Editorial: Thoughts on Tuesday's City Council Meeting

Ginger Nelson/Photo by the City of Amarillo

By Thomas Warren, Editor-in-Chief

My goodness. That was a mess.

In case you missed it, on Tuesday, the Amarillo City Council held its regularly scheduled meeting. During the meeting, Mayor Ginger Nelson led a discussion regarding Councilman Cole Stanley’s campaign contributions — and also decided to rope Tom Scherlen into the discussion, for some reason.

The meeting was a total mess, a waste of the public’s time, and inappropriate electioneering using government resources. Nelson decided to make Tuesday’s meeting a spectacle instead of conducting the meeting as a regular check-in on the business of the city government. It’s no surprise then that citizens revolted during the meeting, shouting that Nelson was a liar, telling her that she would be out of office soon, and predicting that Nelson’s most loyal lieutenant — Councilwoman Freda Powell — would not win the election to succeed her in the city’s top elected post.

I will give Nelson credit though — while she did bust out the gavel, rejected a request by former Mayor Trent Sisemore to speak, refused to allow Stanley’s attorney to participate in the proceedings, and called a highly unusual recess in the middle of the meeting in an apparent effort to get citizens to stop being so pissed off that she was acting like a tyrant, she didn’t have anyone arrested for clapping this time. So, that is an improvement.

Either way, the meeting on Tuesday was a disgrace and just showed everything that is wrong with our current local government. However, my thoughts on this matter don’t just end there, and I want to share them with you while the meeting is still fresh on everyone’s minds.

Thought 1: Ginger Nelson proved that she is an unfit mayor.

I remember in 2017 when everyone in the city was sold on Nelson and how awesome they thought she was. I always thought it was a little strange how she managed to create a little cult of personality around her actions at City Hall and somehow managed to maintain loyal support, even despite numerous blunders and scandals.

Today just proved what those of us who have been critics have been saying for years: Nelson is vindictive, uber-political, and totally unfit to be mayor.

Every action taken at City Hall — with the exception of some of her truly terrible blunders — has been a carefully calculated political move. Nelson has been a master chess player, especially when she hasn’t faced any real opposition from those sitting beside her. Now that she has a roadblock on her City Council in the form of Stanley, all hell has broken loose — especially considering that Stanley looks poised to win the election to replace her.

I’m not really sure what Nelson expected considering the fact that she has seemingly driven the proverbial car right off the cliff over the past two years. She lost a massive lawsuit over the legality of the Civic Center, signed a letter in support of gun control, and has moved further left with each action. In 2021, Nelson narrowly got a majority of the vote, but her own actions have eroded the base that has always allowed her to remain a Teflon elected officer. And it’s for those very actions that citizens are now revolting and look set to push a wave of new officers into City Hall come May 6th.

The current political climate in Amarillo is one that Nelson, herself, is largely responsible for. This isn’t Stanley’s fault or Alex Fairly’s fault. Nelson did this to herself and now she is going to have to lie in the bed that she made when May 7th comes rolling around.

Thought 2: Have we ever seen a non-incumbent candidate attacked during a City Council meeting before?

This is an honest question, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like what happened today between Nelson and Scherlen. Nelson decided to use her platform to make an issue of Scherlen’s campaign contribution from Fairly — an action that was completely and totally inappropriate.

I came up in local politics by attending the City Council meetings led by Paul Harpole. And while Harpole was a hothead who couldn’t run a meeting without insulting his critics or creating some kind of unnecessary chaos, I never once witnessed him trash a non-incumbent running for a seat on the City Council. It is absurd.

Remember, Scherlen is not running against Nelson. This isn’t like some of Nelson’s past opponents who have goaded her during public comment before running against her. Scherlen was simply a bystander in the audience on Tuesday, and Nelson took direct aim at him with questions about his campaign contributions — and only recognized him to speak after being asked by Stanley to do so.

It was a horrible show of just how bad our current state of politics is in Amarillo. I saw a number of City Council candidates in attendance on Tuesday, including Scherlen, Chip Hunt, Dean Crump, Josh Craft, Kelsey Richardson, Sherie Wood, Don Tipps, Claudette Smith, Katt Massey, John Adair, John Ingerson, Don Collins, and Tonya Winston. Nelson didn’t ask any of these other candidates about their finance reports — nor did she ask Freda Powell about her finance reports, despite the fact that she is a current elected official. She only singled out Stanley and Scherlen.

In my opinion, Nelson took this action in a direct effort to benefit her friend and compatriot, Powell, who is currently running a losing campaign against Stanley. It was political theatre designed to take down Stanley and Scherlen. And it was something that never, ever should have happened in a government building, let alone during a public meeting of our City Council.

Shame on Ginger Nelson.

Thought 3: Ginger Nelson used her platform to hurt others.

Back in 2021, I got invited to a one-on-one meeting with Nelson. A man who I respect greatly set up the meeting and I went to the meeting with my attorney. Nelson showed up with her daughter. And we sat down and had a conversation for probably an hour about the city and our disagreements.

I don’t think much really came out of the meeting. The Mayor and I still disagree on nearly every fundamental issue. Still, I pressed her at the meeting about appointing political critics to boards instead of campaign donors, and she actually did it in a few cases. I’m thankful that she at least heard me about that.

But one of the things that has continued to stick in my mind from that meeting was the closing of the meeting. Nelson, who knows that I am religious, implored me not to use my God-given talent for writing to hurt others. She said that God gave me a gift, that I built a platform, and that I shouldn’t use my platform as a weapon. She said I had hurt her with my platform and that it wasn’t right.

I disagreed with the Mayor and told her that I think it is the responsibility of the media to hold elected officials accountable. I’ve never once written anything untrue about her in The Pioneer and while I sincerely feel for her about those in our community that do lie about her, that has never been my thing. I’ve always preferred to use the truth to criticize my opponents, not lies.

I’ve told many people about that meeting, but I’m not sure I’ve ever written about it publicly in The Pioneer. However, listening to Nelson use her platform to trash Stanley and Scherlen today, I just couldn’t help but think about that meeting I had with her, what she said during that meeting, and how hypocritical she was being by taking on candidates for public office from the City Council dais.

Since 2017, I’ve voted in three different elections where she has been on the ballot, and I’ve never once voted for her for mayor. But I’ve never doubted that God has some kind of plan when our elections happen. We either win and we make change, or we lose and we move on. It’s what we do. But as I said, God has always had a plan in everything.

Watching today’s meeting, I’ve just thought about all of those times when I have heard Nelson talk about her faith in public and pray. It truly has captivated voters every time when Nelson has talked about God’s calling for her to run for mayor.

Thinking about Nelson’s comments now during that 2021 meeting, comparing them with her previous statements about God’s calling to run for office, and her actions today, I just can’t help but wonder why Nelson used the platform that she felt called by God to pursue to attack others today. I understand that it was political, but that doesn’t mean it was right.

Looking back, I wonder why Nelson thought it was fine to call me out for using my platform to “hurt” her, but she thought it was fine to use her platform to “hurt” her opponents today. I don’t have a good answer for this, but it’s something that has definitely been on my mind.

Thought 4: If Powell can’t handle the heat, she needs to get out of the kitchen.

As I said earlier in this editorial, I came up in local politics by attending the Harpole City Council meetings. Many of those things went off the rails and had citizens fighting mad about what their local government was doing.

Compared to many of those 2015 meetings, today’s meeting was tame. And while Nelson seemed to just stoke the flames of discontent among citizens, it still remained an event that was remarkably unremarkable. People yelled and complained, but everyone remained somewhat civil. Nobody got threatened, nobody got hurt, and everyone parted ways at the meeting with their own takeaway from what just happened.

That’s why I find it remarkable that mayoral candidate Freda Powell, while backing up the Mayor’s attack on Stanley and Scherlen, said that she would not “accept threats.”

Seriously?

I was listening to the audience during the meeting and I didn’t hear a single threat yelled out by any citizen attending the proceedings on Tuesday. I did hear people yelling at Powell that she would lose the election, but I didn’t hear anyone threaten anyone. Not to sound bad, but I know many of the people who were at Tuesday’s meeting. Many of these individuals are respected business leaders, political candidates, and politically-active retirees. These individuals are more likely to say something critical about you on Facebook than they are to threaten you. And that’s why I just find Powell’s comments so dang bizarre.

The people who told Powell that she’s headed out of office and will lose the mayoral election will undoubtedly vote against her. But that isn’t a threat — that’s just a part of our democratic system.

Telling someone you aren’t voting for them is your right and it’s something you’re more than entitled to do. And speaking up at a City Council meeting to criticize your government for pulling a political stunt to take down a rival isn’t a threat either — it’s called being a concerned citizen.

I’ve attended many government meetings in many different cities and in many different places. I’ve been in some raucous crowds and Tuesday’s meeting was no exception. But it wasn’t a threatening bunch — it was an angry group of constituents, which is something that elected officials have to face sometimes.

If Powell can’t handle the heat from her constituents, then she shouldn’t be on the City Council, and she definitely shouldn’t be running for mayor. It’s a thankless job that ends up putting you in a position to anger a lot of citizens with your actions, but also improve your city if you do your job right. If Powell wants the title without the criticism, then she isn’t cut out to be mayor.

Thought 5: Katt Massey isn’t different than the current regime.

Among the reactions to Tuesday’s meeting was a video posted by City Council candidate Katt Massey — Scherlen’s opponent — in which she said she was frustrated and called for new leadership.

I’m sorry, but are we really supposed to take this seriously?

I have no strong negative feelings toward Mrs. Massey, who I’ve met in person a few times and spoken on the phone with. But for her to act like she’s “frustrated” with the actions of the City Council is just laughable.

A quick look through Massey’s finance reports will reveal connections to many of the same people who funded Nelson and her current regime. Massey won’t be a change at City Hall — she’ll just be a continuation of the same problems, albeit with a new face and name.

Massey has pointed out that she is frustrated and called for new leadership. But she has done nothing to outline exactly what “new leadership” will do to look any different than the current leadership. And when she had a chance to stand up during today’s City Council meeting — which she did attend — and speak up against the actions slated to be taken, or to defend her opponent, who was being attacked by the City’s current leadership, she did nothing.

Massey’s inaction speaks volumes — and her connections to the current regime speak even louder.

Thought 6: Howard Smith is redeeming himself.

Make no mistake, Councilman Howard Smith has been a willing participant in many of the problems at City Hall. He has backed up Ginger Nelson’s horrible actions and helped lead our city down the wrong path. But, with just weeks to go before his term is up, he looks to be redeeming himself a bit.

When Nelson pushed Smith today on whether the City Council should open an investigation into Stanley’s contributions, Smith refused to back her up and offered no comment.

“Smart move,” one citizen yelled in response, while citizens cheered for him. And I can’t help but to agree.

Nothing will ever remove Smith’s name from the wall of shame for his actions at City Hall, but he is doing something right at the end of his term. It’s nice to see that Smith isn’t fully in support of every action taken by Nelson and the Amarillo Matters regime — and he deserves credit for being an independent thinker.

Thought 7: Campaign contributions aren’t violations of City policy.

It was interesting that Nelson staked her case today mostly on the issue of campaign finance reports and the topic of whether there was an impropriety by Stanley taking a contribution from another citizen.

First off, coming from the Mayor who raised congressional-race-level money during her first campaign, it’s laughable. But secondly, even if she didn’t like the contribution, it wasn’t a violation of City of Amarillo policy.

The Council Code of Conduct clearly states that no member shall have a conflict of interest, but the provision on conflicts specifically excludes any “lawful campaign contribution.” And regardless of whether Nelson agreed with the donation or not, her own City Council’s policy says it would not be a conflict of interest.

Thought 8: Will the City Council investigate itself for violating state law?

Also on the topic of the Code of Conduct, the document says that members shall “Comply with the letter and spirit of the laws of the nation, the State of Texas and the City including all City policies.”

So, with this in mind, will the City Council investigate its own members for violating state law by trying to ram through the Civic Center project without voter approval? After all, a district judge ruled that the City of Amarillo did, in fact, break the law on the way the Civic Center was handled. So, when will we be seeing that investigation?

Perhaps investigations and criticisms are just reserved for political opponents. In that case, it just once again goes to show that our City Council is too political for its own good.

We need a new City Council urgently. Make sure you get out and vote for a new City Council on May 6 — and hopefully, vote for the candidates recommended by the Amarillo Pioneer Editorial Board.