Campaign Finance Report: University Park Citizens For Responsible Alcohol Sales Policy

In today’s edition of Park Cities People, you’ll read a story about the finances of both sides of the the alcohol propositions debate. In the story, I reported that former mayor Roy Coffee Jr.’s group (mentioned above) did not file their “8th day before election” financial report.

That is technically incorrect.

The report was filed to the County Clerk; I checked with the Dallas County Board of Elections, where all the reports eventually end up. Board of Elections Administrator Bruce Sherbet called me this morning to inform me that (due to a breakdown at the County Clerk’s office) the report had not been transferred, despite a gentleman’s agreement to do so.

The report — according to a time stamp on the file — was received at 4:23 p.m., Oct. 25.

Here are Park Cities People‘s findings:

The majority of UPCFRASP’s funds come directly from former UP mayor Roy Coffee Jr. and current mayor Dick Davis. Each donated $12,000 to the campaign. UP resident Gail Schoellkopf also donated $1,000.

The rest of the contributions —between $25 and $100 each — came from private citizens. The total amount raised by the group is $25,700.

The group has spent roughly $12,600 thus far; the majority of the expenditures — $11,400— was related to the creation and distribution of two direct mailings to UP residents. Each of the mayors’ robo-calls cost the campaign $311.70.

32 thoughts on “Campaign Finance Report: University Park Citizens For Responsible Alcohol Sales Policy

  • October 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    Permalink

    Each of these guys donated TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS to this cause? Really? Huh. I don’t get it at all.

    Those annoying damn robo calls should cost them way, way more than that. Those things should be outlawed.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Sadly, it appears Park Cities People is going to print on this week’s front page a story that is completely untrue, and that will do damage that cannot be undone.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    Permalink

    @NF, please tell us the untrue parts.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    Permalink

    If the story is printed that the campaign did not file its report I hope the campiagn files suit for slander and liable. It simply is NOT true…no technically about it. The reporter did not do his due dilligence in not calling and contacting the campaign directly.

    What I do hope is in the story is how the pro alcohol side has run a campaign illegally from the front.

    Is it possible that PCP can do a story that is “fair and balanced” or do they only editorialize pro liquor.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 3:13 pm
    Permalink

    Anyone at PCP care to refute NF?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    Permalink

    @Lifelong Parkie

    The story reads that I left a message for group secretary Kelly Walker, which was not returned.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Permalink

    The story and the headline say the Anti side did not file their report on Monday. That is factually incorrect – to put it nicely. My copy of the filing shows it was filed at 4:23 on Monday. I’ve been posting that information here for two days.

    There were no calls to Dick Davis, Roy Coffee, or anyone else (besides Kelly Walker) to determine whether the report had been filed, what it said, or to get reaction. On something this important, I would think most reporters would exhaust every possibility to learn the facts for a story that could impact an election.

    Park Cities People is runnning a story that they know is factually 180 degrees from the truth, and one that will cause harm that cannot be undone.

    This is sad, and enormously disappointing, for a newspaper that has previously enjoyed such a good reputation in the community.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    Permalink

    P.W. I would also have that same opinion if this same damage had been done to the other side. The front page is supposed to be neutral. Your front page is neither neutral in this matter nor accurate.

    That this was done to a group comprised of the current mayor, 7 of 9 former mayors, current and former city council members, school board members, civic leaders, and others very involved in the community – not a few of them attorneys.

    This is not what I’d consider a winning community relations move for a local publication.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    Permalink

    @NF

    I also called former mayor Coffee; The phone rang, and no one ever picked up.

    Mayor Davis was not named on the PAC’s filings, so I did not consider it appropriate to call him considering the group’s financial information.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    Permalink

    NF. yes voters will be victorius. We can have a drink to celebrate. I’m buying.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    Permalink

    Bradford,

    What I’m having a hard time understanding is how the paper can go with a story like this on the front page, that is tremendously damaging and could impact an election, when the information doesn’t seem logical and isn’t confirmed.

    While they are apparently not of great concern to the other side, election law violations are considered a serious matter by most of the folks associated with the Anti group, and by most people who care about elections.

    There are no more opportunities to balance things, or correct mistakes. The election is Tuesday. So, anything that disparages one side, especially that isn’t true and is the opposite of both the facts and actual situations, cannot be undone, amended, or rectified. (“Unfair” also comes to mind!)

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    Permalink

    @N.F. Stop whining. You said earlier this week that the phony photo of “Lubbock” on your side’s campaign flyer was just fine because it made the point you wanted it to make. And as noted in other posts, we now know Mayor Davis falsely told Merritt Patterson that he still believed that the photo was of a row of Lubbock bars, despite the fact that the commenter Buddy sent the mayor the correct information about the photo prior to his discussion with Merritt.

    You need to address your own truth and accuracy problems before calling out PCP. But that wouldn’t suit your purposes, would it?

    At any rate, I think the seat moisteners at the county clerk’s office did you guys a big favor. How do you think the community would have reacted to a blaring headline on tomorrow’s paper naming Mayors Davis and Coffee as the principal funders of the “vote no” campaign?

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    Permalink

    Bradford,

    As long as you’re sure you did the best you could do, and you’re certain you were absolutely fair and impartial, then that’s all you can do.

    Then it’s up to the editors to do the right thing.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    Permalink

    We finally know what happened with the infamous “Lubbock” pictures, and all of the people inexplicably fixating on them can finally settle down and move on with the lives.

    I’ll type slowly for the slow ones who are still worried about this.

    The graphic artist being used by the Anti-bars side, let’s call him “R”, originally had very similar pictures in the brochure that were shot in Lubbock near Tech by a friend of someone in the campaign. That is the brochure Dick Davis saw. So, it is correct that the brochure depicted bars near a college campus, even though the town was not identified. It was Lubbock.

    But, there were two problems. One, the artist didn’t think the resolution of the pictures was of sufficient quality to print well, especially on a digital press.

    Second, out of sensitivity for Texas Tech fans, it was decided not to use the Lubbock (or any other) college town photos, and to simply get generic pictures for sale from photo stock companies. ALL OF THE PICTURES CAME FROM iSTOCK PHOTO AND GETTY IMAGES, ACCORDING TO “R”.

    (I apparently owe someone an apology for calling this “Clip Art”. That is something else.)

    So, the images Mayor Davis saw were, in fact, neon bar signs in Lubbock. But, he was not aware that while the copy stayed the same, the pictures were changed out.

    So, he did not lie, and was not mistaken, about the pictures. He is therefore owed an apology by several people who, in my opinion, need professional help for being so hung-up on the stupid pictures!

    Talk about “whining”.

    I hope this solves the mystery of the “Dick Davis Lied To Me About The Pictures And I’m Upset And Have No Life nOW” adventure in the abject (and marginally neurotic) visual safari of obsessing about brochure graphic arts.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    Permalink

    N.F., you do the antis no favor by continuing to post. The facts (undisputed to date) show that Mr. Davis continued to lie long after he knew the truth about the photo.

    That you can so casually dismiss a blatant attempt to influence the election by grossly misrepresenting the possible fallout says alot about you and the antis. The anti leadership paid for the flyer. They, and they alone, are responsible for it’s content.

    I don’t know you, so I can’t say I am surprised, but as to the leaders of the opposition, I am shocked and terribly disappointed at their conduct.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    Permalink

    ZF, You sound like a paid soldier for the Anti crowd. I haven’t read one level headed response from you. Each and every response from you has been reactionary and combative. I’m not saying you may not have some valid points, but you have been hell bent on denying a sliver of truth to the other side.
    That leads me to believe you are the pastor from Footloose. Let Ariel go. She needs to fly. You are clipping her wings. She will rebel and end up pregnant with Ren’s baby.
    Seriously ZF, grow up and let the adults have a conversation with back and forth repartee unfiltered by your bias.
    You want an apology to Dick “Dick” Davis? How about HE explains to us why HE paid 12 THOUSAND DOLLARS against the props?!?!
    How ’bout it Dick? How “bout it ZF?
    Who are you ZF? You are so strong in your beliefs and convictions. Who are you? I’ll drop my name if you drop yours. I didn’t think so…
    Keep hiding behind your Big Brother cape of fear and gloom and doom.
    You are the problem ZF.
    You are antiquated, boring and predictable…like James Carville.

    Reply
  • October 28, 2010 at 11:42 pm
    Permalink

    Yowsa. Quite the last ditch effort here by N.F. I know that all the PCP people know who the posters are – they know me quite well – so I’m just really wanting to know his/her identity and connection – I am wildly curious now. Speak up Mr. N.F. , speak your mind in your own voice, and let us know where you are coming from. It seems skeezy as all get out now, but maybe with a name it wouldn’t be so? Hmmmm. Out yourself dude.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 6:05 am
    Permalink

    Now, now. I don’t think it serves any purpose to call someone out, however misguided they may be, for choosing to remain anonymous on a comment board such as this. Anonymity allows for lurkers, yes, but also allows for freedom of true expression on sensitive issues that might otherwise never come to light. That’s why we allow voters to cast their lot by secret ballot.

    I, for one, choose to go by my real name, because I want people to know that elves are paying close attention to local issues of importance.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 6:59 am
    Permalink

    Rico, when you learn to read and reason, you’ll figure out what happened. I actually took the time to learn what happened since Dick Davis has a reputation for scrupulous honesty – unlike some other people involved in this campaign.

    The Mayor saw proofs of the brochure which did, in fact, contain pictures of Lubbock. Because the graphics person wasn’t satisfied with the resolution of the pictures (shot by an amateur), and because others in the campaign weren’t interested in disparaging Lubbock or Tech to make a very valid point, the artist went out on the web and rented generic pictures from two stock photo companies.

    When asked about the pictures that ended up in the brochure, Dick Davis did, in fact, believe they were pictures of Lubbock. (I confirmed that he was never told the source of the pictures was switched out.) So, he didn’t lie to anyone about it.

    The bigger question that nobody on the Pro side has answered is why anyone cares WHERE the pictures were taken. They illustrate a point – in much the same way that either a Marlin or a Swordfish could be used to illustrate deep sea fishing.

    Got it now?

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 7:14 am
    Permalink

    Grump, “a paid soldier”? You have no idea how funny that is.

    But, I do care about University Park, and my neighbors and I are quite concerned about the damage these propositions could do to our community.

    If you dare to do your homework, you’ll discover that the Pro side of the campaign spent much more money than the Anti side. The Pro side took special interest money from outside of Texas, and from corporations, to influence University Park voters and elections.

    The Anti side raised all of its money from University Park citizens, and no money from corporations or special interests.

    Those are facts; not “bias” or spinning speculation. For the people pushing this referendum, it’s really all about the money.

    Don’t take my word for it. Pull the PAC reports from both sides and compare them yourself.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 8:59 am
    Permalink

    Scare tactic again N.F. The people for the Props got 100% of their money from businesses currently operating in U.P. and U.P. Property owners. Those scary special interest corporations are Tom Thumb and Hillstone (formerly Houston’s Restaurant).

    The money against the Prop came from Davis ($12k), Coffee ($12k), Schoellkopf ($1k) and only $750 from other people.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    Bradford, just wanted to make sure I was clear on something. The PAC’s total collected funds is $26,700, right? If Coffee gave $12k, Davis gave $12K, and a UP resident gave another $1,000, 3 individuals virtually fund the whole campaign. Only an additional $700 was collected from other participants/residents. Doesn’t seem like a ground swell of support for the nay side, does it?

    I respect the nay side’s right to its opinion, but if the argument continues to be “it will damage our community”, where are the facts that support that? Many communities in Texas have recently voted to change from dry to wet, etc. Where are the confirmable statistics on those communities who made the change? Are DUIs up? How many strip bars turned up after they made the change? Surely, these facts have some relevance, and, if we truly are descending into hell, someone would dig these up? Sorry, but seedy pictures and a passionate “trust me” don’t do it for me.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
    Permalink

    @N.F.

    Okay, let’s say Mr. Davis didn’t have a clue what was sent out using his money. (I’m really starting to feel sorry for the graphic designers in this world who seem to keep taking the fall for every campaigns’ “miscues”)

    I think the bigger question as related to the pictures is the complete and total misrepresentation of what would “happen” if this passes. The pictures and text of the mailer quite clearly represent that our town will look like this as a result of voting “FOR”.

    Do you think that is a good reflection upon Mr. Davis’ “scrupulous honesty”?

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    I generally find venting anonymously on these pages very cleansing. Through PCP one can achieve a true state of catharsis. OOuummmmmmm………..Vote Yes.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Permalink

    @N.F. – You say: “The bigger question that nobody on the Pro side has answered is why anyone cares WHERE the pictures were taken. They illustrate a point – in much the same way that either a Marlin or a Swordfish could be used to illustrate deep sea fishing.”

    The anti side and the pro side should both care about these pictures. It adds fuel to the fire for those who say the anti side is lying. The pictures represent a bar scene in an area that has different regulations than what UP would have should these propositions pass. Compare apples to apples. A fishing boat company wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) advertise with photos of marlin or swordfish if they take groups fishing for tuna.

    Got it now?

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    Permalink

    If this passes I forsee a new set of city-approved rules that will regulate who can sell beer and wine if this passes. No sales within a 1000 yards of a school or church? Is there a plot of land in UP that isn’t within a 1000 yards of a school or church? IJS

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Permalink

    Today’s front-page story about the financial contributions is regrettable, but I don’t know what else we could have done. We checked in Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday with the county’s elections administrator, and he didn’t have the anti-proposition side’s paperwork until Thursday, when the paper had already been printed. We tried to get an explanation before our press deadline from Kelly Walker, who didn’t call us back, and Roy Coffee, who didn’t answer his phone.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm
    Permalink

    Roy Coffee has answering machines in his office and at his home. They answer when there isn’t someone available to answer the phone. It is unlikely Bradford could not have made such a call with no answer at all.

    The County Election’s Administrator told someone with the campaign he had one call from Bradford; not several.

    All of this is not to say Bradford is ‘mistaken’. But, it does suggest, if accurate, that Bradford has terrible luck with telephones.

    If he did the best he could do, and just had no luck, then that’s all he cold do. If he didn’t, and misrepresented his efforts, then that’s another matter.

    In any event, the paper printed a story that was totally false, should have suspected was false, and should have verified to be true or skipped it. It did damage that cannot be undone.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    Permalink

    That said, Mr. Koller, I appreciate your taking the time to post a response on the blog.

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    Permalink

    James Tucker, if these issues pass, the City of University Park will have no authority over establishments selling alcohol. That authority will rest will the TABC. The TABC doesn’t have enough people to do much more than answer complaints. (The HPISD School Board may be able to create some distance regulations, but that’s it.)

    Reply
  • October 29, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    Permalink

    In support of Bradford’s version of events, it’s remotely possible for Roy Coffee’s office answering machine not to intercept a call. But, it’s highly unusual.

    Reply
  • October 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
    Permalink

    @N.F.: I’m not an attorney and there are probably more hoops to jump threw associated with getting use restrictions than what I am about to detail. But the Alcohol Beverage Code expressly allows cities to adopt regulations regarding sales near: schools, churches, and public hospitals (Tex. Alco. Bev. Code §109.33)

    Some of the more important facets of that regulation:

    Generally three hundred (300) feet of a church, public or private school, or public hospital, with a couple of exceptions;
    one thousand (1,000) feet of a public school if the commissioners court or the governing body receives a request for the board of trustees of a school district under Section 38.007 of the Election Code

    one thousand (1,000) feet of a private school if the county commissioners court or city council receive a request from the governing body of the private school

    I believe there are other exceptions for daycare centers and other learning centers. ijs

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Lifelong Parkie Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *