[In response to Phil Denney's AMNA Email Bulletin pasted below]


Mr. Denney,

Where do I start?  First, let me commend you on your talent for making mountains out of molehills.

Maybe you genuinely believe you've provided the Anderson Mill community a great service by "investigating" (aka "Google search") my background as an organizer in the Ron Paul grassroots campaign and trying to connect it to the current Anderson Mill MUD Board race by way of pointing out a calendar posting where I sought volunteers from among my friends in the Ron Paul grassroots.

Your attack on the AMFuture slate of candidates regarding circulation of our newspaper (as well as the many volunteers who helped) is nothing but a sorely misplaced generalization.  A more astute "investigation" would have yielded the following additional observations: 

1)  Of the three candidates on the AMFuture slate, I am the ONLY one with any role or membership in the Austin area Ron Paul grassroots organization
2)  I am the ONLY candidate on the AMFuture slate who has made a financial contribution to the the Ron Paul campaign (easily determined by searching the FEC campaign contributions database online.)
3)  The calendar post calling for volunteers was made by a user named "Pam" --
Not "Steve", not "Elizabeth", and not even "AMFuture".

If you're going to make an attack, please try to get it right.  You should have named me individually, and not exaggerated in your attempt to implicate the other two candidates.

I have never hidden my partisan political involvement from anyone.  If anything, I have worn it on my sleeve.  I drive around in a car with bumper stickers and window paint indicating my support for Dr. Paul as a presidential candidate.  I even stated in your AMNA Candidates Forum on April 24th that I had been active in some political campaigns in the past couple of years.  If anyone had asked me which campaigns, I would gladly have specified which ones.

But I fail to understand what my personal politics have to do with this race.

Are you implying that I do not have a right to participate in partisan political processes and also run for a non-partisan seat on the Anderson Mill MUD Board as a resident of our community?  By that logic, should sitting MUD board members be forbidden to participate in partisan politics if they choose?  Could you elaborate on why it's important to you whether your copy of The AM Future Watch paper may have been delivered to you by a Ron Paul supporter -- as opposed to a Clinton, Obama, McCain or other supporter?

Would it have been an "issue" if instead you had found me posting on a church bulletin board seeking volunteer assistance from my church community?  Don't you think it should have been an issue if I were using taxpayer resources for personal gain?  (With regard to your distribution of Mr. Kiracofe's statement attempting to rationalize his use of the fire truck in campaigning:  Whether he paid compensation for the truck or not, the expectation taxpayers usually have when funding such a truck is that it will provide them with fire protection -- not that it will be "rented" out for use as a campaign tool.)

Let's take one last gander at this molehill.  I, too, would like to encourage your readers to look at the links you referred to in your email bulletin -- where they will find a) 3 persons including myself RSVP'd for one volunteer effort, and b) 2 persons including myself RSVP'd for a second volunteer effort.  This number of respondents is miniscule when compared to the number of Anderson Mill residents who have chosen to support our efforts.  I don't even know the partisan lean of all our volunteers in the neighborhood -- much less would I make an issue of it.  And last, as a matter of fact, our newspaper contained neither advertisement of -- nor reference to -- Ron Paul's campaign, his positions, or his platform.

Regarding 'The $2,000 Rebate'...

You state that "only Steve Nelson seems to believe that this tax refund is legal and the highest and best use of the funds."  This is incorrect, most noteably because you fail to take into account an important distinction that was mentioned during the AMNA Candidates Forum you moderated.  I credit Steve Nelson with having answered your question correctly in the general context in which it was phrased.  I credit Elizabeth Elleson for also having answered in correct context and for having pointed out the important distinction you seem to have overlooked.  I acknowledge that I, having misheard the question, failed to address this distinction in my response at the Candidates Forum.

The question during the Candidates Forum was phrased as follows:  "Do you believe the Limited District or the MUD can refund the $10 million?", and subsequently restated as "Can the $10 million be refunded?"  In Cindy Ottenbacher's response, she toggled the context to imply that the Limited District cannot refund the surplus balance.  Not having heard the question properly, I took a cue from Cindy's response and also answered from a perspective of whether I believed the Limited District could refund the money.

Here is how I would respond if I were to be asked the question (and hear it properly) today:

According to the Strategic Partnership Agreement, the Limited District will not be authorized to refund the surplus money; however, I believe that -- prior to formation of the Limited District -- the MUD could return to homeowners the excess taxes which comprise the fund.  (Note section 3.04.b which says "The District shall be entitled to retain all monies collected in taxes in excess of the District's operations and maintenance expenses and any surplus debt service taxes..." [It does NOT mandate "The District shall be required to..."])  Further, I believe that because the property taxes collected to accumulate the fund may have been collected in violation of Texas Water Code §54.805 and §54.602 in the first place, immediate examination and consideration should be given to the idea of a refund.

You point out that AMFuture candidates are not all in agreement on a couple of issues.  In my opinion, that is how things should be -- with varying ideas brought to the table by independent thinkers and additional input sought from the Anderson Mill community.  One thing we are in agreement on is an agenda to represent the residents of Anderson Mill -- hence the "qualifying" words and the question mark you pointed out in our literature.  We put forth several options, but ultimately Anderson Mill voters will make the choices.

Mr. Denney.. I agree with your statement advocating "Do your research then vote."  However, I urge you to do your research adequately before trying to inform voters about my positions or those of the other AMFuture candidates.  Further, I urge you to consider either revising and/or retracting your misstatements OR distributing to your AMNA mailing list a link to this Open Letter responding to your assertions.

I look forward to discussing some potential neighborhood outreach projects with you at a future AMNA meeting.

Sincerely,
Pam Farley



[Phil Denney's May 5th Email Bulletin to the Anderson Mill Neighborhood Association (AMNA)]

While Anderson Mill Neighborhood Association (AMNA) wil not endorse
any candidate for the Anderson Mill Municipal Utility District
(AMMUD) board, we do encourage you to research the issues yourself
and vote.  In an effort to help you decide we have posted a debate
among the candidates on www.youtube.com/user/amnashow .  Although we
won't make an endorsement, we will attempt to present you the facts
and help shed light on any less than fully truthful statements told
by any of the candidates.  We hope to serve as a fact check type
service.  Of course, you can also post your comments as part of an
open debate among residents on the issues on the youtube debate page.

One such misleading bit of information put forth by the AMFuture
candidates is related to a "$2,000 homeowner Tax Rebate."  The
AMFuture candidates continue to broadcast this information even
though they seem to disagree among themselves.  Both in the recent
candidate debate and in the literature they are distributing, only
Steve Nelson seems to believe that this tax refund is legal and the
highest and best use of the funds.  Of course, if you read the
AMFuture stuff for examples, there is always a could, may, or similar
qualifier.  They use a "?" in there headline.  

You can go to the following links to see who helped distribute the
above paper.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/14/calendar/past_list/
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/14/calendar/

Of course, the AMFuture candidates will say AMNA is taking sides in
the election.  Well the AMFuture paper distributed by the Ron Paul
folks is a bit too much to ignore.  If the MUD Directors running for
reelection were to do a similar effort, we would have raised the
issue with our neighbors too.

Do your research then vote.



[Kiracofe Statement (Also distributed via AMNA Email List on May 5th)]

Hello Phil,
Once again the AMFuture group now claims "Our role is to take a hard,
critical look at all the facts and present them to you" have failed
to do so. I'm referring to the AM Future Watch and the reference to
the Jollyville Volunteer Fire Department. Yes, a JVFD truck was
parked there as they have been at most Anderson Mill MUD functions
since 1975. The "uniformed Jollyville Firemen" were volunteers who
live in Anderson Mill and purchase their uniforms at their own
expense. I wrote a personal check to cover the use of the truck. You,
having been there the entire day, know there were times the Clean Up
the MUD candidates and campaign signs were around the truck. No one
from AMFuture bothered to contact the department to get "all the
facts."

Thank you,


John Kiracofe
Fire Chief
Jollyville Fire Department