{"id":1651,"date":"2017-05-05T15:22:45","date_gmt":"2017-05-05T20:22:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1651"},"modified":"2017-05-05T22:14:05","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T03:14:05","slug":"raise-deeply-troubling-issues","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/truthinaddison.com\/?page_id=1651","title":{"rendered":"Meier\u2019s Efforts to Influence the Election Raise Deeply Troubling Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Meier\u2019s Efforts to Influence the Election<\/strong>
\nRaise Deeply Troubling Issues<\/strong>
\nBy Susan M. Halpern<\/strong>
\nFormer Addison Councilmember (1992-1999)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

To no one\u2019s surprise, the Dallas District Attorney has CLOSED the investigation Todd Meier improperly instigated against Joe Chow:<\/p>\n

\u201cAt this time, we are formally closing our investigation into this matter having found no evidence of any criminal offense.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

Meier should apologize to Joe Chow and to Addison residents and voters for having made false allegations against Joe Chow. But we all know he won\u2019t.\u00a0 Indeed, I predict that he will likely seek to perpetuate his false allegations concerning Joe Chow in a shameful effort to influence voters, once again improperly using Addison resources and his position as mayor.<\/p>\n

But\u2019s let put the \u201ctrying to steal the election\u201d issue aside for a moment, and examine Meier\u2019s conduct from a different angle and specifically, on whose behalf was Meier acting?<\/p>\n

We know that on March 28, 2017, the council met in executive session to consider this matter. The council returned to regular session and TOOK NO ACTION.\u00a0 In other words, the council declined to authorization to anyone<\/em> to take action.\u00a0 That included Meier.<\/p>\n

So, how did we get from NO AUTHORIZATION to a series of newsletters, distributed using Addison\u2019s email list and written by Meier under the \u201cmayor\u201d banner, where Meier purported to be communicating with the District Attorney regarding a supposed investigation? Well, I\u2019ve studied the chronology and investigated that question, and the more I learn, the more I realize that there are serious and deeply troubling questions regarding Meier\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s back up for a moment. Meier first raised this issue in his March 25, 2017 newsletter.\u00a0 Meier directly \u2013 AND FALSELY \u2013 accused Joe Chow of obtaining and using the Town\u2019s email list, writing: \u201cWe will work to determine how Joe Chow and his campaign received the list of subscribers to the mayor\u2019s newsletter.\u201d\u00a0 The question assumed that Joe Chow had the list, and yet, Meier had NO BASIS for making that accusation.\u00a0 And of course, Meier introduced the amorphous \u201cwe\u201d concept.\u00a0 Who was the \u201cwe\u201d that was going to \u201cwork to determine\u201d something that didn\u2019t happen in the first place?<\/p>\n

Two other things were happening around this time. First, Addison\u2019s staff investigated and determined that Addison had NOT suffered a data breach of any kind relating to the Town\u2019s email list.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know whether the staff had reached this conclusion before Meier\u2019s March 25, 2017 newsletter, but we DO know that the staff had reached this conclusion before the council\u2019s March 28, 2017 executive session.\u00a0 It is reasonable to assume that this information was provided to Meier during the executive session, and I have assumed that to be the case.\u00a0 Second, the three councilmembers in possession of the Town\u2019s email list executed affidavits confirming that they had not provided the list to Joe Chow.<\/p>\n

Back to the chronology. Four days after the council\u2019s executive session, on April 1, 2017, Meier distributed a newsletter referencing Chow\u2019s emails as \u201cspam,\u201d and stating that the DA \u201chas told our staff that their Public Integrity Unit will investigate this matter if they hear complaints.\u201d\u00a0 The clear suggestion was that some communication was ongoing between Addison and the DA. \u00a0But, Meier didn\u2019t identify any particular staff member, nor did Meier address the issue of why any member of the staff would be involved, given that the council did NOT AUTHORIZE ANY ACTION.<\/p>\n

Meier continued: \u201cAt this point we do not know where or how the Chow campaign obtained your email addresses.\u201d\u00a0 Again the \u201cwe\u201d was not identified, but in the context of both newsletters, the clear implication was that Addison was somehow involved in an investigation.\u00a0 That was false and contrary to the council\u2019s decision to NOT AUTHORIZE ACTION.\u00a0 Further, when considered in the context of Meier\u2019s prior newsletter, Meier was unquestionably perpetuating the false accusation that somehow Chow had obtained the Town\u2019s email list, even though by this time, Meier had to know of the staff\u2019s determination that no data breach had occurred.<\/p>\n

In the newsletter distributed on April 8, 2017, Meier again pressed his false accusations against Joe Chow. Meier provided what he called \u201cAn update on the Joe Chow campaign use of emails controversy,\u201d putting this sentence in bold letters and underlining it.\u00a0 This sentence assumed the existence of a controversy, even though the council had NOT AUTHORIZED ANY ACTION.\u00a0 It was a classic Meier manipulation: talking about fiction over and over, and then very subtly and craftily moving the fiction into assumed \u201ctruth.\u201d\u00a0 Except that fiction is not truth, it\u2019s fiction.\u00a0 And this was surely FICTION.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s where things get sticky for Meier. He wrote: \u201cI have forwarded your complaints\u201d to the DA.\u00a0 But here\u2019s the thing: the council did NOT AUTHORIZE ACTION.\u00a0 So, by what authority did Meier take any<\/em> action?\u00a0 Indeed, why was Meier in contact with the District Attorney at all, given that the council had NOT AUTHORIZED Meier to act?<\/p>\n

It gets far more serious, because we know now that somehow the District Attorney concluded that Meier was acting on behalf of Addison. We know this because City Manager Wes Pierson later reported to the council that the DA told Pierson that the DA had assumed that in making his complaint, Meier was acting in his capacity as the Mayor of the Town of Addison. The DA asked Pierson if Meier was authorized to act on behalf of the Town, and Pierson told him that the council had NOT PROVIDED SUCH AUTHORIZATION.<\/p>\n

That begs this question: What did Meier do or not do that left the District Attorney with the MISUNDERSTANDING that Meier was acting on behalf of Addison? SOMETHING had to have happened to lead the DA to the incorrect conclusion.\u00a0 Was it a signature block on an email?\u00a0 A call introducing himself as \u201cMayor Meier?\u201d\u00a0 A failure to correct references to him as \u201cmayor?\u201d\u00a0 Discussions about \u201cAddison citizens\u201d expressing concern to him?<\/p>\n

Or was it a failure to correct an assumption? In considering the issue of Meier\u2019s \u201cstanding,\u201d the DA undoubtedly knew that Meier did not receive Joe Chow\u2019s email (it was an obvious question).\u00a0 And he wasn\u2019t representing anyone as an attorney; that would have been a conflict.\u00a0 So, he wasn\u2019t acting as a lawyer.\u00a0 The only other \u201cstanding\u201d Meier would have had was as mayor. \u00a0Meier undoubtedly understood the same concepts, did he simply lead the DA to that conclusion without expressly stating it?\u00a0 Was that what tricked the DA into thinking Meier was acting for Addison despite the fact that the council DID NOT AUTHORIZE him to act?<\/p>\n

And then you have to consider the newsletters, in which Meier continually led the public to believe that he was thick in the middle of some investigation. I\u2019m certain the DA was aware of Meier\u2019s political use of the issue, and was not pleased.\u00a0 But, was the DA fooled like others by Meier\u2019s newsletters?\u00a0 Did the DA also think that in writing what he did, Meier interactions with the DA must have been on behalf of Addison?<\/p>\n

Something happened \u2013 or didn\u2019t happen, as in a misimpression was not corrected \u2013<\/em> to mislead the DA to think that Meier was acting on behalf of Addison, and that unquestionably helped Meier\u2019s quest to foment the issue in an effort to turn voters against Joe Chow.<\/p>\n

All of this raises very significant questions, particularly when you consider the context, i.e., that Meier was attacking Joe Chow in an effort to influence voters. So, what is it that transpired that left the DA with the clear MISUNDERSTANDING \u2013 for a critical period of time in relation to the election \u2013 that Meier was acting on behalf of the Town?\u00a0 SOMETHING had to have happened to lead the DA to conclude that Meier was acting on behalf of Addison.\u00a0 And that must mean that at a minimum, Meier withheld the fact that the council had considered the matter and had NOT AUTHORIZED any action.<\/p>\n

Now consider the rest of what Meier wrote in the April 8, 2017 newsletter. In boldface type, Meier stated that the DA was \u201ccurrently investigating the legality of spam campaign emails and whether there was a criminal breach of city property.\u201d Think about that.\u00a0 Meier was creating a false record, including because he had to know by then that ADDISON\u2019S STAFF HAD CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO DATA BREACH, a conclusion with which the DA ultimately agreed.\u00a0 And that\u2019s before you consider again that the council had NOT AUTHORIZED any action.\u00a0 Yet, here is Meier using Addison\u2019s email list and writing about an investigation under the banner \u201cThe Mayor\u2019s Newsletter.\u201d\u00a0 Citizens were clearly led to believe that somehow Addison was involved in an investigation.\u00a0 It was false, unfounded, and unauthorized.<\/p>\n

A week later, Meier circulated his April 15, 2017 newsletter. Meier fomented the issue for the fourth time, now employing a phony question and answer format.\u00a0 The fake question was \u201cMayor, what is the status of the investigation into the use of the email list by the Joe Chow campaign.\u201d\u00a0 Again, it\u2019s classic Meier, as he was now treating the matter as though it was well established that there was an investigation, and that Meier knew about it.\u00a0 In turn, that misled the reader to conclude that Meier was involved in his capacity as mayor<\/em>, a mischaracterization amplified by the fake answer in which Meier wrote:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • \u201cI can\u2019t comment on an ongoing investigation\u201d<\/li>\n
  • The DA was \u201ctaking it seriously\u201d and \u201cactively addressing your concerns\u201d<\/li>\n
  • \u201cThey have returned my phone calls and emails, and I know they are working hard.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    And this fictional account crystallizes the most serious question, and the one that Meier is currently refusing to answer: In what capacity was<\/em><\/strong> Meier operating \u2013 or leading the DA to believe he was operating, when Meier had NO AUTHORITY to act on behalf of Addison?<\/p>\n

    On April 25, 2017, the council had another executive session about this issue, and again decided to NOT AUTHORIZE any action.<\/p>\n

    Three days later, on April 28, 2017, City Manager Wes Pierson was informed that the DA had CONCLUDED its investigation, having found no evidence of criminal violations. You have to believe that Pierson imparted this information to Meier.<\/p>\n

    It didn\u2019t matter to Meier. The very next day, April 29, 2017, Meier again included a fictitious Q&A section in his newsletter, now phrasing the fake question in even more inflammatory terms: \u201cWhat is the status of the investigation into the possible misuse of the email subscription list by the Joe Chow campaign.\u201d\u00a0 Think about Meier\u2019s intent to harm Joe Chow\u2019s candidacy.\u00a0 Meier had to know that the investigation was concluded!\u00a0 And yet, Meier perpetuated his attacks, including in the fake answer: \u201cThe DA\u2019s office will not comment further on a pending investigation.\u201d\u00a0 That statement was patently FALSE.\u00a0 There was NO PENDING INVESTIGATION.\u00a0 That fact had been communicated the previous day.\u00a0 Then to further stir the now-dead pot, Meier turned to a discussion of polygraph exams, which he knows are inadmissible BECAUSE THEY ARE UNRELIABLE, and fomented the matter further with the absurd suggestion that Chow and others subject themselves to polygraph examinations. All this despite having been told that the DA\u2019s office had found no wrongdoing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    Meier\u2019s clear intent was to influence voters against Joe Chow. And, you have to also consider this entire episode in the face of yet another false attack relating to eligibility, which likewise confirmed Meier\u2019s use of Addison\u2019s email list in an effort to influence the election.\u00a0 Specifically, on April 22, 2017, just two days before early voting was to occur, Meier falsely suggested that Joe Chow and Tom Braun were ineligible for office due to term limits.\u00a0 In making this assertion, Meier omitted the language of the original ballot proposition that was unequivocal in establishing that the only limitation is to CONSECUTIVE or SUCCESSIVE terms, not to TOTAL terms.\u00a0 Meier also omitted the fact that Addison\u2019s attorney had opined two months earlier that both Chow and Braun were eligible.<\/p>\n

    Then, a week later, on April 29, 2017, after the council voted to release the attorney\u2019s memos, Meier again fomented the eligibility issue. Meier still made no mention of the key language of the ballot proposition.\u00a0 Instead, Meier called the issue \u201cconfusing,\u201d and made the ridiculous statement that this is why law school is \u201c3 years of teaching lawyers to write and give arguments supporting either side of a controversy.\u201d\u00a0 Give me a break.\u00a0 The language of the 1993 ballot proposition is CRYSTAL CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE:<\/p>\n

    \u201cSHALL THE ADDISON CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO LIMIT TO THREE (3) THE NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE TERMS which a person may hold the office of Mayor or the office of council member, and to effectuate such amendment.\u201d (Capitalization added).<\/p>\n

    You don\u2019t need three years of law school to understand what Addison voted on in 1993. But, you should be deeply concerned that a sitting mayor twice discussed this issue without revealing the language of the ballot proposition.\u00a0 Again, it\u2019s classic Meier: telling half a story to mislead Addison residents and to support Meier\u2019s purpose of the moment.<\/p>\n

    I have asked Meier to explain his conduct. I haven\u2019t heard from him, and he has declined to answer questions posed by at least one council member.\u00a0 Meier\u2019s refusal to respond speaks volumes.<\/p>\n

    In my view, what we have witnessed is brazen conduct by a sitting mayor who has used Town resources to influence voters by misrepresenting the record. If you voted in reliance on Meier\u2019s false, misleading statements, we\u2019d like to hear from you.<\/p>\n

    In the meantime, I am hopeful that Addison voters will resoundingly reject Meier\u2019s destructive politics of division, in favor of putting Addison on a path back to the Addison Way.<\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n