Attending a MUD Meeting in The Woodlands

---

As clear as Woodlands Texas MUD?  Attending a MUD (Municipal Utility District) meeting isn’t that bad! Yes, there are some technical parts of the discussions and yes, there are financial parts of the discussions, and yes, it is not the most exciting thing a person could do.  I can say there were very few things I did not understand, but then again I have a background in drilling wells and finance.

Anyone can attend a MUD meeting. It is healthy to experience one, for both the board of directors and you.  Showing interest connects the board to its customers and its customers to the district. I sure don’t advocate going to every meeting, but I do recommend that every resident attends at least one, preferably for the district providing water service to their home.

The MUD #60 meeting I attended this month addressed a resident’s issue with soil erosion and received reports from the various agencies affecting MUD business. Of high interest to us, is the implementation of the San Jacinto River Authority Groundwater Reduction Fee. This will be fully communicated to all Woodlands residents by Jim Stinson and staff in the JPA. Residents will likely incur an additional fee of $0.50/1000 gallons of water used, starting with their October bill. Concurrently, all the MUDs need to develop a higher well contingency fund for replacing a well, should that be needed. The cost of a well has increased substantially since the last raise of contingency fund collections.

An hour spent at a meeting can be an eye opener. Minutes for a Woodlands MUD are not as accessible as those for the county or the township. They are available per the Texas Open Records Act. A copy can be acquired at a meeting or from the district’s secretary. Current agenda is posted at the utility district office near Grogan’s Mill and Lake Robins.

Operations of a MUD

Each MUD has its own budget to manage.  Each has its own assets to manage. Each district has authority over a defined geographic area. Here in The Woodlands, for efficiency purposes, maintenance and financial services are aggregated and shared among the districts. This practice helps them to keep operating costs down. Each MUD is responsible for its entire service process. All MUDs here have an interlocal contract for those shared services to the Joint Powers Agency (JPA), a nonprofit created for this purpose. The district scope of authority is limited to the reclamation, drainage, acquisition, and distribution of water.  It includes the streams and ditches associated with water runoff, as well as the infrastructure required to provide those services.  A MUD has no limit on capital investment. The Board of Directors consist of five elected residents of the district. Every even year (e.g., 2000, 2002, … 2010), there can be an election on the first Saturday of May. If there are no challenging candidates, incumbents are automatically elected and there is no election. Each board elects representatives to serve on the Joint Powers board. Taxation is by the MUD. Those elected represent the tax dollars paid by residents in the MUD district. Taxation is driven by capital expenses, i.e., sewage facilities and wells. Bi-monthly water bills are for sewage, water and cost of operation. Now we head into a new era, where surface water will begin to play an increasing role in our potable water supplies, raising the cost of water to the district. For many people, watering lawns likely will eventually be cost prohibitive.     

Some but not all resident issues with drainage or water supply can be addressed by the board. Sometimes, residents work directly with the JPA to resolve problems. For example, I recently assisted a resident, to resolve a long standing serious problem with sewage flooding in her home. The JPA came up with a solution that should fix that problem.

In 2010, there were no challengers to the board in this district. To challenge an incumbent, one must follow a procedure outlined in the charter. Contact your local MUD representative for timing detail and procedure.

References  

1.    The Woodlands Joint Powers Agency

2.    San Jacinto River Authority

Election 2010 Apathy and Politics - Randy's opinion

I have heard various accounts of what happened on May 8th. Each one has its merits. However, most skirt the real issues by just calling the turnout “apathy”. One person characterized the 92% no-show as the "shame of America". From what I observed, the lack of turnout has numerous reasons that could collectively be called apathy. Many residents here believe the local government is complicated and beyond their available time and effort. Why vote on something that you don’t really understand, especially when things seem to be OK? We have had this problem ever since I moved here and long before. Apathy is just “leave it to the others to determine”.  If anything has changed since we became a township, we have a much better voting turnout than we did before, but the quality of the turnout may not have been so great. The turnout in my precinct was probably the highest ever, but not good enough to make a difference.

I’ve heard this question - "who knows what is right anyway?" And in some cases - "I don't even know what directors do! Do they have job descriptions?" Then there is the other simple perspective - "I go vote for someone I know, but I have no idea what the issues are. I trust the person, not the words." Personally, I understand both viewpoints. As a voter, I have been in both places. Circumstances around an election can create a feeling of ignorance to many and discourage people from coming to the polls, but that does not adequately describe what happened.

There were basic politics not too difficult to understand in this election. One candidate sought his position through one issue, thinking that issue was significant enough to get attention, and his solution would get him a position on the board. Nope. That does not generally work. The public was leery. Crime and policing seemed overstated anyway. There were other candidates who did not clearly set themselves apart from the incumbents; change is usually needed to take a position away from an incumbent. My team thought we had a good shot at Robb, because of his attendance and voting history, along with a solid issue platform which would have retained the waterway strategies of TCID for tourism and commercial expansion, but at a much lower cost. None of that seemed to matter, as it turned out, due to apathy and personal loyalty. Then there was a third person who entered the contest the same day as I did. She was endorsed by what I call the “anti” group of people. I am not an anti-establishment type of person; I am just a resident who wants to have an affordable quality lifestyle. I know how to get it done and why one needs to do it. The fourth candidate was not seriously running, so he was not on our radar.

It is tough for the working resident to sort out the issues and be able to make an informed decision on them. In this election, the voter had significant information provided by The Villager and the League of Women Voters, in addition to candidate websites and literature paid for by candidates, but many residents were not even aware of them. Unfortunate to challengers, the safe position for many voters is to vote for incumbents. After all, they have the "insights" into how things are run and have a great deal of knowledge and contacts, right?  Actually - wrong! Can you blame the voters? Yet there could be significant consequences from that attitude. Status quo through incumbent support eventually leads to a decay of living quality and lost opportunities for improvement. In this case, leaving it to others holds fast to the commercial-centric doctrine in lieu of residential needs. Consequences of this doctrine are not seen for the moment, but when the time comes, they will become evident. Then it is too late. Remember the stock market? Despite all the communication attempts, our residents generally remain an uninformed public.

Leaders of the community have a job to do in order to get more voters to participate, but that would not serve them well. They need to educate the public in a way that is clear and short, not in the terms of those seeking deep understanding, but that is not going to happen. Many of us question the status quo, but many also defend it as a safety net. A candidate's challenge is to gain voter confidence, so that the voter will truly listen. I understand that. I dealt with it daily when I was trying to describe my position on issues during the election. The more depth one wants to know, the more difficult it becomes to get the point across. The bottom line is that the public wants to elect candidates it can trust to make the right decisions for it, never mind the issues. That becomes the psychology of endorsements. What I call "limelight advertising" is reality in the eyes of many. Focus on the people around the candidate instead of the person. That hides the candidate's capabilities and presents an image rather than a person. It is also a social issue, blinding to the eyes of those who are not interested in local issues. It takes the common resident to vote in order to make a difference.

I felt most issues were simple rather than the reverse. Spending too much, wasteful spending, the need to have better alternative and contract selection criteria, the need to measure better, and last but perhaps more important than anything else, the absolute need for a director to tend to the business of the township instead of being absent from decision discussions and voting. Some people argued that work conducted behind the scenes of the township board meetings was more important than attendance at board meetings. I strongly disagree. Government should be transparent and arguments visible to the public. Otherwise those working in the invisible background should not claim any responsibility for successes. The evidence of performance is at the board meeting when one discusses a proposal and casts a vote. That participation could also be evident in open discussions with the public, but that is rarely seen in local politics. We do have town hall meetings for this purpose, but they are not sufficiently leveraged to affect many projects. Hot resident issues can be heard at these meetings, but they are not very frequently discussed with residents. I conclude that the Board of Directors remains a closed door operation to most of us, with political influence constantly used to gain support for individual ideas and perspectives behind the scenes. As long as that happens, we lack diversity in decision making, and our money is inadvertently channeled into pet projects. That was evident in the strategic planning exercise. Residents were not invited to participate in those proceedings, but the budget is justified on the outcome of that process.

So what happened out there on the 8th? I witnessed three groups of residents. (1) Those who feel like they don't have sufficient exposure to the government in The Woodlands or have no interest in local issues. These folks normally do not vote in local elections. This group constitutes at least 50% of the registered voters. (2) Family life comes first - hey it was Saturday. During the early voting there were homework assignments, getting home late, leaving early, and the old 50+-hour work week. No time for voting. This group is also very large and comprises most of the remaining 92% no-shows. (3) The voters – 8% of the registered voters who are oftentimes die-hard Americans, involved in local issues, appreciating the opportunity to speak out, and selecting the candidates who they deem best to serve the community. They are exercising their American privilege to choose.

In the 8% who did vote, I can think of six categories. (1) Status quo - give me an incumbent. I am afraid to change; (2) First on the ballot; (3) Loyalty: I know the person, have organizational ties, or I am from the candidate’s village; (4) Name recognition: I have heard of the person; (5) Issue-centric: based on ideals, desire for change, or values; and (6) Duty:  I am supposed to vote. Research often occurs at the polling location for these people. I believe the majority of the 8% group did their homework and were prepared to cast their ballot on arrival at the polls, but most of them voted personal loyalty for at least one candidate. If one looks at the voting demographics, I suspect the median age of voters was very high relative to the median age of the registered voter community.

What did the candidates do to get voters to the polls and vote for them? Money buys votes. There is no doubt about it. With money, you can also claim about anything you want. You have name broadcasting power. You can buy the biggest, the most, and the labor to get your message to the population. If you are an incumbent, you can claim virtually anything that went right when you occupied the position, to be your personal accomplishment. If you did not vote against it in an open meeting, then you are safe. You can also buy a following of people. If you have organizational power, you can influence your people's role and support from within the organization, including financial support.

Standing out in the hot sun earns votes. Being the last voice or image a voter sees before going into the voting booth is highly valued by the candidates. Being on location to greet them is appreciated by voters. I guess that depends though. I felt that the “hawking” done by candidates at the early convenience election location was frankly distasteful. Many voters chose not to be bothered and parked where campaigners were not allowed. The hawking had no value in attracting voters to the polls, but possibly helped to persuade them to cast their votes for some candidates. I was one of the few who preferred to go house to house and ask people to come out and vote. Calling friends brings loyal supporters to the polls. Going door-to-door educates the public. A personal “please vote” goes a long way.

Some of the things I heard occurring behind the scenes of this election made me bristle. Politics are not exactly ethical, you know. Candidates can be ethical, but their people may not. Signs were stolen out of yards for example under the cover of darkness in apparent attempts to remove advertising of targeted candidates. There were even reports of coerced contributions of skilled labor. Some activities by “supporters” disappointed me and some advertisement falsehoods disappointed me. There was no avenue to contest those claims except to spend more money.

In this election, residents were blasted by propaganda in every media possible. Many did not want to be blasted, so they turned it all off, throwing away the newspapers, and not answering or ignoring the calls. I heard "enough already" several times. I sure felt that way myself. "Another d*^# call from a machine!" How is it that a candidate can use a machine to call your home numerous times when you are on the national no-call list anyway? Is that ethical? Is it breaking the law? Also, why would anyone call from a church when that is against IRS regulations? Why did I get a call from Tommy Williams? Why did I get a call from Kevin Brady? Politicians were actually advertising themselves on someone else's campaign contributions. Maybe robo calls should have said "This has been a paid political advertisement for Tommy Williams and Ed Robb by the campaign committee for Ed Robb."  Why would anyone spend so much money anyway for a non-paying job? Ego? Issue? Ideal? Fun? Experience? Why? I am a voter and a stakeholder in this government, so I ask these questions. Don’t you? What is the motivation and why do certain political figures want to have a certain candidate in office, especially in light of that person’s past performance? Some people have connected the dots and made their own calculated conclusions.  Advertising can be informative and appreciated, but the repeated immersing of people in it is not.

Personally, I had one reason to run for office. I believe what has occurred on the board is not exactly right. That was exemplified by the all out campaign spending to maintain control of the waterway spending strategies and other projects. I bet there were some people who would have raised $100,000 and spent it, if they thought that was necessary to reach their goal. I draw parallels with the spending of our taxes. That leads me to think there is big money in getting all those people into office. Doesn’t it to you?

Look back at who endorsed the candidates and start asking yourself some of these questions. Politics here appears to run much deeper than any concerns about The Woodlands itself. Those currently in office are not suspected of neglecting township business in my mind, but I know the job can be done better at a lower cost. Government watch groups are chasing the money trails to check if there is foul play with money. They believe through those connections that we have an under-the-rug political machine operating here. They insinuate that some of the people on the board have personal agendas. The suspicion is raised to a much higher level when one looks under the umbrella of endorsements and favors. It is not about the quality of living in The Woodlands.  One person compared it to Chicago. That was because of the apparent money trail and endorsements. Well, let's see, a church where candidacy was announced from the pulpit without equal time to others (perception: my organization, I can do what I want). This raised the question of church vs. state in the minds of many. If one would compare the voting records against the church's membership role, some say the outcome would be obvious. I do not plan to conduct that study, but perhaps some organization or watchdog group should.

I have heard these thoughts from several sources, some from activists and others from long time residents. Several people say they are afraid to speak out, because they fear that they will not be heard in other matters, or their business relationships would be impaired. Influence and power drive them to be quiet. I am not one of them. My strategy is open and much easier to understand. We need to focus on one thing here – Be a great place to affordably live, that serves the entire family and community. Everything else takes a back seat.

For me, my values stand with those who originally came here, who developed the feeling of a hometown, those who walked to the store, even at night to get a gallon of milk for breakfast, in the darkness of the tall tree shadows. That is the way it was when I moved here, and that is the way I seek it to be in the future. Some people say we should not be out at night. Bah humbug. Quality and security is not defined in that way. Quality is defined and measured within certain focus points, namely safety, amenities, mobility, pollution, affordability, services, livable homes and our natural forest. Excellence in mobility gives us the complete freedom to move about anytime of the day or night. If you make the place not livable, then it is not the community we have known with the advertised values seen in marketing.

Residents missed an opportunity to make a difference on May 8^th.  Other opportunities will come along as life goes on. My hummingbirds returned to the yard five days after the election; I am going to double the number of grandchildren this year with my son’s announcement on Election Day. Yes, there are better things to do, but I do want to thank my supporters for their confidence in me.  A person can only offer to help. Some force it down the public. I will not. The community will likely continue to flourish but at a higher price than necessary. It will be a community of distinction, but maybe not one of quality. We continue to grow, but we are beginning to see deterioration, and we are only two years into the township. Now seven directors will manage your tax money. One of them was absent from voting for 37% of the decisions for the past several months. His loyal following and political allies voted for him to be on the board. 92 % of our registered voters remained quiet and allowed that to happen. If you are one of those quiet ones, will you allow it to happen again next year and the year after? What will it take to get you to help drive your own destiny?

Election 2010 - No shows at the polls

Have you wondered as I have about the no-shows in The Woodlands Township election, 92% of registered voters who did not vote? I took some proactive steps as I canvassed neighborhoods to check on the pulse of voters. What I found out was simply amazing!

Top Issue	Number	Percentage	Percentage removing the no issues and unknowns
MUD	2	1%	1%
Other Svcs	2	1%	1%
Trees	5	2%	3%
Other	4	1%	2%
Schools	1	0%	1%
Parks	0	0%	0%
Mobility/noise	12	4%	7%
Animal Control	2	1%	1%
Garbage	0	0%	0%
Crime/law enforcement	17	6%	10%
Safety	4	1%	2%
Alerts/watch	1	0%	1%
Ad valorem taxes unfair or too high	17	6%	10%
Common area maintenance	4	1%	2%
Covenants and related services	16	6%	10%
No issues	104	38%
Unknown	53	19%
Big government and local politics	17	6%	10%
Against commercialization	5	2%	3%
In favor of commercialization	2	1%	1%
Loyalty	4	1%	2%
Total including no issues and unknown	272	100%
Total less No issues and unknown	168	62%	100%

This was not a scientific survey. There was no attempt to balance demographics or lifestyles. It was collected solely from middle class neighborhoods. I did sample different types of neighborhoods. All villages are represented by approximately equal numbers. Generally speaking, each village was different and each neighborhood was somewhat different in responses. A total of 168 unique responses were generalized into categories. The question was "What is your top concern in The Woodlands?" Five categories accounted for 47% of the total. Some people skirted the question, which resulted in the 19% unknown. The "No issues" category came primarily from newcomers, who explained they had not been here long enough to understand local issues. Some were perfectly content with the way things are run. Others just do not understand the political arena nor how things work here.

Safety signifies true safety issues such as children in the middle of the street without adult supervision, or ants on the trails establishing a high risk to allergic children and adults. Crime concerns are mostly from the press or politicians, not any first hand experiences except for one. Mobility issues were generally the result of living close to a major road. "Close" is rapidly changing from being the adjoining street to the major road, to three streets away from the major road.  Access and noise were the focus of those discussions. Loud trucks and motorcycles are the primary concern, but the constant hum of traffic is also irritating.

Covenants were large issues in several neighborhoods. I have passed on the complaints to the administrative staff. I found issues in almost every village.

The big government category is a serious one. Many people beyond this exercise have expressed their concern about putting too much power in the hands of a few, especially when it seems there is a little voting club along with what appears to be some rubber stamping and inept, unprepared decision making. Term limits has been suggested to overcome the "been there too long" and to remove defensive attitudes associated with pet projects. After all, taxes belong to the public, not the government.

So what gets people out to vote? You can immediately strike off the "No issues" crowd or in this case 37% of the registered voters. They were happy. If we assumed the 19% unknown group also are no-shows, then we have 56% of the registered voters expected not to show up. So what happened to the other 36%? Could they have been out of town for mother's day? Some yes. Could they have had other priorities? Maybe, but my assessment is that at least 36% of the registered voters were just not sufficiently interested enough to go out and vote. Ball games, picnics, children activities, and all those things you want to do on a Saturday were beckoning on such a beautiful day.

How do we fix the problem?  It is fairly hopeless. So what do candidates do? There is not much hope to tell you the truth. Incumbents get the draw because there are no intelligent voters. This is what some are saying and this is what will bring America down. People will complain when their taxes go up. Hey - not my problem say those who challenged the incumbents. People will complain when they suffer from a crime because of the wrong metrics and an ineffective police staffing method. They will complain when the traffic is bad. Those who can see the future issues cannot reach the general public, who is too busy to discuss the issues.  Urban living is more complicated than people seem to realize. That makes the issues more complicated as well. What everyone needs is a means to understand the issues with little time invested. Based on the discussions I had, we are a society that crosses our fingers and hopes for the best. That is, things will work out out of natural order and process.

Elections are great but we won't have many contenders, given the lack of consideration of the process. Who wants to throw away their money on a public that does not care? This is a new The Woodlands? This is what it has become?

Consider that the 2% who responded with a "you are wasting your time here. He is my pastor" attitude. Instead of 2%, it probably turned out to be in the neighborhood of 25-50%. I will likely explain that in another article. These are the loyalty votes, not based on issues, not based on anything, except that the man preaches sermons on Sunday mornings, has lived in this community a very long time, and is an expert collector of people's money. Sad but true. There really is no way for the public to be educated. As it turned out, there was probably no reason for his team to spend so much money, but they were not sure.  What is apparent is that the election for some reason was very very important to him and his team, enough to spend lots and lots of money to make certain he was elected for this two-year term. These two years are the critical years for establishing a new government. The people of this community will be hand fed into the desired results by those who are commercial-centric. Issues such as expansion west will be pushed onto the population of this community. You can expect the quality of life to continue to deteriorate as a result. My family is a victim of the general issue of development, so we know first hand about it.

If you are one of those who did speak out by voting, make sure your voice is again heard when we consider a new government, have a meeting on taxes, establish a budget, and every major major issue along the way. I hope to publish major subjects that need your attention as we go forward. There will be two meetings a month. One will be in the evening where you can speak out.  Those who did not vote I do not expect to take part in any of the proceedings, but realize at least some of you missed your chance for good cause. I hope you participate in the meetings. Now I have to say that you will not likely be pleased with the opportunity to speak out. The Board of Directors will continue with the before meeting / after meeting method of resident comment. It is a cold governmental process. Residents will probably never be able to engage in the actual discussion and deliberation of issues. Well, maybe at town halls.

I hope this makes some people stop and think about what happened on May 8th and will help those interested to overcome the election process issues. We have only begun to fight. We will take it wherever it needs to go to get fixed. Maybe, just maybe by some remote chance, we will see some reforms, stoppage of arrogance and actual representation of the real public. I am not holding my breath.

Unions and Politics

I have learned many things in this election. One of them is the lack of ethics in some activities. As many in The Woodlands know, our fire department has a union. That is not atypical but what they try to influence is simply not acceptable and not ethical. Candidates were asked to complete a questionnaire. OK, why not? I did not know that the deck was already stacked. The questionnaire  was apparently for show only. There is one purpose for the process, to appear to be "fair". While candidates were doing everything they could to get their views to the public, the union was working as a special interest group, taking precious time away from the candidates and for what? For what I am about to reveal to you.

True, they are not yet employees of the The Woodlands Township, they could at least act like it. They chose the most likely to succeed to serve their special interests (spending more money than required, supporting programs that have no value to residents). For that reason, until they stop their (possibly illegal) attempts to swing an election, they will not get my support. I will advise all candidates to not complete their questionnaire next year.

When will the residents stand up for what is right? Some candidates endorse the union activities. This activity has to stop. I do not think it had much of an impact, but I noted a dark non-open method of approaching voters.

Here is a copy of the flyer passed out at the polls. At least an apology to the public is needed from those responsible. I have met the person who was passing these out before when I worked at the polls. I am told he is a representative of the union.

Notice that there is not a PAC (Political Action Committee) nor a union nor an association placed on this document. It is a product of the "employees" of the Woodlands Fire Department. Next time you see a firefighter, ask him why they tried to influence the election outcome. Try to get real information, not settle for just words that say nothing. They were out there at the polls. This needs to be investigated and whoever is accountable should be held accountable.

The Woodlands Independence from Houston

Isn't it great to have a guarantee of not being governed by another city, especially Houston? We don't have their taxes, police force, their ordinances, their firefighting standards, their trash and garbage schedules, their environmental standards, their 911 call centers, or their standards for a "quality life". We set our own standards and our own direction. That was what I considered when we began our trek to govern ourselves.

I remember participating in the meetings with residents to determine what our issues were, where we wanted to go, and what was most important to us. Security and taxes were our utmost concern. Water should have been also, but our vision for that issue seemed further out then. Our water problems have accelerated as the build-out accelerated, and the Montgomery county growth significantly impacted water consumption. Slower reservoir recharging due to drought has also impacted the urgency to supplement our well water with potable surface water.  Now that issue is probably our biggest tax threat.

I recall going door-to-door getting support from the community for all three propositions. I did not want Houston to annex us; the date they could do that was quickly approaching. They could annex us as early as 2014, and from all indications they would have strong financial incentives to do so. All they had to do was to build a fire station within a certain distance of our community and bang! They could have and would have done it.

I wrote several articles on the subject of those propositions, and many people read them. I did my own risk assessment based on the knowledge I had gleaned from working with many people on the project. That exercise took a lot of time, but it was well worth it. Today, I stand firm on what was done. That was a good decision. We have not lowered our taxes as much as I had hoped. In fact, the WCA has not lowered its taxes at all. I will write another article on taxes a little later.

Here are the links to articles I wrote on the Township creation (three propositions) back then. You can see I have cautiously supported the Township concept from the beginning and have never backed off.

1. Residents Value System 
2. Road to Governance
3. Governance in a nutshell
4. Panel Discussion with Woodlands Decides 
5. The Decision
6. Congratulations to The Woodlands

---

Current candidate list for The Woodlands Township

Candidates continue to apply for the Township board positions. As we stated in the last article, there are four positions, each defined simply by a number. Each one is an at-large position. Incumbents occupy each one with one incumbent dropping out for personal reasons, leaving that position slated only with new candidates. Nominations remain open for those four positions, but will close soon.

Position 1 - Claude Hunter (incumbent) and Robert Tyson are vying for this position. Hunter has been a cornerstone of the community for quite sometime, highly involved in everything and reasons out all issues. It will be difficult for Tyson to successfully challenge him, but not impossible. Tyson is new to the scene but has challenged WCA directors for quite some time. He will need to convince the public that he is a team player to make any significant inroads to this position.

Position 2 -  Tom Campbell (incumbent) and Michael Donnelly are in this contest. I expect another person might emerge to join in this race. Donnelly, as a dissenter of the establishment, is a weak challenger, while Campbell is organized,  issue-oriented, and always willing to listen to the community, having  a significant following.

Position 3 - Lloyd Matthews (incumbent) has dropped out for personal reasons. He does not feel he can spend adequate time on the job in the next couple of years, so he was ethically obligated to step aside. We may see him back in two years. Those remaining in this race are Jeff Long, the last president of WCA. He is the strongest contender in that he has a great deal of experience in the community politically and has had significant influence on the transition to the Township. Running against him is Adam Muery who is starting a strong campaign based on policing the community. Muery is likely to make this race interesting. The last contender, Jay Mack Sanders is fairly obscure. I am uncertain of his doctrines or contention strength at this time.

Position 4 - Ed Robb (incumbent) has a strong hold on his position and has yet to be challenged for it. He is the pastor at the United Methodist Church on Lake Woodlands and has contributed significantly to the township board before and through the transition of government.        

I believe there will be more candidates entering the election. Some are probably waiting to see who is added on the slate before they select the incumbent they want to challenge.

May election is creeping up on us - watch out for the new position-based process

Subtle changes of process may be evident when you go to the polls this coming May in The Woodlands Township elections. Recent legislation changed the way nominees will be elected here. On May 8th, the Township election will not select the top vote getters at large, as was done in the previous election. It will instead be the winner of each of the new four at-large positions, i.e. the candidate who wins position 1, candidate winning position 2, etc will be on the board. Now how does one select a position to run for? Good question, responded some officials. The timing of application submission goes hand in hand with what strategy to select in campaigning. So to start, four candidates submitted their forms as soon as the process began. Generally speaking, one candidate chose to run for each position, like dominoes, occupying different spaces. None of the first runners elected to run against the other. So one assumes that the incumbents communicated with each other and chose to be separated into each of the four positions. That would make sort of a coalition, but it does not establish much except to make sure incumbents do not run against each other. This is the first time to elect by position, therefore incumbents filing for those four positions makes sense. There is nothing wrong with that as far as I can see; it is simply the effect of the changed law.

Instead of individuals competing each election, it becomes a system of challenging incumbents, not necessarily aligned on political boundaries or platforms. This is what happens in city elections when council candidates are elected by district. They have challengers to their positions. 

The hometown feel of our community is changing with the legislation passed in the last session of the Texas Legislature. Like I say, it is neither good nor bad, just a change, looking down from 1000 feet up. Some residents were suspicious of the change and others were very critical of it, but the arguments against it have not been strong. I question the process but will wait til the end of this article to present my own thoughts.

In the prior election, some people observed weaknesses in the free-for-all at-large-position process. When voting, you chose three from the candidate list who you wanted on the board. Sounded like the top three would just naturally rise to the top. Yes, but you could have been canceling out some of your own vote. I heard several people voice a concern about that. For example, take the scenario below:
You cast all four of your votes.
Candidate #1 - receives 4 votes, you did not vote for this candidate
Candidate #2 - receives 3 votes, your vote included
Candidate #3 - receives 3 votes, your vote included
Candidate #4 - receives 3 votes, your vote included. You wanted this candidate to win most of all.

If you had cast only one vote, for candidate #4, your preferred candidate would have won, given the same results from the others.  The result would then have been:
Candidate #1 - 4 votes , yours not included
Candidate #4 - 3 votes, yours included
Candidate #2 - 2 votes, yours not included
Candidate #3 - 2 votes, yours not included

A different outcome.

Bill SB2515 has these changes to the original legislation:
" (2) an election shall be called for the uniform election date in May of the next succeeding even-numbered year after the election held under Subdivision (1) of this subsection, for the election of four directors by [ add "position"] [cross out "at large"]. Each of the [The] four candidates [receiving the highest number of votes shall be] elected shall serve for a term of two years;"
- and -
" an election shall be called annually thereafter for the uniform election date in May of each year for the election by [add "position" ] of either three or four directors, as appropriate, to serve two-year terms."

Now with the conflicting vote risk removed, each voter can rest assured that his own votes do not affect his own selected candidates negatively.

In a positioning move for the election, the executive committee met last month and decided on names for the four positions to be put on the ballot. They named them "Position 1", "Position 2", etc etc. Each candidate will be allowed to run for one and only one position. A position is not marked by village, demographics or population. It is merely an arbitrarily named position, elected by the majority of at-large votes for that position.

I asked for the rationale behind our at-large position method, and have received a few responses. There were some interesting and relative answers by officials, but nothing from our Austin representatives, nor anyone who actually made the decision to write this new method into law. Therefore I will use what I have, since the rationale presented seems appropriate for the question asked.

It is believed by some that the old way facilitated groups or slates of candidates to run. It could then be a popularity schema, votes going to those who ran together, partied together, or had common ideas or lifestyles in common. They would naturally group together and even develop strategies together, maybe not on purpose, or maybe so. The new method would promote individuality and attract opponents to counter that individuality. Therefore, it would encourage those possessing the highest skills, enthusiasm  and savvy to compete for a specific job (even though it does not pay anything). That would seem to be in the best interest of the public. It would promote more focused debates among those running for a single position rather than everyone debating everyone running for the positions that are up for election.    

Coupled to that, one would assume there is rationale against geographic districts being established here. Indeed there is an argument against that. Should we pit geographic area against geographic area in the routine operation of the Township? If the Township was divided into geographic positions, it is feared by some that the mere fact of having area representation would detract from governing in meetings and in the voting process, for show and political reasons. Since the demographics of each area is homogeneous, a districting method would seem counter productive. You would want the board to act in unison on most issues. There is a lot of work to do. Quibbling and bickering on who is getting what and special area interests should be minimized in debate and in decision making, not saying that an area consideration be tabled, but be considered as part of the whole, not represented and defended by a board member's residential location. The new way encourages team decision making for the benefit of the whole and not special interests in geographic areas. Normally, districting is put into place to represent the interests of minority groups. We don't have the distribution of any minority in any special place in The Woodlands.

Commentary

Basically I agree in part with the view that in theory, we are ethnically and racially homogeneous. I also agree that we need unity of purpose and efficiencies on the board of directors.The entire community has been designed to prevent areas from being ethnically or racially overweight.  That was part of the master plan. From what I know, Hispanics, for example, are spread throughout The Woodlands. I do however have an instinct on some demographics that are prevalent in some areas. For example, there are probably lower median incomes in the WCA part of The Woodlands (eastern) vs the TWA part (western). Additionally, the median age of a resident is likely higher in the WCA villages than the TWA villages. Age of the communities also play a role in the spacial demographics and necessities of areas. For example those living in Grogans Mill and Panther Creek have issues with aging streets and pathways, while those to their west may be more concerned about filling in missing links in pathways and planting trees.

Generally, cities have at-large positions and area positions. I personally believe it would be to our advantage to have three area positions and four at-large positions. That would be like a city government and would promote more trust in the community on where being represented. Having area districts enable lower cost campaigns and less effort to run for a position.

Saying that, we also have village associations to help in representing residents to the board. I have to wait to see how this works out. The villages have no voting power or authority, but resident issues are and will continue to be heard by the board. Therefore there are residents elected to village positions having significant influence on the board's decisions. This in my opinion should offset any representation issues.I hope residents partner with the board of directors to take the village associations more serious and demand that the voices in the associations be heard. That is where local issues should be brought forward. It is my opinion that the president of each village association should be charged with making local representation be heard. We are positioned to do this. Let's make it work!

Finally, it seems that in order to be constitutionally aligned with tax representation, there would be area representation. A  government by and for the people means that an equal  population-based tally of will is the only way to determine how tax dollars are to be collected and spent. Maybe we have that in our current law, maybe not. I am not a lawyer. We seem to be in a gray area of legal interpretation, from what I hear. So onward on the path to May 8th. Let's see what happens. The positions remain open for additional candidates.

How important are volunteers in The Woodlands?

Volunteers have historically been the key to a successful community here in The Woodlands Texas. All governing functions have originated from these residents, some of whom have been elected and others as ad hoc volunteers. With the advent of a taxing authority, we will now be governed by a single volunteer board of elected directors to The Woodlands Township. This only replaces the governing constituents of the associations. There remains the necessity to operate our covenant standards enforcement with resident elected volunteers. There is also the continued need to have village associations with elected residents.

This month, the associations put together a "final" annual celebration for volunteers. Each year, the progress of the community is celebrated in a Christmas party as a "thank you" from the community for the work of volunteers. This is an event always appreciated by the volunteers and has in itself created an atmosphere of willingness to serve in our community. This year we had a live band but normally we have a DJ to play music. Those who I have talked to prefer the DJ over the live band due to of the variety of music and lack of dead time when the live entertainment takes a break. Many people decided to leave when the band took its break this year. Also the the service company staff always comes to this meeting and dance, and they enjoy the evening alongside the volunteers. Since we all work together throughout the year, this is a perfect event to cap off the year.

So I ask, is this the last of this type of celebration? Have we matured into something less hometown? I hope not. The community derives a great deal of benefit by the teamwork demonstrated in every meeting and event through the year. Maybe the Township can find this type of event useful to keep costs down and encourage continued resident participation in hometown activities beyond the village events. This tradition will be sorely missed by those who have grown to appreciate the contributions of fellow volunteers. We have tradition. I hope this was not the last of these year-end celebrations.

Community Elections coming up soon

---

It wont be long before we need to show up at the polls again.

This time it will be for village associations and the village RDRCs. Both are important. Those elected to serve in the village associations will be engaged in more than social activities. They are often acting as an organization for resident concerns and maintaining a vigilant watch for improving the community. This coming year, they will take on a new role - one of a liaison to represent the concerns and issues of its residents to the Township board. The reverse will be true as well. They will be receiving information and guidance from the Township on village activities and issues on behalf of the residents.

Those elected to serve on RDRCs will be tasked with resident conformation to property  standards. They enforce the covenants, hopefully in a way the community approves. This is the neighbor link to enforcement of standards. All meetings of the RDRC are "open", meaning that the members cannot conduct business except by prior notification of an agenda to the public and conduct their meetings strictly according to the agenda. Residents are invited to attend each and every RDRC meeting.

Please consider participating in one of these organizations and volunteer to be elected to one of the positions available in your village. More information will be made available when January rolls around. Look for how to participate and then go to the polls when the elections are held.