Since it is an open-thread Friday, as a downtown resident, can we talk about something that is still flying largely under the radar?…
…that Manny Diaz is still a candidate for City Council.
This is a guy who is as close to the insiders at City Hall that have screwed things up so badly over the past 8 years as anyone. Heck, there was a time that he was seriously considered for Vice Mayor for Gonzales. He supported his reelection and gave Gonzales money for reelection. Oh yeah, he was also on the City Council in October 2000 when the deal was made with Norcal…hmmmmm…
He has a horrible record of a legislator—just do a search on sfgate.com to see that he refused to vote on anything significant in Sacramento.
Hey, did anyone go to to the first of 4 BART to Silicon Valley Public Scoping Meetings held by VTA on Tuesday? the next meetings are listed on the following announcement: http://www.vta.org/projects/BART/BART_meeting.pdf
I was just wondering how the discussion went and what issues were being raised.
So, will the GonzoGuerra boys get their wish to keep the Grand Jury transcripts secret? We’ll know soon. They must be pretty damaging since all three of the indictees don’t want the public to know what is in there. And, I am sure that Cindy is hoping for secrecy as well. This whole thing only hurts her already damaged candidacy. Like it or not, we better get used to Mayor Reed, although that does have a nicer ring to it than Mayor Chavez.
Question: Is today’s blank page due to summer distractions or has our local situation decayed into a condition of steady-state satire, where no words are required?
Thanks to Ronzo for sticking it to us again in the garbage department. The city will probably be forced into continuing with the lying, indicted NorCal thanks to Gonzo’s back room dealing. Not only that, thanks to his getting us such a great deal, our rates will go up another 25%!! How can we thank him enough. He could thank us by getting his butt out of city hall and disappearing once and for all—let us clean up the debris he has created and erase all memory of his destruction. The sooner he is gone the better although his “legacy” will continue to cost us for many, many years.
Did anyone see the bit about the council possibly spending $175,000 on a study to see how they can spruce up the Arena in order to attract an NBA team? (I think that it was on page three of the local section, Wed. Merc). The article indicated that the city is currently not in contact with any NBA team.
Blackford Ave and Mitty Way (West San Jose) have bumps and potholes that force one to literally swerve from side to side. Shouldn’t we classify street maintenance as a “need,” and funding a study on how to redesign the locker rooms at the Arena for a team that might never play there,as a “want?” And, shouldn’t civic needs take priority over semi-private “wants?”
Will there ever come a day in San Jose politics where there is an honest and thoughtful accounting of public expenditures?
A little of both…Although I did have one written – I just felt it was a bit too controversial, even for our legion of loyal readers, and pulled it at the last minute…
It would have been nice if:
A.. city staff could have reviewed Norcal’s testimony before we renewed our contract with them.
B..Cindy gave us an accounting of all of her involvment in the Norcal case. Not doing so only makes it look as if she is waiting to see what they have on her.
C..Chuck gave us an explanation of why he voted to end the Cisco investigation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Recently, Cindy refered to the D.A.‘s case on Norcal as “the Drama”.
Weeks ago, when asked what is your vision for the future of the Guadalupe Riverpark, Chuck replied “Figuring out how to maintain it”.
Our mayorial options are between No Ethics and No Vision. I think I just might write-in Pandori.
#8 John, John, John
So do you think we are a bunch of whimps that can’t handle it? BRING IT ON! If it is too controversial, we (the meek) will have the weekend to get over it.
Just wait for the Chuck Reed administration. Mayor Maintenance will have the budget so bogged down in neighorhood committes we could go 4 years without a penny being spent…on anything.
An NBA franchise might be good for the city. Or it could be like some and operate in the red for years. Is there any information on this? I’m assuming there is, but I haven’t looked for it.
To your point, anecdotal as your bumps and potholes might be, they make the point. Throw in swimming pools and any number of other community needs for that matter.
An NBA franchise ranks as one those investments that fit the “Come-Spend-Leave” category and generate a few more hours of minimum (SJ) wage. It also generates money that does not stay in San Jose at the family or people’s level. It leaves the city as debt service, franchise income and profits, and cost of goods sold which originate outside San Jose. These kinds of investment and for all their positive impact contribute more to an hourglass socioeconomic condition than grow the health and vitality of those in the middle.
Fix the streets, add pools, and expand the facilities and services that make families want to live in this town and use these assets to draw industry and provide better paying jobs and career opportunities.
When the city has a clear well articulated vision of what it wants to be, and the wants and needs are clearly defined, rank ordered, on the wall and approved by the majority, the business of working to that end becomes more satisfying to staff and rewarding to it’s residents.
When business becomes simple, clear, ethical and transparent, life gets easier and things move faster. San Jose has been good at this before and hopefully it can be again.
#16 Wondering
Reed the transcripts for yourself, the Murk has them on line. Dando and Reed admit to knowing of the secret deal way before anyone else….Sunshine is great! Both Reed and Dando ask when the transcripts would become public, no wonder, Wondering, they both have some explaining to do…..
Hey 18 – Why is it that you Cindiana’s “accuse” everybody of being Reedites, etc? Just because we desire people to provide facts to back-up their comments? Perhaps if you and your group took some time to practice being coherent instead of tossing out playground-level insults, maybe somebody would take what you say seriously. I doubt it, but maybe.
And just for the record, since you and your group are wrong AGAIN—I’m not a Reed supporter or worker or anything else connected to Chuck. I am a supporter of good and open government so obviously I am not Chavez supporter either.
As for the transcripts, so far they show a lot of people “can’t remember.” We still don’t know the truth about Cindy, and mayebe we never will but I do know that I don’t trust her to be mayor.
BOYS, BOYS, BOYS!,
Get over it, We got screwed cause we asked for it. I had friends that saddled up to the power. Now, it’s too late!
Other guys in power will do “it” to us , but, they give us a little smooch. You know the guys.
Whenever I’m banging away on these dam hot horse shoes, I get some pretty clear ideas of what might be the path to our salvation.
Too Many Diazes are looking for a buck. The guy did squat for the tenants, of the guy that owns most of the lead infested, delapitated housing around the Mexican Heritage Plaza. Diaz showed up for the initial photos, but when it came time to do the work, the guy could not be found. I tracked this guy thru his time in Sac. He is just another MACSA
clone. Follow the clones.
Let there be an election where only brain dead lead toxic little minds vote , and I can garantee you this village will be clear of most of the bull *hit that abounds.
So you guys and gals that hide behind your denial and cool handles, and think you are making a difference, you’ve got to change yourselves before you can change community.
My son Paul wore a Tee shirt today, it said “You can’t belive in something to live for, unless you’re willing to die for it”.
Paul is teaching me to be a great Dad.
The Village Black Smith
#15 Reality Check
You state transcripts confirm that Cindy didn’t know about the mayors deal. I am not sure what proof it is that you are talking about. Today I read her testimony in the Mercury to the Grand Jury. It states that Cindy claims to have told Morales, of the Teamsters Union, his desire to change the MRF workers from Longshoremen to Teamsters,“was not an issue for the council”. (Now that surly would have been the right thing to do) Yet if she actually felt and said that, could you please explain why she then directed city staff to do a salary survey of those MRF workers, in an attempt to get more money for the deal, even though the city’s wage policy doesn’t apply to those off site workers? She then went on to spend $11.25 mil. of our money on what she calls in her testimony “an issue for the labor movement, not the council”. Something is missing here. I know the council recently confirmed that they can work for outside interests while holding office, but her words say she is is working for the city, her actions say she is working for the union bosses. If you can help me understand how all this somehow vindicates Cindy, I will gladly give you and her my apology for doubting her.
#20…I first must say, I have not read the transcripts yet. But how is Reed being able to figure out what Gonzo was up to, and speeking out and voting against his plot, a bad thing? How is Cindy, at best, not having a clue of what was going on in her own backyard and voting to support Gonzos scam, a good thing?
23 – Obviously one of us has been hitting the pint but it’s not me. You put down a few sentences and label them as fact and we are supposed to get all upset? Chuck’s personal investments? As many of us have said over and over, when you’ve got something of substance AND you have the facts to back it up, let us know. Until then you are making yourself look silly.
And by the way, just because I don’t trust or believe Cindy doesn’t make me a Reedite (whatever that is.) I believe in good and open government—something you might want to look into.
Have a good weekend and be careful on the playground.
Grand Jury transcripts confirm that Cindy did not know about the Mayor’s deal and Chuck Reed and Pat Dando did. When will the apologies come from those on this blog that have accused her of prior knowledge—read it, or rather, REED it, and weep!
That’s great, #15. Maybe you can share all those pages that were not released to the public that apparently you have seen. Otherwise, maybe you will keep your mouth shut until you actually have facts to back up what you say.
For the Reedites on the site, any comment on the Reed visit to a Republican fundaiser yesterday where he said he looked forwared to working with George and Arnold>
Oh, I forgot, if Reed has a overdue book, the Reedites would take up a collection to pay it.
And they would ask the library to let Chuck, the Democrat in Name Only, to keep the book!
Reading the grand jury transcripts of CC’s testimony, it’s pretty clear that her heart was in the right place.
What is not clear is how well she understood the basic fiduciary responsibility to the public, the ratepayers, to contract law and the process of doing the people’s business.
Maybe this impression will be change as I read more; but it appears that from DA’s line of questioning and her responses that this mayoral candidate is more an enabler of a faulty process than a leader of a financially responsible organization managing the people’s business.
Sad. Had she been more in front of this problem and complied with basic contract law on behalf of the ratepayers, she may have been able to help the mayor avoid this mess and still gotten something for the recycling workers.
#22 Just the Facts
First, it was and is impossible for you to have read Cindy’s testimony in the Mercury News today. What you read was a tiny, tiny fraction of her testimony, which was printed in the Mercury News today. Her entire testimony encompasses over 100 pages.
Second, you wrote: “It states that Cindy claims to have told Morales, of the Teamsters Union, his desire to change the MRF workers from Longshoremen to Teamsters,“was not an issue for the council”. (Now that surly would have been the right thing to do)”
It was the right thing to do and I am glad you recognize that, and stop calling me surly. In Mr Finkelstein’s summation to the Grand Jury on pg. 2200 he confirms that Cindy told the Teamsters to go pound salt. She did not know about, broker, participate, or orchestrate this deal, period. The Mayor did.
Third, Cindy can not and did not direct staff, that is against the City Charter. The council directed the study of pay for MRF workers. Look, this is clearly a policy question. Does one believe that those working under a city contract should be paid poverty wages or not? Cindy probably does not think so but this does not support the charge that she knew or participated in or had prior knowledge of the Mayors deal. The testimony is clear and I believe District Attorney Finkelstein’s summation that Cindy told the Teamsters it was not a city issue who represented the CWS workers and that she was not going to help them.
Fourth, Chuck Rufus Reed testifies that he knew of the secret deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of ‘03. (pg. 1475, lines 15-21), then Vice-Mayor Pat Dando’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Howard testifies that he told Vice-Mayor Dando, (some here on this blog seem to forget that Dando was Gonzales’s Vice-Mayor when this secret deal was hatched), what the 11.25 million dollars was for and who cut a secret deal promising the money to Norcal BEFORE she signed the memo with the Mayor asking the council to pony up. Can you find any testimony that says Cindy knew about this deal or participated in it? If Dando knew the real reason for the 11.25 and Reed knew the real reason for the 11.25, why is no one questioning them?
Vindication is simple—many have accused Cindy on this blog and in other places of knowing of the deal, of orchestrating the deal, of participating in the deal—-She did not know about it, she did not orchestrate it and she did not participate in it—Reed knew of a side deal as far back as September 12, 2002—his own testimony—what did he do about it? NOTHING.
In REALITY he was asked very specifically by the District Attorney about his reaction in regard to learning that Norcal was promised to be made whole by the Mayor for CWS going with higher paid Teamster workers. (pg. 1469, lines 14-25) Reed testifies: “I don’t think I had any particular reaction to that item other than trying to get all the underlying documents that might have been part of such a commitment.”—WOW
It’s great to see that a blog which supposedly welcomes open debate, is trying to silence people from posting. To those few of you who actually are objective on this site: keep it up. Don’t listen to people if they tell you to ignore a comment. Maybe JMOC needs to be taken down a peg?
Chuck voted NO to giving NorCal a gift of public funds. Cindy voted YES to giving NorCal an $11 million plus gift of public funds. Cindy is Labor’s point person. You really believe she knew nothing? Glad to see the Sgt. Shulze defense is alive and well.
I think Deputy DA Finkelstein got it right and those who still cling to the “Cindy Knew” conspiracy got it wrong. No one here is disputing that Chuck Rufus Reed and Vice Mayor Dando knew of the secret deal BEFORE the vote on the $11.25 million, why is that? No conspiracy, no conjecture, no wishing, the facts are that their own testimony and that of their staff implicate them as knowing of the deal and not sharing material facts with their fellow council members—-Isn’t there a Reed Reform that says not sharing a material fact is grounds for removal from office? When should we expect Rufus’s Resignation?
Rufus knew, Vice Mayor Dando knew and Cindy did not…..Who woulda thunk! Transperancy is great. Why is Rufus opposed to disclosing who his clients are? Does he have something to hide?
#36
Where in anyone’s testimony does it reflect that the Vice Mayor knew of this secret deal before the vote? Reality is that Chuck Rufus Reed and Dando knew about the deal and kept their mouths shut. Reed, in his own testimony, says he knew between Sept 12, 2002 and May of ‘03. Have you read the transcripts? Didn’t think so. Oh, my bad, the Vice Mayor did know about the secret deal, VICE MAYOR DANDO……
At the time of the vote it was not considered a gift of public funds. This is why Vice Mayor Dando voted for it as did a majority of the council. Why didn’t Rufus grab the microphone at the city council meeting where the 11.25 million was being contemplated and yell as loud as he could that he had meetings with CWS owners, their consultants and lobbyists and was told sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of ‘03, about the secret deal (see pg. 1465)…why did he not disclose these material facts????
When you write in your post, “Cindy is Labor’s point person. You really believe she knew nothing?”. I say yes, I believe she had nothing to do with it, had no knowledge of it, did not participate in it, did not orchestrate it, was not told of it, as did the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury. Can you say the same of Reed/Dando, after reading the testimony of Rufus and Dando and Joshua Howard. No you can not because the Reality is that the transcripts say otherwise…..hope Dando and Rufus end up in the Klink…I love Hogan’s Heros….
#39 Have you looked at the transcripts? You ask me to look at post #24, I did. Reed knew about the secret deal before the crucial vote in 2004, yes he opposed the deal because he knew what others on the council did not. He was told by CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists that Norcal was assured that they would be made whole by the Mayor’s office back in October of 2002 for the additional labor costs. Why did he not share this important, material fact with the rest of the council? He did not disclose these vital conversations that HE testified to. Why? What is honest about withholding information?
The policy question of paying MRF workers poverty wages is not the same as knowing, orchestrating, participating in, and covering up a secret deal. Both Vice Mayor Dando and Chavez testify that they were concerned about the wages paid to these workers under the city contract. Yet, Dando knew of the deal, having been briefed by her Chief of Staff about it BEFORE she signed on to the Mayor’s memo (see Joshua Howard testimony). Chuck Rufus Reed knew about the secret deal BEFORE the vote (see Rufus testimony pg. 1475, lines 15-21), but did not share the material facts of how he became aware of it and who told him and when did they tell him of the secret deal. Cindy did not know BEFORE the vote and had a legitimate policy perspective of ensuring that wokers under a city contract are not paid poverty wages. Read, or rather REED the transcripts and then attempt at posting facts as opposed to your contrived wishful thinking—Is Rufus going to now resign since he broke one of the main points of his REED REFORMS, i.e; not sharing material facts with the rest of the council? Please tell him honesty really is the best policy.
you are doing good work and you should keep it up.
remember we have Reedites on this blog who report to Victor, and his orders are to attack personally, care about nothing you put forward, Chuck does not deal in facts, just attacks.
On page 1264 Chavez is questioned about the September 20, 2004 Lezotte/Reed memo where item 2 discusses the side deal the mayor made with Norcal.
Isn’t Reed disclosing his knowledge about the deal to the council? Chavez testifies that she made no effort to find out more information about the side deal. She then says she thought the side deal mentioned was the action that was before the council to give Norcal 11 million dollars.
Chavez comes across a bit clueless, searching for excuses on why she did not pursue the issue raised in the Reed/Lezotte memo.
37 – “At the time of the vote it was not considered a gift of public funds???” You’re kidding, right? It has been considered a gift of public funds since day one. The council, not just Cindy, but all of them who voted for it (FYI – Reed did not) knew they were approving money they were not obligated to pay. If that’s not a gift I don’t know what is.
Obviously your faith in Cindy is much stronger than mine. She may not get caught but that doesn’t mean she is clean on this. She appears to be very good at covering her tracks—we’ll see if she can keep them covered long enough to escape.
Also, what do the 55 pages of testimony that have not been released say? Maybe your pal escapes in those, too. Maybe not.
I’ll trust whom I believe, and you’lll trust whom you believe.
Just hope that others keep quiet so your pal can appear to be “clean.”
Steve is much sharper and more objective than RC and band of illiterates.
RC and crew apparently have an intense hatred of Chuck and are so in love with Cindy that they cannot conceive of her as anything less than a saint. Must be interesting to live a world where blinders are required.
Perhaps RC should cool his jets for just a few minutes until ALL of the facts are out. Perhaps he should not believe everything he reads, and perhaps he should learn to play better with others. He might need some friends when all of this blows up in his face.
#33 Reality Check
On your third point, who made the motion to direct staff to do a salary survey of the MRF workers? Cindy! Did the wage policy apply to these off site workers? No! Did the other council members later reject Cindy’s attempt to use the survey, after staff informed them that the policy did not apply? Yes! Did she later vote to give these workers an additional $11,250,000 of our money that was not legally owed to them? Yes! Did the Mayors secret plot accomplish what Cindy wanted? Yes!
On your fourth point, please see blog #24 Looking for an honest Mayor and get back to us.
I don’t get it. Why didn’t Chuck share what he knew with the rest of the council? Since he didn’t vote for the plot, what was in it for him?
Why didn’t Cindy have a clue what was going on? Afterall didn’t she have a closer relationship with the Teamsters and Gonzo? Other than Cindy saying she wasn’t involved, in her testimony,has any proof come out that shows she wasn’t?
So far it doesn’t look like we have great options for mayor!
#47 Carol
Are you suggesting that the transcripts should not be used to evaluate the truth when you post, “Perhaps he should not believe everything he reads?” Steve, post #46, uses the transcripts to bolster his assertion and I use the transcripts to bolster mine. Should we just rely on rumor or wishful thinking to get to the truth. Are there more facts available so that I can “cool my jets”, do you have them or is Rufus Reed in possession of additional information that he has not disclosed yet?
#47 Steve
What Chuck did not do was share the material fact (according to his own testimony) that he was told by either the owners of CWS, their consultants or lobbyists that there was a plan for Norcal to be reimbursed for additional labor costs and that plan was promised by the Mayor. Why didn’t he disclose this information that he was in possession of from as early as September 12, 2002 through no later than May of ‘03? Why did he go against his very own REED REFORM and withhold material facts that certainly would have changed the dynamic?
Oh, and Carol, I play great with others, especially those that tell the truth and base their posts on something other than conjecture, half-truths, and other nonsense—you should try it sometime it is liberating.
You have to give Reed some credit for bringing the information forward when it mattered: the council voting to give Norcal 11 million dollars for retroactive pay to the CWS workers. Even when he did bring it forward, what happened? A majority of the council put their head in the sand, failing to take the information seriously.
What I don’t understand is Chavez claiming she did not know about the mayor’s deal until the Graham report. She had two chances to learn about the deal: the Lezotte/Reed memo and the grand jury report that she said read like a British tabloid.
There seems to be a trend here with Chavez failing to grasp important information in a timely manner.
#50 Steve
Reed did not bring all the information forward in his memo, he withheld material facts that were not tiny little facts, but huge important facts that he was aware of going back to potentially September of 2002.
He testifies that he was told by CWS, either the owners, their consultants or lobbyists that there was a deal for the city to make Norcal whole for CWS workers going with the Teamsters. Since this was not public, Reed knew that it was a secret deal. His memo before the vote on the $11.25 million does not include this information, why is that? Would that have been material to the council making their decision? I say yes.
Herre is the REED REFORM he did not follow:
6. Require the Mayor and Councilmembers to disclose material facts BEFORE the Council takes action. (my emphasis on before)
If Rufus Reed would have included ALL material facts or told all of the council and the public everything he knew, and subsequently testified to, as his REED REFORM #6 spells out, then the outcome may very well have changed, we will never know for sure.
As for Cindy, how could she know what she didn’t know and what a Grand Jury investigation confirmed and what a Prosecutor confirmed she did not know. Reed should have told the truth as to what he knew and when he knew it, why didn’t he?
If the opposition to Cindy is now she should have known versus she knew all along when will the apologies start rolling in from the peanut gallery that has been accusing her of participating in this sorry episode from jump start. So now its, “There seems to be a trend here with Chavez failing to grasp important information in a timely manner.” when it should be I’m sorry for accusing you of something you did not do.
#34: If you are going to use big words like hypocrisy to try to convince us you really have a brain that works, at least spell it correctly. The letter “a” is nowhere near the letter “i” on the keyboard, so it can’t be just a slip of the fingers, commonly called a “typo”.
And when you grow the cojones to use your real name, I’ll pay closer attention to your drivel.
Reality # 43: Do you have chapter and verse, citations to the record, to back up your cliam that Chuck was in on the Norcal deal? If so, please post them, because it would be important for all of us to know before deciding on who we will vote for in November.
JMO—
REED or read post #33, #37 and #43 for chapter and verse/citation. Also, I never posted that Reed was in on the deal, what I posted is that he knew about the deal and did not inform the council or the public of this very, very important material fact before the vote on the $11.25 million.
Yes Reed testifies he heard from CWS that Norcal was trying to get the city to pay for the reimbursement to CWS (page 1465 lines 5 – 10). After hearing this information Reed testifies he sent a memo to staff to work out reimbursement problems between Norcal and CWS (page 1466 lines 1 -6)
Reed then testifies on page 1466 lines 6 – 8
“BUT I DID NOT NECESSARILY KNOW AT THAT TIME, AND PROBABLY DIDN’T ON SEPTEMBER 12 KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A SIDE DEAL.”
The year is 2002.
When the council did take action on the Norcal matter, the Reed/Lezotte memo in Sept, 2004 urging others to vote against the $11 million dollar deal described what the majority of the council could not figure out:
“2. Any promises or representations that may have been made to Norcal were not disclosed to the Council when Norcal was approved as the preferred vendor. Nor were they disclosed to the Council before the contract with Norcal was approved. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the contract.
3. Any agreements made with Norcal without Council approval would be a violation of the Charter and void under California law.
4. Allowing a side deal to alter the terms of an agreement is not fair to the other companies who participated.”
It is too bad other council members failed to take the memo seriously. If so, San Jose may have avoided this huge embarrasment.
#58 Steve
We all know what was in the memo, what was not in the memo was the material fact that he knew what CWS told him about the secret side deal and Reed did nothing about it. His testimony is very clear that the earliest he could have known was September 12, 2002 and the latest May ‘03—-his own words.
While some testimony may cast doubt on the merits of this case; while the Mercury and Metro feed the debate to sell papers and supporters of both sides blog it out on the net, the Lion continues to investigate, chart, diagram, plan, quietly research and plot.
The Lion has six, seven, eight months to play with this puzzle, find more pieces and then go fishing: no, not in our local reservoirs, the Guadalupe or even above Los Gatos on opening day of trout season.
When this Lion goes fishing, he’ll know exactly where to find them, what they feed on, and what to tempt them with. He’ll know exactly what flies to tie, how to present them, and which fish might be most hungry for his tempting little treat. What might that be you ask? An irresistible collection of special patterns he has used before with great success. They go by such names as “Reduced Charges”; “Waived Counts” or that old faithful “Little Miss Misdemeanor”.
When this Lion goes fishing, he will reach into his fly box and carefully select that perfect fly and with surgical precision knot it to the hook. With well-measured timing and an artful cast lightly presents the fly. He pauses, lets it drift over the fish, and then when the fish can wait no longer it races toward the surface mouth open instinctively knowing he must be the first to that fly. Breaking water he takes the offering and the hook finds it’s home.
The game is on. The fun begins.
Even those wily fish that saw, approached and passed on the offering now find themselves at risk from the wild and desperate thrashing of the “fish on the hook”.
“When Lion Goes Fishing”:
Out next summer.
A must read.
Reed is as dirty as any of them, and he just goes around claiming to be Mr. Integrity because his handler, or should I say his Svengali, Victor, tells him to.
Ps, Victor, after September 11th, you thought it was ok to tell candidates to wear phony firefighter uniforms, what a patriot!
Hey RC, I really haven’t been making any statements here about the GJ transcripts and what they would or wouldn’t reveal about Cindy. I’ll leave all of that detail work for others and glean what I need from what’s being made public.
If anything, since the depressing results of the June vote provided me with the two choices in November that didn’t even make it onto my list of primary candidates, I am so disgusted that I may in fact not be able to bring myself to even cast a vote for Mayor. Like, gee, do I want some conservative nerd who will basically put this town into a 4-year holding pattern where nothing gets done and not a penny gets spent on anything, or do I want a 4-year continuation of what’s already going on at City Hall? What a rotten decision to be faced with, no thanks to the largely unenlightened electorate of this pathetic town. I swear, the voters in this town absolutely deserve whatever they get come November. I am sooooo disgusted.
We still have time between now and November for plenty of mud to be slung and more investigative work that could produce key information about either candidate that could give me cause to vote for or against them. But for now, the thought of voting for either one of them turns my stomach.
Apparently you have me confused with that great predictor of things concealed, Carnac The Magnificent. Not only did I not make claim to any such prescience, I don’t even remember Ed handing me the envelope.
Besides, I would never be so naive as to confuse sworn testimony for the truth.
My guess is that you’ve stained some other innocents with your broad brush of BS. Time to check your paint can, the fumes may be getting to you.
Given the (widely publicized) choices we have for the next San Jose mayor, and comments on both, perhaps we need to start publicizing who else is running for Mayor.
Perhaps someone from one of the parties no one wants to talk about may be the perfect fix for what’s ailing this town.
But no one will know about it if no one asks who else is out there…
#63
There are more people waiting for the likes of Mark T., Frustrated Finfan, Pete “I’m on Rufus’s staff’ Campbell, Hugh Jardonn, Inside the Hall, Gary Reynolds, Just the Facts, Mole, 1,2,3 Get Rid of Ronnie G, Single Gal, and the rest who have posted how much they anticipated the Grand Jury transcripts to be made public so that it would prove that Cindy knew and tell us all when she knew it…
Well the transcripts are out and Cindy told the truth, Chuck Rufus Reed and Pat Dando did not, they knew and said nothing and by their silence they are now contributors to this sorry episode.
Are you all going to send a card, flowers, or just post that you were wrong individually or as a group? I say, send over cookies and snacks to the campaign office so that the volunteers can have further energy to make sure Cindy is the next Mayor. Oh, the note you shoud attach should read, or REED, something like this:
Dear future Mayor Chavez,
Sorry for questioning your integrity and sorry for writing some very bad things about you. Even though many of us do not agree with some of your policy decisions it is clear to us after a thorough read of the, just released, transcripts that you had nothing to do with the Mayor’s deal. You had no prior knowledge, did not orchestrate, participate in, cover up, or further this sorry deal. We are sorry for saying you did. We wish our other favorite son Chuck Rufus Reed had shared what he knew with the council, what, according to his own testimony, he had been directly told by CWS about this deal, BEFORE the vote on the 11.25 million to Norcal. He broke REED REFORM #6, the one about sharing material facts with the council before a vote. We urge him to do the honorable thing and resign. With that we wish you and your family good luck.
#69 – Last time I checked, Linda had just launched an investigation to determine whether the chalk used by SJPD to outline bodies at crime scenes was biodegradable.
#69
I know Linda Le Zotte, and Cindy Chavez is no Linda Le Zotte. Compare their voting records on the important issues, like land use. You will find them on opposite sides of the fence. Perhaps this is due to the fact that while Cindy was developing labor connections while being paid to work for the Labor Council, Linda was gaining an understanding of land use laws, while volunteering her time as a city planning commissioner
#72…If you take the time and do your homework, you will find that Linda voted on the right side of the law more often than any other councilperson. Chuck came in second and Cindy is at the bottom of the list.
These lost lawsiuits cost us over $100,000,000. It is clear that Chuck’s weakest area is in understanding the intent of CEQA and respecting it’s important role in preserving our historic resources. The only councilperson with a worse voting record on historic preservation than Cindy, is Chuck.
As a real estate attorney and past planning commissioner he should know better. Chuck is a smart guy, I hope he will take the time and learn more about the benefits of historic preservation. If not, we are in for more lost lawsuits and wasted resources in the future.
Since it is an open-thread Friday, as a downtown resident, can we talk about something that is still flying largely under the radar?…
…that Manny Diaz is still a candidate for City Council.
This is a guy who is as close to the insiders at City Hall that have screwed things up so badly over the past 8 years as anyone. Heck, there was a time that he was seriously considered for Vice Mayor for Gonzales. He supported his reelection and gave Gonzales money for reelection. Oh yeah, he was also on the City Council in October 2000 when the deal was made with Norcal…hmmmmm…
He has a horrible record of a legislator—just do a search on sfgate.com to see that he refused to vote on anything significant in Sacramento.
Ok…discuss…
Hey, did anyone go to to the first of 4 BART to Silicon Valley Public Scoping Meetings held by VTA on Tuesday? the next meetings are listed on the following announcement:
http://www.vta.org/projects/BART/BART_meeting.pdf
I was just wondering how the discussion went and what issues were being raised.
So, will the GonzoGuerra boys get their wish to keep the Grand Jury transcripts secret? We’ll know soon. They must be pretty damaging since all three of the indictees don’t want the public to know what is in there. And, I am sure that Cindy is hoping for secrecy as well. This whole thing only hurts her already damaged candidacy. Like it or not, we better get used to Mayor Reed, although that does have a nicer ring to it than Mayor Chavez.
Question: Is today’s blank page due to summer distractions or has our local situation decayed into a condition of steady-state satire, where no words are required?
Thanks to Ronzo for sticking it to us again in the garbage department. The city will probably be forced into continuing with the lying, indicted NorCal thanks to Gonzo’s back room dealing. Not only that, thanks to his getting us such a great deal, our rates will go up another 25%!! How can we thank him enough. He could thank us by getting his butt out of city hall and disappearing once and for all—let us clean up the debris he has created and erase all memory of his destruction. The sooner he is gone the better although his “legacy” will continue to cost us for many, many years.
Dear San Jose:
Did anyone see the bit about the council possibly spending $175,000 on a study to see how they can spruce up the Arena in order to attract an NBA team? (I think that it was on page three of the local section, Wed. Merc). The article indicated that the city is currently not in contact with any NBA team.
Blackford Ave and Mitty Way (West San Jose) have bumps and potholes that force one to literally swerve from side to side. Shouldn’t we classify street maintenance as a “need,” and funding a study on how to redesign the locker rooms at the Arena for a team that might never play there,as a “want?” And, shouldn’t civic needs take priority over semi-private “wants?”
Will there ever come a day in San Jose politics where there is an honest and thoughtful accounting of public expenditures?
Pete Campbell
#5 FF-
A little of both…Although I did have one written – I just felt it was a bit too controversial, even for our legion of loyal readers, and pulled it at the last minute…
It would have been nice if:
A.. city staff could have reviewed Norcal’s testimony before we renewed our contract with them.
B..Cindy gave us an accounting of all of her involvment in the Norcal case. Not doing so only makes it look as if she is waiting to see what they have on her.
C..Chuck gave us an explanation of why he voted to end the Cisco investigation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Recently, Cindy refered to the D.A.‘s case on Norcal as “the Drama”.
Weeks ago, when asked what is your vision for the future of the Guadalupe Riverpark, Chuck replied “Figuring out how to maintain it”.
Our mayorial options are between No Ethics and No Vision. I think I just might write-in Pandori.
#8 John, John, John
So do you think we are a bunch of whimps that can’t handle it? BRING IT ON! If it is too controversial, we (the meek) will have the weekend to get over it.
Question for Hugh # 3.
Why do you ask legitimate questions while blogging under such a silly name?
About Diza, anyone interested in the fact that he uses Darren Seaton, King of the Sleaze
Pete #7
Just wait for the Chuck Reed administration. Mayor Maintenance will have the budget so bogged down in neighorhood committes we could go 4 years without a penny being spent…on anything.
#7 Pete
An NBA franchise might be good for the city. Or it could be like some and operate in the red for years. Is there any information on this? I’m assuming there is, but I haven’t looked for it.
To your point, anecdotal as your bumps and potholes might be, they make the point. Throw in swimming pools and any number of other community needs for that matter.
An NBA franchise ranks as one those investments that fit the “Come-Spend-Leave” category and generate a few more hours of minimum (SJ) wage. It also generates money that does not stay in San Jose at the family or people’s level. It leaves the city as debt service, franchise income and profits, and cost of goods sold which originate outside San Jose. These kinds of investment and for all their positive impact contribute more to an hourglass socioeconomic condition than grow the health and vitality of those in the middle.
Fix the streets, add pools, and expand the facilities and services that make families want to live in this town and use these assets to draw industry and provide better paying jobs and career opportunities.
When the city has a clear well articulated vision of what it wants to be, and the wants and needs are clearly defined, rank ordered, on the wall and approved by the majority, the business of working to that end becomes more satisfying to staff and rewarding to it’s residents.
When business becomes simple, clear, ethical and transparent, life gets easier and things move faster. San Jose has been good at this before and hopefully it can be again.
This is Friday and no humor from John!
Why? We look forward to his sendoff for the weekend.
1
#16 Wondering
Reed the transcripts for yourself, the Murk has them on line. Dando and Reed admit to knowing of the secret deal way before anyone else….Sunshine is great! Both Reed and Dando ask when the transcripts would become public, no wonder, Wondering, they both have some explaining to do…..
Hey 18 – Why is it that you Cindiana’s “accuse” everybody of being Reedites, etc? Just because we desire people to provide facts to back-up their comments? Perhaps if you and your group took some time to practice being coherent instead of tossing out playground-level insults, maybe somebody would take what you say seriously. I doubt it, but maybe.
And just for the record, since you and your group are wrong AGAIN—I’m not a Reed supporter or worker or anything else connected to Chuck. I am a supporter of good and open government so obviously I am not Chavez supporter either.
As for the transcripts, so far they show a lot of people “can’t remember.” We still don’t know the truth about Cindy, and mayebe we never will but I do know that I don’t trust her to be mayor.
BOYS, BOYS, BOYS!,
Get over it, We got screwed cause we asked for it. I had friends that saddled up to the power. Now, it’s too late!
Other guys in power will do “it” to us , but, they give us a little smooch. You know the guys.
Whenever I’m banging away on these dam hot horse shoes, I get some pretty clear ideas of what might be the path to our salvation.
Too Many Diazes are looking for a buck. The guy did squat for the tenants, of the guy that owns most of the lead infested, delapitated housing around the Mexican Heritage Plaza. Diaz showed up for the initial photos, but when it came time to do the work, the guy could not be found. I tracked this guy thru his time in Sac. He is just another MACSA
clone. Follow the clones.
Let there be an election where only brain dead lead toxic little minds vote , and I can garantee you this village will be clear of most of the bull *hit that abounds.
So you guys and gals that hide behind your denial and cool handles, and think you are making a difference, you’ve got to change yourselves before you can change community.
My son Paul wore a Tee shirt today, it said “You can’t belive in something to live for, unless you’re willing to die for it”.
Paul is teaching me to be a great Dad.
The Village Black Smith
#15 Reality Check
You state transcripts confirm that Cindy didn’t know about the mayors deal. I am not sure what proof it is that you are talking about. Today I read her testimony in the Mercury to the Grand Jury. It states that Cindy claims to have told Morales, of the Teamsters Union, his desire to change the MRF workers from Longshoremen to Teamsters,“was not an issue for the council”. (Now that surly would have been the right thing to do) Yet if she actually felt and said that, could you please explain why she then directed city staff to do a salary survey of those MRF workers, in an attempt to get more money for the deal, even though the city’s wage policy doesn’t apply to those off site workers? She then went on to spend $11.25 mil. of our money on what she calls in her testimony “an issue for the labor movement, not the council”. Something is missing here. I know the council recently confirmed that they can work for outside interests while holding office, but her words say she is is working for the city, her actions say she is working for the union bosses. If you can help me understand how all this somehow vindicates Cindy, I will gladly give you and her my apology for doubting her.
Ok, Wondering, put your pint down that Chuckie got you, and also the ten bucks Victor paid you to pick up his dry cleaning.
Fact
Reed used his title as a county planning commissioner, against county ethics codes, to testify for a chemical plant.
Fact
Reed voted in secret to transfer funds used for parks, violating the Brown Act
Fact
Reed met secretly in Milpitas to help a developer make a presentation before an advisory committee
Fact
More the 80% of Reed’s investments are for energy companies linked to Enron
Fact
Reed overcharged the city working on the airport EIR
Fact
Reed’s Chief Aide Armando Gomez did accuse a candidate in Milpitas falsely in a slate mailer that was made out to be a newspaper
Fact
You are a Reedite that claims to be objective and yet you blast Chavez and claim to be a Reedite
Fact
Reed approved of a campaign in Sunnyvale where the candidate wore a uniform that was a phony
Conclusion
You are a Reedite
#20…I first must say, I have not read the transcripts yet. But how is Reed being able to figure out what Gonzo was up to, and speeking out and voting against his plot, a bad thing? How is Cindy, at best, not having a clue of what was going on in her own backyard and voting to support Gonzos scam, a good thing?
John McE.: I agree with #10—bring it on!
If not, enmail it to me directly. I promise not to comment mon this blog.
23 – Obviously one of us has been hitting the pint but it’s not me. You put down a few sentences and label them as fact and we are supposed to get all upset? Chuck’s personal investments? As many of us have said over and over, when you’ve got something of substance AND you have the facts to back it up, let us know. Until then you are making yourself look silly.
And by the way, just because I don’t trust or believe Cindy doesn’t make me a Reedite (whatever that is.) I believe in good and open government—something you might want to look into.
Have a good weekend and be careful on the playground.
# 18 & 23—get back on your meds, and seek professional help.
Grand Jury transcripts confirm that Cindy did not know about the Mayor’s deal and Chuck Reed and Pat Dando did. When will the apologies come from those on this blog that have accused her of prior knowledge—read it, or rather, REED it, and weep!
That’s great, #15. Maybe you can share all those pages that were not released to the public that apparently you have seen. Otherwise, maybe you will keep your mouth shut until you actually have facts to back up what you say.
#15 – Chuck voted against the gift of public funds. Cindy voted for the gift of public funds. The Grand Jury report doesn’t change that.
Hey wondering, can you put aside the pint bottle chuck gave you for writing that and see what reality said,
the transcripts, which are documents and facts, pumpkin, say that Reed knew
another Reedite, well, just ignore the coward who cannot even list his name
For the Reedites on the site, any comment on the Reed visit to a Republican fundaiser yesterday where he said he looked forwared to working with George and Arnold>
Oh, I forgot, if Reed has a overdue book, the Reedites would take up a collection to pay it.
And they would ask the library to let Chuck, the Democrat in Name Only, to keep the book!
Reading the grand jury transcripts of CC’s testimony, it’s pretty clear that her heart was in the right place.
What is not clear is how well she understood the basic fiduciary responsibility to the public, the ratepayers, to contract law and the process of doing the people’s business.
Maybe this impression will be change as I read more; but it appears that from DA’s line of questioning and her responses that this mayoral candidate is more an enabler of a faulty process than a leader of a financially responsible organization managing the people’s business.
Sad. Had she been more in front of this problem and complied with basic contract law on behalf of the ratepayers, she may have been able to help the mayor avoid this mess and still gotten something for the recycling workers.
Please, for the last time, ignore #18&23;. Hopefully he will go away. By the way, I am not a big fan of Cindy or Chuck.
#22 Just the Facts
First, it was and is impossible for you to have read Cindy’s testimony in the Mercury News today. What you read was a tiny, tiny fraction of her testimony, which was printed in the Mercury News today. Her entire testimony encompasses over 100 pages.
Second, you wrote: “It states that Cindy claims to have told Morales, of the Teamsters Union, his desire to change the MRF workers from Longshoremen to Teamsters,“was not an issue for the council”. (Now that surly would have been the right thing to do)”
It was the right thing to do and I am glad you recognize that, and stop calling me surly. In Mr Finkelstein’s summation to the Grand Jury on pg. 2200 he confirms that Cindy told the Teamsters to go pound salt. She did not know about, broker, participate, or orchestrate this deal, period. The Mayor did.
Third, Cindy can not and did not direct staff, that is against the City Charter. The council directed the study of pay for MRF workers. Look, this is clearly a policy question. Does one believe that those working under a city contract should be paid poverty wages or not? Cindy probably does not think so but this does not support the charge that she knew or participated in or had prior knowledge of the Mayors deal. The testimony is clear and I believe District Attorney Finkelstein’s summation that Cindy told the Teamsters it was not a city issue who represented the CWS workers and that she was not going to help them.
Fourth, Chuck Rufus Reed testifies that he knew of the secret deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of ‘03. (pg. 1475, lines 15-21), then Vice-Mayor Pat Dando’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Howard testifies that he told Vice-Mayor Dando, (some here on this blog seem to forget that Dando was Gonzales’s Vice-Mayor when this secret deal was hatched), what the 11.25 million dollars was for and who cut a secret deal promising the money to Norcal BEFORE she signed the memo with the Mayor asking the council to pony up. Can you find any testimony that says Cindy knew about this deal or participated in it? If Dando knew the real reason for the 11.25 and Reed knew the real reason for the 11.25, why is no one questioning them?
Vindication is simple—many have accused Cindy on this blog and in other places of knowing of the deal, of orchestrating the deal, of participating in the deal—-She did not know about it, she did not orchestrate it and she did not participate in it—Reed knew of a side deal as far back as September 12, 2002—his own testimony—what did he do about it? NOTHING.
In REALITY he was asked very specifically by the District Attorney about his reaction in regard to learning that Norcal was promised to be made whole by the Mayor for CWS going with higher paid Teamster workers. (pg. 1469, lines 14-25) Reed testifies: “I don’t think I had any particular reaction to that item other than trying to get all the underlying documents that might have been part of such a commitment.”—WOW
It’s great to see that a blog which supposedly welcomes open debate, is trying to silence people from posting. To those few of you who actually are objective on this site: keep it up. Don’t listen to people if they tell you to ignore a comment. Maybe JMOC needs to be taken down a peg?
Hey 27, should he go to the same guy you are seeing, since it is not working for you, as your meds seem to be too low.
Reedite
So, #31, tell us your real name.
Gee, what will JMC and the rest of the Reedites say now except that Chuckie is as dirty as the rest
Chuck voted NO to giving NorCal a gift of public funds. Cindy voted YES to giving NorCal an $11 million plus gift of public funds. Cindy is Labor’s point person. You really believe she knew nothing? Glad to see the Sgt. Shulze defense is alive and well.
I think Deputy DA Finkelstein got it right and those who still cling to the “Cindy Knew” conspiracy got it wrong. No one here is disputing that Chuck Rufus Reed and Vice Mayor Dando knew of the secret deal BEFORE the vote on the $11.25 million, why is that? No conspiracy, no conjecture, no wishing, the facts are that their own testimony and that of their staff implicate them as knowing of the deal and not sharing material facts with their fellow council members—-Isn’t there a Reed Reform that says not sharing a material fact is grounds for removal from office? When should we expect Rufus’s Resignation?
Rufus knew, Vice Mayor Dando knew and Cindy did not…..Who woulda thunk! Transperancy is great. Why is Rufus opposed to disclosing who his clients are? Does he have something to hide?
#36
Where in anyone’s testimony does it reflect that the Vice Mayor knew of this secret deal before the vote? Reality is that Chuck Rufus Reed and Dando knew about the deal and kept their mouths shut. Reed, in his own testimony, says he knew between Sept 12, 2002 and May of ‘03. Have you read the transcripts? Didn’t think so. Oh, my bad, the Vice Mayor did know about the secret deal, VICE MAYOR DANDO……
At the time of the vote it was not considered a gift of public funds. This is why Vice Mayor Dando voted for it as did a majority of the council. Why didn’t Rufus grab the microphone at the city council meeting where the 11.25 million was being contemplated and yell as loud as he could that he had meetings with CWS owners, their consultants and lobbyists and was told sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of ‘03, about the secret deal (see pg. 1465)…why did he not disclose these material facts????
When you write in your post, “Cindy is Labor’s point person. You really believe she knew nothing?”. I say yes, I believe she had nothing to do with it, had no knowledge of it, did not participate in it, did not orchestrate it, was not told of it, as did the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury. Can you say the same of Reed/Dando, after reading the testimony of Rufus and Dando and Joshua Howard. No you can not because the Reality is that the transcripts say otherwise…..hope Dando and Rufus end up in the Klink…I love Hogan’s Heros….
Reedites attack and do not answer, and JMC excuses them for doing so.
Get back to the sausage rolls, John
#39 Have you looked at the transcripts? You ask me to look at post #24, I did. Reed knew about the secret deal before the crucial vote in 2004, yes he opposed the deal because he knew what others on the council did not. He was told by CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists that Norcal was assured that they would be made whole by the Mayor’s office back in October of 2002 for the additional labor costs. Why did he not share this important, material fact with the rest of the council? He did not disclose these vital conversations that HE testified to. Why? What is honest about withholding information?
The policy question of paying MRF workers poverty wages is not the same as knowing, orchestrating, participating in, and covering up a secret deal. Both Vice Mayor Dando and Chavez testify that they were concerned about the wages paid to these workers under the city contract. Yet, Dando knew of the deal, having been briefed by her Chief of Staff about it BEFORE she signed on to the Mayor’s memo (see Joshua Howard testimony). Chuck Rufus Reed knew about the secret deal BEFORE the vote (see Rufus testimony pg. 1475, lines 15-21), but did not share the material facts of how he became aware of it and who told him and when did they tell him of the secret deal. Cindy did not know BEFORE the vote and had a legitimate policy perspective of ensuring that wokers under a city contract are not paid poverty wages. Read, or rather REED the transcripts and then attempt at posting facts as opposed to your contrived wishful thinking—Is Rufus going to now resign since he broke one of the main points of his REED REFORMS, i.e; not sharing material facts with the rest of the council? Please tell him honesty really is the best policy.
43:
you are doing good work and you should keep it up.
remember we have Reedites on this blog who report to Victor, and his orders are to attack personally, care about nothing you put forward, Chuck does not deal in facts, just attacks.
DINO WATCH
Reed gets an award from a osndervative Republican group and talks trash about the Democrats in Santa Clara County.
Victor on another blog gets accused of juicing the polls, which is what he used to do in Sunnyvale.
wow
Reality Check,
On page 1264 Chavez is questioned about the September 20, 2004 Lezotte/Reed memo where item 2 discusses the side deal the mayor made with Norcal.
Isn’t Reed disclosing his knowledge about the deal to the council? Chavez testifies that she made no effort to find out more information about the side deal. She then says she thought the side deal mentioned was the action that was before the council to give Norcal 11 million dollars.
Chavez comes across a bit clueless, searching for excuses on why she did not pursue the issue raised in the Reed/Lezotte memo.
37 – “At the time of the vote it was not considered a gift of public funds???” You’re kidding, right? It has been considered a gift of public funds since day one. The council, not just Cindy, but all of them who voted for it (FYI – Reed did not) knew they were approving money they were not obligated to pay. If that’s not a gift I don’t know what is.
Obviously your faith in Cindy is much stronger than mine. She may not get caught but that doesn’t mean she is clean on this. She appears to be very good at covering her tracks—we’ll see if she can keep them covered long enough to escape.
Also, what do the 55 pages of testimony that have not been released say? Maybe your pal escapes in those, too. Maybe not.
I’ll trust whom I believe, and you’lll trust whom you believe.
Just hope that others keep quiet so your pal can appear to be “clean.”
Steve is much sharper and more objective than RC and band of illiterates.
RC and crew apparently have an intense hatred of Chuck and are so in love with Cindy that they cannot conceive of her as anything less than a saint. Must be interesting to live a world where blinders are required.
Perhaps RC should cool his jets for just a few minutes until ALL of the facts are out. Perhaps he should not believe everything he reads, and perhaps he should learn to play better with others. He might need some friends when all of this blows up in his face.
#33 Reality Check
On your third point, who made the motion to direct staff to do a salary survey of the MRF workers? Cindy! Did the wage policy apply to these off site workers? No! Did the other council members later reject Cindy’s attempt to use the survey, after staff informed them that the policy did not apply? Yes! Did she later vote to give these workers an additional $11,250,000 of our money that was not legally owed to them? Yes! Did the Mayors secret plot accomplish what Cindy wanted? Yes!
On your fourth point, please see blog #24 Looking for an honest Mayor and get back to us.
I don’t get it. Why didn’t Chuck share what he knew with the rest of the council? Since he didn’t vote for the plot, what was in it for him?
Why didn’t Cindy have a clue what was going on? Afterall didn’t she have a closer relationship with the Teamsters and Gonzo? Other than Cindy saying she wasn’t involved, in her testimony,has any proof come out that shows she wasn’t?
So far it doesn’t look like we have great options for mayor!
#47 Carol
Are you suggesting that the transcripts should not be used to evaluate the truth when you post, “Perhaps he should not believe everything he reads?” Steve, post #46, uses the transcripts to bolster his assertion and I use the transcripts to bolster mine. Should we just rely on rumor or wishful thinking to get to the truth. Are there more facts available so that I can “cool my jets”, do you have them or is Rufus Reed in possession of additional information that he has not disclosed yet?
#47 Steve
What Chuck did not do was share the material fact (according to his own testimony) that he was told by either the owners of CWS, their consultants or lobbyists that there was a plan for Norcal to be reimbursed for additional labor costs and that plan was promised by the Mayor. Why didn’t he disclose this information that he was in possession of from as early as September 12, 2002 through no later than May of ‘03? Why did he go against his very own REED REFORM and withhold material facts that certainly would have changed the dynamic?
Oh, and Carol, I play great with others, especially those that tell the truth and base their posts on something other than conjecture, half-truths, and other nonsense—you should try it sometime it is liberating.
Reality Check,
You have to give Reed some credit for bringing the information forward when it mattered: the council voting to give Norcal 11 million dollars for retroactive pay to the CWS workers. Even when he did bring it forward, what happened? A majority of the council put their head in the sand, failing to take the information seriously.
What I don’t understand is Chavez claiming she did not know about the mayor’s deal until the Graham report. She had two chances to learn about the deal: the Lezotte/Reed memo and the grand jury report that she said read like a British tabloid.
There seems to be a trend here with Chavez failing to grasp important information in a timely manner.
Last year, as a response to a very important social activist, Chuck Reed, who has voted to:
a. shut down the Cisco investigation
b. voted in a secret session
c. claims to be a Democrat, yet sought and accepted an award from a right wing Republican Group just in the few days
called himself, “Mr. Integrity”
does it take two, three, four, five, six, pieces of evidence before this self proclaimed mantle begins to crumble?
By the way it is on page 1274 where Chavez testifies that she first learned of the mayor’s deal from the Graham report.
#50 Steve
Reed did not bring all the information forward in his memo, he withheld material facts that were not tiny little facts, but huge important facts that he was aware of going back to potentially September of 2002.
He testifies that he was told by CWS, either the owners, their consultants or lobbyists that there was a deal for the city to make Norcal whole for CWS workers going with the Teamsters. Since this was not public, Reed knew that it was a secret deal. His memo before the vote on the $11.25 million does not include this information, why is that? Would that have been material to the council making their decision? I say yes.
Herre is the REED REFORM he did not follow:
6. Require the Mayor and Councilmembers to disclose material facts BEFORE the Council takes action. (my emphasis on before)
If Rufus Reed would have included ALL material facts or told all of the council and the public everything he knew, and subsequently testified to, as his REED REFORM #6 spells out, then the outcome may very well have changed, we will never know for sure.
As for Cindy, how could she know what she didn’t know and what a Grand Jury investigation confirmed and what a Prosecutor confirmed she did not know. Reed should have told the truth as to what he knew and when he knew it, why didn’t he?
If the opposition to Cindy is now she should have known versus she knew all along when will the apologies start rolling in from the peanut gallery that has been accusing her of participating in this sorry episode from jump start. So now its, “There seems to be a trend here with Chavez failing to grasp important information in a timely manner.” when it should be I’m sorry for accusing you of something you did not do.
#34: If you are going to use big words like hypocrisy to try to convince us you really have a brain that works, at least spell it correctly. The letter “a” is nowhere near the letter “i” on the keyboard, so it can’t be just a slip of the fingers, commonly called a “typo”.
And when you grow the cojones to use your real name, I’ll pay closer attention to your drivel.
Reality: What is this “Rufus” thing you keep using in your posts?
Reality # 43: Do you have chapter and verse, citations to the record, to back up your cliam that Chuck was in on the Norcal deal? If so, please post them, because it would be important for all of us to know before deciding on who we will vote for in November.
JMO—
REED or read post #33, #37 and #43 for chapter and verse/citation. Also, I never posted that Reed was in on the deal, what I posted is that he knew about the deal and did not inform the council or the public of this very, very important material fact before the vote on the $11.25 million.
Reality Check,
Yes Reed testifies he heard from CWS that Norcal was trying to get the city to pay for the reimbursement to CWS (page 1465 lines 5 – 10). After hearing this information Reed testifies he sent a memo to staff to work out reimbursement problems between Norcal and CWS (page 1466 lines 1 -6)
Reed then testifies on page 1466 lines 6 – 8
“BUT I DID NOT NECESSARILY KNOW AT THAT TIME, AND PROBABLY DIDN’T ON SEPTEMBER 12 KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A SIDE DEAL.”
The year is 2002.
When the council did take action on the Norcal matter, the Reed/Lezotte memo in Sept, 2004 urging others to vote against the $11 million dollar deal described what the majority of the council could not figure out:
“2. Any promises or representations that may have been made to Norcal were not disclosed to the Council when Norcal was approved as the preferred vendor. Nor were they disclosed to the Council before the contract with Norcal was approved. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the contract.
3. Any agreements made with Norcal without Council approval would be a violation of the Charter and void under California law.
4. Allowing a side deal to alter the terms of an agreement is not fair to the other companies who participated.”
It is too bad other council members failed to take the memo seriously. If so, San Jose may have avoided this huge embarrasment.
Gee, John, you chickened out when someone offered to show you the documents, and now you talk about showing real courage.
The Reedites never listen, do they?
#58 Steve
We all know what was in the memo, what was not in the memo was the material fact that he knew what CWS told him about the secret side deal and Reed did nothing about it. His testimony is very clear that the earliest he could have known was September 12, 2002 and the latest May ‘03—-his own words.
“The Lion Goes Fishing”
While some testimony may cast doubt on the merits of this case; while the Mercury and Metro feed the debate to sell papers and supporters of both sides blog it out on the net, the Lion continues to investigate, chart, diagram, plan, quietly research and plot.
The Lion has six, seven, eight months to play with this puzzle, find more pieces and then go fishing: no, not in our local reservoirs, the Guadalupe or even above Los Gatos on opening day of trout season.
When this Lion goes fishing, he’ll know exactly where to find them, what they feed on, and what to tempt them with. He’ll know exactly what flies to tie, how to present them, and which fish might be most hungry for his tempting little treat. What might that be you ask? An irresistible collection of special patterns he has used before with great success. They go by such names as “Reduced Charges”; “Waived Counts” or that old faithful “Little Miss Misdemeanor”.
When this Lion goes fishing, he will reach into his fly box and carefully select that perfect fly and with surgical precision knot it to the hook. With well-measured timing and an artful cast lightly presents the fly. He pauses, lets it drift over the fish, and then when the fish can wait no longer it races toward the surface mouth open instinctively knowing he must be the first to that fly. Breaking water he takes the offering and the hook finds it’s home.
The game is on. The fun begins.
Even those wily fish that saw, approached and passed on the offering now find themselves at risk from the wild and desperate thrashing of the “fish on the hook”.
“When Lion Goes Fishing”:
Out next summer.
A must read.
Reed is as dirty as any of them, and he just goes around claiming to be Mr. Integrity because his handler, or should I say his Svengali, Victor, tells him to.
Ps, Victor, after September 11th, you thought it was ok to tell candidates to wear phony firefighter uniforms, what a patriot!
I’ll bet, there are a lot of people out there right now wishing they didn’t vote for either of these two clowns (Reed & Chavez).
Mr. Integrity violated some ethical principle?? Say it isn’t so!!
So Armando, for his role in the scandal in Milpitas is resigning when?
Hey RC, I really haven’t been making any statements here about the GJ transcripts and what they would or wouldn’t reveal about Cindy. I’ll leave all of that detail work for others and glean what I need from what’s being made public.
If anything, since the depressing results of the June vote provided me with the two choices in November that didn’t even make it onto my list of primary candidates, I am so disgusted that I may in fact not be able to bring myself to even cast a vote for Mayor. Like, gee, do I want some conservative nerd who will basically put this town into a 4-year holding pattern where nothing gets done and not a penny gets spent on anything, or do I want a 4-year continuation of what’s already going on at City Hall? What a rotten decision to be faced with, no thanks to the largely unenlightened electorate of this pathetic town. I swear, the voters in this town absolutely deserve whatever they get come November. I am sooooo disgusted.
We still have time between now and November for plenty of mud to be slung and more investigative work that could produce key information about either candidate that could give me cause to vote for or against them. But for now, the thought of voting for either one of them turns my stomach.
RC,
Apparently you have me confused with that great predictor of things concealed, Carnac The Magnificent. Not only did I not make claim to any such prescience, I don’t even remember Ed handing me the envelope.
Besides, I would never be so naive as to confuse sworn testimony for the truth.
My guess is that you’ve stained some other innocents with your broad brush of BS. Time to check your paint can, the fumes may be getting to you.
Given the (widely publicized) choices we have for the next San Jose mayor, and comments on both, perhaps we need to start publicizing who else is running for Mayor.
Perhaps someone from one of the parties no one wants to talk about may be the perfect fix for what’s ailing this town.
But no one will know about it if no one asks who else is out there…
I am open to a discussion about who else should be elected Mayor.
we have Cindy Chavez
then we have Chuck Reed, no, that’s not right, it says Chuck Reed, but Victor Ajoluny has already told a few people that he will really be the Mayor.
so between Cindy and Victor,
I will take someone like Linda Lezotte
#63
There are more people waiting for the likes of Mark T., Frustrated Finfan, Pete “I’m on Rufus’s staff’ Campbell, Hugh Jardonn, Inside the Hall, Gary Reynolds, Just the Facts, Mole, 1,2,3 Get Rid of Ronnie G, Single Gal, and the rest who have posted how much they anticipated the Grand Jury transcripts to be made public so that it would prove that Cindy knew and tell us all when she knew it…
Well the transcripts are out and Cindy told the truth, Chuck Rufus Reed and Pat Dando did not, they knew and said nothing and by their silence they are now contributors to this sorry episode.
Are you all going to send a card, flowers, or just post that you were wrong individually or as a group? I say, send over cookies and snacks to the campaign office so that the volunteers can have further energy to make sure Cindy is the next Mayor. Oh, the note you shoud attach should read, or REED, something like this:
Dear future Mayor Chavez,
Sorry for questioning your integrity and sorry for writing some very bad things about you. Even though many of us do not agree with some of your policy decisions it is clear to us after a thorough read of the, just released, transcripts that you had nothing to do with the Mayor’s deal. You had no prior knowledge, did not orchestrate, participate in, cover up, or further this sorry deal. We are sorry for saying you did. We wish our other favorite son Chuck Rufus Reed had shared what he knew with the council, what, according to his own testimony, he had been directly told by CWS about this deal, BEFORE the vote on the 11.25 million to Norcal. He broke REED REFORM #6, the one about sharing material facts with the council before a vote. We urge him to do the honorable thing and resign. With that we wish you and your family good luck.
Signed,
Remorseful Bloggers who got it wrong
#69 – Last time I checked, Linda had just launched an investigation to determine whether the chalk used by SJPD to outline bodies at crime scenes was biodegradable.
Write-in Pandori for Mayor.
Last time I checked, Mr. Integrity was thinking of withdrawing from the Mayor’s race, because he is a phony as they come.
can he get Victor to run instead?
#69
I know Linda Le Zotte, and Cindy Chavez is no Linda Le Zotte. Compare their voting records on the important issues, like land use. You will find them on opposite sides of the fence. Perhaps this is due to the fact that while Cindy was developing labor connections while being paid to work for the Labor Council, Linda was gaining an understanding of land use laws, while volunteering her time as a city planning commissioner
#72…If you take the time and do your homework, you will find that Linda voted on the right side of the law more often than any other councilperson. Chuck came in second and Cindy is at the bottom of the list.
These lost lawsiuits cost us over $100,000,000. It is clear that Chuck’s weakest area is in understanding the intent of CEQA and respecting it’s important role in preserving our historic resources. The only councilperson with a worse voting record on historic preservation than Cindy, is Chuck.
As a real estate attorney and past planning commissioner he should know better. Chuck is a smart guy, I hope he will take the time and learn more about the benefits of historic preservation. If not, we are in for more lost lawsuits and wasted resources in the future.
Like thorns along the trail.
Algae in the pond,
And Bermuda in your lawn;
So are the anonymous of ‘Open Thread’.
sprint ringtones
free monophonic ringtones
download ringtones
free tracfone ringtones
verizon wireless ringtones
nextel ringtones
totally free ringtones
bluegrass cellular free ringtones for the v323
free downloadable ringtones
free ringtones for razrmax ve verizon
kyocera ringtones
free real ringtones
under the sea ringtones
nextel ringtones to be added on bill
free mindless self indulgence ringtones
free music ringtones
christian ringtones
pirates of the caribbean ringtones
add ringtones to an iphone
blackberry ringtones
ringtones programs
hot ringtones
alltel ringtones
eurobeat ringtones
ringtones composer
create my own ringtones
cityrail ringtones
free downloadable ringtones for mobile
no cost ringtones
gwen stefani poly ringtones virgin
free ringtones verizon
mr ringtones
boomer sooner ringtones for free
download free nokia ringtones
ringtones on cd