doing everything he can to retain power.
Rep. Hartnett -- one of Craddick's largest supporters -- has suggested that it will come down to the first day of session. We could be in for an interesting few weeks -- remember, two years ago, all the real "action" for the Speaker's race happened after Christmas.
I'm excited that I'll be in Austin for the first day of session, whatever happens.
The House Rules should not ever become a complex set of protective measures for the Speaker, but rather should always remain simply as “our” Rules in how we conduct business and the process for passing legislation; and, not as an “us” versus “them” set of procedural nonsense. [...]
I must respectfully call for you to step down as Parliamentarian prior to the first day of the 81st Session and not as a Temporary Officer in the capacity of Parliamentarian on the first day of the session. It is my conclusion that a majority of my House colleagues are not confident that your advice and parliamentary interpretations will be unbiased, and you will continue on a parth of tortured interpretations and rulings designed solely to protect the current Speaker and frustrate the House parliamentary process. From your statements and advice since the beginning of your service as parliamentarian at the end of the 80th Session, it has become apparent to my House colleagues and myself that you are working for the current Speaker and not the body.
We are joining with Rep. Burt Solomons today and calling for House Parliamentarian Terry Keel to resign his position. Additionally, we believe Ron Wilson should also step down immediately. We need a Member’s Parliamentarian, not a Speaker’s Parliamentarian. It is clear that Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson are more interested in serving Speaker Tom Craddick than serving the entire House. We need to begin the 81st Legislative Session with a clean slate. The replacement of Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson will send a clear signal that this next Legislature is making a clean break from the last Legislature which led to embarrassing floor fights over power and put the people’s needs behind the needs of the Speaker.
Burka was on this early this morning. He emphasized the push for the secret ballot in Solomons' letter -- something Rep. Merritt also discussed in a second letter (another component I'll write about later). However, I want to focus on the Terry Keel resignation ask first:
House Parliamentarians are not supposed to be polarizing figures. The House Parliamantarians are employees of the House, not the Speaker. The importance of the House being comfortable with the Parliamentarians is incredibly important:
If a House Member needs to go to the front of the House to ask for anything -- to speak against a bill, to get clarification on whether or not a Point of Order should stand, to file an amendment, to get clarification on a procedural matter, anything -- then they talk with a Parliamentarian first. In this role, the Parliamentarians are invaluable gatekeers of the business of the House Floor. If the House, as a body, is not comfortable with who is protecting them -- even if the perception is there that their concerns or questions will not be fairly listened to or addressed -- then they cannot be comfortable operating on the House floor.
Ultimately, this is about a secret ballot. On a member-to-member level, though, it's about cordiality vs. intimidation. That such a letter would even need to come from Rep. Solomons et. all -- in the very public glare of a Speaker's race, no less -- should be a strong signal for how discontent House Members truly are with Craddick at the front, and how little confidence anyone has that Craddick would reform his current practices in the least.
Documents obtained by KVUE from the Texas AP show the improvements include custom wood cabinets and granite countertops for $61,200; two brass chandeliers totaling $29,000 and two 42" LCD screens for $2,200.
The improvements are being made in the often unseen Texas House Members Lounge.
Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen told KVUE, "At a time when Governor Perry says we need to cut out budgets, why are we spending $140,000 on a private club? You have to wonder, who did authorize it, and why at this time."
You can see the full report here:
Interestingly while the story starts as House Speaker Tom Craddick's spokesperson, Alexis DeLee and State Preservation Board and the House pointing fingers at each other, the story continues down a different path. Elise Hu writes on her blog:
Later in the afternoon, I got a word that the two brass chandeliers (worth $29,000) were going to go up, so our photographer, Robert, headed back to the back hall. That's when he encountered the Speaker's press secretary, Alexis Delee. Delee asked him to leave, citing security reasons.
Robert said he wanted to speak with security directly, and instead of security, Delee sent Terry Keel and Ron Wilson! Robert says Wilson came down the hallway wearing a big black shirt and sunglasses, even though they were indoors. But Keel (who is now House Parliamentarian) did the talking. He let Robert in to the lounge, to shoot what he wanted. We were thrilled to get what we could get, but would have loved anyone from the Speaker's office to go on camera. We were denied.
You have to ask, who is in charge, and why isn't there any over site?
The resurgence of the Democratic Party has never been more clear than now. With 8 days until the election, the House Democratic Campaign Committee (HDCC) has spent $1,000,000 since July 1 to support Democrats running for election and re-election to the Texas House.
When the HDCC started in 2004, it had one contract employee, a few thousand dollars in the bank and a 26 seat deficit in numbers. No one imagined taking back the House in 3 election cycles was remotely possible. Because of the numbers and a punitive redistricting map, we thought a 10 year plan was optimistic, and only hopelessly delusional optimists thought about a majority by 2009 (apologies to Lon).
What started initially as a simple idea to form a PAC where House Democrats could help fellow Democratic members has grown to become one of the most trusted, respected and impressive political operations in Texas. You should be proud to be part of that effort.
The truth of the matter is HDCC is one of the biggest reasons why we are on the brink of taking back the Texas House. They have committed to working with newly elected Democrats and guide them through the process. They have had laser focus before and during elections to win swing seats. All the headaches Tom Craddick and Terry Keel have on a daily basis, are because of the HDCC and it's leaders.
While Tom Craddick has lost control of his 26-seat majority in his tenure as Speaker of the House, Jim Dunnam, Pete Gallego, and Garnet Coleman have picked up seats every cycle since creating the HDCC.
One State Republican Executive Committee Member, Mark McCraig said in a recent editorial, "What was once a 26-seat Republican majority in 2003 has dwindled to an eight-seat majority today, and that number will almost certainly shrink again this year."
McCraig goes one step further in his editorial in the Stateman:
An ethical cloud also surrounds Craddick because of his close ties to lobbyists. Last year, Craddick and a prominent lobbyist were sued by a tour company after a dispute over a fishing trip to Brazil that Craddick and the lobbyist had canceled. Financial disclosure forms filed by Craddick also show a business relationship with a lobbyist whose identity he refuses to disclose. In light of recent scandals, grass-roots Republicans must demand that their leaders act in a manner that is beyond reproach.
In nearly 40 years in the Legislature, Craddick helped build the Republican Party and the conservative movement in Texas. Unfortunately, his recent actions have cast a shadow on years of public service, and he must recognize that the best way to promote the Republican Party and the conservative values he claims to represent is to allow a new speaker to serve.
Rather than having a Tom Craddick appointed successor, it is time to have a Democrat lead the House.
As the letter points out:
One million dollars is a heck of a lot of money - particularly in the face of our opposition. It is the tangible result of tireless work done by Texas Democrats who want to restore a sense of balance to the Texas House. You should know that the confidence shown us by donors is really a direct result of our Caucus unity demonstrated session after session in the face of adversity. They saw us fighting the good fight, persevering in the face of overwhelming odds and standing tall for the people of Texas. Our unity of voice and effort has not been in vain.
In a point of personal privilege, I want to thank Rep. Dunnam, Rep. Gallego, Rep. Coleman, and the hard working staff at HDCC for everything y'all have done this year and the harder ones before.
That being said, we have one week left, let's take back the House today!
To read the full letter from Jim Dunnam, Pete Gallego, and Garnet Coleman to the Democratic Caucus, click here (warning it is a pdf).
As readers may have noticed, we at BOR have taken a particular interest in the open SD-17 special election (you can read most of the posts here) and have raised over $1,000 for Chris Bell.
Now it seems like someone else is interested in the race, too: Ron Wilson.
You would stand a better chance being raped by a water buffalo than having any accurate information on Ron Wilson or Tom Craddick.
Former Craddick assistant parliamentarian Ron Wilson seems to not only be interested in SD-17, he seems to be working with Republicans to recruit and keep questionable candidates and the ballot. Wilson is also spinning the Republican talking points and defaming Democratic candidates and their supporter.
Before I go much further, it's time to let everyone know that Ron Wilson is not Baby Snooks as one reader speculated. That did get me wondering though, about the writing pattern of user "D. Davenport" who has only shown up a handful of times to attack Democratic House Leader Jim Dunnam, defend failed candidate Latreese Cooke, defend Donna Keel's brother-in-law and Craddick Parliamentarian Terry Keel, and Craddick D Sylvester Turner.
D. Davenport has an extensive understanding (although faulty interpretation) of House rules. D. Davenport has written almost exclusively in Austin, but seems to know a lot about Houston elected officials and races. Most interesting, D. Davenport has made it a point to lie about matters of public record including payments and statements on the House floor.
At one point in June of last year, D. Davenport said, "You have no idea who you are corresponding with nor do you need to know."
After some investigation, we can tell you we know who D. Davenport is.
D. Davenport is none other than Ron Wilson.
That's right, former Assistant House Parliamentarian and State Representative Ron Wilson is the one who has been attacking readers and calling people racists on Burnt Orange Report.
Like all our registered community members, Ron Wilson provided an e-mail address when he registered. The e-mail he provided only had two results when you google it. One site is the state bar of Texas. The other is a car forum, where a guest, "ron_wilson" talks shop about high end cars.
The point here is that D. Davenport, like Buck Smith is a paid political operative. They concealed their identity, picked fights with our community members, and expected to get away with it. We don't go looking up every user account. (For one, there are over 4,000 users and besides that, we generally expect people to play fair.)
In fact, if a reader hadn't speculated that Baby Snooks was Ron Wilson, we never would have found out who D. Davenport was. I wouldn't have looked through his 20 comments to realize a pattern.
Because of "D. Davenport's" comments, one reader called to tell me Ron Wilson admitted to recruiting Stephanie Simmons to challenge Chris Bell in Senate District 17 -- saying simply, "What do you think about what we did to your boy Bell?"
How do you feel about that? We don't like it and we don't like "Buck Smith" or "D. Davenport" style deception on Burnt Orange Report.
If you don't like it either, please feel to give a dollar for every comment Buck Smith and or D. Davenport has made on BOR to either TexBlog PAC or the House Democratic Campaign Committee (HDCC) to make sure we can end this sort of deception in Austin.
When we first wrote about the ghost worker attack Craddick launched on House members, we knew it was a story that would only serve to hurt Craddick and his allies.
It appears Craddick's miscalculation has hurt one of his top Lieutenants, Tony Goolsby, and now Rep. Lon Burnam wants to make sure Terry Keel is earning his $140,000 pay check.
In a letter to Chairman Larry Philips, Rep. Lon Burnam requested a full, impartial investigation of the entire house, including, Speaker Craddick, his employees, his Chairpersons, and his allies. In the hopes that the entire House is help to the same standards.
The letter points to Keel as the biggest example.
As you know, the House Parliamentarian, Terry Keel, is a "permanent full-time" employee of the Texas House earning nearly $140,000 a year. If Speaker Craddick is going to use taxpayer dollars to investigate three of his foes for employees earning a few hundred dollars a month, the importance of ensuring taxpayers that a $140,000 a year employee-- a substantially higher cost to the state-- is actually dedicating 40 hours per week tot the Texas House over and above his own criminal defense firm cannot be overstate.
Additionally, I would greatly appreciate assurance that whatever system Speaker Craddick currently uses to track work time of his employees, including those with outside employment and those running for elected office, will be included in your investigation.
We are also going to help Chairman Phillips if we can. While the Chairman is looking into these allegations, please feel free to send us any pictures you have of Terry Keel or any Craddick staffer not doing their job during the hours of 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. (typical work hours).
Pictures can be sent to me directly at Matt@BurntOrangeReport.com and I will notarize and send certified copies of them all to the Chairman and any other appropriate sources. The best picture will win either an iTunes gift card or a box of Tiff's Treats too!
We try to avoid rumors and speculation as much as possible, but something strange is going on in the Travis County DA's race.
Capitol Annex and Austin Political Report are reporting two different stories of Republican big wigs campaigning for Travis County District Attorney Candidate Mindy Montford.
The Austin Political Report states that Republican and Craddick loyalist Terry Keel has decided to campaign for Mindy Montford instead of helping his sister-in-law Donna Keel defeat Valinda Bolton.
Now it seems Bush's Brain himself appears to be helping Mrs. Montford too.
Capitol Annex has the story complete with pictures. Vince states:
Karen Johnson, a longtime lobbyist and Bush pioneer who lives in the Pemberton area of Austin, has a Mindy Montford yard sign in front of her house. Asked by a neighbor this weekend why she is supporting a Democrat, Ms. Johnson replied: "I never have before, but Karl Rove asked me to help her."
Early vote started yesterday in this close election. This last minute revelation could dramatically effect the outcome in this low voter turnout situation.
Updated: A spokesperson from the Montford had this to say in response to the allegations Terry Keel and Karl Rove are working to elect Mrs. Montford:
This latest negative attack by Rosemary Lehmberg fits the pattern of lies and distortion meant to distract from the positive, issue-based campaign of Mindy Montford.
While Montford talks about real changes she will make, Lehmberg only talks about Montford. If Karl Rove has been advising anyone, it is obvious from their tactics that it is Lehmberg's unscrupulous campaign.
Whether one supports or opposes the actions of the Craddick D's last session, they chose to establish themselves as a separate group in the Texas Legislature. Calling themselves "Democrats for Reform," they laid out an agenda at the start of session. At the end of session, they claimed their agenda was a success, and that the key successes for Democrats this session were the result of the deals they had struck with Speaker Craddick. They also touted the personal victories they won for their district by supporting Craddick, and many were proud to call themselves "Craddick D's."
It should be noted, though, that only a handful of those who attended the first press conference (announcing the Democrats for Reform, at the start of session) attended the second (after the challenge to Craddick at the end of May). More over, the voracity to which "their agenda" can be called a success was called into question.
With the announcement that Chairman Robert Puente will retire, I thought it would be appropriate to see exactly how those "Democrats for Reform" are doing today. This is merely meant as an update -- trying to keep track of our Democrats in the Texas House. I select them out as a group not out of hostility, but because they chose to set themselves apart from the House Democratic Caucus.
Update: To clarify, I designated whether or not any of the following State Representatives would "still vote for Craddick" based on their last known public position -- which I sourced as best as possible in the middle column. Any additional news that any of the Members or anyone else wish to share, please send me an e-mail or post a comment, and I will update the chart appropriately.
The Craddick D's: Where We Are Today - October 22, 2007
Voted "present, not voting" during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech; Rep. Chavez was quoted in the Houston Chronicle saying she would support new leadership in 2009.
No
Deshotel, Joe
Voted "against" Craddick during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech.
No
Dukes, Dawnna
Though there were rumors that some in Austin were looking for a primary challenger, none have surfaced. The last known public statement was that Rep. Dukes stands by Craddick - though I'm not certain she'd vote for Craddick again.
Was one of the handful of Democrats proudly trumpeting the "Democrats for Reform" agenda at the end of session. No other public indication of her stance, and no primary news to date.
Yes
Guillen, Ryan
No challenger, no news. Though if the budget committee is still this hard, would he want it?
On the motion to vacate at end of session, was said to be "flip-flopping." No news, though with Rep. Puente's retirement, she is the only Craddick-supporter in San Antonio.
Of the 15, there are definitely 5 fewer supporters for Craddick, two "maybes" (three, if you include Rep. Turner), three Craddick D's facing primary challenges, and maybe a few more who would no longer call themselves Craddick D's.
