San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

August 2nd, 2010
Narvaiz: 'I would have been successful' in race


Though Mayor Susan Narvaiz, left, is not running for re-election, city council candidate Griffin Spell, center, is running against her. Spell said Councilmember Kim Porterfield, right, does what Narvaiz tells her to do on the council.

Associate Editor

Sam Marcos Mayor Susan Narvaiz, who announced last week that she would not seek another term in office, indicated that she did not make her decision from a belief that she couldn’t win.

Narvaiz said she had $25,000 committed to her by supporters who wanted her to run again. As of the July 15 campaign finance reports filed at City Hall, Narvaiz had $62.65 in her campaign fund, well behind the $18,378.79 in the bank for City Councilmember John Thomaides, who was the first to announce his intention to seek the mayor’s office in November.

“I could win,” Narvaiz said. “I know the support was there for me to continue. I would have been successful.”

Former City Councilmember Daniel Guerrero said Narvaiz’ attitude is appropriate for anyone seeking elected office.

“Otherwise,” Guerrero said, “what’s the point?”

Thomaides said he had no comment on Narvaiz assertion that she would have won if she had run.

Narvaiz said the time had come for her to seek new opportunities. Although she said the city has taken great strides under her administration, she added that an elected official can only be effective for so long before it’s time to let someone else lead.

Though Narvaiz would not detail her future plans, she said she will consider her options and follow wherever God leads her.

Narvaiz said her decision came after 21 days of fasting and prayer. Then, she said, she and her family made the decision for Narvaiz to vacate the city’s highest elected office.

Though Narvaiz is not running, council candidate Griffin Spell is making her an issue in his bid to unseat incumbent Kim Porterfield for a city council seat. Spell, a Texas State political science major, said he’s running out of “general frustration” with the council’s split votes on recent controversial issues, adding that one of his goals is to build consensus on the dais.

Spell said he chose to run against Porterfield, as opposed to any of the other three seats lacking an incumbent, because, he said, Porterfield is not an autonomous voice on the council.

“I tend to think (Porterfield) is doing what (Narvaiz) is telling her to,” Spell said. “She’s not an independent thinker.”

Spell said his run is out of “love” for San Marcos, adding that he wants to see smart development, fiscal responsibility, improved town and gown relations, transparency in government, and confidence restored in the city council.

Spell said challenging Porterfield will be “an uphill battle” that voters will decide in his favor.

Porterfield said she is “definitely an independent thinker” on the dais and that she weighs each issue on its merits before ultimately voting her conscience.

Porterfield said she welcomes the challenge posed by Spell, adding that it’s part of the democratic process. She said she wouldn’t comment on “personal attacks” made by Spell, and instead referred citizens to her voting record.

As of last Friday, Thomaides and Guerrero will face each other for the mayor’s seat, while Porterfield is being challenged by Spell. Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commissioner Jude Prather is the lone candidate for the seat being vacated by Councilmember Gaylord Bose. Thomaides’ unexpired term is being being contested by retired law enforcement officer Rodney van Oudekerke and businessman Shane Scott.

The last day to file candidacy for the mayor’s seat and the seats presently held by Porterfield and Bose is Aug. 24. The last day to file for Thomaides’ unexpired term is Aug. 30.

Oct. 4 is the last day to register to vote for the Nov. 2 election.

Email Email | Print Print


19 thoughts on “Narvaiz: 'I would have been successful' in race

  1. Cocky, ain’t she?

    I didn’t realize that raising a lot of money was all it took to win elected office….though I admit it sure seems like it sometimes. It sure took every penny to buy her the election last time.

  2. What a made-up story. I know John T. would like to run against Susan, but that doesn’t mean that his official newspaper has to go to such lengths to make her a campaign issue. Of course she thinks she would be successful — history agrees, but it doesn’t matter. It is John T. v. Daniel, and there are far too many substantive issues where they can distinguish themselves for the race to continue to exist within Susan’s shadow.

  3. “Porterfield said she welcomes the challenge,……. and instead referred citizens to her voting record.”

    Which says it all.

  4. Please, guys, no tackiness outside the fresh mausoleum. I am so stunned to know that even God is trying to get in on Mayor Susie’s act (providing her cash to win, I guess?), I am speechless for a change. But have we already started the “new democracy” here in San Marcos–taking out all the messy “people’s choice” stuff and just letting each $1 bill have a vote? Be kind in the presence of the Lord, you guys. Or you might be sorrrr-ry! (And you never know, He might turn up in a bigger political arena. It HAS happened.) Yours in peace and piety.

  5. John McG, I am confused again, as usual. What exactly did you mean by “the race to continue to exist within Susan’s shadow?” IS there one, seriously? I’d be scared to get in it, myself, if there is. That is one damn big shadow. (Wonder if it is cooler there?)

  6. Happy to provide grammatical clarification Mayor Moore. The confusion comes from the fact that you ignored the “for” before “the race.” “Race” refers to the mayoral race which has “far too many substantive issues” to continue to take place in “Susan’s [proverbial] shadow.”

    Meaning, the article is petty as are most of the responses, including your reference to Susan’s actual shadow and the usual cracks at her faith. I don’t want the candidates or the pundits to focus on Susan; I want to know what they bring to office. I want to move on, not out of disdain for Susan, but rather because it is time to do so. Is John’s entire campaign “Vote for me, I’m not Susan.” That is not enough to convince me to vote for someone. It may be enough for Chris North.

  7. I agree, JMcG. As a candidate, you put yourself out there, alone and nekkid, and let the voters decide. If you can’t stand up under that scrutiny, you go home, no hard feelings. In my own defense, however, I never brought up the topic of anybody’s faith, which is irrelevant to governing–somebody else did. And I too was talking about the figurative or proverbial shadow. I know nothing at all about the “real” one, and am neither qualified nor willing to make a personal judgment about ANYBODY’S “real” shadow. (You have seen mine, which I don’t often call attention to.)

    Can you believe some of these guys actually HIRE others to tell them what to say and what not to say in order to win elections? I don’t care who you are… that is not acceptable. The candidate becomes a puppet of his/her own PR people and ceases to be a real human being. Is the hiring of flacks why it has so quickly become so expensive to be a “public servant” in Our Town? I know it is in Austin. I know it is in WDC. But we are not them, and are not all about the money…are we?

  8. I personally know Andy Sevilla and I know he’s not automatically supporting John T as some cowards allude to. Actually Andy is friends with both John and Daniel Guerrero. We actually were recently having a personal discussion on the pros and cons of each candidate for mayor and neither of us know who we’re voting. We plan on letting the candidates debate the issues and look into their voting records before making decisions. So with that said, I take issue with anyone tainting the content of this publication. The reporters are objective! Despite the publisher’s support of John. And acttually Andy has made it a point to mention Scott Gregson as John’s biggest contributer thus far. The reporters of this publication actually are objective and provide fact. They contribute greatly to democracy and in keeping public officials honest and under the microscope of truth.
    This article isn’t petty and in fact allows Mayor Susan state her reason behind her exit. I think residents are curious as to why she’s leaving after 6 yrs as mayor. If you read her release or announcement, you’ll understand she lacked an explanation as to why she was leaving. Thus, I believe this particular article is a follow up, continued coverage as they say on tv. Nothing petty about it.
    Susan provided a response, granted it was slightly arrogant and perhaps rightly so. Anyway that’s how Susan decided to present herself, Andy didn’t paint her like that. So I don’t think this is a John v Daniel article, in fact it’s a follow up article on Susan’s exit.
    This article also set the stage (a little bit) on how Kim v Griffin will look like. God help us!
    I thank Susan for her service as Mayor, but it’s time for new opportunities. I’m confident San Marcos will continue forward on the right path with either John or Daniel. And I trust Andy Sevilla and Sean Batura will keep them under the microscope honestly.

  9. But back to the topic actually at hand: “I know YOU are (would have been,), but what about me (us)?”

  10. Mr. Spell I don’t think your picture is the problem after all we bring to the camera what the Divine has given us. The problem, as I see it, is that your campaign is, “Vote For Me I Hate Susan.” I don’t know if you own this site or not but that’s how you came across. I know reporters have finite space in which to ply their craft so I look forward to hearing not the platitudes that were reported but a substantive debate on your issue’s. For the record, I knew Kim way back when but that does not mean that I will vote for her. One of you will have to convince me.

  11. Pingback: QUOTE CORNER - San Marcos Local News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.