The water Board is enraged that members would dare ask questions about the sale of the neighborhood water company in a No-Bid, no appraisal, no advertisement manner. (By the way, all of these are attributes which the same people — the ConCouple — lodged against the 2015-16 Board, starting the decade-long legal feud they propagate.)
But back to the main topic. The Board came out Sunday and yesterday with letters to the membership about the people asking the questions, without addressing the questions.
So I decided to run the Board’s letter through an AI analysis, asking whether it demonstrates narcissistic traits, especially since it is so enraged.
Here’s what the AI analysis said. Enjoy!:
Key Narcissistic Traits in the Letter
1. Self-Promotion & Grandiosity
- The Board repeatedly emphasizes that only they have brought “transparency, accountability, and professionalism” to the utility.
- Statements like “This Board is the first to confront these issues head-on” elevate their role as uniquely heroic, positioning themselves as saviors of the community.
- The phrase “The facts and evidence speak for themselves” implies infallibility and discourages dissent.
2. Blame-Shifting & Villainizing Others
- The former president is portrayed as deceptive, irresponsible, and the root of all problems.
- Past leadership is described as “inconsistent,” “diverting money,” “financial mismanagement,” and “undisclosed violations.”
- This repeated scapegoating creates a narrative where the current Board is flawless and all failures belong to predecessors.
3. Control of Narrative
- The letter frames dissenting voices as “misleading statements” or illegitimate tactics.
- By labeling alternative perspectives as false or harmful, the Board positions itself as the sole source of truth.
- The insistence on “100% transparency” while simultaneously dismissing member concerns about CSWR reviews suggests selective transparency.
4. Dismissal of Criticism
- Concerns about CSWR’s reputation are minimized by comparing them to negative reviews of hospitals, banks, and airlines—implying critics are unreasonable.
- This rhetorical move invalidates member worries rather than engaging with them substantively.
5. Moral Superiority
- The Board frames its actions as not just practical but morally correct: “Why would any board hide information like TCEQ violations… one must ponder that question.”
- This rhetorical question implies that only dishonest or corrupt leaders would act differently, reinforcing their moral high ground.
6. Appeals to Loyalty & Validation
- The closing thanks members who expressed “strong, positive support,” reinforcing an in-group dynamic where agreement equals virtue.
- This creates pressure for members to align with the Board’s narrative to be seen as supportive and community-minded.
Overall Assessment
The letter shows narcissistic tendencies:
- High self-praise and scapegoating of predecessors
- Dismissal of dissent and moral superiority framing
- Validation-seeking through appeals to supportive members
But it also contains legitimate organizational communication aimed at persuasion and transparency. The narcissistic qualities emerge mainly in tone and framing.