Dear Friends,
I ran for office on a platform of open government and honest communication with my constituents. That means acknowledging when I am wrong, as well as standing up for what I believe is right. Since taking office in January 2007, I have relied on this newsletter to provide information to neighbors about what is happening at City Hall and how that affects each of you.
Today, however, I write to provide background about a story that has been in the media over the past week, regarding my improper acceptance of free admission to two hockey games.
Tickets and Gifts: The Facts
Some straightforward facts will help resolve outstanding questions about this issue:
*On March 31, 2009, I filed public disclosure forms required of elected officials in California. These filings described my home ownership, sources of income, and gifts. On those forms, I disclosed my attendance at two hockey games, and identified the price and source of admission to those events. These filings, and those of all elected officials, are available online for the public, and are appropriately scrutinized by the media, bloggers, and political opponents.
After filing this public disclosure form, I received a call from a Mercury News reporter, who had seen the tickets listed in my filings and inquired about their legality. I immediately called the City Attorney. Within minutes of realizing that I had violated the City’s gift regulations, I admitted my mistake and re-paid the Sharks for the price of admission.
The San Jose Municipal Code has a lengthy list of exceptions its ban on gifts exceeding $50, including admission to “ceremonial, political, civic, cultural or community” events, among a host of other exceptions. City rules also allow City officials free admission to the City-rented “box” at the HP Arena, for the purpose of hosting organizations and visiting dignitaries at Sharks games and other events. So, the rules allow Councilmembers to accept free tickets to musical performances, speeches, or fireworks shows, but not to sports events, except for the HP Arena’s “City box.” City officials can attend a Sharks game for free in the City’s box, but can’t have the Sharks pay for the admission.
While these rules may not seem intuitively straight forward or consistent, it is clear that I violated the City regulations.
For violating the rules, I apologize to you. I have acknowledged my mistake and hope that I can put this behind me and move forward in working towards our shared goals as your City Councilmember.
What Does this Mean?
Although it’s clear that I broke the city regulations, it’s ambiguous whether state law has been violated, due to conflicting information about the aggregate cost of admission to those two games. In an abundance of caution, I will proceed under the assumption that the state rules were broken, and because of this, I will recues myself from votes related to the San Jose Sharks for whatever duration suggested by the City Attorney.
An overlooked lesson in all of this, however, is that the system worked. The Mercury News coverage arose only because I fully disclosed these transactions and I am subsequently seeking to comply. While I am the focus of this coverage, and I would rather not be, the stories generated from this coverage reinforces the need for a watchdog local media. The fact that we still have a local, daily newspaper is a blessing in these challenging economic times - just ask residents in Denver and Seattle. In other
words, I am still a subscriber.
Looking Ahead
It is with this explanation and apology that I hope we can all move on so that we can address our City’s truly pressing issues. For example, there are real challenges facing our City budget. I recently joined the Fire and Police Pension Board two months ago only to learn that 2008 pension fund losses in the markets will impose a cost of well over $30 million on our General Fund starting in 2010. In June, we will look to make painful service and job cuts to close a budgetary deficit exceeding $70 million.
But the City faces unique opportunities during these difficult budgetary times as well. On Tuesday, the City Council will debate the merits of a privately financed major league baseball stadium, a potentially major economic development effort for our
downtown and a substantial source of jobs and future tax revenue. Within a few months, we will take steps to move forward with a critical expansion of health care services downtown.
I will continue to dedicate my time to these serious challenges and unique opportunities. I look forward to engaging with you in determining how to best address these and many other issues worthy of our full attention.
Thank you,
Sam,
Nice to hear from you. You note above, “Since taking office in January 2007, I have relied on this newsletter to provide information to neighbors about what is happening at City Hall and how that affects each of you.”
I honestly cannot remember ever reading one of your columns. Perhaps I was sick the very day that you wrote one. It does, therefore, seem rather opportune that you choose to write a column now, just as your name has been basking in a not so favorable light.
Oh well, please do continue to write a column now and then. Pierluigi is the only councilperson who has been vigilant in contributing through his weekly column.
Liccardo didn’t contribute this to Inside, he sent it out to his constituents. Inside picked it up and posted it.
My God, the media didn’t give half this much attention to Sam “Smiling” Liccardo bringing a fake petition before the Council to affect the outcome of a vote!
Liccardo isn’t one of my favorite people, but come on now. Admittedly, the guy screwed up, has owned up to his mistake, so lets move on. It must be a slow news week, or Sam made someone well connected mad because this over done media coverage of an honest mistake is a bit much.
It’s amazing how many of our public officials must refer to “the rules” in order to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Sam,
If you help bring MLB/The A’s to downtown San Jose, all will be forgiven!
#1 Greg,
FYI: Sam sent his message out in an e-blast venue prior to the Metro posting it to SJI. I don’t know all the recipients, but thought you’d like to know this because the statement can indeed be misread.
Also, I have seen Sam write the occasional column in the SJ Mercury, and he also sends out a monthly newsletter to his district constituents. This is in addition to holding a monthly, public “Neighborhood Advisory Group” (lovingly called The NAG) meeting that anyone is welcome to attend. (It’s the 3rd Wednesday of each month, City Hall, Wing rooms 118 – 120.)
While I too appreciate and look forward to reading Pierluigi’s weekly blog, I personally have found it helpful to seek out and gather information from various sources rather than depend on SJI alone for my information.
Tina
#4,
Here, here. Still waiting for a waterboarding apology.
Tina,
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. And, yes, one positively needs other sources beyond SJI. I would imagine that even Crude and Rude (#2) reads other press. Of course, that likely translates into comic books, in the main.
Kenny #7,
Good point. So we might actually agree on something. My belief is that we should limit the scope of Government’s involvement both internationally and domestically. This would radically decrease the opportunity for abuses of power. Would you agree?
Unfortunately, the prevailing “wisdom” is exemplified by Tony D.(#5) who doesn’t care if our representatives accept bribes as long as they help him to get what HE wants- in this case a baseball franchise. In other words, the end justifies the means.
The editor wrote:“NOTE: San Jose City Council member Sam Liccardo is circulating this letter in response to allegations that he illegally accepted tickets to a Sharks game.”
Since Sam stated in his own public disclosure filing that he received the tickets, it’s no longer an allegation. In fact, since Sam fessed up so promptly, it was initially reported as an admitted fact, not an allegation.
That said, this continuing story is such a tempest in a teapot, it helps us appreciate how far the Murky News has fallen.
My question about this whole thing is what were the Sharks thinking? If you regularly give out event tickets to government officials, you’d think you would bother to learn the gift rules surrounding those tickets. Ultimately, they cost themselves a likely supporter should any vote of interest come up in the next year.
Sam admitted his mistake, apologized and has rectified it by paying for the tickets. I’m sure Sam has learned from this and won’t make the mistake again. For those who want to question Sam’s integrity and continue to harp on it, take note and refer back to if it happens again, though I’m confident it won’t as he has proven to be honest and forthright through out his term on the council.
I for one want us to move from this so we can continue lively discussions about solving the cities budget deficits and brining the A’s to San Jose, to name a couple.
It reminds me alot of Nixon’s checkers speeches. It’s frigging the same approach.
“Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe we’ve had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that’s why I’m here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.”
—R. Nixon
In an 800 word e-mail the words Tom McEnery doesn’t appear at all. Isn’t he the guy who game him the tickets? Isn’t this relevant? This is transparency?
It’s nice to see the rules working as intended, that is, by creating enough overlap and confusion to put a gray edge around the everyday actions of even a well-intentioned public servant. Our traditional understanding of uncovering corruption—a concept that afforded the public real protection, was dependent upon the evil intentions of a public official. But things have changed; now all that’s required is a nothing little rule and the evil intentions of a moronic reporter, overzealous prosecutor, or seasoned political operative. The public good is no longer even an issue.
How perfect! The same newspaper that can refuse to ask hard questions of those it favors, no matter the harm to the public good, can now soil an up-and-comer like Liccardo, to no purpose other than to put him on notice that there’s still some fight left in our local newsletter, the Mercury News.
When one lives in a web of rules there is no safe path to follow, something we would do well to remember as our treasonous representatives sell us out in Congress. One more Patriot Act and we’ll all be under house arrest.
Fin Fan:
Liccardo may be an up-and-comer, but what kind of politician will he be? Here are some clues from his own letter and what he really means
“Some straightforward facts” – some not all. I won’t mention a former mayor requesting city money.
“scrutinized by the media, bloggers, and political opponents” – that’s is my enemies’ list, folks.
“While these rules may not seem intuitively straight forward or consistent” – I don’t know how I’m going to remember not to take a gift if it’s more than 50 bucks. It’s sooo complicated.
“In other words, I am still a subscriber.” – in other words, I hate the paper for catching me but I’ll act like I don’t and besides that I really like the comics.
“I hope we can all move on so that we can address our City’s truly pressing issues” – don’t bother me when I have a city to run.
“I look forward to engaging with you in determining how to best address these and many other issues worthy of our full attention” – The tickets are not worthy of my attention and if you bring it up I’ll clock you
SAM I AM (NOT GUILTY)
#16,
The kind of politician Liccardo will be remains to be seen, but when it comes time to pass judgment on him, the incident in question will not be something I consider for the simple reason that it seems to tell me nothing about the man or his position on the issues.
I have a great appreciation for personal integrity, but given the socially frenzied life of a local politician, and the cornucopia of rules that govern their every move, I’m not inclined to make a mountain out of a molehill, especially in so mountainous a political landscape. We have assembled so many rules for our public officials that it must be a challenge for the honest ones to conceal their paranoia as they glad-hand and, by necessity, do business with the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Over an issue that many feel is already overdone, you are of the opinion that there is more to do, but you fail to reveal your reasoning or motivation. Don’t be so shy. Share with all of us why this is so important. Make your case. Who knows, you may convince some of us to look more closely at those Sharks tickets and see the mountain beneath them.
#13 H.R. Haldeman: Liccardo paid for the tickets. Nixon didn’t pay for the dog.
Now get back into your box. You’ve been dead since 1993!
Jason #11—it’s not the donor that has the problem/issue. It’s the donee.
FFF#15—Is it too much to ask that a politician knows at least some of the rules…like the absolute prohibitions, for instance?
Do I believe Sam L. would be swayed in a vote re The Sharks by a couple of measely tickets? Nope. Do I believe avoiding the appearance of impropriety is important? Yup.