League City's award winning pubication"City Matters" to be reprinted at a cost of $13,000.00

The City has decided to repost on the web, reprint a supplement, and mail the recent supplement edition of City Matters. This appears to be at the behest of Heidi Thiess who claims she was left out without explanation. However, the truth is she submitted her information late. On her blog, Thiess wrote.

"Since I was inexplicably excluded from the City's Election info, you may view my answers to the City's questionnaire, which have been published on my website for the past month: see League City Questionnaire. Please encourage the City to do the right thing and correct their oversight (whether intentional or not) by sending them an email at website@leaguecity.com."

The candidates were given approximately two weeks to submit their information. There were three candidates who did not send their information in by the noon deadline. Candidates Thiess, Phalen and Sanborn were late to submit their answers. Phalen accepts that he made a mistake, but Thiess wants to play the victim card and cast out conspiracy theories that she has been singled out and not included. She has made statements like "I don't yet know why I was excluded - I'm still trying to get to the bottom of it." I would say she was not excluded; rather she was not included because her submission was late.

So far in this campaign, Heidi Thiess has sent blistering attack pieces against her opponent Mick Phalen that were of no substance,unfairly and unjustly demonized her opponent. As said by Paul Ryan, "this is what candidates do when they cannot stand on the issues" When she was called out on these attack pieces because all they said was nonsense about her opponent and the piece did not address the issues of the city or the election. She maintained that she had no idea who was sending the attack pieces. Then after the worst attack piece yet, she had the gall to send out the following note.

"Dear friends and neighbors,
Last night, while I was happily teaching a Citizenship class to a group of Boy Scouts, an attack email on my opponent was sent from my campaign email account. It was in my name, and on my behalf but it does not represent me or the principles on which I stand. In fact, it represents everything I hate about politics and the campaign process. I am appalled that it was sent in my name and will do everything I can to make it right. Therefore, I repudiate the content and tone and unprofessionalism of the entire message. And I render a sincere apology to my opponent, Mick Phalen.

I, and I alone, am fully responsible for the mistakes of my campaign. There is no excuse. I live by a strict code of accountability which demands I take further measures beyond a public apology. This mistake happened on my watch, and I have taken direct and immediate action to rectify it. The people who created and distributed the email are no longer associated with my campaign. I have a vision and purpose that has been ill-served by this contentious email exchange and it will not happen again.

I thank you for your support and will do everything I can to continue to earn your trust and confidence in the future."

Your servant,

Heidi Thiess


Be her own admission, Thiess, said this apology email only went out to a few people, where the original email went out thousands. Who signs a letter "your servant"? She is not elected to public office and she is not my servant.

Frankly, this is just a small show of the shenanigans that have come from the Thiess campaign. Now Mr. Mochrie your statement is correct. I am calling for Heidi to tell us who the people were who she separated from her campaign who sent the attack emails/