MY VISION for The Woodlands includes a place where elected officials have a direct relationship with their constituents so that before, during, and after the election, the community works in the interests primarily of the community; rather than the economic and political puppet masters who seek to influence decisions and who vie for power on the board. Help me make The Woodlands a place that works primarily for the public interest!
The founders of this country were opposed to factions and wanted candidates put forward to be based on virtue and elections to be won based on virtue. Today it is extremely factious and more of an immature popularity contest based on the ability to market a candidate like a commodity. That is just the reality.
Despite Tom being the most qualified candidate to ever run for a position on the township board, Tom is an underdog in this race because he is not supported by a Political Action Committee [PAC]. A PAC comes with automatic political, financial, and usually unearned ideological support.
Automatic political support because there are people who are loyal, for whatever reasons to that PAC and, will vote for whomever the PAC puts up for election even if their name was Charlie Brown and Mickey Mouse. Automatic financial support because each PAC has a board and members who are willing to financially support whoever is selected. The point of a PAC is to organize a coalition to gain power of each seat. Ideological power is from the PAC brand and reputation, even if the PAC lies and says it has values that it does NOT have as long as voters believe it.
Another thing a PAC does is provide some sort of seeming legitimacy to a candidate. But the selection of a candidate for a position is the result of a political process within the PAC that picks who some people like over potentially more qualified candidates. Although a candidate selected by a PAC seems like the person is better qualified this is frequently not the case. In fact, the biggest donors of the PAC who have the greatest influence on it, may know what they personally like but may know little about what makes a candidate truly the most well-qualified. In the end, a PAC supports who is good for the PAC [narrow interests] and not necessarily who is best for the community as a whole.
Why has no PAC decided to back Tom? I am afraid that is a question you will need to ask them. At the time of writing the Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC and Montgomery County Tea Party has lost credibility due to their unpopular stance on the incorporation of The Woodlands. The Township Future PAC and Preserve The Woodlands PACs have gained credibility and Preserve The Woodlands PAC effectively has installed 5 people out of the 7 seats on the Township Board. Likely soon to be 6 out of the 7 seats.
Preserve The Woodlands is already dominating the Board with a clear majority and appears to be pushing for complete domination (for all 7 seats). My understanding of balance and separation of powers, which is informed by Polybius' "The Rise of the Roman Empire" book 6 (~ 150 B.C.) as well as a nuanced modern understanding of social power informs me that such an arrangement is neither ideal nor good for The Woodlands over time.
There are already issues with their dominance. Specifically, I am learning that the Preserve the Woodlands overlord board is essentially greenlighting every high-rise plan developers put forward, while lacking any real plan to deal with traffic.
Together, we ended the long-standing dominance of narrow interests just by voting the best candidate instead of who the PACs tell us to.
The Dirt on the Political Process
Many years ago, I was a single parent for four years, attending school full-time, participating in an internship, and working as a Graduate Research Assistant. In that position, one of the things I did was substitute for political science professors and one of the things I was requested to teach was concerning the marketing of Presidential Candidates. I learned a lot.
A political campaign is ultimately about getting the votes one needs to win the electors [or in this case just a plain majority for the seat]. This is accomplished by people having concerns, issues, needs, wants, or desires that motivate a voter to choose a candidate on a ballot. Politicians may take various positions or pander to particular (narrow) interests in order to get groups of people to go to the polls to vote for them or raise the funds needed to run (and apply psychological tricks through advertising and rhetoric to get votes). However, when they govern, they must do so in consideration of broader interests.
Often politicians make promises. The vast majority of these promises are no good simply by the fact that they alone can do nothing, and it takes the other elected members of the policy-making body to agree to whatever a single member wants or said they will do. This process often invalidates what a politician says they will do. Either a politician lies in making promises, or they are ignorant of the process.
There are those political groups that watch those with political power more closely than others. A politician may be inclined to lie to groups of people who, after the election, don’t check up behind on what their person is doing. There are certain groups that totally check up on what all politicians are getting up to and hold them to account. I have been affiliated with some of the political watchdogs for years because of my dedication to honesty, integrity, and the good moral character of those who hold political power.
It is for these reasons you won’t find me going around making promises I can't keep or have an unrealistic view of what can be accomplished. I am hesitant to make promises for this reason or to tell you things that are not true, et cetera just to win your vote. I just won’t do that. At the same time, voters need to know why they should vote for any particular candidate over another.
Should money determine your election?
If I gave you cash for your vote, I'd go to jail. Interestingly, candidates usually win by paying for votes indirectly. I have come to learn how this game works in reality. Unless something really major is happening to cause voters to look more deeply, most people understandably take time-saving shortcuts in making voting decisions.
Candidates create a “brand” and sell it to people via mailers, signs, shirts, T.V. commercials, and now Facebook ads – in short a marketing campaign. The more spent on these things, and the more frequently voters see the brand they don’t dislike, the more likely they are to vote for that candidate [period]. The person with the most famous face, the appearance of popularity, and in short the bigger budget wins. That does NOT have to be.
Another way candidates get votes is through PACs or Political Action Committees. These organizations generally vet candidates for their own interests and do their own branding so that the public relies on them to tell them whom to vote for - this is the voter guide you'll pick up at the election. But PACs generally only support candidates that show “a path to victory” – translated - have a large enough purse in which to buy votes indirectly too or in the case of groups with narrow interests (their own) will support that one group over other interests (narrow interests over public interests).
MY PATH TO VICTORY IS IN HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH MY CONSTITUENTS THAT IS REAL AND MEANINGFUL! This is why my personal email and cell phone number is available to you. You have access to me and I am accountable to you.
I believe it shouldn’t take a ton of money to win a political campaign. I believe that leadership is or should be from the bottom up. I believe in having an authentic, servant, transformational leadership exchange with you that is real and meaningful, which means there’s a point where I just listen to you [this would have solved a lot of problems in history].
There's a distinction between being the best person running for the board and being the best candidate. But shouldn't they be the same? People from some establishment to non-establishment, from elected officials to PACs and other political groups in the know are saying I am the strongest person to run for the board but not the best candidate to support. The reason I won’t get their official endorsement is that the establishment either has their preferred candidate (one who will support their narrow interests) or I am perceived to not have a “path to victory” due to not spending enough money on the campaign or spending to support their organization (pay-to-play).
One time an organization suggested they could financially support me and then sent me questions about what positions I would take to see if I would take the positions they wanted me to. Then in a live video chat, I told them straight-forwardly when they asked me whether I would accept money from them, I told them yes I would as long they understood that I will do what is in the public interest and not any private interest including theirs. Needless to say, they provided no political or financial support to me. Imagine what it would be like if you had a person in the office that would not compromise on his/her positions for money but only, after many years of learning and refining, what s/he believed to be the best interests of the community ahead of all?
This would mean less political divisiveness and more trust in government for starters.
What is this About?
I make my political ideology public, so I can be more clear, in advance, about how I intend to operate as your elected official. So, I have a way to attract informed voters to my candidacy. So, I can be held to account by the public. So, you can have confidence in the vitality, stability, and future of our beloved community. So, we have a basis for discussion about particular issues of concern to you.
This position is about making decisions concerning issues of public interest as they relate to The Woodlands Township. The power of the position lies with the ability to bring items to the agenda for a vote by the board and the power to decide (within the framework of the law and prevailing values), and the power to influence for good or ill, and to create and sustain the strategy via planning and assessment. It is a question of how one will exercise these powers and privileges that is or should, determine the outcome of the election.
Am I a Team Player with those I differ?
Ideologically, some think an elected official's duty is to war, some to peace. Some think an elected official should always be fighting for something. Some think an elected official should always seek peace.
I believe in conflict to the extent that it produces a better idea or life. I believe in competition to the extent it produces better people or products. I believe in cooperation to the extent it results in common goal enhancement and purpose. I also believe in the beauty and reality of the individual and solidarity in individuality.
My training in organizational sciences teaches me that it is much better for the board to be united in purpose and goals and it would be my preference that the entire board would be generally unified and work together well as a team. We really need elected officials who will engender trust in their constituency. Therefore, I do not seek conflict and I do not seek peace as an object to itself,
I serve what I believe is best for us, and am intellectually and morally prepared for both. Generally, a board working together is what is best for us and therefore my dedication to teamwork is absolute to the point that I see it is no longer appropriate, acceptable, or based on false hope. If people refuse to reason, if conflict comes to what I stand for on behalf of the people, be sure, I will not run and I will not hide.
My Political Ideology
Many political decisions pit one powerful value against another: economic and moral, liberty and safety, etc. These are decisions that every elected official will eventually have to be prepared to make. You have to trust someone with the responsibility, would you rather do that with someone with whom you can discuss these issues or one who will never bring it up? Personally, I’d feel more comfortable with someone who will take the time to have a conversation with me, even if they disagreed with me.
If a person says they will always vote the way the majority wants then they fail to understand that the majority can be morally wrong or a tyranny to the minority. They are pandering only for the votes instead of being a true leader and they have little sense of what is good and right or lack the skills and knowledge of what to vote for. There is a point where one is elected for their ability to lead and I believe there is the expectation to do what is known to be correct or better, even if that particular thing is not commonly known.
At the same time, it is tyranny and an insensitivity to the needs of the people, and misuse of power that gave us our political system. To me it is a serious thing to go against the majority and a sacred duty as a leader, to really and truly listen to the input, needs, and desires of the people.
An example of how this plays out in out in our community is the desire of many residents to have their habitation be left alone from by-passes and over-passes and intrusions into the community by non-residents and concern for safety and security. On the other end of that argument is keeping our taxes low through area economic development. We all have an interest in these decisions. How we promote and implement decisions regarding these conflicting values is important to all, and distinguishes politicians from each other.
In short, I believe in the merits of ideas over any ideological identity constraints. To claim any political ideological identity results in making cognitive bias errors toward that particular previously established identity. So I prefer to establish my political identity NOT in ANY specific and sole pre-identified grouping - only to say that my pre-established identity is in what I believe and find is in the best interests of that jurisdiction at the time and in the particular situation in which the decision is made and that I must put the merit of ideas above any ideological identity.
I reserve the right to vote my conscience but I hold to a solemn and sacred duty to represent the jurisdiction to my best ability. I ask you to trust my best judgment, if or when I am asked to make it. As we solidify how we handle incorporation, it becomes really important to distinguish how we gain certain powers and control while not changing our fundamental community character in the process. This gets both philosophical and practical/technical. And it can become very important to our future, how we plan this out.
For example, should The Woodlands Township have direct control over police forces? Should we have our own judges? Everything we get comes with a price tag. Is it worth it? Are we better served by continuing a contract with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department? Again, my goal, over the next two years, after the election, is to sort out all of these questions and for our community to regain certainty over what we are going to do; rather than leaving these issues to uncertainty. I believe in authentic leadership and transparency: I intend to do none of this behind closed doors and for the increase of trust in our government!
Also, with the recent loss of Anadarko and other potential community losses, as well as the aging of some of our community like parts of Grogan’s Mill Village, how we actually handle these matters, not just plan for them, will set a precedent for how this is handled in the future and will determine what The Woodlands is in just a few years. I prefer to leave it a better place.
What about this particular issue?
These are general principles, if you would like to know more on specific issues relating to The Woodlands Township, please feel free to send those questions to me. Many issues that arise come from the administrative matters of the Township itself or from concerns of the public, some of which may be unknown before they arise. I can’t tell you how I might vote on every issue here [many will say it is too long as it is]; however, I can tell you how I make that judgment and what principles I may hold to, or prefer.
I currently see myself making the following contributions to the community. However, The Woodlands has many issues that require, and will obtain, my personal attention and advocacy.
My Promise
I will do what I can: to make decisions and to lead in such a way as to grow in the best way possible, while keeping our values strong, taxes low, expand township capacity to serve our current needs, plan for future prosperity, and show our community as a model for a long time to come.
The Best Way Forward
The best way to know if you want to vote for me, is to get to know me. And the best way for me to lead, is to get to know you.
-Please feel free to ask me to attend your event, club, or group by emailing directly to: TomElection@gmail.com .
-I am open to talking, to questions, to forums, and to debates on all our issues.
I look forward to serving more.
You may reach me at 803-292-9663 .
So are you Conservative or Liberal?
Where do I lie on the political spectrum? It depends on the issue. For example, there are a lot of social issues on which I tend to be conservative or for the status quo, perhaps even a return to the way things use to be in the past. Conservatism is often safe and secure for society; and change, if it should come at all, should be incremental to keep it that way.
Here are some issues on which I am non-compromisingly conservative:
-
Limited Government
-
Fiscal and Personal Responsibility
-
Free Markets
-
Ethical Administration & Leadership.
Let me share some reasons why I take those positions. I'll give one reason for limited government: "On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand De Jouvenel. Many are familiar with Hobbes' Leviathan. Sadly, few have read On Power by Bertrand that likens Government to another mystical creature: a Minotaur that only attempts to grow and not for the better. It's points are anything but mythical and is well documented with evidence. I consider this book one of the greatest pieces of literature in human history - and I have read a lot of books - it's a hobby of mine.
I believe in the Balanced ScoreCard - a simple and effective way to lead an organization fiscally. In a large-scale business simulation called the BSG (https://www.bsg-online.com/ ) I competed against people from top universities, top corporations, and some who had run the simulation before. I was one of the top players in the world and led my team to the rare privilege of being invited to do so again.
Knowing the difference between black (profit) and red (loss) isn't rocket science but repeatedly people in government treat money like it belongs to them, without appropriate regard for financial ratios - especially return on investment, and with reckless abandon. This is just wrong. And, on top of that - Government either uses force or threatens it to collect taxes. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" - the U.S. Supreme Court. It seems to me with such unique and profound authority, the government needs to be extra careful about how it acts. Somehow fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to apply to government and debt has become the watchword. I believe the money belongs to the taxpayers not the government and that is the way it should be treated at all times.
Government intrusion on the market often results in unfairness, rather than "helping". The function of government is to serve "the public interest" not the private interests. I believe private interests, broadly and universally, are best served by a fair government. And our precious liberty is at stake, whenever the government gets involved.
I believe Government should not get involved in areas not authorized by the US Constitution. And when it comes to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" we need to identify a specific market failure [with a limited possible number of identified failures] before attempting to address how the issue can be handled.
The highest moral standards demands good motives, good means, and good ends. I believe the leadership and administration of government must strive toward the highest of standards. Moral sounding outcomes, when backed by the force of the government, can lead to tyranny. We must be careful in our desire for good, that our outcome is not evil.
On some other issues I would be considered liberal. For example, I know about the research on the topic of leadership and how that certain styles result in increased performance in organizations. The styles themselves can be considered new or old, but the question as to whether they are effective or not may be quite new. I would advocate for what we now know to be effective. So, some things that are new may be good, or old ways so bad that implementation may need to be dramatic and sudden while avoiding disorderliness and chaos in the process. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are perfect examples of liberal ideas, at the time, that we now consider conservative.
My first priority with any knowledge is deep insight. I am open to learning any new thing and closed to things I have established to be wrong. I don’t de-legitimize others views on the basis that they differ from mine but that there is evidence to suggest that it has a bad: motive, means or end. What I ask, as any person running for office does, is for your trust in my judgment to know which is better and when.
However, it is important for people to know upfront, that you cannot always expect of me to be conservative or liberal in ideology as my knowledge and issues often go much deeper and more complicated than that. I don’t arbitrarily reject or accept things just because they are conservative or liberal. There are almost always more questions to be asked than those. Just like I tend not to identify with particular interest groups, I tend not to identify tightly with particular ideological groups. I take each issue in its context with the details that go with it and determine where it lies on the political spectrum at the end of my decision process. I don't say this issue is: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, or reactionary, and therefore I support it. Rather; I examine the reasons for and against and then see where it lies on the political spectrum. If it's further away from the center, you need to be more sure it can be justified.
Some may say well don't you know what is going on in our country? You've got to take a stand on the right side. If you don't think I'm principled, then you're not listening. It is because I am principled that I am hesitant to take broad stands. I take specific stands on specific issues. If you want to know those, then ask me.
Community Contributor Award
The Community Contributor Award is a way to reward and promote acts of good will in our community by virtue of the legitimate status of the board and recognition of individuals that contribute to the community.
This is one of those rare win-win situations, which was initiated and passed by the Grogan's Mill Village Association Board at my initiation.
A person is awarded based on a significant and verifiable behavior that helps our community. No funds have to be expended. However, we usually found a way to provide a certificate in a frame, and a gift card in addition to the recognition.
The picture (below), from left to right is, then President of the GM Board Marie Brannen, the first recipient of the award Chris Ortiz a teacher surprised while coaching girls basketball, the Principal of Knox Junior High a co-conspirator in the surprise, and myself. The basketball players were very happy for their coach and it was a great experience for all. Chris never did these things for the recognition; but, this also serves as a great example to those present and those who heard of it, that acts of good will, in our community, are valued and appreciated.
This award is NOT a random act of GOOD WILL, it does not happen without some forethought and intentional action. The one who really benefits is the community. I am so thankful for the opportunity to have been involved. The recipient has gone on to do many more amazing things in and around the community.