It is clear from yesterday’s special meeting that the only thing the city council can do to the mayor in the wake of his indictment is whack him with a wet noodle, take away his gas allowance, and allow him only bread and water. There is no provision or process in the Charter to remove the mayor from office, and the council apparently cannot now pass an ordinance addressing impeachment and apply it retroactively without violating the mayor’s civil rights. What is also clear is that, if there was such an impeachment procedure in place, the council would now invoke it in light of the mayor’s refusal to resign, and he would be history.
Under the circumstances, the council was only able to lob a frozen pea at the mayor by passing a motion to “request” that the mayor resign immediately by a vote of 8 to 3, with Gonzales, Nguyen and Williams voting no. It looks like the only other recourse the council has, as outlined by City Attorney Rick Doyle, is to restrict his budget, travel and ability to represent the city at official functions. It seems that this is what they will now do in the meeting set for early August. (Why isn’t the council consulting with an outside legal eagle specialist on this matter?)
The mayor says he is innocent, must be accorded due process and will remain in office to “clear his family name.” He says that by imposing restrictions on him and his office, the council will “punish the people of San Jose.” He also strenuously objected to the motions introduced in the meeting as a violation of his rights.
No one wants to deny the mayor due process with respect to the criminal charges against him. However, given the situation, his claim to be staying in office for the people of San Jose rings a little hollow, especially when he himself brings up the “necessity” of clearing his family name. It seems to me if the citizens of San Jose were his primary interest, he wouldn’t have engaged in the shady backroom deals that put him, and his family name, in jeopardy.
The crux of the matter for me is that if a process to remove the mayor from office was available, then Gonzales would certainly be removed, and he knows it. The view of the majority of the council was succinctly put by Linda LeZotte when she said that, given the findings of two grand juries and an independent investigation, the mayor is “not fit for office, is arrogant and he fails to recognize his ethical shortcomings.” By staying, Gonzales is, in effect, relying on a technicality to continue in office.
It is evident to everyone but the mayor that it will be impossible for him to fully engage in his responsibilities and fulfill the expectations of his employers, the people of San Jose, during the six months remaining in his term. Therefore, if he really, truly only cares about the people who pay his salary, he would take the high road and resign immediately. Then, in due course, he can have his day in court and move on in life. In the meantime, the council can start cleaning up the mashed potatoes and cottage cheese in their chambers in preparation for the new regime.
Any employee of any entity such as city, county, school district, state, etc who is indicted for any criminal act which occurred on duty is put on Administrative Suspension until the matter is resolved. Apparently when someone is elected to a San Jose City post there are no such rules. There should be such rules in place. Placing Ronnie on Administrative Leave until the matter is settled means he could still be called Mayor but he couldn’t act in that capacity until the matter is resolved. This way the issue of whether or not he should resign is moot.
GET RID OF CITY ATTORNEY. HE HAS BEEN A TOOL OF THE MAYOR ALL ALONG. GONZO IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO HIS FAMILY SAD TO SAY BUT TRUE. HE CLAIMS TO LOVE SAN JOSE, DID HE LOVE SUNNYVALE AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY? I THINK HE LOVES WHATEVER GIVES HIM A PLITICAL JOB. HOPE HE IS PERMENATELY OUT OF POLITICS. HE SHOULD BECOME A LOBBYIST LIKE ALL THE REST OF HIS STAFF AND BACKERS THAT NOW RUN ROUGHSHOD OVER CITY HALL.
The Merc’s opinion piece points out that Cindy Chavez is being politically hurt every day Gonzo hangs on as Mayor. We’ve known that for a while. It is now evident that City Attorney Rick Doyle has been so dominated for so long by Gonzo that only a timid, symbolic set of actions were presented to the rest of the City Council to punish Gonzales. I expect that Doyle will not be the City Attorney after Reed’s election as San Jose’s next Mayor.
While Gonzo spends the next six months “clearing” his name, the individual leaders of the City will be damaged beyond repair. Present City Council members and city executives will be harmed by the presence of an arrogant and harmful Gonzales.
What follows is pure speculation.
It’s possible Ron is hanging on to use resignation from office as some bargaining chip. He delated his guilty/not guilty plea earlier this week on some technicality. I’m guessing he might cop a plea and as part of the deal, resign from office.
OK, go ahead and flame me.
Rodney Dangerfield said “you know you are getting old when your family talks about you right in front of you.”
“What are we going to do with Pop?”
Ron Gonzales must be feeling old. He sat stoic for hours while others discussed his fate, right in front of him, like he wasn’t even in the room.
As this Greek tragedy plays out, one can have some empathy for the Mayor—but clearly the best thing for San Jose is that he leave.
While the indictment on criminal charges is unjust, unfair and unwarranted; it is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. After a series of misteps that included censure, the Mayor has no political support, must utilize most of his remaining time in office to fight these charges while the City is forced to live with a cloud over its head and that is the reason he should resign.
For six months he can look forward to people staring in disbelief at his stubborness, while others try to work around him and many will simply ignore him.
Ron clings to the justice he feels he is owed. He and his staff made some bad decisions; but they were not criminal.
But vindication will not come from staying in office, it will only be provided in a Courtroom.
If he resigned and was acquitted he might be able to comeback politically. Voters have a tendency to reward those who are treated unjustly in public office. But they will never forgive a politician who puts himself before the people he is supposed to serve.
If he is acquitted, there will be no rejoicing among those of us who know he is innocent of criminal wrongdoing.
Though he may see it as a self-rightious vindication, the public will always note that he put his own self-interest before that of his city.
That is another political error Ron is missing in this whole fiasco.
What are we going to do with Pop?
All well said. I was really impressed, I have to say, with the comments of Bill Chew and John DiQuisto. They were both surprisingly eloquent.
Candy Russell (just-defeated (shocking!) District 3 candidate) on the other hand…
This “strong mayor” concept has a stronger mayor than most may have thought.
This tawdry affair just demonstrates that the existing city charter needs to be blown up and remade from scratch.
I read the memo yesterday regarding what can be done to the mayor, and an old sea shanty song popped into my mind – “What Do You Do With a Drunken Sailor.” If the city council has no means by which to remove Gonzo as mayor now, than what in ned is San Jose going to do when some future mayor decides to REALLY cross the line?
We really need those space aliens right about now…
what a waste
#6: Interesting speculation. I would not be surprised.
After years of ignored procedures, disregarded constraints, usurped authority, and violated laws, San Jose’s city leadership has, in these past few days, finally discovered that sometimes rules do matter. Suddenly, they find, not even the determined will of the majority is enough.
Mayor Gonzales will stay. The law, as it is written, does matter. All laws do.
It may not be good for city operations, and it may make for some uncomfortable days ahead, but it is a valuable reminder that was long, long overdue.
Gonzo’s hubris is incredible. He ought to spenf the summer break reading Greek tragedies.
But he needs the job to pay Alan Ruby’s soo-to-be-hefty bill.
So what’s he do in January? Would anyone want to do business with any company that hires him?
Ron had his problems before Jude left him, just as Mike Tyson had his probems before Cus D’Amato died; but they both spiraled downward after their respective moral compasses were no longer around.
Does Ron really believe that the City of San Jose and its people need him???
If any other employee of the City was under investigation for illegal activities, he/she would immediately be put on paid administrative leave.
The employee would be directed to stay at home and report back to work when called. During the leave period, a thorough investigation would be conducted. Yes, this sometimes takes weeks and months depending on the quality of the evidence.
If the Attorney and Council wanted to really do something about “his honor”, they would treat him like any other City employee. The special treament of Gonzales is not lost on the rest of the City workforce.
Mayor Ron Gonzales should not resign! What is wrong with some of you people? The Mayor is only following the supreme example of “righteous indignation” in the face of irrefutable evidence. “I did not have sex with that woman”. If a President who committed the worse kind of executive sexual harassment, lied to a Grand Jury etc. etc. didn’t resign and wasn’t impeached why should Mayor Gonzales resign over these trifling indiscretions? I personally believe him when he claims other members of the Council were informed of his dealings with Norcal and others.
So what’s the problem? Give him his official SJ City coffee cup back and let’s move on.
Democracies get the government they deserve…
RR – It will be interesting to read what you say when Gonzales is convicted on some or all of the charges. There is no question what he did—only if they rise to the level of criminal activity. Do you really think the DA would go forward if they didn’t have a very strong case? Do you really think the DA wants to tarnish his reputation for the sake of the already (and permanently) tarnished reputation of Gonzales? Your reasoning (or lack thereof) continues to amaze me.
8 – John DiQuisto and eloquent? Those are two things that have never appeared in the same sentence before. Eloquent was hardly the first word that came to mind when I heard him speak. Clueless was more like it. Same with Bill Chew. These guys just don’t understand that criminal guilt or innocence had nothing to do with the decision the Council had to make. It had to do with right and wrong and the fact that Gonzales is now the town eunuch. Not exactly the type of leader we want for a supposed big city.
I want my share of the $11.25 million back that he picked out of my pocket for the shady Norcal garbage rate increase.
Otherwise both he and his sidekick Guerrra can sit in prison and think about their bad deeds in defrauding the people of San Jose.
This should send a clear message to most of the other Council members—start representing the best interests of your constituents, and not your own personal agenda, your personal financial gain, or your personal causes.
I think people are finally fed up with the nonsense that goes on down at San Jose City Hall.
Steve Bridgers
1…As I heard Ron speak about the need to protect his family name, I remembered my father warning me”it takes generations to build a good family name, it only takes one stupid act to tear it down”. Ron damaged his good family name years ago.
2…With the city’s track record in court, I think it is a good idea that the we let Ron have his day in court with the D.A. It would only add insult to injury to have to pay him damages.
3…One of the many sad facts about this whole mess is that Ron will never get it. He never takes responsibility for his actions. He only blames others for his problems. I once met with Ron to talk to him about a law suit that the city had just lost to a group of citizens who sued on behalf of the public process. It cost the taxpayers millions. I started off by asking him how can we work together to avoid a costly mess like this in the future? Rather than learn from from his mistakes, he just said I don’t talk to people who sue me. He then started ranting about how he blamed all his troubles on the Mercury News. I never quite got what he was talking about, but he did sound an awful lot like Humphry Bogart in Cain Mutiny when he kept asking who stole the strawberries? By the way, we sued him in another matter when he refused to talk to us and we prevailed in court again.
Nixon said the same thing. Now we know who Gonzo’s role model is.
14 – If they were going to treat Gonzales like any other City employee, they would have fired him after his affair with a subordinate—just like any other department head would have been. The double standard has been alive and well for years inside the Hall.
JohnMichael, you spelling and english are very bad. You need a proof-reader!
#13,16&20; well said!
#15 Dexter, as a fellow Republican, I suggest that we get our glass house in order before we start throwing stones. By the way there is plenty of blame to go around for all, on San Jose’s problems, Cindy….Labor, Ron…Norcal…Big Business, weak laws, broken laws, lack of process….city attorney, weak council, apathetic citizens. Let’s first start with looking in the mirror and asking what we could have done and what we will do in the future to make S,J. a better place.
Jack Van Zandt: ” There is no provision or process in the Charter to remove the mayor from office, and the council apparently cannot now pass an ordinance addressing impeachment and apply it retroactively without violating the mayor’s civil rights.”
In fact, there are two ways to remove a sitting mayor. Recall him (it’s done with petitions) pursuant to the city charter, or ask the DA pursuant to state statute to work with the civil grand jury to convene a special hearing with a 12-person jury to decide on whether the mayor’s conduct has been so bad that he should be ousted.
The posters here have been free to start a recall campaign at any time, and are still free to do it.
And two people (me in August 2005 and Dave Cortese in December 2005) filed applications with the civil grand jury and the DA asking for a civil hearing to oust the mayor.
So why is the DA getting such a free pass on his choice of timing of criminal charges? He should have acted in December when a five-day hearing would have allowed a 12-person jury to oust the mayor after two days or so of deliberation.
When the DA opted to file criminal charges in the middle of the mayoral primary, all informed persons were aware that the mayor would stay in office until the end of his term.
A person accused of crimes doesn’t dare resign an office because that would be used as evidence of guilt in any future hearings. It was obvious that the DA wanted the mayor to stay in office, not leave it, when the DA used criminal charges, not civil charges.
The mayor’s refusal to resign at this point is not about arrogance (I know, hard to accept), it is about survival. Even a fox in a trap will chew his leg off to survive, so how anyone can expect the mayor to step down is beyond me.
In this connection, it is the DA’s strategy that needs a much closer look. When discussing this issue, remember that the DA could have ousted the mayor last December through a relatively simple hearing process.
Once the DA’s role becomes understood, then we will have to ask: Who benefits from his strategy?
Laughs at Grand Jury
Lies to public and council
wastes money
incompetent
Where is help?
DA Kennedy. U are our last hope for justice. pLZ HELP US.
NO PLEA DEALS. Bankrupt Gonzales at minimum.
Nixon, correct. Ron’s playbook, opened up to chapter anum. 1972, Checkers Speech.
Instead of a little puppy, Ron got his entire family and staff to stand for extended periods while he told the rest of the audience to shut up.
I heard Ron tell us, “I am a city employee.” So Doyle claims he can’t be fired based on California labor law and he gets a W-2.
Ron tells us, “I am elected and the people want me.”
Ron is an employee or an elected official when it is convenient for him. How they are getting away with one job title to escape the obligations of the other is remarkable.
Watching his security guards move around the chamber was comedy at its best. I want to know why the City Council still feels it appropriate to pay that kind of money to protect a guy they asked to resign.
Let’s face it, if it was a food fight Gonzales won.
The council couldn’t fire him, couldn’t cut his salary, didn’t cut his staff or even take away his credit card. He will still be running meetings from the center of the dais and if he wants to show up at public events there’s not a damn thing the council can do to stop him.
The best the council could do was cut his budget for office supplies, limit his travel budget and freeze a staff and surplus budget that he probably wasn’t going to use anyway.
I suspect Gonzo has enough Bic pens and paper clips to last his remaining 6 months. It’s not likely he was planning on expanding his staff during this time and I don’t imagine that he had extensive travel plans.
Congratulations Mr. Mayor you win. You get to fill out your term in a city where 87% of the citizens and a majority of the City Council wants you to resign. Good luck trying to lead.
Now what, exactly, is it that you’ve won?
Ah, Dexter. I assume you are joking, because nobody would seriously compare what happened to Clinton and what Gonzales did to himself. The opposition party let its hatred for a man get the better of their common sense and they tried to take him down over a private sexual matter. They lost big time and looked like the fools that they are.
Gonzales tried to skirt the City Charter, ethics rules, and maybe the law and will get what he deserves. It was hardly a private matter (of course, he had that, too, with his affair.)
So, Dexter, that was a pretty good joke. Now let’s get serious with the matter before us. A mayor who has no regard for his city or its citizens. A mayor in name only who has been reduced to a pathetic and tragic figure in San Jose history. Quite a legacy.
Just the Facts #22 – I’m not throwing stones at anyone’s glass home – Republican or Democrat. I’m stating historical fact – precedence. You know – Just the Facts…
Just like, in spite of everything being said or can’t be done by the council, Cindy is going win the election. Just a fact…
Out of courtesy please refer to me as a Conservative. I find, because of the glass houses you mentioned, it “offensive” to be “labeled” a Republican.
I pray, oh sorry – not PC, and hope voters will rise up and get involved like Mayor Tom suggests!!! However, the cynic in me sees just the fact. So I hope I piss “some” people off enough to get out there and do something…
Mal Content #26 – Good ending question!
Mayor Gonzales’ opening comments that he is not arrogant and his (past and) current actions are purely for the betterment of the city were reminiscent of, and rang as hollow as, Terry Gregory’s initail indignant shouts of HIS own innocence not so long ago.
Much like Mr. Gregory, I don’t think Mayor Gonzales has the personal resources to resign and fight the charges. Gonzales is in dire need of the ~$52K in salary (less one third due the former Mrs. Gonzales) he is still to recieve this year. If the Mercury News’ article was correct, the $120K in savings will soon go towards Mr. Ruby’s fees. That might cover a few months. Like Mr. Gregory, he needs the money, and like Mr. Gregory, the only real bargaining chip he has left is his job.
His actions with regards to Norcal, by his own admission, were wrong and I am one of the many who believe he should resign.
Now I don’t know if Mayor Gonzales’ actions rise to the level of criminal misconduct, let alone wether or not he will eventually be convicted. My guess is that he serves out his term and then make a deal. Not only does he remind me of Mr. Gregory, but as so many have railed that he deserves his day in court I could not help but think of two other high profile people in high profile cases that actually resulted in not guilty verdicts. OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson.
Yep, I just compared Mayor Gonzales to OJ & Jacko. To everyone that says we must wait for the court system to run is course before the mayor resigns, I have two questions for you. Would you let OJ date your daughter or Jacko babysit your son?
C’mon, what ‘s the big deal? Both were acquitted. Oh yea, there are a few other things to consider such as public trust and common sense.
Ms. Lezotte’s comments were almost perfect, but I laughed outloud at the guy who started his two minutes by calling the mayor an adulterer. The guy was a far-right wing religious nut (as evidenced by the rest of his comments, IMHO), but it helped to wake me up during the other wise fairly dry, boring and uneventful meeting.
FinFan #12: HUH?
Onion # 21—U rite!
Dale # 23: I asked you here after a previous post to cite the code section that you contend allows a judge/jury to oust the mayor. Please do so. I would like to read it to confirm your analysis/position.
Gracias.
Mal # 26—what he has won is time and a paycheck until December 31, 2006.
Well, we’ve all blown off steam, but the end of this story is out of all of our hands.
Where does Gonzo get the $$$ to pay Alan Ruby @ $550.00/hour? According to the Murky News(I presume from their reading mandated disclosure statements) he had no stocks/bonds/mutual funds; he had about $120k in savings (where did he get THAT on the mayor’s salary?), of which about $72k went for the down payment on his condo.
Alan Ruby will burn through that soon. Alan doesn’t need the publicity, so why should he discount the legal work?
The deal is damage control and proving that ethical lapses don’t equal criminal culpability.
Jules can go out with a bang if he pulls this one off.
The risk/reward ratios are skewed on both sides.
But the first to roll still gets the deal…so what will Joe G do?
Hhhmm. Methinks we can post till out fingers bleed, but the result is out of our hands.
I am moving our company and business out of San Jose as this city is a joke!
If Cindy is still around in November, I’ll sell my house and leave too!
If my garbage needs picking up, can I call Ron to pick up the mess he made?
Do you know the way to San Jose? Yes, but sadly I went the other way!!!
Milhous #27 – How soon we’ve forgot about lying to a grand jury and having his license to practice law revoked. Libby was indicted. Delay has been indicted. But I’m sure you remember them. Libby and Delay resigned after being indicted. Did Clinton? Did Gonzo? No, Gonzo learned that he’ll get a pass as a liberal Democrat in this city. No joke. I wish it was…
Dear San Jose:
It seems to me that the city council might have another move they can make to turn up the heat on Mayor Corruptus. What if the eight councilmembers who called for his resignation simply walked out at the begining of the next council meeting? You can’t have a meeting without a quorum. Such an act would be supported by the people. No more city business will be conducted until the former mayor of Sunnyvale walks!
Kudos to Linda LeZotte for her excellent speech Wednesday.
Pete Campbell
Actually, #15 Dexter, the president you are referring to *was* impeached under the Constitution, meaning that he was “indicted” by the US House of Representatives and tried by the US Senate. The US Senate did NOT vote to remove him from office. He was censured by the Congress, however.
Let’s get the terminology straight, please.
#25 Mr Kyne: Nixon’s Checkers speech was in 1952 when he was running for vice president, not 1972. Perhaps it was a harbinger of things to come in the 1970s, but still, dates matter, as those privy to details months in advance of their colleagues around here can tell you.
Based on what I’ve read and seen, I’m reasonably certain of the following:
1) Gonzo did wrong
2) Gonzo did little that could result in jail time
3) People get away with anything because communities don’t hold elected officials accountable for most ethical breaches, unless they are massive or extremely distasteful. Spread out over a city of ~1 million, $13M is not much money. So it’s the principle we’re arguing about, right?
On that last point: I have a couple friends who like Chuck but are supporting Cindy because they “like her” more. These are good, well-meaning people. But the reality is, when we allow people to lie (such as feigning the novelty of proposals they knew months before but not telling anyone and *publicly* lamenting the lack of notice, aww shucks!), that type of skulldaggery becomes table stakes for the political game. There’s every incentive to do it and no penalty to discourage it, so why not?
Good people who want high standards should enforce the “political death penalty” and NEVER VOTE AGAIN for people who have lied to them. But they turn their heads, hold their noses, and give these people a pass, because those electeds ‘got them’ what they needed at one point or another. Or the officials are ‘nice.’ Then the common folk wonder how such ethically-challenged folks could get to such heights. Hello! They’re only responding to the game around them. Change the rules of the game, and you change the players, or at least their behavior.
Imagine: if Gonzo had used racial epithets a la Kathy Cole, he would have been run out of town—as she was. Why is lying/deception/stealing(!?) any better?
I attended the meeting yesterday. My thought is that the council as a whole needs to take Viagra, given how impotent they were. I did think Linda LeZotte did the best job explaining the reasons for why he needs to resign. Also, this little ditty came to mind as I watched that charade yesterday:
San Jose has a Mayor named Ron
Whose morals and ethics are gone
Council thinks him a lout
even Cindy shouts, “out!”
But he’s staying until he’s a con
It has been said over and over on this board, but the arrogance and F*** You attitude of this guy is appalling. The audacity of this lame mayor to pretend this has anything to do with his staff or his family name is mind boggling.
You are right to raise the question about why the Council is not seeking outside legal advice on this. The City Attorney has been hamstrung by this mayor and the former city manager to the point that he can only issue timid rulings that generally favor the misdeeds of the mayor. Outside counsel should be sought to guide the Council through this morass.
San Jose likes to jump up and down telling people they are 10th largest city but at least for the next 6 months they will look like the 10th smallest city. Send your thanks to Ron Gonzales for bringing the city down with him.
#7 R.R. You sound too convincing. You seldom agree with, as you put it, “The Mob” Or is it “The Crowd”… Are you spinning again? No pun intended.
# 15 Dexter also brings up a good point about the rest of the council. Are we to beleive nobody else on the council had a clue about our mayor’s dealings? Didn’t the majority vote for the CISCO deal, the new city hall, the Grand Prix.
Ther are two schools of thought here. Either the majority of voters elected a bunch of Yahoos to the council, or they’re smart enough to go along with the mayor until he went too far in an election year and got caught. This would explain why one of the mayor’s biggest allie and confidant for many years, is now making a Heculean effort to set themselves apart as much as possible.
Our city council has reaped what it has sewn, deal with it, it’s only six months.
As for the hearing, the only honorable part were the two “no” votes from Madison Nguyen and Forrest Williams.
It was embarrasing for employees of City Hall to watch the Mayor parade his office staff and family in front of the Council at the Wednesday “hearing.”
It was interesting to hear the Mayor speak about his staff in the Mayor’s Office as the group that “achieved so much” while he was in office, while at the same time he neglected to mention the 6,000 plus employees of the City of San Jose.
It has been obvious for these many years that “staff” referred to his own immediate hires, while the rest of the workforce has largely gone unrecognized.
Can’t wait for the New Year!!
What is the reason that District Attorney Kennedy waited until after the Primary Election to file his Criminal Indictment?
Breaking #40—I’m not sure just yet that I’d cut that deal. The irony of Gonzo on the weekender work program filling garbage bags along 101 would be sweet
If Ruby wins his motion re the embezzlement and bribery counts, Joe G. doesn’t have to roll over on Gonzo, and neither will get jail time.
But lots of community service would be a good sentence..
Refugio # 42—Make that a lower case “y” on “Yahoos”, lest Yahoo sue you for defamation.
Check out <a >Lezotte’s full statement on Gonzales</a> here.
Just a point of clarification on #15: Bill Clinton was impeached; he wasn’t convicted. So many people make that mistake. Didn’t you have to take a civics class? We learned all about the 3 branches of the federal government and their responsibilities in 7th grade.
Oops! Make that $11.25 million. Now *I* need to fire my fact-checker. Nonetheless, the point is still the same: Not that much money in the grand scheme of things.
He can also use his officeholder account to pay for his legal fees. That won’t go too far at $550/hr either. I don’t know about the rest of them getting up and walking out, there is a lot of business that needs to be taken care of. Has anyone asked the DA to cut a deal whereby he drops the indictment if Gonzalez resigns? I can’t, I work there. But you guys could! My hero JM O’C, could lead the way with Dexter, Mal, Hugh, Dale, Pete, Dennis, frus. finfan and others. But you know who should really seriously talk to him? Tom McE. I mean hes got cred and people would listen to him. Help us out Tom! Please! Do you know how bad morale is right now? How embarrased City employees feel right now? Oh, and 2 more things. 1. I couldn’t agree more w/ the gentleman from the audience and people posting here; they should not have used Rick Doyle. Even if he doesn’t know it, he has a bias towards Gonzalez. And he is by no means an expert on this type of thing. 2. That nutcase who called Gonzalez and adulturer is there every week. He usually has some rude comment to Ken Yeager b/c he’s gay. And everyone else is going to Hell according to him. He has what you call “attention seeking behaviour syndrome”!
there are better places to invest in for business and homes than in san jose.
Dex, Dex, Are you saying that having sex w/ that girl (Clinton) is worse than making secret deals and then lying about it and spending 11.25 mil of the public’s money is? Goodness, we have a high moral standard. Besides, he did do that as well!
#50. Either way, it sucks.
#43 Refugio….. Right On!
The council reminds me of the guy who leaves work early to make up for comming in late. Where were they years ago? Now with all the press around they can’t wait to give Gonzo his day in court ?
#49 Dexter
If you wanted to compare Gonzo to one of our past presidents getting away with something, wouldn’t Regan selling arms to the enemy in the “Iran Contra scandal” have been a better analogy? Few had the balls to stand up to him, he got off without a slap on the wrist. Maybe Joe G. will even get a radio talk show like Oliver North.
At his time of need Gonzo had his most politically astute and well respected confidants speak for him Candy Russell and Bill Chew …. comments not necessary
of course Gonzo loves San Hose it gave him the opportunity to marry a women way out of his league and be paid for it
I apologize to those of you who didn’t get my point – why should Mayor Gonzales resign when a former chief executive of our country did much worse and remained in office?
Pete Campbell, in my opinion, has the best idea – recall Gonzo and anyone else within a mile of his shenanigans.
So, if it makes your point to belabor terminology please continue. Maybe Gonzo can use your help with technicalities during his trial…