The Smoke & Mirrors of Transparency in the Municipal Elections

Mayor of Munchkin Land

I tweeted a while back about how the buzzword of this election cycle was the word "transparency" and that it was being used, but with no real substance behind it.

A couple weeks ago I started hearing rumors that there were individuals that were surreptitiously running candidates.

On Saturday at a forum I saw the individual in question and we had a conversation. Immediately I started recognizing talking points. That's when it clicked. I don't know why it took me so long to put it together, but I knew the answer to the question I was about to ask.

So I asked if the rumors I'd heard were true. Since the flying monkey already wrote about it, probably at the behest of the individuals in question, I guess I'll write about it too. But more so because something was said to me in that conversation that has stuck with me and I just can't seem to shake it.

Anywho, remember that I said that Dagda sounded much better and was much more polished? Compare his first interview with me to the one I posted yesterday afternoon. Night and day difference. I also alluded to the fact that he was coached. And he was.

He was coached by Stephanie Townsend-Allala. In Martin Paredes' post he quotes her as saying "no comment" when asked about consulting with political candidates. Well when I spoke to her on Saturday she confirmed that she had. She immediately tried to walk it back and re-characterize her association with candidates, but she did in fact confirm that she was consulting with candidates. She used the plural form of the word.

She eventually said "yeah, but I don't want people to know that I am."

Full disclosure I did tell her I wasn't going to write about it at the time. But we had a separate conversation via FB messenger later that evening because what she had said stuck with me. The part about not wanting people to know. That part really worries and bothers me.

I, very much like Townsend-Allala actually, am always suspicious when someone tells me they don't want people to know something. I immediately question their motives. But it stuck with me more because Allala is an attorney and a journalist and someone who has built a reputation on getting at the truth. Because she was a real journalist, not just some blogger like me, I held her in very high esteem when it came to seeking the truth.

But you can't build a public persona on "transparency" and then express that you want to hide all the facts.

And frankly its really hard to look at this as anything but a classic case of "Wag the Dog". Its actually quite brilliant when you think about it. Help get people into office that you know will be at the best case scenario sympathetic to your issue or worst case scenario beholden to your agenda.

The truth is, Allala wants transparency from current and former members of council on behalf of the public (which I don't necessarily disagree with her), but doesn't appear to want to be transparent about her political activities with candidates that may impact that very public she is advocating on behalf of.

Its do as I say, not as I do.

The secrecy makes no sense. There has been a group of people labeled "the crazies" that used to really be fearful of secret groups that work in the shadows to get a group of candidates into office so that they could enact a certain policy agenda into action.

Remember that? I do. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

This becomes problematic for Townsend-Allala when you consider the fact that she has a pretty clearly identifiable agenda as it relates to city council. She very clearly would like to create the situation where she would have influence over one or more members of council.

There's nothing wrong with trying to influence policy or policy makers. That is the American way. Its the wanting to be secretive about it while at the same time being a transparency watch dog that causes a problem.

Do I have a problem with Townsend-Allala and if what Paredes says is true, Hector Montes consulting with candidates? Not at all. I've never know either of them to have any particular campaign acumen, but what do I care? If someone wants to seek their advice, there's no problem with it.

Do I have a problem with Townsend-Allala trying to influence potential new members of council? Hell no, more power to her. Its smart even. It allows her to have people keep pushing the "transparency" brand in the public and that could keep the issue on the front burner for people. I don't think it helps the candidates themselves more than it hurts them, but I don't its really that much of a big deal.

Its the calling for transparency while wanting to keep her own political activities a secret that I take issue with.

There's a candidate in every race that has been spouting off the transparency talking points. They are all likely connected. I doubt there is an actual contract for consulting and I doubt that Townsend-Allala and Montes are actually getting paid anything so its not likely they will even show up on a campaign finance report.

Some people say that the fact that they could be working with candidates and not show up on a campaign finance report wouldn't be, oh what's the word I'm looking for here?...hmm...oh yeah...TRANSPARENT.

Here's the part where I think it could be tough for the candidates. Just because the issue is really important to the public policy agenda of Townsend-Allala and Montes doesn't mean that it is to voters. So even if candidates are coached and packaged well enough to deliver the message effectively, it doesn't mean that they are delivering a message that voters are going to be receptive to. Good messaging isn't finding a nice way to say something like changing a biker to a "motor cycle enthusiast". Its much more complex than that.

Also, some of these candidates are conservatives and Montes represents a union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 59. That could be problematic for the conservative candidates. And not only that, I think Montes has now become a huge liability to the Local 59. One would think that he has the green light from his employer to go and help out candidates. One would assume that they are only candidates that are endorsed by his employer.

He can't really even say his campaign activities are apart from the Local 59 because we are talking about municipal election and municipal employees make up the bulk of the membership. Running candidates against incumbents is a quick way to deteriorate relations with an entity that you have to bargain with. Especially if those candidates are re-elected. They aren't going to think too highly of any negotiations with any one that is involved with their opponents.

Aside from that, Townsend-Allala doesn't have any campaign experience that I am aware of and after being involved for the last decade, I don't recall ever hearing of her involved with any campaign, even just as a supporter. Montes' experience is a joke. He's run one candidate that I know of and that was Larry Medina when he ran for County Judge.

I remember Montes being very proud of the most inconsequential thing, which underscored his inexperience and lack of knowledge in campaigning, the word "vote" on campaign material. He really thought that having the word "vote" before Medina's name was going to be a major factor.

Stop laughing. I'm serious. He really said that.

I feel bad for Dagda because I feel like he was used. But he's an underdog so of course he will take any advice he can get. It makes sense to. Any port in a storm right?

Later today I will write more about transparency as it relates to District 5 Challenger Rosa Cabrera (Arellano). She has spoken quite a bit about transparency. So we will examine her transparency.

And lets be real, its the elephant in the room no one has talked about...