TX House 91 – Ken Sapp: All-American at Intellectual Dishonesty

My dear friend Jim Sutton has been reading my blog posts, and he believes that I have shown favoritism to and bias for Mr. Sapp in my posts. I take Jim's rejoinder to heart. Some of my word choices in the previous posts were meant to be witty, a bit satirical, and entertaining. Instead they may have come across as snarky. My apologies. To demonstrate to Jim that I am equally hard on every candidate, I share this post, with the observation that you will not find the name of the other candidate in the District 91 race anywhere in this article.

Before the candidates began to announce their run for the District 91 seat, as a concerned citizen I decided to do as much research on them as possible before the record began to get tainted and colored by the various claims of the campaigns. (DISCLAIMER: Because of political connections I have, I already knew the names of each of the ultimate candidates in late December 2011 or early January 2012.) As I researched Sapp, I came across these self-penned articles from 2004-2005:

http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/04_12_07sappcolumn.htm

http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/05_03_17sapp.htm
http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/05_03_11sapp.htm

I found the last article to be particularly noxious. He is in total attack mode against those he opposes. His attacks use pejorative and spurious arguments, trigger words, and absurd hypothetical extremes. He sets the tone early in the article by accusing the opposition of having ties to the Libertarian Party, but he never offers any evidence to support the accusation. Then, in his most condescending professorial tone, he instructs the reader:

“Libertarians support very limited government (some call it anarchy). They believe individual citizens should have absolutely no restrictions on use of their personal property and should not be required to support societal issues.”

I won't take time to dissect this statement for all the ways it is untrue, misleading, and mean. This is not the kind of well-reasoned, insightful, intellectually honest discourse that adds value to the community. Rather, it's the ugly side of politics that has become cancerous to the Republic – a rhetorical scorched-earth approach.

When I read these articles, even before Sapp had declared as a candidate for the race, I concluded that I could not support him on matter of principle. I want more from my leaders. I have purposed in my heart that I will hold my elected officials to a higher standard of honesty and integrity. I encourage all my readers to join me in this crusade.

In conclusion, many may ask the question “to what standard we should hold our candidates?” Is it some high and lofty, unattainable standard? I don't think so. Here are the two tests that I use to judge the integrity of political statements:

1. Could I make that statement personally and still be able to look in the eyes my wife, my children, my friends, my neighbors, my pastor, my co-workers, my clients, and my elderly parents?
2. If my child made the statement, would I accept it from them as being true, accurate and fair?

If we began to put the claims of Sapp and all other candidates for office to this two-fold test, I wonder how many of their statements would pass?

PENALTIES: For myself being snarky in previous posts, I get a reprimand from the league office for blowing calls. For Sapp, I'm warning all my officials to pay special attention to him on the field because he plays dirty.

TX House 91 – More Sapp-y Rhetoric and Klick-it or Ticket

I had no idea a House race for an open seat could get this pricey, nasty, and crazy all at the same time. The mailbox has been full the last two days with ads from both Stephanie Klick and Ken Sapp, almost all negative. Let's take a look at the issue of RESIDENCY.

Klick is infuriated by Sapp's alleged “false claim that I just moved into the district” (July 26 campaign letter). The problem is that I have not seen, read or heard Sapp make that claim. He has said in his ads that Klick “has only lived in the district for four months” (various mailers). There is a huge difference between those two statements. If Sapp said the former, it's an outright lie, and I'm open to anyone supplying evidence to support Klick's claim. However, if he said the latter, it's a true statement. While one can argue whether Klick has lived in the district for 4 months or 17 months, she has not lived in the district any longer than April of 2011 at most. Klick defends herself in her letter by saying “I have lived in the same home for 12 years, and my home is in District 91” (July 26 letter). That's a true statement, but doesn't really help clear up the issue.

Here's a press release from Stephanie's campaign that will help us understand: http://tcgop.org/stephanie-klick-announces-run-for-hd-101/. This is the press release from November 22, 2011, declaring her candidacy for State Representative – DISTRICT 101. What?!? Eight months ago Klick was running for a seat in the neighboring district to the West of District 91?!? Somebody help me out here!!!

OK, friends, let's peel the layers off this very stinky onion. Yes, it's true that the Klicks have lived in their current home for 12 years. But, their home has not always been in District 91. In the previous decade, their home was part of District 98, which was primarily Far North Tarrant County, including Keller, Southlake, and Grapevine. It did not include most of North Richland Hills, Richland Hills, Haltom City, and Watauga – the heart of District 91 for decades. When the State Legislature redrew the various district lines in the 2011 legislative session, Klick's precinct was added to District 91 (thus my 17-month figure above).

The redistricting maps were immediately subjected to a plethora of lawsuits seeking changes to the lines. One of those maps was given interim approval by the courts, which then placed Klick's precinct in “HD 101, a newly-drawn district which includes the cities of Azle, Blue Mound, Ft. Worth, Haltom City, Haslet, Keller, Pelican Bay, and Saginaw” (from the November 2011 press release). At that point, Stephanie decided to announce her candidacy for the new District 101. However, the courts weren't through, and ultimately redrew the lines again in March 2012. On the last revision, Klick's precinct was moved into District 91 for the 2012 election cycle (the basis for Sapp's 4-month figure). Therefore, Stephanie changed her candidacy from HD 101 to HD 91. Exhausted yet? Wait, there's more.

Klick was raised in Richland Hills. She went to TCU. She has worked and lived in Tarrant County a long time. I can't find anything on where she lived and what she did between graduating from TCU in 1981 and moving to her present home and becoming a Republican Party officer in 2000. On the other hand, Klick accuses Sapp of hypocrisy on the issue because he “just moved to North Richland Hills in 2001, moving here from Chicago and Connecticut” (July 26 letter). Oh my goodness; now we know the problem! It's not that Sapp is a tax-and-spend liberal (that's another debate), it's that he's a – (gasp) – Yankee!!! Unfortunately, there's a little problem with Klick's narrative on this.

Sapp was raised in Fort Worth and graduated from Castleberry High School in 1963. I can't find information about where he lived or what he did from 1963 to 1987. From 1987 to 2001, he was an insurance company executive in Illinois and Connecticut. He moved back to Tarrant County in 2001 where he has been a business owner, active in the community, and served on the North Richland Hills City Council. I don't know how long he was gone from Texas – a fate worse than death for Lone Stars – but he came home to his roots in 2001. To portray his years in the North as anything more than his being a professional expatriate is a bit disingenuous. I would really like to know if the Klicks ever resided outside the Land of Contrast for professional or personal reasons? Those in the know can help me on this.

The real issue about residency that the candidates should be debating is “who can best represent District 91?” Both candidates have deep Tarrant County roots. One can argue whose roots are deepest, but no one can legitimately claim that either of these candidates are not native sons (or daughters, as the case may be). Ken was gone a long time. That's a fair concern. He's been back a long time. Is is long enough? That's a fair question. Stephanie has lived in Tarrant County a long time. But her primary community has been outside District 91. How well does she know NRH/RH/HC/Watauga? How in tune is she with the unique local needs of the district? That's a fair question. How about we ask these questions of both candidates until we get a satisfactory answer instead of the barrage of weak charges and counter-charges about where they live and for how long?

To officiate this contest, I'm going to call this an off-the-field issue. Both candidates are at the end of the six weeks and are on the verge of flunking out. If so, we'll have to enforce the “no pass, no play” rule.

TX House District 91 -- Sapp and Klick get Flagged

This is from my dear friend Rachel Sutton, a Republican stalwart and wife of Councilman Jim Sutton of Haltom City:

...Ken sent out two large flyers to Rep. primary voters in this district. One stated that Stephanie has only lived in the district for 4 months. David, ...she has lived in the same house for, I'm guessing, 8-10 years at least. She didn't move, the redistricting is what put her in this new district. She's still in the same community and quite involved in it. Ken is "technically" telling the truth, but it was said to mislead people. She is likely more aware of the community than Ken, having been the Tarrant Cty. party chair for the last number of years. I have stayed out of bashing Dewhurst and bashing Ken, but when I got that flyer, that made me mad. And not just me. We had friends calling and stopping by our house very frustrated by this plot.

Also, Ken has been stating that he has not raised taxes in NRH. Again, technically he is correct. However, he has failed to state that the property taxes in NRH have continued to increase every year, but the council, of which he is a voting... participant as councilman, continues to keep the tax RATE the same - effectively raising the taxes on the citizens every year. Jim is on council in HC, so we understand why cities do that, but to state that he's never voted to increase taxes is a misnomer...

Let's take a look at the facts here:

1. Sapp's claim that Klick has only lived in District 91 for 4 months
Klick lives in the Park Glen area of Far North Fort Worth in the Keller ISD.  Their house was built in 1999 and they bought it and moved in in March 2000 (SOURCE: public records).  Klick was raised in the area and has lived here most, if not all, of her life.  While it is true that her precinct was recently added to District 91 in the decennial redistricting, it's misleading to leave the inference that she's only recently moved to the area.  If Sapp wants to make a case that he's more in tune with 91 because he's in North Richland Hills (the heart of the district, without dispute), make that case.  Adding to the foul is the 4-month number.  The Federal Appeals Court mandated the final district boundaries in February 2012, which is the basis for Sapp's timeline.  But, Klick's precinct was added to 91 by the State Legislature in April 2011, and ultimately the court upheld that boundary, so at worst, Sapp would have to at least acknowledge that Klick has lived in District 91 for 14 months.

PENALTY: 5 YARDS FOR ENCROACHMENT, PLUS 5 YARDS FOR DELAY OF GAME.

2. Klick's claim that Sapp "worked to defeat tax relief for citizens."
Klick has put out multiple mailers with variations of this charge: "Do you support Tax Relief? Ken Sapp says you're not a conservative!"; "Ken Sapp worked to defeat tax relief for citizens."  At issue is the property tax freeze for homeowners 65 and older in North Richland Hills.  Sapp opposed the tax freeze on the very intellectually honest and mathematically defensible position that freezing taxes on one sub-set of taxpayers (over 65) would unfairly shift additional tax burden to other taxpayers, such as young families and businesses.  Sapp made very good, strong, well-reasoned conservative arguments for his position.  Klick can argue that Sapp's position was wrong, and that tax freezes for seniors are in fact solid conservative fiscal policy (which, by the way, I've never heard her say).  But it's not truthful to say that Sapp "worked to defeat tax relief."  In reality, he was working to protect the interests of his constituents who would be additionally taxed by an unfair, regressive tax policy.  Neither did Sapp accuse those who supported the tax freeze as being "not conservative."  His point was that opposing the freeze was the most intellectually consistent position for conservative ideology, and conservatives who supported the freeze didn't fully understand it. (To Klick's credit, on at least one of her pieces, she included this quote from Sapp: "So any conservative that supported this law didn't understand it.")

PENALTY: 5 YARDS FOR ILLEGAL FORMATION

3. Klick's claim that Sapp "voted to support a push for higher gas taxes."
At issue is a vote by the North Richland Hills City Council to support SB 855 in the 2009 State legislative session.  SB 855 would allow Metroplex voters to vote for highway projects that would be funded by designated gasoline tax revenues which would be used only to fund the specific project and would sunset once the project was paid for.  Think of it like cities and school districts that put bond elections before the citizens to allow them decide whether or not to spend the money for a new project.  Sapp's vote in support of the City of North Richland Hills' position was a vote to give citizens a right to decide at the ballot box for themselves, not "a push for higher gas taxes."  This claim is like saying that when the Fort Worth City Council voted to support thestate legislation that allowed the City of Arlington to help fund Cowboys Stadium with increased hotel taxes, the Fort Worth City Council "voted to support a push for higher hotel taxes."  This one is 100% intellectually dishonest in my mind.

PENALTY: 15 YARDS FOR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

4. Sapp's claim that he never voted to raise taxes in NRH.
At issue here is how to define "tax increase".  Does it mean hard dollars of total revenue brought into the city?  If that's the case, then one has to take the position that any year-over-year increase in the budget is a tax increase.  This position is absurd on its face.  Let's say there is a little city somewhere with a $100,000 annual budget.  All of a sudden, Ross Perot Jr. comes to their city and builds a major subdivision that doubles the number of homes in town, doubles the number of residents, and triples the total property value for the city.  If the City Council adds these new homes to the tax rolls the annual budget jumps to $300,000, have they voted for a tax increase?  There are about 178 other ways to look at this question, but all lead to the same conclusion: Sapp's claim is true to the extent that the claim can even be evaluated.

PENALTY: NO FOUL -- PICKED UP THE FLAG AND WAVED OFF THE PENALTY

Your thoughts, please.  And please, send me more campaign lies to expose!!!  Next up should be David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz.

Truth for Texans -- A Blog for Political Integrity

Friends, the time has come. I can stand it no longer. People running for political office are manipulating, stretching, coloring and distorting the truth with such regularity and panache that it is time to call out the liars.

This blog is apolitical. We do not exist to take one side or the other in the political debate. Rather, we are the referees, umpires, officiating the game and enforcing penalties when we see an infraction. This game has one and only one rule: tell the truth. If you break the rule, you will get flagged.

There are many different ways to lie; some are more nuanced and marginal, others are obvious and egregious. The type, manner and severity of the lie will dictate the penalty received. For now, we shall use a football metaphor, although we may change sports metaphors later. So here are the levels of penalty that can be enforced:

5 yards -- a relatively minor infraction that doesn't necessarily directly impact the outcome of the play, such as illegal procedure, illegal formation, delay of game, etc.

10 yards -- a moderate infraction that can directly impact the outcome of the play, such as holding, interference, etc.

15 yards -- a serious infraction that shows disregard for the rules and could result in injury to other players, such as clipping, late hit, unsportsmanlike conduct, roughing the passer, etc.

Ejection -- an egregious infraction that not only show callous disregard for the rules but also potentially causes injury and expresses being so out of control the offender needs to leave the field.

Multi-Game Suspension -- an offense either on or off the field that shows a continual pattern of rules violations that warrant being separated from the sport for a period of time.

Now that I've outlined the rules and penalties, please send me examples of campaign literature, TV and radio ads, e-mails, scripts, audio/video clips of candidates, or anything else that you think needs to be reviewed for violations. Let's take back Texas by demanding truth from our leaders.