Image: Members of the Davenport Ring, the politicians and elected officials who take their direction from corrupt local political boss Marc Davenport, who appear on the March 6, 2018, Republican Primary Election ballot. All four, left to right, Cynthia Jamieson, James Metts, Stephanne Davenport, and Jason Dunn, have a 100% Instant Corruptibility Index, meaning they’re already corrupt and won’t abide by their campaign promises to the voters.
Conroe, February 5 – How could you predict that Craig Doyal would be corrupt after he’s elected? How can you be sure JP James Metts will be corrupt if he wins election?
As The Golden Hammer, Montgomery County’s leading daily newspaper, has begun to receive hundreds of requests each day about voting recommendations for the March 6, 2018, Republican Primary Election, it’s important to remember an important tool that should guide Montgomery County citizens in making their decisions, the Instant Corruptibility Index. Voters can foresee corruption with this method.
The Instant Corruptibility Index is an analytical tool. It’s akin to some of the analytical tools utilized in wargaming in the United States Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment.
When candidates come around to ask citizens for a vote, there’s a lot of research that citizens must complete before deciding how to vote. A platitude-filled speech in a candidate forum doesn’t provide sufficient information about a person to make a responsible decision.
When a candidate says that he or she is “conservative,” a “fiscal conservative,” a “Christian,” a “constitutionalist,” or any of the other favored platitudes, that’s only a first step. Obviously, the issues about which Montgomery County voters care include (1) substantial spending reductions along with the need to collect less taxes, (2) elimination of nepotism entirely, (3) bright line anti-conflicts-of-interest rules, (4) salary reform for elected officials and managerial employees in government, (5) a robust Code of Ethics, the violation of which actually means something, (6) draconian oversight and review of County vendors, (7) prohibition of County contracts to any vendor (or its employees) who has contributed funds to a member of the Commissioners Court during the past year, (8) a commitment to increase the “boots on the ground” to support local law enforcement and provide public safety, and (9) a commitment never to build tollroads unless a voter referendum has approved the particular road first.
Those commitments are just the first step in the voter evaluation process. Unfortunately, that’s where voters traditionally end their analysis. That’s the precise reason Montgomery County’s government suffers from the terrible County Judge and Commissioners Court we have.
The more important step is application of the Instant Corruptibility Index (ICI), because the candidate’s promises during the campaign are meaningless if they suffer instant corruption once they get into office. “Instant” corruption may mean corruption within the first few months or years while in office as the long arm of the “establishment” wraps around them.
Corruption means taking an elite attitude, while ignoring campaign promises and the will of the people. It doesn’t mean theft, graft, and bribery (necessarily).
Under the ICI, voters ask and receive an answer to the question: is this candidate likely to corrupt instantly upon taking the oath of office or soon thereafter? The higher the ICI score means the higher percentage chance a candidate will corrupt, meaning that they’ll work as an elitist and ignore the will of the people. If someone has a 96 ICI score, that means he or she will have a 96% chance of corrupting.
We’ve all seen very sincere candidates corrupt before our very eyes once they take office. Land Commissioner George P. Bush is a great example. He came into office in 2014 with high hopes of reform and that his charisma would lead a new generation of conservative Republican politicians across Texas. Instead, Bush almost instantly became captive to bureaucrats in the General Land Office, local officials in Austin and San Antonio who are liberal democrats, and the liberal influence of monied lobbyists in the Texas Capitol.
The ICI is an analytical tool to measure how well a candidate might resist the forces of corruption in government. If a candidate has a 100 ICI score, they’re already corrupt. If their score is lower, there’s a chance they’ll resist the pull of money, power, and wrongdoing.
What are the ICI components in Montgomery County in the March 6, 2018, Republican Primary Election?
- Is Marc Davenport their political consultant? If yes, that’s 100 ICI points instantly. They’re already corrupt. Davenport leads the Davenport Ring of politicians and elected officials who are seeking to take control over the County government’s purchasing and information technology and who show far more loyalty to each other than to the will of the people they’re supposed to serve.
- Are there important issues about their office that they could answer but don’t answer? For example, “What’s your position on salary reform for elected officials and managerial employees?” Answer: “I don’t know” or “I need to study the issue after I get into office.” “What does your office do?” Answer: “I don’t know but my opponent can answer that question.” That’s 60 ICI points, because they must already listen to others for the basic answers.
- Do only very few people in the community know him or her for one reason or another? If “yes,” that’s 80 ICI points. If a person hasn’t worked as a community servant previously, there’s little to show the person has a “servant’s attitude” or “servant’s heart.” That doesn’t mean they have to have worked in government.
- Are there overriding political or philosophical principles that they espouse? If “no,” then that’s 40 ICI points. Candidates don’t have to be great idealists to become good public servants. When Sarah Palin ran for Governor of Alaska, she was not a great philosophical mind. But she had done a superb job on the State’s Public Utilities Commission and as Mayor of Wasilla by insisting that those government jurisdictions perform their jobs well.
- If the person has already served in a public position, is he or she totally transparent about what happened while in that office? If not, that’s 50 ICI points. If not transparent, do his or her closest supporters aggressively work to cover up terrible mistakes of the candidate in public positions. A great example that we’re seeing right now in that regard is Precinct 4 JP James Metts who intends to run for Precinct 4 County Commissioner. Frankly, the hyper aggressive covering up of his supporters reveals that they and Metts both recognize the severity of his past corruption. That’s 80 ICI points.
- If the candidate won’t or can’t tell you why personally he or she wants to serve in that office, then that’s 100 ICI points. They’ll corrupt.
- If the candidate has had some major problem or even scandal in his or her life, has the behavior changed since that time? Has he or she learned from the mistake? Or has the person tried to cover it up? A coverup is worth 90 ICI points. If the person has shown – through action, not through jawboning – that he or she has learned from the mistake, then the major problem or scandal should be substantially fewer ICI points.
Therefore, it’s appropriate to apply the ICI analysis to the local races Montgomery County voters face on March 6.
Each reader should apply this analysis to each candidate running for public office. Here are two examples of the analysis but they’re only examples of how the analysis might work for you.
Points are bad!
Total Instant Corruptibility Index for Each Candidate
Doyal 100% chance of instant corruption
Keough 10% chance of instant corruption
Bush 15% chance of instant corruption
Davenport 100% chance of instant corruption
As citizens, we must remain vigilant.
Full ICI Analysis for the County Judge and County Treasurer races
Is Marc Davenport their political consultant? (100 points.)
County Judge: Davenport turned Doyal down, 50 points; Keough, no, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush no, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport yes, 100 points.
Are there important issues about their office that they could answer but don’t answer? (60 points.)
County Judge: Doyal, 50 points; Keough, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush no, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport yes, 60 points.
Do only very few people in the community know him or her for one reason or another? (80 points.)
County Judge: Doyal, no, 0 points; Keough, no, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush no, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport no, 0 points.
Are there overriding political or philosophical principles that they espouse? (40 points.)
County Judge: Doyal, no, 40 points; Keough, yes, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush yes, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport no, 40 points.
If the person has already served in a public position, is he or she totally transparent about what happened while in that office? (50 points.)
County Judge: Doyal no, 50 points; Keough, mostly yes, 10 points.
County Treasurer: Bush slightly no, 15 points; Stephanne Davenport no, 50 points.
Can the candidate explain why he or she wants to serve in that office? (100 points.)
County Judge: Doyal, yes, 0 points; Keough, yes, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush yes, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport somewhat no, 50 points.
If the candidate has had some major problem or even scandal in his or her life, has the behavior changed since that time? Has he or she learned from the mistake? Or has the person tried to cover it up? (90 points.)
County Judge: Doyal no behavior improvement, 90 points; Keough, no, 0 points.
County Treasurer: Bush no issues, 0 points; Stephanne Davenport coverup and denial, 90 points.