Some members of the San Jose Elections Commission are implying that Councilmember Nora Campos had something to do with the anonymous complaint field against Tom McEnery, which was brushed aside Friday after months of huffing and puffing by Campos and her allies. And staffers in Campos’s office are shocked. (Shocked!)
The complaint accused McEnery of shortcutting the city’s lobbyist laws while he was putting together plans for his San Pedro Square Public Market project. It was filed by power-attorney James McManis on behalf of an anonymous client who claimed “whistleblower” protection, stating a fear of reprisal from the former mayor. Less than 24 hours after the complaint was filed, Campos released a memo, citing information from the anonymous complaint. In her memo she asked that the council hold off on approving $6 million in redeveloopment money that McEnery had requested, until the investigation was finalized.
An independent lawfirm reviewed the charges that McEnery had secretly met with Mayor Chuck Reed and others. Its final report dinged McEnery for taking Councilman Sam Liccardo to a Sharks game, but otherwise concluded that “the evidence fails to sustain the alleged misconduct.”
Last week, when the election commission met to clear McEnery of wrongdoing, several members said they were a little perturbed that there was no name linked to the complaint. Some commissioners openly made statements about wanting to investigate Campos’s role in the matter.
Ryan Ford, Campos’s chief of staff, was sitting in the back of the room during that meeting. He left feeling a bit puzzled and pissed off. “If they want to investigate how it was distributed, go ahead—we had nothing to do with that,” Ford says. “We resent the implication that she had anything to do with it.” It’s unlikely the commission will ever find out if Campos did have something to do with it.
According to City Clerk Lee Price, the commission doesn’t have the authority to conduct an investigation of that nature.
“According to City Clerk Lee Price, the commission doesn’t have the authority to conduct an investigation of that nature.”
So, does this commission have any power, or is it just another feel good sop thrown to the public to calm us down?
Well, Campos might be innocent but the whole thing sure stinks to high heaven. Doesn’t the accused have a right to confront the accuser? I’m glad this bogus complaint was “brushed aside.” This just sounds like political sour grapes from Campos.
Why was Campos’ office so interested in this matter to send her chief of staff? Good use of a public salary. Hah!
David, Duh, she will be running against McInery, I mean Reed, I mean McInery or whoever calls the shots in the next election.
Wow, this would almost be as shocking as finding out that there was gambling going on in Casablanca.
The righteous indignation of Campos’ aide-de-brat is no surprise. Her mouthpieces are expert at firing off arrogant non-responses.
It just keeps on getting worse here at Silly Hall. And they wonder why they get no respect.
Rick,
I had to laugh when you referred to her aide as her “mouthpiece.” I think he might be more correctly identified as her “brainpiece.”
Muddy Brain # 4—scroll up to the initial post to see how to spell McEnery correctly before you drop your pearls of wisdom on us all.
Campos’ office also furiously denied having anything to do with a recent Amazon.com purchase of the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” using city funds.
Nora’s not pulling the strings on the anti-McEnery complaints. Cindy Chavez is. It’s common knowledge in the political community.
So why is this important or newsworthy? It’s from a meeting last week, there are no quotes stating what the story claims, no names of the “several members” and the commission can’t investigate the matter.
And above all that, it’s been rumored to be Campos that was behind the complaint since it was made.
And that is all this post is saying, that she is rumored to be behind it.
Oh and I think the complaint was probably “filed,” not “field” as the first paragraph stated.
I was at the city council meeting in December when this matter was first discussed. It was the day after the huge envelopes containing hundreds of pages of documents allegedly relating to the charges made by “anonymous” had been delivered to the council members, the press and McEnery’s neighbors. Each and every council member remarked as to how they had not had time to study the documents because they had only received them a few hours before EXCEPT Nora Campos.
Campos demonstrated that she had intimate, detailed knowledge of the contents which she could have only had if she had gotten the dossier at least several days before everyone else, or had taken part in its creation—-meaning she is in cahoots to some extent with the anonymous person or persons behind this shameful event, or possibly is the anonymous person. The only other explanation that makes sense is that she was played for a sucker by “anonymous” and now has copious amounts of egg on her face.
Whichever is the case, Campos obviously must know who “anonymous” is and should make that information public. After all, “anonymous” is responsible for the wasting of thousands of the public’s dollars and the valuable time of our elected servants with their bogus charges.
Which master does Campos serve: “Anonymous” or the citizens of San Jose?