I decided the day after the primary votes were counted who I would vote for for mayor in November, and it wasn’t either one of the candidates whose name is printed on the ballot. Nothing since that day has made me change my mind about voting for “none of the above.” In fact, this week’s revelations about both candidates (Reed’s expense scam and Chavez’s letter) and their individual responses to related criticism only strengthen my resolve.
Clearly, we are going to “get stuck” with one of them for the next four years. But if enough of us either leave the vote blank, or write in another name, we will send a message to the winner that whatever mandate they think they have is limited. It probably won’t change the way they behave in office, but I will feel better about it knowing I didn’t hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I mean, which one is the lesser? You tell me.
They both have a clear history of exercising poor judgment while feeding at the public trough. Reed may pay back the $40,000 he owes the taxpayers for his sleight-of-hand accounting practices, but he can’t write a check and regain the public trust that he has lost overnight through his actions. The taking of money under the table like that is no better in principle than the well-known instances of backroom deal-making that Chavez has engaged in (although I don’t think she is planning to pay back the $15 million in question). The hypocrisy exhibited by Reed in taking public cash through an elaborate ploy while presenting himself as a paragon of honesty and trust rates right up there with Chavez denying that she is an acolyte of Mayor Gonzales. (If she really felt the way she says about Gonzales, really wanted to be a “thorn in his side,” wouldn’t she have refused the appointment of “Vice Mayor?”)
The council sideshow over the revelations of Reed’s expense-account money laundering is even more entertaining than the race for mayor. I am willing to bet that every member of the city council has been doing the same, and the ones hollering the loudest about Reed are most likely the biggest culprits. So, I say let’s take a look, in detail, at every council member’s personal and staff expense reports for the entire time they have been in office and see where that leads before we listen to another word from any of this bunch of hypocrites about one of the others.
In the meantime, I am campaigning, supporting and voting for none of the above.
All politicans do stupid things, it’s in their DNA. However, Chuck’s $40,000 mistake pales in comparison to that $15 million ot Norcal, plus all of the money wasted on the Taj Gonzales and all of Ron’s other pet projects that Cindy supported (before the vice-mayor and former Gonzales aide attempted to distance herself in that insipid letter). It’s clear who the lesser of evils is and I’ll vote for him in November.
Since the majority of San Jose registered voters will not vote in the November election, how significant will your “protest” non-vote be to the next mayor?
Does anyone else recall when Cindy ran to be by RG’s side when his health failed while giving his State of the City address? The sight seemed indigative of her closeness and also showed her opportunistic way of getting in the spotlight. Then Vice-Mayor Pat Dando had already come to his aide. Now she wants us to believe that they are not close? Come on….
#3
If you run out of straws to grasp at I can have some delivered to you.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15627857.htm
WonderWoman
that is a low blow. Any person would / should help someone in need. Who cares about whether you like someone or not, agree with the person’s politics or not.
Did you expect her not to help?
Lower than Low
I work in business for a big hightech company, and I assume many people on this blog do, too. I belong to alot of associations and my company pays for my membership. It’s part of the ‘influencer relations and marketing’ part of my job. The person in my job b4 me had memberships the company paid for. The person in my job after me will have the same memberships and others that the company will pay for. Of course it’s valuable for us personally and professionally, but the company views these relationships as part of our role so they pay for it. I am missing why this is an outrage for reed. Somebody explain the diff to me.
#3
Is that the best you can do?
Of course she would help, just like Dando did.
Helping someone in need is the right thing to do, regardless of politics.
Please refrain from posting meaningless BS
Hey Jack, Literate and Thoughtful Guy: Your “boss”, Tom McEnery has often said in SJI that this Mayor’s race is the most important in SJ history, such as it is. Yet you are convinced both candidates are equally awful. Look a little harder. You can do it. I’ll try to help. If the Mayor would be paid nothing, as Ben Franklin proposed for ALL public office since that category alone combines both profit and power (with results we see daily on all levels of govt.—BAD, even EVIL, results) guess which of the two candidates would IMMEDIATELY drop out of the race? Really good litmus test. It wouldn’t be Chuck. Also, who owns Chuck? The Vietnamese? The Demo party? The Chamber? Which big developer?Who, who who? Guess who owns ALL of Cindy: BIG labor, Zoe, the downtown neighborhood associtions, SJSU poli sci dept. BIG outside developers—anyone who can advance her childish dream of being The Big Tamale. Chuck seems to think he can make a difference. Big challenge,
but he’s serious about trying, and deserves every thoughtful vote. Stupid votes should be for his untalented, desperate rival. Let’s hope there won’t be too many, even in SJ, that fragmented-aimless-suburb-centerless “city”.
George Green
Here’s what RC want’s us to be so concerned with: “San Jose’s city attorney said Wednesday he has “concerns’’ that mayoral candidate Chuck Reed and other council members spent money illegally when they used public funds to make payments to political and religious organizations.”
Should we only be concerned with Chuck’s expenses, or should we audit each council member to see whose hands are clean.
I suspect everyone, including CC, is doing this but Reed’s opponents are just using it as a political ploy to deflect attention from Cindy’s BS letter of a few days ago.
Cindy is a terrific person who has been much maligned without any evidence. She has been “guilty” by association, even when she can prove there is no “association”.
When she was deliberate before acting, people attacked her for being too close to the Mayor. When she acts and points out that separation, she is being political.
The detractors have it both ways.
To paraphrase Willie Brown, “If Cindy were to stand up and walk across the Bay, the headline the next day would be ‘Cindy Can’t Swim’”
There are people who want to her to fail because of some perceived power by the labor council and others have wanted to link her to wrongdoing—though none exists.
She has handled it all remarkably well, she hasn’t got mad at her opponents, threatened them with exile if elected or thrown a public temper tantrum. She continues to speak to her detractors—witness the debate tonight sponsored by the Chamber and is willing to work with people for the common good.
People will continue to try and attack her—that’s politics—but all evidence suggests she will be a great Mayor.
I, for one, am very proud to support her.
Jack, we can only hope a big block of voters feels the same way you and I do.
I simply can’t understand how some of our fellow bloggers can be so passionate about either of the unacceptable candidates since they are both absolutely inspirationally challenged.
Just like having two more years of W in the White House, I get that same helpless feeling about the next four years of SJ leadership. The electorate gave us a lousy deal and we have to live with it. I hope there are grounds for a recall on whomever wins. That’s taxpayer money well worth spending.
I’d say this town deserves better but I guess I’d be wrong about that.
6 – I agree the memberships should not be an issue. Elected officials or business persons need these for professional (personal development.) The depth of Reed’s problem remain s to be seen until all the details are out, but the biggest potential problem is IF he was reimbursed for purely political expenses. Elected officials spend money all the time for political purposes, but the money should come from the so called “friends” accounts or from their campaign funds. Generally all of the expenses I have seen from Reed so far look to be legitimate expenditures for a public official—the issue is where the funds came from. Reed should certainly know better than to mix official and political business.
Aside from poor judgement, the city has to get its act together and monitor the expenses of the mayor and council. All councilmembers should immediately release all of their expense records because it is the right thing to do. We already know that Yeager, Campos, etc. who were indignant about Reed have done the same thing he did. We must demand better from our elected people.
#4,5, 7 -Wonder if she’d run to his aid today. Quite frankly, I was hoping that Pat Dando could have assumed the role as mayor.
Jack,
None of the above is just putting your head in the sand, hoping for the best. We have two flawed candidates, one of which will be mayor for the next 4 – 8 years.
Instead of running away, we need to get past the professional communicators here on SJI who rant and rave about anything but the issues that will affect San Jose residents for years.
We still have the power to elect one of the bad choices. For the next six weeks we need to force the candidates to state very clearly what they will do once elected mayor.
Let’s start with BART. Do most San Jose residents know each candidates’ position on BART? (Sorry R.C., a few home videos does not make a platform). This has to be one of the most important projects for San Jose and the region.
Letters to the editor, questions at candidate forums, and thoughtful exchanges here on SJI can move this campaign from the mud slinging to a serious discussion about the future of San Jose.
Hey George,
It’s only Thursday, leave your satire for tomorrow. You must be joking if you think Chuck would want to be Mayor if he weren’t getting paid. The guy just proved to everyone how frugal he is and how low he is willing to go to take a dime. Chuck got a reimbursement from the taxpayers for $4 parking…and you think he’d be willing to serve as Mayor for free?
Let me help you out Jack. If you want your tax dollars to go to improving the city and employee benefits, then vote for Cindy. If you want your tax dollars to go to reimbursing Chuck Reed’s new supercut and American flag tie, then vote for Chuck. The choice is clear, with Pandori gone, Cindy is th only option for Mayor.
-Ben Watson
#6
Reed made political campaign contributions using taxpayer dollars—-that is illegal. That is one difference.
Reed purchased lifefime memberships, a personal benefit that exceeds his tenure on the council with taxpayer dollars. That is another difference.
Reed purchased advertisements during election season using taxpayer dollars as opposed to campaign dollars. That is another difference.
Reed literally handed out taxpayer dollars in red envelopes at an event. That is a gift of public funds if there ever was one. That is another difference.
Reed has not disclosed his entire tax returns which begs the question, Did he claim these city reedimbursements for his own on his taxes? That is another potential difference.
Lastly, when he was doling out taxpayer dollars did he tell the recipients that he was not personally supporting these groups but rather the City of San Jose? It was unethical to take credit and advance his own political ambitions at the taxpayers expense. That is another difference.
Oh ya, and what he did was just plain cheap.
#8
We don’t know who owns Chuck Reedimbursment because he stopped disclosing who his private law clients are after his first year on the council.
Let’s see, he is all about disclosure, yet does not tell us who is paying him on his side job.
We know he voted on at least one item that benefitted his client, Los Esteros. He voted to overturn a 20 year ban on mini marts at gas stations and low and behold Los Esteros has land zoned for a…….you guessed it, a Gas Station.
How many other developers does Reedimbursement work for? Two things we do know is that he has been named Chuck E. Cheapskate by Herhold in the Merc. and has profited on his votes on the city council.
Hey Reality Check with Gas #17 –
Just a few months ago, weren’t you touting the benefits of having minimarts and alcohol at gas stations saying how even MADD supported it and people wanted it? Now that Chuck voted for it, it is suddenly a bad thing according to you? Guess that you are just against anything that Chuck does? How predictable.
#18
Who knew he had a paying private law client that directly benefited from his vote? Not me, did you. It is not the vote that I disagree it is the conflict of interest of him voting on the item when it helped his paying client and himself.
Now bring me a beer will you.
George,
Your simplisitc solutions to our complex political and cultural problems on first read sounds good but is like many SJI bloggers, politicians and many iniatitive authors ideas unworkable or have very undesirable unintended consequences that are hidden from the voters and public hidden until they appear later to the public’s determent
Our Founding fathers ( remember woman, minorities and non property owners were excluded from voting – although a few on SJI would like to return to restricted voting) had some great ideas but also many deeply flawed ideas that history and public has been kind to forget or ignored their many bad ideas, but are occasionally resurrected by those who do not understand why they are dumb ideas
Stop and think before more angry ranting ( yes for many on SJI this is a new experience) who would run for Mayor with no salary – not anyone we would want
I plan to be at tonight’s debate at the Rep.
Besides KLIV’s coverage, will the debate be podcast for future viewing anywhere?
One other concern that needs bringing up as an issue: as a likely VTA Board member as SJ Mayor: were a future fiscal crisis at VTA occur, would you vote to raise fares and reduce transit services as a means to cover fiscal deficits? Would you instead cut administrative staff instead of cutting “front-line” staff like drivers and customer service staff?
RGD (#6),
Here’s the diff:
Most companies do business within a limited segment of the community, where favoritism equals good business. The city council does business with all residents, thus favoritism equals abuse.
A private company spends its own money on associations and causes that benefit it financially and reflect its corporate philosophy. The city council has no money of its own—it has only taxpayer dollars, and for a politician to disguise those taxpayer dollars as his own funds benefits only him, not the taxpayer (remember, who benefits is a key component in defining corruption). Oh, and despite what the local media would have you believe, the residents of this city possess no consensus philosophy on social and political issues.
It is bad enough the the city council, acting as a representative body, has proven itself both eager and reckless in handing over tax dollars to groups whose sole identity is based on the divisive standards of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender—ethical and fiscal black holes, for sure. But at least when doing so the council is acting as designed, as an elected body making decisions in public. Why would Mr. Reed think himself free to covertly funnel taxpayer funds to any particular cause, let alone some organizations that are highly politicized? Don’t forget, the man is a graduate of a military academy, where core values are drilled ad nauseum. I find it impossible to believe that he failed to realize that what he was doing, using taxpayer money for his sole benefit, constituted an act of misappropriation.
Just as we witnessed in the Norcal scandal, where the mayor’s apologists tried to justify his empire building in the name of a livable wage, here we catch another conviction-devoid drone buying votes with our money in the safe, cozy confines of politically-correct causes.
RR thinks Cindy’s a wonderful human being who can do no wrong.
What about her support of Norcal, the Taj Gonzales and all of Ron’s other money-wasting schemes. There’s a reason to vote for Chuck, and it has to do with Cindy’s voting record, not what kind of person she is.
So Reality Check, should people on the council who have gotten paid or have family members who get paid by unions be able to vote on union issues affecting the city? Conflicts of Interest are everywhere but let’s be fair and get upset at all the conflicts, not the ones that you pick and choose.
No response George? Kind of what I was expecting.
Rich, I agree, but i think you’re preaching to the wrong choir here. If you want to be taken seriously you should stick to your site or a more open-minded site. I saw your comment on Mayor Watch earlier today.
http://www.mayorwatch.blogspot.com
Always a thrill to hear from you Rich, there’s atleast one reader at San Jose Inside who misses your commentary. Keep up the great work!
-Ben Watson
RGD #: a couple of differences. First, private sector vs. public sector.
Second, the city charter prohibits public fund expenditures for political or religious purposes. He has a “friends” account for that purpose, as do most, if not all, officeholders.
Beyond that, “Mr. Ethics” submitted expenses for LIFETIME memberships in organizations claiming that they had some public interest purpose when he has no lifetime appointment to the job he is in.
Third, he presented a PERSONAL check to various groups which gave the appearance to them that he PERSONALLY supported their cause, organization, whatever. Then he bolted back to his office to get reimbursed with taxpayer money, when not all taxpayers might agree with the expenditure of their funds for his vote-getting cause. Major misrepresentation/deception here. A lawyer, as Chuck is, should have immediately understood the misconception he was creating.
His lawyerlike explanation is completely unconvincing to me. This is a major hubris from my personal perspective, and leaves me in a huge quandry about how to vote in November. If he is so blind as to why what he did is so wrong, how can I trust his judgment on other things?
And that doesn’t even get to the cheapskate thing. Come on, putting in a reimbursement request for a $10.00 neighborhood association annual dues! It cost the city at least $50.00 in public employee time just to process his chicken sh*t $10.00 reimbursement request.
The more I write about this the angrier I get, so,I’ll end this rant right now.
25 – There’s a reason you and Rich have your own sites. You can’t see the big picture—you think Chavez is the Golden Girl and you ignore the baggage she carries. Just because Reed has shown great stupidity in this current episode, you can’t just ignore all of the mistrust that Chavez has earned. Until you do, your site and Rich’s will continue to be just the Pravda of Chavez “news.”
It doesn’t matter which “side” you are on—if you are biased in what you report your “news” isn’t worth reading. That’s what I found when looking at your site. If I wanted propaganda I would just go to the candidates site. SJI isn’t perfect but at least it isn’t just a cheering squad for either candidate.
Keep up the good work and you will continue preaching to your own choir. Very effective.
Too much is being made about the $10 membership fees and calling Reed a cheapskate. There is enough here to criticize him about, but the $10 here and $10 there shouldn’t be one them. Why should any elected official be expected to personally pay for the thousands of dollars in expenses they incur as a result of their job? I’m not defending Reed’s method of doing this—as has been said, he should have used a “friends” account or campaign funds. If we expect elected officials to pay for every expense then we are going to further limit the pool of qualified people who will run and pool is pretty shallow as it is.
It really is petty to keep bringing up small amounts (memberships, parking, etc.) It doesn’t matter how small the amount is—it adds up over 8 years. What matters is where the funds came from.
Too many here lose site of the target and go after the wrong thing.
BTW – still waiting to see the expense reports of the mayor and council.
Wondering, though I disagree with your point, I am very pleased with how respectful your response was. I understand that every site is going to be biased, after all there would be no point in creating the site if there isn’t some objective. While Rich does have a more Cindy-sided site and while Mayor Watch has been going after Reed lately, you can’t deny that every author on San Jose Inside doesn’t have their own biases. It is clear that Rantville and Mayor Watch are mere responses to the one-sided reporting of San Jose Inside. When the top story was Reed’s reimbursement scandal, San Jose Inside said nothing and instead tried to stir up old accusations against Chavez. Mayor Watch and Rantville may not be perfect, but neither is San Jose Inside, they’re all just part of the intricate system that is political blogging. You have to read them all if you want to find the whole story. Otherwise it’s like watching a case and only letting the prosecution go before decididng your verdict.
-Ben Watson
I can beleive Chuck that did NOT realize after 6 years of seeing back room deals and other questionable ethical behavior that using taxpayer money for his personal benefit, his political career or his political supporters constituted an act of misappropriation.
The Air Force Academy sexual abuse scandal a few years ago is another example of a unethical and illegal culture where many were involved and the administration either participate, condoned the illegal behavior, denied it happened or hampered the investigations
When you are in a unethical or illegal culture that advocates, supports and rewards unethical behavior why are you surprized it’s members do the same – look at HP’s scandal most of senior management was involved and thought their actions were justified and ok
We have seen many such acts individually and for special interest or political supporters in our ” pay to play ” for developers or ” support me and I will get you city money ” for community and business groups San Jose city givernment culture
Our City Council is responsible for this unethical culture and handing out our taxpayers money for their political careers and polticial supporters benefits so it is not hard to believe this is multiple year common practice
Gather your money folks. Prepare for the “soft landing” and “slowdown.”
LOL
Blame game.
#10 Richard…
re: << Cindy is a terrific person…>> This I have no doubt. The work she has done on behalf of her district and working families in this
city is will known.
re: <<who has been much maligned… >> This too is true. And much of the heat has come from those that have felt she has been a rubber stamp if facilitator for Mayor Ron’s political agenda.
re: << without any evidence. >> And this too is true. There has been no evidence of illegal or declared unethical behavior.
re: << She has been “guilty” by association, >> Yes, and that impression is not only held by many, it may be held by more than we know.
re: << even when she can prove there is no “association”. >> Again Richard; yes, there is no proof of that association. But her ability to prove there was no association is like proving a lot of things that are based on faith.
Re: no “association”? Here’s the hard part….
Cindy & Labor & Ron all pretty tight.
Ron & Labor & NorCal + $11mil… well known
Ron & NorCal in back room deal… general knowledge
City has no contractual obligation to give NorCal $11mil but Cindy leads the council to complete the back Gonzales in the deal.
Innocent of crime… yes, far as we know.
Innocent of unethical behavior… that depends on your standards of ethical behavior.
Guilty by association… hard to understand why not.
#28: This issue isn’t about small amounts of money, it is about many things, one being Reed’s use of public funds for personal political gains.
All of the checks Reed wrote were from his personal account, and many of the invitations and donation requests were sent to his home address. The checks he wrote to these organizations looked as if the funds came from both he and his wife, personal funds, when in fact the taxpayers of this city footed the bill. Reed was giving these groups and individuals the impression that he was personally sending a donation.
In fact today the Mercury reported that Reed was reimbursed for handing out dollar bills at a Tet festival. “Reed said such use of public money was appropriate because it was part of a “cultural activity. I’m there as a representative of the city.’’”
Did Reed enclose a note saying “a gift from the city of san jose tax payers?” No, he allowed people to think that those funds were coming from him. Were these huge sums of money? No, but the issue is that Reed justified using public money for his own personal political gain, and that is a reflection of Reed’s ethics and honesty.
There is also a question of how he has explained this issue. First he says that he only sought reimbursement for things that he felt were related to his job as council member. Then, the other day he makes a different claim:
“Reed has a supporter-funded account. He said Tuesday that he uses most of it for an annual newsletter he sends to homes in his district. But he also said he has been reimbursed from that account for memberships and small donations. When asked how he decided which memberships and donations should be charged to taxpayers and which to his supporter-funded account, Reed said this: “Sometimes it’s just a question of timing, otherwise I don’t know that there’s real distinction (between the two types of reimbursements).’’”
So which is it? Reed can’t have it both ways, and each day we are treated to yet another story by Reed.
#10 Richard…
Regarding… <<There are people who want to her to fail because of some perceived power by the labor council and others have wanted to link her to wrongdoing—though none exists.>>
I think you’ve put your finger on a key issue; one that not only seems to be dividing the city, but one that is at the heart of the Governor’s race as well; the perceived battle between labor and business.
In California, as in San Jose, the labor constituency is increasingly made up of those in public service: first responders, education, health care and those contracting to the state and local agencies.
As such, the struggle is for political control over available tax revenue. In this city those in public service are an increasingly influential if not powerful constituency, (evidence the $11.25mil vote).
Personally I believe Cindy would be a great mayor, except for one thing; when it comes to a choice between funding a balanced budget within limited revenue, or funding the demands of the City’s labor constituencies, I fear she would fund that later and worry about it later. I doubt that she would repeat the mistakes of this mayor and do so in the same manor; but how much and in what ways she would work the council and staff to accomplish the same end concerns me.
It’s only my personal perception Richard, and yes it may be unfair. If elected, I hope she proves me wrong.
As distasteful as I find what Reed has done, I still feel that Chavez’ disregard for taxpayer’s money is even worse. She still sees nothing wrong with her giveaway of millions and millions of dollars that the city was not obligated to spend.
It is unfortunate that Reed seems to have had a number of brain cells go dead during the past number of years regarding his expenses and his explanations are lame, but it still pales in comparison to the poor judgement Chavez has (and continues) to show.
San Jose is a mess, folks. Neither candidate can be fully trusted, but personal experience with Chavez is that she can be trusted less than Reed. Chavez has a long track record of telling people one thing and doing another—Reed does not.
Unfortunately, the best choice is neither of these lemons. But, short of a miracle write in vote, we’re going to be stuck with one of them. Weigh carefully which one you’d like to be stuck with. Tough choice.
Has anyone else noticed the spreadsheet of Reed’s Expenceses located at
http://reeditforyourself.com/
was created by Cindy’s Campaign Manager Justin Schall?
go to file-properties-summary-author
He’s been a busy boy!
The web site is clearly labeled ” Paid for by Cindy Chavez for Mayor ” so why the surprise that is what a Campaign Manager does
No matter what else, Chuck Reed can no longer run as Mr. Integrity. He is running on an ethics platform and we now see he has no clothes. (oh, perish the thought)
When will Mr. Reedimbursement release his charitable deductions so we can be sure he did not claim the reedimbursements on his tax returns?
Mr. Open Government won’t release these, why?
If he is too cheap to make copies for the press I am sure the Chavez camp will loan him some money…..
#40 When will Cindy release the 2 years of checks that are mysteriously “missing?”
If Chuck as Mr Integrity is against conflict of interest why won’t he release his client list until after the election?
#38 Dilemna
Re: << She still sees nothing wrong with her giveaway of millions and millions of dollars that the city was not obligated to spend. >>
You are right on spot. And this may be why she did not fair that well in primary election. $39k over 6yrs paid back is one thing. An $11mil gift in support of an indicted Mayor’s back-room deal is a whole different thing.
The City Council asks City staff to bid and contract the best garbage deal they could. They work hard, do their best, and a contract is approved.
The Mayor quietly promises $11mil more later.
The Cindy and Ron Gonzales lobby the Council to over ride Staff work, the Voters, Rate Payers and contract terms to GIFT $11mil of City funds to a for-profit company.
And Cindy says… “I did nothing wrong.” ?
That might sell to her constituency, but will it sell to the rate payers, taxpayers and city staff that worked hard on a ‘good faith’ contract?
Will she lead the charge to get this back?
Will she offer an apology?
I wonder how many quiet, tax paying voters of this city are thinking the same thing.
Is Chuck Reed going to submit an expense report to get reimbursed for his paying back money to the city?
#45
Go down to City Hall and go the office of personnel and ask for any position in the city and they will tell you what the salary schedule is for that position—as for retirement, they will also tell you what calculation that is as well. What is the big mystery?
There is only one scandal around here and that is Mr. Reedimbursement not disclosing his charitable tax deductions to see if he wrote off city reedimbursements.
#35 said – In California, as in San Jose, the labor constituency is increasingly made up of those in public service: first responders, education, health care and those contracting to the state and local agencies.
As such, the struggle is for political control over available tax revenue –
They do not want to shock taxpayers so will not release city salaries, overtime and retirement numbers
Ask Mayor candidates – WHY city will NOT release salary numbers?
#46 You sure do know a lot about city government’s inner workings….
What the hell is “Reedimbursement” supposed to mean anyways. You sound like a 10 year old.
#47
One does not have to know a whole lot about city government to know that public service position salaries are available if you ask for them—
Reedimbursement is a play on words. I was inspired by Scott Herhold’s column where he coined the name Chuck E. Cheapskate to describe Chuck Reed and thought maybe I can play too. So I took Chuck’s last name, Reed, and put it together with his ethical lapse over reimbursements. This combination equals reedimbursement, see, still following me—Maybe you missed Herholds writing, so here is a link.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15618867.htm
I’m a little surprised that no one has posted their thoughts about last Friday’s debate. I’m curious to hear yall’s perspective.
I’ll cast the first stone:
I thought both candidates came out swinging. Chuck’s opening remarks appeared to have put him on the defensive all night. And Cindy moved out from behind the podium.
Overall though, I would give the first half of the debate to Cindy. She really surprised me with how assertive she was. If she would have been that assertive during the primary, the outcome may have been different. The second half she softened and went back to being really “nice Cindy”.
The second half was close, but I would give a slight edge to Chuck. He remained very composed during some tough questioning. It seemed as though he was thrown for a loop during one of the direct questions from Cindy. Chuck was tried and true to his message of fiscal conservatism.
I’m an undecided voter at the moment. Both candidates seem to be sticking to the same boring script. Shouldn’t a “big city mayor” be focusing their efforts on “big city issues” and not worrying about a $28 subscription to a newsletter? Seems like San Jose can be so much more.
#48 Funny, Reality Check, that you were “inspired” by Scott Herhold’s recent column. I remember a few months back when he talked about Pandori having great ideas and Cindy being in the shadow of the other Gonzo. You thought that Herhold was a wanna be writer and that “nobody” reads him. Guess that you read his stuff.n
What a fargin’ crock.
I knew Reed wasn’t squeaky clean, but cheese louise, Rufus!
I had been a lukewarm Reed supporter (given my distaste for organized labor supported candidates), but now I’m back in the None of the Above camp.
Choice A) Someone who talked a good game but has been shown out to be somewhere between dishonest and stump-schtoopid;
Choice B) Someone who swears up and down she was actually a thorn in the side of a political self-made disaster whose arse she’s been kissing for better than eight years’ time.
Feh.
Where, oh where is Monty Brewster when you need him?
Oh, look! A shiny object over there! Oh, damn, that’s the reflection off of the GonzoDome.
#49 Debate Junkie
Maybe when it gets a little closer to the election, the debate will become more heated and discussions like this might warm it up. . . . . .
If Cindy did not know about the back room deal between the Mayor and Norcal, but voted for the $11.25mil add-on to the Norcal contract; why?
If she believed the vote before the council was for legitimate changes to the scope of work, which was valued $1-2mil; why did she push for giving NOrcal $11.25mil?
If she did not know the value or estimated cost of those ‘changes in scope’, why did she support the vote for $11.25mil without demanding a full cost breakdown?
If she knew or suspected that $9 or $10mil was going to reimburse Norcal for increased labor costs; did she know that the contract expressly stated that labor cost increases would be the responsibility of Norcal?
If not…. Why didn’t she question staff; read the contract or listen to those on the council who argued on behalf rate payers and the contract terms?
If yes…. Why did she push to override the staff work and contract terms that were put in place to protect the City from such unexpected cost increases?
The Council did nothing wrong; unethical or illegal. Yet $9 to $10million slipped out of taxpayer’s hands without an honest responsible challenge and debate. Sad.
Something is out of control. Checks and balances are being lost.
Accountability is more about the minutia and politics than on the financial health of the city and open government.
Sorry, Debate Junkie, but what happened at the Rep was not a debate. It was a torpid Q&A. I’ve judged better high school debates
“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.”
– Ronald Reagan
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
– Ronald Reagan
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
– Ronald Reagan
“Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”
– Ronald Reagan
“I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment’s would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”
– Ronald Reagan
“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”
– Ronald Reagan
“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
– Ronald Reagan
“The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program”
– Ronald Reagan
“I’ve laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.”
– Ronald Reagan
“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”
– Ronald Reagan
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
– Ronald Reagan
“Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.”
– Ronald Reagan
“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
– Ronald Reagan
“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD….IF NOT JUST DELETE.
<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=96917>