I was approached after the March 10th city council meeting in League City with a deal – I drop out of the race for city council position 5 in exchange for a high-level endorsement and a multitude of votes for a different city council seat next year.
The reasoning was that while I'm an honest guy with good ideas, and people like me, I'm running against Phyllis Sanborn, a well-known incumbent and Ed Station, a second challenger who some say is associated with the corrupt members of League City politics. If I stay in the race, I will split half of the votes with the incumbent and our mutual opponent will win easily, hurting our city's goal of removing corruption from the council. Additionally, my chances at running next year will be hurt because voters won't forget I perpetuated the problem.
The deal is sweet, to be sure. I can see that Sanborn has a better chance of winning, I'm virtually guaranteed a seat next year and the city gets the council it deserves. Plus, turning it down could make a lot of political enemies. I seriously considered saying, “Yes.”
But I can also see how accepting this deal goes against many of the reasons I'm running for office. I want to see government operate in an open and honest way. How open and honest would I be if I accepted a late night, confidential deal for political advantage? I want to see money and favors have less influence in politics. I'm even running my campaign without accepting any campaign contributions or making any campaign expenditures. How ethical would it be for me to accept such a tainted prize?
I had a lot of options and a huge decision to make. This was, after all, the first real test of my political ethics. Would I pass? Would I accept the deal or decline it? Would I keep the offer a private matter, or would I make it publicly known? How many bridges am I going to burn? Will people think less of me? Am I putting the city at risk?
As tough as the choice is… As many pros and cons as I see on both sides… As politically savvy or as ethically sound as it may or may not be…
My answer is, “No, thanks.”
I believe one of the aspects of an open and honest government is that the people are allowed a voice. Without my name on the ballot, their voice is diminished. And unlike some would have me believe, if I stay in the race and Station wins, it won't be because I “split the vote”, it will be because the overwhelming voice of the people wanted him more than Sanborn or me. This race isn't “Gooding or Sanborn” vs Station. All three candidates have an equal opportunity to win. It's up to the voters to decide, and I trust them to make the best choice.
I have good ideas to offer the voters of League City. I want to see our city be more protective of privacy and due process by more carefully considering issues like installing red light cameras. I want to see the influence of developers decrease and the consideration of property rights and fiscal responsibility increase when planning roads, bridges and other infrastructure. I want the people of League City to have easier access to public information and more influence in the decisions of our elected officials. Voters should have the opportunity to support these ideas at the polls on May 9th.
I'm sure some will disapprove of my decision to stay in the race, while others will respect my dedication to ethics. Some will be shocked at my publicizing of what is normally hidden in “the game of politics”, while others will see I'm committed to open and honest government.
If you already know me, I hope this renews your trust in me. If this is the first you've heard of me, I hope this shows you the character I have. I can only ask that you spread the word to your friends and neighbors that there is someone running for city council this year with integrity – someone worthy of your vote.
Thank you,
Dustin Gooding
Almost a year has passed. A new election season is here. And again, people are suggesting candidates drop out of the race. In a recent post over on the Think Tank, an anonymous coward suggested that Tim Holloway drop out because “most of us voters don't take kindly to someone running on a lark”. I didn't appreciate that, for Tim's sake.
I had also asked Tim some questions that he preferred to answer via phone. I reminded him about my penchant for broadcasting private government-related discussions for all to see by linking to this page. (He has yet to call, or answer my questions.) The link caused Marc Edelman's curiosity to pique and wanted to know who the deal maker was, trusting I wasn't covering up any more corruption. (I posted a response which has yet to be approved. Marc also asked (below) that I post the same information here. I'll do that, now.)
I've thought about this for a while. It has eaten at me and challenged me. For almost a year, I kept my mouth shut. There has been no current action by the deal maker that is forcing me to do this, I just feel it is the right time. The topic reappeared and I have no reason to hide the identity any longer.
At the time the deal was made, this person was not a public official. Offering the bribe favors (see Update 3) of a potential future public official was certainly presumptuous, but I don't believe it was illegal. So, while it was wrong, nothing could really be done about it. I also didn't know if this deal was a momentary slip in judgment or something more indicative. My past experience with the deal maker suggested it was a slip. As such, I chose not to reveal the identity, as I didn't feel it was worth the trouble or damaging reputations.
But, now that this person is an elected official who must be held to public scrutiny and now that a new election season is here and candidates are being encouraged to drop out…
In order to ensure a fair election, one without bribery favors (see Update 3) or coercion – and with full intent to out anyone else I hear about who has offered bribes favors (see Update 3) for political gain…
The answer is still “No,” Mr. Phalen.
(Also, this is one of the reasons I chose not to run this year. I didn't even want a hint of bribery favors (see Update 3) to taint my campaign. Given that Mr. Phalen won his race and assuming his identity was found, it would be very easy for someone to assume he had helped had I won. I'll likely run again when Mr. Phalen is no longer on council.)
Dana Guthrie with The Bay Area Citizen contacted me this morning. She was given a copy of this post and wanted to confirm that I had, in fact, written the words above. Apparently most of the other questions she would have asked me are already answered above, so our conversation wasn't long. She wanted to confirm my side before she contacted Mr. Phalen. I don't know what she plans on asking him.
If you've found yourself here because of a (future) link on the Citizen's website, know that I didn't identify him based on some desire for belated payback. I have nothing against Mr. Phalen. I believe we have a long future of working together to fix problems in the city. The only thing that prompted me to identify him was that a) it's election season, b) a candidate has already been told to drop out (much like I was) and c) Mr. Phalen is no longer just a private citizen, he's a public official. I did this to help ensure a fair election process.
This has been an interesting day, for sure.
In the Galveston Daily News, Mr. Phalen said, “I did not bribe Mr. Gooding.” Further down in the article Mr. Treece is reported as saying, “I don’t hear the magic words that jump up and show the intent or capacity to commit a bribe.”
Rereading my own writing, I do in fact use the word 'bribe' in context with Mr. Phalen. “Offering the bribe of a potential future public official was certainly presumptuous…” But Mr. Phalen doesn't think he did, and Mr. Treece doesn't see it. This confused me.
I decided to look up the word 'bribe' to see what it really meant. Perhaps I had the definition wrong in my head…
There are plenty more, but I got the point. Bribery is the giving or promise of something of value in an attempt to influence someone important. I believe the key here is the “someone important” part. My understanding of the word 'bribe' did not include the “someone important” part. My understanding of the word was much closer to the second of Merriam Webster's definitions, “something that serves to induce or influence”.
To that end, I apologize for the confusion and have removed the word 'bribe' from the words above in an attempt to make my message clearer. I am not accusing Mr. Phalen of a felony, as he suggested in the Galveston Daily News.
I do not, however, remove my claim that a deal was offered and that, in my opinion, dirty politics were played.
~~DISCUSSION~~