The first four paragraphs of the article....
In a 2011 letter to the Tarrant Regional Water District, Dallas businessman Monty Bennett vowed to “vigorously fight” a TRWD pipeline from going across his East Texas ranch.
The latest TRWD campaign finance reports show he is continuing to back up that pledge with his checkbook.
Bennett, chairman and chief executive of Dallas-based Ashford Hospitality Trust and Ashford Hospitality Prime, has contributed more than $235,000 to board member Mary Kelleher and two other candidates.
Bennett, who has sued the water district and fought eminent domain proceedings, has tried to compel the water district to reroute the $2.3 billion integrated pipeline around his East Texas ranch in Henderson County. The pipeline is designed to bring more water for Tarrant Regional and the city of Dallas. TRWD has said rerouting the pipeline would cost $6 million to $8 million.
Over and over and over again the Star-Telegram brings up the fact that Monty Bennett made large contributions to TRWD candidates trying to oust existing TRWD board members.
Why is the fact that Monty Bennett primarily does his business in Dallas at all relevant? Why must the specter of a Dallas Boogey Man be raised?
Mr. Bennett did not want a pipeline crossing his property. Apparently he has the resources to fight eminent domain and make contributions to candidates. Why does the Star-Telegram attempt to scandalize this, particularly when there are so many things about the Tarrant Regional Water District board's various shenanigans which the Star-Telegram ignores?
Where can I read that in depth Star-Telegram investigation into how it was that Kay Granger's unqualified son, J.D., was hired by the TRWD to run the Trinity River Panther Island Vision Boondoggle?
I learned that the Star-Telegram had once again brought up the Dallas Boogey Man via Facebook, from Bud Kennedy.
When I used to be a hard copy subscriber to the Star-Telegram Bud Kennedy was one of their columnists. The Star-Telegram has cut way back on its staff. I don't know at what level of activity Bud Kennedy is still employed by the Star-Telegram, but he seems to have quite an active career on Facebook, diligently monitoring multiple threads, deleting comments, scolding commenters for being off-topic.
So, regarding the Bud Kennedy Facebook post that was about the latest Star-Telegram Dallas Boogey Man article, Bud Kennedy made a comment in response to one of his "Friends" comments which is most unfortunate. That is a screencap of the exchange above. I'll copy the exchange verbatim below...
Stuart Langley: Politicians taking money from vested interests? Oh my, when did that start happening? It seems this knock comes along every time that Mary tries to hold the board accountable to the public.
Could the Star-Telegram please explain why the board continually fights (with the tax payers money Mary's efforts to see TRWD records?) Is there a good reason why these should be kept from an elected board member? And why shouldn't the public be upset when the board can skip an election when the public has been clamoring for years for more public accountability?
I guess those are tough and embarrassing questions. Lets try one more course of the "Dallas Businessman donates..."
Bud Kennedy: Stuart Langley, please review editorials on the topic. The Star-Telegram has criticized the board's records handling. More than a dozen local agencies skipped elections for a year under a state law changing the dates. The public has not clamored for anything. Kelleher was the only challenger elected last time and only because she was the only woman on a ballot with 7 men. One man could not buy the election.
Mary Kelleher got more votes than any other TRWD board candidate has ever received.
I know the name might make one think she is not a woman, but I am almost 100% certain TRWD board member, Marty Leonard, is indeed a woman. And has been the only woman on the ballot. And yet has not received votes at the number level of Mary Kelleher.
Is Bud Kennedy's Mary only won because she's a woman assertion what is known as a sexist remark? I don't know. What I do know is this remark seems to me to be a very wrongheaded, inappropriate thing to be saying.
Is an apology forthcoming....