Well, the news of “Cheapskate Chuck” Reed just keeps getting better, doesn’t it? But I feel that his cheapness, frugalness, or whatever you want to call it, is getting blown out of proportion a bit. Are we splitting hairs or do his questionable moves regarding reimbursements really mean as much as people are making them out to be?
If Reed really is just a little frugal and makes sure that each dime is back in his pocket for parking or small expenditures he incurs on city time, that’s fine with me. I actually admire someone who can save their receipts and have it together enough to keep track of little expenses. I can barely balance my checkbook and this guy is making sure $4 reimbursement claims are filed! But maybe it’s because Reed is a kind of “plain vanilla” guy that people are clamoring for something to be wrong. Maybe the real problem is he is just not exciting enough for everyone.
This election seems to be about which candidate has done more wrong or duped the voters more and the real issues are being thrown to the side or not even discussed. It is clouding what should be the time for both candidates to talk about how they are good for the city and some major changes they will make, but, unfortunately, we can’t hear any of this through the clutter.
I guess when they said “the lesser of two evils” they had San Jose politics in mind?
Pandori for Mayor.
Single Gal,
I agree with everything you said. The voters
should look at the large things not the little stuff that the candidates may or may not have done as long as it was legal. This is a very important election that will determine
the direction that the city takes for years to
come. They should listen carefully to what the candidates say and not vote on ethnicity.
Napper
SG says: “This election seems to be about which candidate has done more wrong or duped the voters more and the real issues are being thrown to the side or not even discussed. It is clouding what should be the time for both candidates to talk about how they are good for the city and some major changes they will make, but, unfortunately, we can’t hear any of this through the clutter. “
Exactly! We’ll get little more than mud dug up with a skip loader by both candidates between now and Election Day, and no-one will have a clue what either candidate stands for or hopes to accomplish for the voters.
Sadly, it’s not just us—most campaigns have devolved into this nationwide.
Below is a portion of what the Business Journal wrote about what Reedimbursement did:
Writing check won’t solve it
San Jose Business Journal Editorial
Posted on Friday, Sep. 29, 2006
The image was pure Hollywood.
There was San Jose councilmember and mayoral hopeful Chuck Reed, standing bolt upright as only a military man can. The red, white and blue flag tie had been retired but the image of moral superiority remained. Yet the words coming out of his mouth told a different tale.
Sure, he’d write a check for $40,000 to repay San Jose taxpayers for questionable items they’d paid for on his behalf. But he saw nothing wrong with what he’d done.
No harm; no foul. Let’s get back to business as usual.
Really?
We think not.
This was an epic moment when years of well-molded public image crumbled in an instant.
It recalls the film scene of a little boy approaching his baseball idol. ‘Say it ain’t so, Joe,’ he begged of Shoeless Joe Jackson, the Chicago White Sox star who’d been accused of throwing the 1919 World Series.
Joe couldn’t; neither can Chuck.
Sure, there are lots of mitigating circumstances here, a lot of gray area. The rules for handling office funds are written so loosely that paying for self-aggrandizing ads is common practice. Others did it. But that’s no excuse.
Sure, there are extra expectations on public officials to participate and they aren’t paid enough to reach into their pockets on every occasion.
Sure, perhaps he should have followed the lead of his opponent, Cindy Chavez, and used money from his ‘officeholder account,’ a slush fund supplied by private donors. But that opens a whole different can of worms, as Mr. Reed so correctly pointed out earlier in the demanding transparency in handling such accounts.
It really isn’t the source of the money that’s at issue here. It’s the principle of what’s a private expense and what’s a public one.
So how can a man who prides himself on being so straight, so right, so proper get this so wrong?
Two of the incidents that have been revealed stand out for us—the lifetime membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the donation to tsunami relief.
Mr. Reed was a veteran long before he was a city councilmember and he’ll be one long after he leaves office. There’s just no way to look at charging a lifetime VFW membership to the taxpayer as anything short of petty theft.
If the DA thinks that Chuck Reed committed a crime, then he [Reed] should be charged. Of course to be fair we need an audit of the entire San Jose City Council because it’s likely that everybody’s been doing this and we don’t just want to pick on Reed because he’s running for mayor.
The case against Cindy has to do with her voting record. She’s been in favor of most of the mayor’s money-wasting schemes like Norcal and the Taj Gonzales. Millions have been wasted in these poor spending decisions.
SG you missed the point.
Chuck wasn’t being cheap, he was utilizing taxpayer money for his own personal and political purposes.
If he were being cheap, he wouldn’t have expended any money.
$38,000 dollars of lifetime memberships, regular memberships, free meals, advertisements, political and charitable donations is a lifestyle, it is not an aberration, single mistake or an overblown charge of malfeasance.
It is a sense of entitlement that should not exist, least of all from a person who has castigated others for unethical behavior.
Many on this Board have disagreed with Cindy on issues ranging from NorCal to the Grand Prix. Those issues are arguable—but the disagreement lies in the public policy and benefits for the people of San Jose.
At no time did Cindy ever do anything unethical personally, though many including Chuck have tried to make a case through “guilt by association” and “innuendo”.
That’s a major difference between the two candidates.
Just rec’d the Cindy email newsletter and she is really pounding on little Chucky. It would be worthwhile to hear what they would promote for the good of San Jose and we taxpayers. Would like to see answered a few questions myself:
Why do they insist on pushing Bart on the “Great Circle Route”. It’s obviously not a choice to go to SF as it would take forever so what is the real reason.
Since our great City Council spent hundreds of millions on the new white elephant City Hall based on space need that wont be satisfied by this ugly structure, how many more millions is it going to take to fix that proble. Maybe some wholesale layoffs are necessary as well as wage reductions for all including the Mayor and Council. I’m sure non of those will happen!
Are we ever going to hear some concrete suggestions for improving the City Center?
What can be done to help merchants attract business, like maybe providing FREE parking for shoppers.
What about the mess at the Airport where the only concern is how to protect parking revenues not convience for the public unless we can spend a lot of money which brings up my last question.
Why does it cost more for public structures and projects then if private industry would do it. Case in point, the new Stanford Stadium.
A lot of things have to be improved and none of this bashing going on is going to solve it, but then maybe it can’t be solved until we get a Council that really puts some effort into thier work.
When Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, et al) flys Air Force One around the country on Political Party Fund raising junkets (like today, with Pombo) , who pays the costs ??
Speaking of real issues. Someone should approach the candidates on where they stand on giving Nvidia (actually John Sobrato) large chunks of taxpayer money to move downtown. A taxpayer subsidy to Nvidia to pay their rent is basically taking taxpayer money and putting it in John Sobrato’s pocket. I know it makes me mad and it should make every other small business owner is San Jose mad. I don’t get taxpayer money to pay my rent. In fact, I will be subsidizing Nvidia’s rent. How fair or reasonable is that? John Sobrato is quoted in today’s paper that he is giving them rent at less than the going rate of $1.95 per square foot and Nvidia still needs to “bridge the gap.” I pay $2.01 per square foot and the city is not bridging my gap. In fact, I pay more just to be downtown by having to pay an additional $150 per year on my business license as a BID tax. Everyone is asking for money from the city and the city is just paying it out, saying it is good for downtown. The candidates needs to address this. It is not the city’s job, nor the taxpayer’s job to subsidize every business, theatre and grand prix that wants money. We need someone who will run this government more like a business and less like a non-profit foundation whose job it is to dole out money. Someone who can say no and get back to properly supporting police, fire, swimming pools, libraries and parks.
Dear Single Gal:
I just love your line, “Maybe the real problem is he (Reed) is just not exciting enough for everyone.” We’re choosing a mayor, not auditioning game show hosts.
If you attend the debates, you’ll hear Candidate Reed talking about hiring 30 extra cops a year, building more parks that are in walking distance from new developments, establishing a solid environmental program for the future, and, (one of my favorites) kicking out all of the lobbyists! (At a recent debate Reed said that he didn’t want to meet with lobysists, only principals, and that if you needed your lawyer or engineer to talk for you, that you could bring them along but you better be there to speak face to face).
The reimbursement thing is a “ding” not a “dent.” It does little or nothing to extract Candidate Chavez from the belief held by many in San Jose that a Chavez Administration would just be four more years of Gonzales!
Reed Volunteer,
Pete Campbell
Rich, you stated that Cindy hasn’t personally done anything unethical but she supported Gonzo 100% in his unethical costly endeavors and waited until the last possible minute to censure him. I don’t think we want anyone who was that closely associated with the mayor on a regular basis, and who couldn’t see what was going on, if that’s the defense you choose to employ, to end up running the show at City Hall.
So you see Rich, either way it’s a losing proposition for Cindy re: her close ties to Gonzo.
And sadly, no matter if Cindy or Chuck gets elected in November, either way it’s a losing proposition for the citizens of San Jose.
Write in Pandori for Mayor everybody!
#6 -Oh pleeeeeaze!
“At no time did Cindy ever do anything unethical personally”
That’s exhibit A in the museum of “Damning with Feint Praise”.
Rich,
Are you implying that she did unethical things professionally?
Are you insinuating that others did unethical things on Cindy’s behalf that she personally benefitted from?
Sounds like your heart is troubled.
Crawl out from under the lobbyist rock, come clean, and reveal the truth about Cindy.
It’s clear from the Chavez camp that her only chance is to keep flogging Reed over this issue. It has become obvious she has nothing else to go with which is unfortunate given there are so many critical issues and crises facing San Jose.
The Chavez cheerleaders like RR and RC can’t get enough of this because they know, too, that if they try and discuss issues then Chavez is finished.
I would suggest that those of us who really care about making SJ better start focusing on issues. Demand both candidates respond with solid proposals to fix all that is broken in SJ. We know what Reed and Chavez have done to hurt SJ. Now we need to know what they will do to repair the damage.
If all we do is spend the next few weeks repeating the same things over and over again, then we will get what we deserve. If, however, we actually talk about critical topics as #‘s 7 & 9 raise, then there is a slight chance we might actually accomplish something on this board.
Let’s see what happens.
It is not being cheap. It is abuse of power.
#10 says: “At a recent debate Reed said that he didn’t want to meet with lobysists, only principals, and that if you needed your lawyer or engineer to talk for you, that you could bring them along but you better be there to speak face to face.”
The only problem with that sentiment is that on 11/28/05, Reed met with the architect and the attorney for the developers of the Hostetter project at a real estate office in Milpitas. The principals were not present.
Once again, his words do not match his actions.
For two years all Chuck’s supporters wanted to talk about ethics, now they now want to talk about “issues”.
That’s rich!
17 – The two are not mutually exclusive, although you would probably prefer that they were.
If “evils” are all that’s on the menu, then we diners must choose between a grass fed entrée or one that’s been fattened on the feed lot.
Chuck is obviously the leaner and less visually appealing cut of beef, coming to us direct from the range with the imperfections that mark a product as natural. His packaging is plain, his presentation lacks polish, his texture a bit chewy. His is a cut ordered not for its mouth-watering appeal but for its reasonable price and adequate substance. Chuck looks good enough—especially for diners on a budget.
Don’t forget the ketchup.
Cindy, brightly-colored and well-marbled is, on the other hand, a feast for the eyes. Her time on the feed lot was time well-spent. Her appearance is, by professional design, the image of perfection. Her packaging is slick, her presentation precise, her texture so tender that some say it lacks bite. Hers is a cut ordered on impulse—the splurger’s favorite. It looks delicious enough to overlook the price.
Don’t forget the Cabernet.
Order Chuck and you will be in for a dining experience that, though uninspired, won’t leave you feeling too full for dessert or send your cholesterol into the danger zone. You may occasionally bitch about the meal, but you’ll walk out of the restaurant with enough money to eat the next day and enough optimism to expect a better menu sometime in the future.
Chuck will make you leave your doggie bag on the table.
Select Cindy and your meal will begin in grand style accompanied by elegant presentation—and end with grand larceny accompanied by persistent constipation. The hidden charges on your inflated bill will take the mystery out of why the employee lot is filled with Porsches, and that sharp pain in your gut will remind you not to order based on splashy menu photos again.
Cindy just might turn you into a vegetarian.
Better make up you mind, it’s almost time to order.
#9 I’m with you. We’re #1 in the country for worst roads but the city continues to line the pockets of fat cat developers, and indirectly, auto mechanics. Who wouldn’t want to build downtown if the city was going to offer a certain level of reimbursement?
Sobrato built that tower with his own money. He didn’t have to borrow from anybody. That’s a convincing indicator of his enormous liquidity. The city hardly needs to help him out, directly or indirectly, but that’s just another of the desperate measures people like Cindy will tell you are necessary to get downtown hopping.
Right. Between 8AM and 5PM maybe, but after that it’s just going to be the same old ghost town.
Let’s get the roads fixed before handing out any more money to developers who already have more than their fair share of it. On this particular subject I believe the flag tie guy would feel likewise but I still can’t bring myself to vote for him or Gonzo’s lapdog.
Finfan, I can’t stomach either of them and am hoping a special of the day is tacked onto the menu as an alternative.
#19 – Most creative entry ever! Well put.
Wow Single Gal, I have heard some sanctimonious crap in my day but you take the cake. I think your statement alone leaves us believing that Chuck Reed himself thinks that what he did was okay.
(You know who has a similar attitude about such public policy—thats right, the Bush Administration. Why am not surprised that you, as a Republican shill, would take such a tack.)
Let me put it out there AGAIN: The man stole public money for personal gain.
Please tell me, in that twisted criteria of yours and your fellow Disciples, Single Gal, where you think thats okay. Are you saying its okay to steal public money for personal benefit? Are you saying its okay to use public money to make PERSONAL political donations (not the votes that the majority of the City Council voted on) to friends or, rather, people you hope will be your friends in this race?
And what Single Gal, do you suppose Mr. Reed got for his “donations”? I guess no one knows for sure But this I do know—we got taxpayers got stuck with the bill for Mr. Reed’s personal benefit.
Need I remind you—he took a reimbursement for a $100 donation he made to Mothers Against Drunk Driving!! He is too cheap and unethical to pay for a measly $100. For chrissakes, what in your head makes that okay?
Chuck Reed is the only candidate in this who has benefited personally from these reimbursements. Chavez and the rest of the Council members took a TENTH of what Reed stole. And most of them, with the exception of Yeager and Williams, made legal reimbursements.
But you seem to think its okay for Chuck Reed to have the taxpayers pay for him to look good. You seem to think its okay for Chuck Reed to steal over $40K in public money and use his CITY CREDIT CARD for a political donation. Tell me, where in that list is it okay.
Please tell me, Single Gal, that if you ever have children, or if you currently have nephews or nieces, that you will tell them that its okay to steal money the way Mr. Reed has from other people for personal gain. Please tell me you aren’t really that kind of person? Because your history, like Mr. Reed’s, doesn’t seem to reflect that attitude.
Do me a favor…while you are sanctifying Chuck Reed’s illegal activities, please ask him to release his “Schedule A” form from his taxes. You know, the one he is hiding from us at present—the one that may get him in alot more trouble than he is now.
#23—Still waiting for Cindy to produce replicas of her lost checks….
Where do you come up with SG being a “Republican shill?”
So Richard, you say that the public debate and council vote on the $11mil was honest, open political discourse and good for the public? And that Cindy would be a good clean Mayor and best for San Jose? …..best for who?
Maybe you can answer these questions for me and help me understand why I should vote for her. Please ?
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.
San Jose has many undiscussed city problems while San Jose Inside continues to debate the flaws of both candidates – while not addressing any solutions or what will improve our city
Mayor and San Jose City Council and government is still in denial that there is a problem – because they are the problem
Neither Mayor candidate is capable of reforming city government. It is like asking a family of alcoholics to sober up or an abusive family to not abuse others to change themselves without intervention.
What no arguments, more insults or more totally unbelievable statements about how your Mayor candidate is committed to reforms.
The Mayor candidate political statements are about as believable as an alcoholic or abuser telling us they are not going to have another drink or abuse others again?
– Sad , sad, sad – what San Jose Inside could have been but is not – you could have been a contender to improve San Jose – not likely
To use a common saying – You are either part of the problem or part of the solution –
Well most of San Jose Inside authors and bloggers are part of the problem – based on today’s and past week’s comments and weeks of wasted political debates – to summarize both Mayor candidate are seriously flawed but your is less so but you have no solutions except the unrealistic one of electing your lesser flaw candidate – No solutions – more bitching and whining
Wow Downtown Brown –
Take a deep breath. I hope your tirade made you feel better. Where did I say it was OK to steal? Did my editor put that in my column unknowingly.
I do think what he did was wrong but my point was it’s blown out of proportion.
Now why don’t you try filling a nice bubble bath or getting a massage?
Richard, give it up… Cindy is toast. Back to a labor job for her.
#17 Funny, For two years all Cindy’s supporters wanted to talk about was issues, now they now want to talk about “ethics”.
That’s rich! and RC and DB…
David D;
All of those things you said are, obviously, open to debate. But I what I cannot debate is the fact that it is a well-reasoned argument—so I appreciate it.
However, why do you omit Mr. Reed’s admission that he knew or suspected about the Norcal deal two years before any vote on the council took place. He said as much in the Grand Jury testimony. In that same testimony, Dando admitted that she had tried to pin Norcal on Chavez—even though it was she who had told Reed about it before anyone else.
While your arguments are both reasonable and sensible…why do they eliminate Mr. Reed’s role in this whole affair.
Indeed, I would argue, and most lawyers would agree, that if Mr. Reed had any aforeknowledge (either directly or indirectly) he had an obligation to report his concerns to the Council. Unfortunately, in his ambitions for higher office, he decided not to mention it to anyone. He knew thanks to Dando, etc. the damage it would do to Gonzalez and, by extension, Chavez.
Chavez may have voted for Norcal—but Chuck Reed knew about it before anyone else. In legal terms, thats called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Mr. Reed should, as a trial lawyer, know that term really, really well.
Dear Dale (#16)
I appreciate your signing your name to your comment.
Pete Campbell
Richard, you are really a study in your continueing coverup for Cindy. How can you expect any one to believe that Cindy, due to her labor connections, was not the first person consulted in how to change the labor group from the intended Longshoremen to the Teamsters. That is standard procedure probably used by yourself many times. It’s commen practice and knowledge so why should we believe Cindy was not involved. I may be from the country but I’m not in the market for a bridge.
I must agree with Mr. Schwerin #9—what’s with these subsidies?
John Michael Sobrato says the $1.95 he plans to charge is below market, and Nvidia says it can’t even pay that. So they all troop to the RDA for a subsidy.
Stuart Schiff @ Divco West and Mortons say that neither realized that expanding a building from a bank with few people in it to a restaurant with lots of people in it would trigger greater seismic requirements. If it’s true, which I doubt, then neither knows their business well. And they want $890k from RDA for seismic uprgrades.
All four entities will get what they want as long as they have paid enough to play. But the rest of us will pay full market rate with no subsidy.
If Nvidia cannot afford the rate, they should go to a place where they can afford it. If Divco and Morton’s can’t split the tab between them, Morton’s should go elsewhere. In either case buildings remain empty—not a good thing. But why should the taxpayers subsidize these businesses?
DB, RC, RR, etc.
Ok, I neglected to offer the same kind of penetrating questions about Reed’s reimbursements. Fair enough. Let’s say that’s on the table and I’ll address that with the same penetrating type questions for Reed and those defending him.
But or now, the only thing I’ve read on SJI is Cindy is sweet and pure and Chuck is dirty. Come on. Be real. Let’s get to the meat of this.
To that end…. will Cindy, or anyone on this blog site help me understand the answers to the questions listed in #25 ?
Single Gal,
Don’t be too upset with DB (#23). He just got back from hunting baby seals and is upset because he didn’t get his limit.
RR has gone off the deep end in his continuing mission to defend Cindy at all costs. He actually has the balls to write: “NorCal was a good deal for the City, despite the Mayor’s backroom deal.” This is an extreme example of chutzpah; that Norcal deal was NOT a good deal, it was $11 million TOO EXPENSIVE!! End of story. If Cindy’s supporters can’t admit that and move on, Chuck Reed deserves to be our next mayor.
#38 Tony, I was talking about city streets, many of which are a real mess. We can’t do anything about the freeways. Hell, The Alameda is a state highway, it’s falling apart, and there’s nothing we can do about it. And considering how you feel about handing MY money to a wealthy company like Nvidia, I am presuming you’re voting for Cindy. You know, there comes a time where you have to say enough is enough, and with the Grand Prix millions handed out, the Norcal millions handed out, and now handing money to Divco, Nvidia and subsequently Mr. Sobato, I’m feeling tapped out from all the handouts.
SG, looks to me like Reality Check has changed his name to Downtown Brown, has put it there in bold letters, and has cranked up the caustic comments even further. Best to continue the practice of not taking any of it seriously.
JD, #36 you sized up the June primary very nicely. Between you and finfan we can eat our way through this bad joke everybody’s calling a mayoral election.
So, Cindy is indignant because she only billed the city $2,000 (documented so far) while Chuck billed almost $40,000 for questionable expenditures. Sorta reminds me of the story that goes like this: Would you sleep with me for $100? – Response – absolutely not, what kind of a girl do you think I am. Would you sleep with me for $10,000? Yes! OK, we now know what kind of a girl you are – would you sleep with me for $100?
Single Gal,
The expense practices of Chuck are blown way out of proportion because the Chavez backers need this issue to obscure her deficiencies. The rantings of some of these braindead bloggers are tiresome and repetitive. But that’s their method. They hope to bombard this site with so many one-sided ramblings to drown out any other substantive issues.
For me, Cindy’s role in norcal and the grand prix does not pass the smell test. Either she is dumb and naïve or she knows more than she cares to admit. I have never gotten a clear picture of her role in norcal and the grand prix vote. I believe she is hiding more that she lets on.
I don’t feel that Chuck’s ethical problems are in the same league as Cindy’s. Unlike Cindy’s role in norcal and the grand prix, I don’t believe there was any attempt on his part to deceive or hide his reimbursements from the public. That’s why it’s all out in the open for others to criticize him for it. At any rate, as reported in the Merc, other council members including Cindy have had similar expense practices.
The only reason why these expense practices are a big deal now is because of the mayor’s race. This is nothing more than political campaigning for the Chavez backers. I don’t believe for a second that ethics is now an important issue for these people. Mud-slinging and obfuscation is the only way for Chavez to try to catch up to Reed.
If we could trust city government and our elected officials to tell the truth and not give us more false economic justifications like the Grand Prix fake numbers then it might be worth a small taxpayers subsidy to bring 1500 new Nvidia jobs and the taxes to downtown since it would bring new service jobs,l sales taxes and possibly more residents to support downtown retail
Can you trust any of City Council? No
After years some would say decades of lies, scandals and backroom deals from our elected officials how can we believe any of them or what they say
City Council needs to start rebuilding public trust, by acting in a ethical manner, being completely not politically truthful, and have accountability to the public for their actioons, taxes and public policies that benefit the public not politicians and their special interest supporters who do minimum legally that they can get away or act like it is a single scandalous event not a city culture of repeated low ethics and questionable official conduct
We are the laughting stock of city governments – people from other areas of US know us as #1 Scandal Capital of Silicon Valley and ask – What scandal did you have this week, any more indictments?
Hi Pete (#31)—
Likewise.
Sorry, Tony D # 38, but the vast majority of the Adobe drones never leave the building during the day to patronize local restaurants, since they have their own. Then they go home at night. I suspect the Nvidia drones would do the same.
Adobe brings a high profile ,set of buildings to the downtown, but I doubt it’s worth the subsidy.
Mr. Sobrato built that building with 100% of his own cash, and has been able to leave it vacant for how many years now without sweating the lack of income? He does NOT need a subsidy, unless it’s to recover the losses from this non-performing asset being vacant while he sought a single user. The money he and Nvidia are talking about could have subsidized virtually every family owned business downtown for years.
David D.
Put simply; Cindy was told by the City Attorney it was proper to vote for an increase in the NorCal contract based on the new work.
She supported giving the workers a better wage, but relied on the City Attorney for legal aadvice on the propriety of the increased cost.
NorCal was a good deal for the City, despite the Mayor’s backroom deal. Garbage rates will go up now that the “process” has been honored. Nobody seems to care—they want the 11.25 million back—which is chump change to what people will be paying now that the “process” has been honored.
Bottomline is San Jose will pay more for garbage. The Mayor tried to fix the problem—he faced the choice fixing the problem by paying 11.25 million more (which was still less than other bidders) or going out to bid and higher garbage rates or a potential garbage strike.
He chose the first and it bit him on the ass. But all of you will be paying more for garbage—even if you get the 11.25 back.
You are walking over dimes to save nickles—that is the real tragedy of NorCal—the substance was lost in the process.
He chose to make a deal that was
The lack of sophisticattion from some on this board is amazing, we have been through this ad nausem—let’s go through the math again.
NorCal’s bid was more than $26 million less than the nearest competitor, if you add the 11.25 million back it was still more than $15 million less for consumers.
By dismissing NorCal, SJ will now pay the higher price for garbage. If the City had not given back the $11 million one of two consequences would have occured.
1) NorCal would have refused to pay the workers and the City would have faced a garbage strike.
2) NorCal could have paid the workers and lost money on the contract—this was not an option for them.
The City could have gone through a garbage strike and sued NorCal—but the cost of that would have been unknown.
The deal that was made violated the procedures of the City—despite the DA indictment—the deal didn’t violate any laws. But the Courts will ultimately show that fact.
Four investigations etc. have not changed the facts everyone knew at the beginning. Dando voted for it as did every member of the Council who was not a lawyer.
The lawyers must have seen the flaw in the City Attorney analysis, but they are not paid to give legal advice to the collegues.
Thus the situation we are in today.
And while we may disagree on the merits of the policy itself, no one did this for their personal gain—unlike the recent debacle involving taxpayer money spend on poliitcal events, lpersonal memberships and charity events.
If you don’t get it now, stop trying—and don’t vote—you are obviously in over your head.
When will Reedimbursement release his charitable deductions he claimed on his income taxes?
How does he say that a lifetime membership with all these perks—is not a personal benefit to him? Did he report these gifts that came with his lifetime membership?
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=mbr.levelc&cid=2344
This is just one organization he joined using taxpayer dollars. What other benefits did he get when he joined the other 25 organizations on the taxpayer’s dime? He broke the law and should be held to the same standard as those he has waved his finger at in the past, he should resign and hire a defense attorney.
Things were looking bleak here for a short time. No silly responses from RR or RC—but all is well now here in Mayberry. The Town Criers have raised their voices (again) to tell us all how foolish we are and how we are not equipped to vote because we refuse to buy into their campaign spin. Oh, woe is us, who ignore the drone of RR and RC.
Perhaps RR is the one who still doesn’t get it. RC is still playing wannabe DA—he is judge and jury and apparently DA. If and when there are charges (and if there are it will include a lot more folks than just Reed) then we can have another discussion. Until then, perhaps RR and RC can take the long vacation they obviously need.
DB/RC – Get back on your medication. We are tired of hearing your one note song.
Oh, and DB/RC, when are those missing check copies coming? Don’t worry about Chuck until those are produced.
RC – You’re kidding, right? Perks? That’s quite a list of big ticket items that come with the VFW membership. That’t the best you can do? Reed really cashed in personally with the heaping bagload of “perks.”
Come on. Let’s get serious and really talk about what needs talking about—how is either candidate going to make San Jose a better place to live??
So Disciples….where is Chuck Reed’s “Schedule A.”
Hey, I got a new slogan…
“Hey Chuckie Hey…What are hiding in your Schedule A..”
“Hey Chuckie Hey…What are hiding in your Schedule A..”
“Hey Chuckie Hey…What are hiding in your Schedule A..”
Yeah, still cheesy….but still true.
Hey Chuck, your people/minions don’t have the guts to ask you…but be careful, the IRS might come asking soon.
Oh and BTW SG, its a funny thing how I wasn’t wrong about your boy Chuck hiding something (cause he was and still is) from his financial dealings and stealing $$$ from us, the taxpayers.
And guess what, I am pretty sure I am not wrong he is still hiding something.
#49 Wow, it’s come to this… if you don’t agree with Cindy’s camp about Norcal, you’re a backwoods hick who is too stupid to vote. Very nice. Can I quote Cindy on that, or just her spin doctors?
#49. Yes Rich, we lack “sophisticattion.” Then again we are not under indictment.
There should not be any missing checks….all you do is call your bank and have them send you the copies of the cancelled checks….Its pretty clear she is hiding.
This is a pretty shameful excuse not to show the public but I guess when you are dealing with San Jose voter apathy, its really not a big deal.
Jeffrey…do me a favor.
First, Go ask your boss Chuck where his Schedule A is before the IRS and the State Attorney General start asking.
Second, maybe you are either blind legitimately or by choice, the City Attorney and City Manager already stated that NONE of Chavez’s missing checks have any connnection to any reimbursements from the city. No connection whatsoever…
Employee…try some sugar, it makes the bitterness of finding out your boy Chuck is the most ethically challenged Councilman since Terry Gregory.
As for the rest of you, stop engaging in Tricky Vic tactics—the same kind that got Tricky in some personal trouble a few years ago.
Because, unless you got the PROOF that Chavez stole $$$ from the taxpayers, got comped at events without reporting it or whatever else Tricky Vic wants to create innuendo around—you are continuing to look foolish and make your candidate look like even more of a liar.
BTW, I proved my point that Chuck is both a hypocrite and a liar. What do you have?
Sorry I got to this thread late, what a hoot! Although the prize for Most Twisted Spin has got to go to Richard Robinson for claiming that ethics are not part of public policy—that the Norcal imbroglio is not an ethical issue for the people involved because it’s a policy decision that people can argue about. Tell that to Dred Scott. And shame.
Rich, I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I am NOT a Cindy supporter or a Chuck supporter.
Having said that, let me also say that I agree that a deal with any other hauler besides Norcal would have cost more, even after the $11 million got tacked on. Even the Mercury has printed as much and they aren’t exactly pals with Gonzo. So in that respect the Norcal deal was a good one for rate payers in SJ. The new deal struck with the hauler who will replace Norcal is going to cost the city more.
When talking with others about this mess I’ve stated that Gonzo’s motives included getting a good deal for us rate payers, but he just went about it in the wrongest way. In my professional dealings I do find that when a project or initiative is being discussed, the men in the meeting tend to want to cut through the red tape and get things rolling while the women are more detail oriented and take a more go-slow approach, which is usually the wise route to take. I feel that maybe Gonzo also wanted to cut through the red tape and the process and had the clout to do it, and that was the unwise route to take. For me, it boils down to that.
Whether Cindy or Chuck knew about this and whether they did or didn’t hop on board with Gonzo continues to be the subject of much speculation and finger pointing regardless of the fact that people’s garbage bills are lower than they would be if the city had contracted with any other hauler than Norcal. So considering the fact that we’re paying less for garbage service than we could be, it’s hard for me to have a problem with the outcome.
Now the Grand Prix, that was 100% charity that had no positive effect on the monthly finances of your average SJ voter, and the record on who voted how on that that extra $4 million speaks for itself. Advantage: Reed!
#54
Discounts for car rentals, air fair, hotels, health insurance, prescriptions, cell phones are gifts to reedimbursement paid for with city taxpayer dollars.
There are gift rules that he should abide by. Terry Gregory was a crook for taking wine and other perks of the job. Chuck Reed took discounts and received other gifts as a result of using taxpayer money to buy lifetime memberships and other memberships.
When will Chuck release his charitable deductions he claimed on his income tax?
So, Mark, if you were in a business deal and reached a contractual agreement for costs and services, you wouldn’t have a problem if your company then gave away another $11 million that they didn’t have to spend? You wouldn’t have a problem with a company that low-balled their proposal since they already had a promise they would get more money after the agreement was approved? This deal would stink even if it didn’t involve garbage.
Richard, at the risk of sending some on this board to the vomitorium or putting them to sleep, your explanation warrants exploration in search of a clearer understanding.
RR – NorCal’s bid was more than $26 million less than the nearest competitor, if you add the 11.25 million back it was still more than $15 million less for consumers.
— Ok, I understand this. Sounds good.
RR – By dismissing NorCal, SJ will now pay the higher price for garbage.
—Dismissing NorCal was a result Grand Jury indictments and bad press, which could have been avoided had the Mayor not struck a back-room deal as an end run around an ethical process.
RR – If the City had not GIVEN BACK the $11 million one of two consequences would have occurred.
—“GIVEN BACK”? Where in the contract did the city take unfair advantage of NorCal? Is NorCal so lacking of business acumen that City staff took unfair advantage of them?
RR – 1) NorCal would have refused to pay the workers and the City would have faced a garbage strike.
— Help me understand how and when NorCal and recycling workers were convinced to change union affiliation and wage expectations. I think this may be an important piece of the puzzle.
RR- 2) NorCal could have paid the workers and lost money on the contract—this was not an option for them.
—Explain how you know in advance that NorCal would not have paid the workers and incurred a loss on the contract. Businesses incur losses all the time and continue operate and fulfill contractual obligations. Right?
RR – The City could have gone through a garbage strike and sued NorCal—but the cost of that would have been unknown.
—An assumption on your part. Another legal action? Seems from what I read in the paper the City is quite used to that by now; like it’s just another cost of doing business.
RR – The deal that was made violated the procedures of the City—despite the DA indictment—the deal didn’t violate any laws.
—And you know this how? Are you saying that you understand the law better than the District Attorney’s office? Or that you have inside information that has not come to light or is not part of the GJ testimony?
RR- But the Courts will ultimately show that fact.
—On the face of it your logic for giving NorCal the extra $9, 10, or 11mil sounds quite logical… to someone not versed in business law and open government. Even the math makes sense.
However… in business, if a Purchasing Manager negotiates a contract for goods &/or services on behalf of their employer, and promises to kick back to the vendor half the difference between the contract price and next highest bid; that Purchasing Manager and anyone facilitating that kickback would be fired and could face criminal charges. Ask any CEO or Purchasing Manager.
Maybe in City Government this becomes more complicated and we who lack the degree of Sophistication do not comprehend it as easily as you, the Mayor, Cindy, Teamster workers or NorCal. Or maybe because to an employer it is big money and to rate payers it’s “Chump Change”.
RR – Four investigations etc. have not changed the facts everyone knew at the beginning. Dando voted for it as did every member of the Council who was not a lawyer.
— If a council member is not a lawyer they do not have a responsibility to understand basic fiduciary responsibility and open government?
RR- The lawyers must have seen the flaw in the City Attorney analysis, but they are not paid to give legal advice to the colleagues.
—The City Attorney’s analysis was simple; and he answered only the questions he was asked. 1) Can the Council approve a contract change order? And 2) If we vote to give NorCal $9-10 mil over the value of that “change in scope of work”, are we breaking the law?
RR – Thus the situation we are in today.
— Absolutely correct.
RR – If you don’t get it now, stop trying—and don’t vote—you are obviously in over your head.
—I think I understand it very clearly and I will vote.
—By the way Richard, are you taking any bets on whether any of the DA’s charges stick?
RR contunues to defy reality. He writes “NorCal’s bid was more than $26 million less than the nearest competitor, if you add the 11.25 million back it was still more than $15 million less for consumers.”
Rich, you ignorant slut. There’s no reason that we should be “adding back” the $11.25 million. It’s gone, courtesy of Ron and Cindy and the taxpayers lost it. Your analysis is nonsense.
RR #49 says: “NorCal’s bid was more than $26 million less than the nearest competitor, if you add the 11.25 million back it was still more than $15 million less for consumers. “
Sorry, RR, but that begs the question. All you politico/consulto types are SO very process-oriented, except when the lack of process bites you in the butt. The fact that Norcal lowballed the bid, and even with the $11.25 we still paid less is not the issue.
The issue is Gonzo made a backroom deal and hid it from all and sundry. The issue is he lied to the council. The issue is the city had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to pay that $11.25 back to Norcal. Even Norcal admits that as fact. The issue is the Cindinistas went along, and have a habit of last minute memos and rushes to vote. The issue is that virtually no-one on the spineless council stood up to Gonzo/Cindy.
RR goes on to say: “2) NorCal could have paid the workers and lost money on the contract—this was not an option for them.” Well, that’s business, RR. They lowballed the bid, they should get stuck with it. Because it’s not an option for them, we should all have to cover their loss, which was based on what I’d bet the farm was a conciously lowball bid, ‘cuz they knew Gonzo would bail them out.
As for a strike—highly unlikely. And if it had happened, and everyone had the facts in front of them, they should have rammed the deal NORCAL MADE down Norcal’s throat. If they didn’t like it, they could go away. Their service sucks anyway, and we’re better off without them.
On another note, as much as it pains me to agree somewhat with RC & DB, the only reason I can think of for Chuckie Cheapskate to not release his Schedule A is that it would incriminate him, and he has a Constitutional right against self-incrimination. Nine HP higher-ups invoked that privilege recently. Even Mr. Ethics cannot be compelled to incriminate himself.
That said, he did not vote to give away $15 million of OUR money, as the Cindinistas refuse to acknowledge.
DB 55 gives us a cheer even he says is “Yeah, still cheesy….but still true.” Add grammatically incorrect to that list, DB.
DB#59 goes on to say: “the City Attorney and City Manager already stated that NONE of Chavez’s missing checks have any connnection to any reimbursements from the city. No connection whatsoever… ” How can they know that? If Cindy “lost” them, how do these legal luminaries know to whom they were written?
65—Perhaps the most important point you raise is the question about why the workers were convinced to change union affiliations. That remains unanswered and remains a potential violation of Federal law. I know, Cindy knows nothing about this. How could she? She has no involvement with labor (or Gonzales) or anything else that has happened in the city. Apparently Cindy has learned Nixon’s “plausible deniability” scam very well.
Anyway, at least we can be glad that Rich is not in charge of contract negotiations for the city.
JMOC….
We lack the sophistication to understand how tax dollars are not like real dollars.
The ex-mayors didn’t think this way. Why can’t this new breed.
Here’s how some of our dollars get spent:
From the L. A Times:
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of all warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on ‘Medi-Cal’, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI speculates that half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States’ annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1999 was, (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), a NET $75 BILLION a year, [from Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University]. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE number.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide. A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the “greatest criminal challenge the country faces.” Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG: I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breathe free. They wanted to become Americans. Now, far too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture.
JW #63 I said I don’t have a problem with the outcome with respect to having a lower garbage bill than I could have with a different vendor.
I think JMO and David D have done a good job of capturing the issues around Norcal that require scrutiny around both candidates’ potential degrees of involvement.
DB#59 – How in the world would the City Manager or the Attorney know what is in those checks. How could they make that sort of sweeping statement? You sound like a spoiled little kid, why didn’t you add “so there”! BTW Chuck’s not my boy, I was for Cindy until the labor BS with retail and city hall. I had some doubts about her before that, but I was willing to go on faith. I’m not anymore. I simply wised up.
Single Gal…I think your editor may need to take a closer look as to what you are writing. Perhaps you need to stop repeating the new Chuck Reed message/talking points.
You did worse than say Reed’s stealing was acceptable—you tried desperately to make it seem acceptable.
SG, like all of your columns, you engage in multiple insuinations and not-so-subtle shots at others and excuse the actions of your chosen candidate. Its the kind of hypocrisy one would expect out of FOX News.
You fail to acknowledge that his holier than thou, “Mr. Reform”, Mr. Open Government is nothing more than a lie—one you are helping to perpetuate by, however subtly, excusing his actions.
#26 – Short of a political Wayback machine, that is indeed what we have to do – try to make chicken salad out of the chicken shyte that the voters in the primary election have collectively given us.
It is a political truism that when you have five outwardly ‘qualified’ people running for one office, the two least qualified will emerge from the primary. And that is the situation with which we are faced today.
The Pandori write-in campaign, while tempting on an emotional level, will only lead to trouble, as the final election is designed to be about two people, and not three; that’s just the rules of the game. They had many problems with just such a scenario down in San Diego two years ago.
The only way things are going to change under the GonzoDome is to make sure that people who actually give a rip about the citizens are elected to the Council, and pray that whomever wins the mayoral final election doesn’t eff things up to royally in the ensuing four years until he/she/it can be tossed out onto Santa Clara Street bag and baggage.
And FWIW, it’s better to gripe now before the runoff election rather than afterward, dontcha think?
BTW, its not been blown out of proportion Sweetie.
Why, because Mr. Reed has been running as a candidate of reform, honesty, integrity and open government. And now that he has been busted, his credibility has taken a HUGE hit on his only message.
And, with your help in this blog, Mr. Reed has also—unfairly and quite inaccurately—accused Chavez of ethical misdeeds bordering on the criminal. You have carried that water since June….
Indeed, when he knew or suspected something was wrong with Norcal as he said in his grand jury testimony, he sat on it. But when that came out, you said nothing!! You were remarkably silent—some journalist you are SG. Most journalists, with integrity, would at least issue an apology, initiate a discussion on Reed’s possible culpability or open a less-than one-sided discussion of the issue.
But what did we get….(wait for it……), NOTHING.
And when Dando said in her testimony that she tried to set up Chavez to take the blame for Norcal—even though she knew she had nothing to do with it—and when that information came out you (as the journalist you claim to be) said absolutely nothing. You didn’t acknowledge the dirtball political tactics of those you support.
Now, he has been busted for misusing public funds, including his city credit card, and you go ahead and justify his actions…please, don’t deny this because EVERYONE in San Jose knows that you do—both publicly and privately.
Ya know you’re right SG…I probably do need a massage. But Sweetie, but you need more than an editor, you need a moral and journalistic compass. Sure, you can do the Bill O’Reilly thing and criticize those who dare criticize you—but it doesn’t remove the truth. Chuck Reed broke the law, he got caught, tried to justify it (even when the San Jose Mercury News called him “Chuck E. Cheapskate—that ain’t exactly subtle.) and you have done your best to excuse—however subtly.
Heck, even the Washington Times today called for Denny Hastert’s resignation as Speaker in the wake of the Foley debacle. You think you would have shown enough courage and/or integrity to do the same in this race.
But then, given your connections around San Jose to certain parties who care not to have a fair fight in this race—I don’t think any of us are once again surprised.
Hey, Rich—You seem to have left out the fact that we are paying more for garbage because of what Cindy and the Mayor did. The rates were increased to cover the increased money the city paid out that they weren’t obligatee to pay.
Now we are paying even more because of what Cindy, the Mayor, and other councilmembers did with the garbage contract.
Tell us again how this was a good deal for all of us. Tell us how paying more for less service was a good deal. Tell us again how paying even more now, for even less service, was a good deal.
This was a royal screw-up and Cindy shouldn’t have needed the city attorney to tell if it was OK to vote for this. Her “leadership” ability should have told her this was wrong—legal or not—to give away more than $11 million that the city was NOT obligated to pay.
I wholeheartedly “agree” with all you anti-Nvidia, anti-subsidy folk…NOT! What a waste of money it was to subsidize Adobe back in the day, which has provided our city with a solid Downtown corporate center, Jobs, and tax revenue. What a shame it would be to do the same today. Investing (I’m sorry…I mean “subsidizing”) in Nvidia’s move Downtown would basically replicate what happened up the road at Adobe. The hell with the fact that the “subsidy” would bring 1,500 jobs Downtown and pump more tax revenue into the Redevelopment Agency. And respectfully Mark T., our local freeways (which stink!) are more of a state/county issue in terms of maintenance/cash. As I stated in a post a few months back, if my parents Seven Trees streets could be nicely paved over, THERE’S ISN’T A PROBLEM! BRING NVIDIA DOWNTOWN, and cease with this small-town thinking!!
DB – Thanks for posting again—twice in a row. It does concern me though that you are increasing your level of vitriol, insults, and obscene references. Are you going to become violent next?? You must be quite insecure your beliefs since you cannot rationally make your point. Seems to point to insecurity and a lack of belief in your own words.
Perhaps if you stated your case in a rational manner without the constant insults, people might, and I say might, pay a little more attention to what you say.
Since I know rationality will not creep into your posts we can continue to write you off as someone who must get paid by the word and not the quality of content.
Good luck in your quest to write the most words with the least content. You are by far the leading contender here, although your buddy Reality is giving you a run for your money.
Novice #72 says:“They’re here only to do jobs no one else will – remember?”
What jobs are the people comprising “95% of all warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.” doing for us?
What jobs are the “Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally” doing for us? They sneak in here, commit a crime, and get free room and board with their Homies on my dime.
What jobs are the welfare recipients doing for us? “Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare”
What jobs are the “29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens” doing for us?
What jobs are the “According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide” 30% still on welfare after 22 years doing for us?
Could we not get legal aliens to do the work you speak of? My immigration policy is simple: you want to work, welcome! We’ll give you a temporary green card, a social security number [so we don’t have “40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card. “] and you can pay taxes to help pay for the myriad social services you suck up.
If you’re up in El Norte illegally, have a problem pregnancy and end up in National City or Escondido, I’d ship you back and let your country take care of it.
NO welfare for illegals. No in-state tuition for illegals. No MediCal for illegals. If I snuck into your country, I’d get none of that; nor would I get a court appointed lawyer and court-appointed interpreter if I broke your laws.
DB—you sure swear a lot. Does that give you a woody or something?
Ghandi & ML King had some serious character flaws; but we have come to recognize that it was their entire respective lives that had meaning, and so most of us respect their legacies.
Cindy & Chuck have flaws. Their respective “warts” have had significant airing. Their respective replies to accusations have taken up much of their time.
Few of us will be convinced to change our votes based upon the rants from the other sid’s supporters.
So, can we all back off hacking at the other person, and ask Chuck and Cindy to do the same, so that each will have time to fashion and to communicate to us and to the voting public what they intend to do to get San Jose out of the mess it’s in?
Barnum:
Ya know, I think its your insecurities about your candidate that causes you and the rest of your fellow Disciples to go after me personally. Because, since you all can no longer talk about how great and moral Chuck Reed—to the point of near canonization(thats a big word Barnum…go look it up).
You know, my words must have alot of content—particularly content you don’t want to hear. How sad for you Barnum.
I don’t think my insults—given in return to insults made first against me I might add—have anything to do with the central issues here. While I know you, Barnum, and the other Disciples (including Single Gal) are desperate to change the subject—sorry, thats not going to happen. Cause your boy Chuckie played the “morality”, “reform” and
“honesty” cards—and now, that none of those messages work—he has to live with the consequences of being caught in his own rhetorical net. So here is something for you to consider, and, if you have the courage, to act on:
1.) Chuck Reed DID NOT release all of his taxes…he mysteriously has refused to release his “Schedule A”. The “Schedule A”, my dear Barnum, is where you list deductions for charitable contributions. He supposedly refuses to do so because he wants to protect the privacy of his family and worries about the “larger policy implications.” No, Chuck, you are probably worried about being caught and, possibly, investigated for tax fraud. Barnum, please ask him why…
2.) Chuck Reed has refused to release the list of his clients who have done business with the city and whom have benefited directly from legislative/governmental actions of the City Council that he directly participated in as a Member. Barnum, please ask him why…
JMOC:
“DB—you sure swear a lot. Does that give you a woody or something?”
I don’t know JMOC, you’re clearly talk like Republican. Does that mean you like soliciting 16-year old boys over the Internet or something and then covering it up?
Oh sorry, was that too close to home …
Employee…you are full of crap…lets leave it at that.
JMOC…for the dates listed, for the checks that were stolen there was no correlation betwen them and ANY REIMBURSEMENTS filed with the f9*()*&ing; Council by Chavez. The City Attorney and City Manager both have said this. Jesus, are you f9*&()&*ing dense or just using the Joe McCarthy and/or Spanish Inquisition method of proving guilt and innocence.
Do me a favor, since you never believe me (even when I am DEAD-ON with my charges), go ask the City Manager and City Attorney about what I have said. Jesus, it stuns me to what length you guys will go is there?
And I will ask AGAIN…why won’t Chuck Reed release his “Schedule A” charitable contributions form?
Here is my guess, because he took those supposed “charitable contributions” off his taxes even though he got reimbursed for them.
BTW, for you dense Disciples, thats called tax fraud…I wonder how Chuckie looks in orange?
How come none of you recognize that Chuck Reed failed ALL of us by failing to acknowledge that he knew about the WHOLE Norcal deal TWO YEARS before the Council even got the bill.
Why don’t any of you Disciples, Tricky Vic Minions, seem to recognize this.
Oh, I know why…because it wrecks your message that your boy Chuck is “Mr. Reform.”
BTW, I have NEVER, in my 15 years in politics, seen a candidate drop so fast in the eyes of the public than Chuck Reed. Wanna know why?
Cause he destroyed himself and his own credibility through his lying, arrogant and self-serving, know-it-all, sanctimonious attitude…
#79 – Your ending remark to JMOC is unnecessary. It’s difficult to tell if you made it in jest.
Does anyone know if Reed released his charitable deductions he claimed on his income taxes today? Another day goes by and no deductions…..hmmmm what does he have to hide?
I’m hearing the fundraising totals are out and Reed did not do so well. Can’t imagine what it was like for him to call people and ask for money using his honesty, fiscal responsibility, and open government message.
Here’s an idea maybe he can write himself a political contribution and then get it reimbursed from the city. That is what he has done in the past (Friends of Lan Nguyen, Asian Democratic Club-PAC, AIPAC)—-someone better alert the City Clerk to be on the lookout for a reedimbursement for Chuck Reed for Mayor.
And Wonder Woman…I am always amazed by your selective outrage at things.
And yes, for those who don’t know… it was in jest. Clearly Wonder Woman, you are, once again, desperate to change the subject away from Mr. Reed’s stealing of taxpayer dollars.
Again, its not going to happen.
DB – As usual, you are wrong again. Reed is not my candidate. I believe, as others here have said, that neither candidate should be elected. Since we don’t have that option we have to look at whose record over the past 7 years most closely reflects the beliefs and values of each of us.
You have wasted time raising the same issue over and over as you attack Reed. You have offered nothing as to why we should support Chavez. You certainly haven’t made the case as to why we should not support Reed. You have become a one-trick pony and we all know what happens to those unfortunate creatures.
See ya in the glue factory.
#82 – Thank you for clarifying your comment. And, I was not outraged, just thought it seedy.
Barnum,
I am tired of is Chuck Reed’s hypocrisy and holier than thou attitude and you, and others, constant promotion of a candidate who steals from taxpayers and tries to justify it. Frankly, in his own “Reed Reform” manifesto, he says that any political figure discovered to have broken ethics laws should resign immediately.
If you are so subtly saying that Chuck Reed reflects the values of others on this blog…I hope to God they aren’t parents. Because, as I told Single Gal, I really don’t think you want to send the message to children that its okay to steal money and lie to the people for personal gain.
Also, you have yet to prove any of the allegation you and others have made against Chavez…I have proven it against Chuck.
I am still awaiting Chuck’s resignation…
BTW, has any of you Disciples asked Chuckie where his “Schedule A” is and why he won’t release it?
re #81- too bad the mayor race isn’t about who is going to raise the most money. chavez had twice as much fundraising dollars as reed during the march vote and still got trounced.
too bad chavez can’t use her labor money to buy votes. too bad she can’t buy integrity either.
“Does that mean you like soliciting 16-year old boys over the Internet or something and then covering it up?”
The page was 18. Legally an adult.
So DB, you’re in essence condemning a Republican congressman for being guilty of a gay lifestyle.
But in the next breath you’ll tell us that it was ok for the President to engage in sex with a 19 year old female intern?
Nicely done!
Wonder Woman:
You are welcome and appreciate your comment about it. I reacted poorly to JMOC’s ridiculous question.
#86
Mulcahy got trounced. Cindy made the runoff. Maybe you know if Chuck released his charitable deductions he claimed on his income tax returns today?
I hear some polling data is coming out and Reedimbursements 28 point lead has shrunk by about 20 points—-ouch
Hey, but he didn’t do anything wrong, right?
DB – As has been your pattern for all of your repetitive posts, you ignore anything that has been said about Chavez. It has been pointed out how she governs via questionable ethics. You ignore it. It has been pointed out how she can’t be trusted. You ignore it. Your only standard of ethics is was it legal—not was it the right thing to do.
You have proved nothing about Reed that other councilmembers haven’t also done (as has been said, that doesn’t make it right, but it also doesn’t make it illegal.) If and when there are charges filed, then we can talk about that. Until then all you are doing is avoiding talking about what Chavez has to offer and why she should be mayor.
I know you won’t engage in a real discussion of ethics and open government and actual solutions to the problems facing San Jose, because your dog won’t hunt.
It would be refreshing if you dropped your silly game and engaged in a real discussion. There are critical issues facing San Jose, and Reed’s problems are not the most pressing issues before us. That will be dealt with appropriately and either he or Chavez will be the next mayor. I could be wrong, but I would assume you would like whomever is the next mayor to do something during their four years other than repeat endlessly your favorite topic.
Do you have anything else to offer us? Why should we support Chavez? What are your solutions to the problems of San Jose? Anything??
DB #88 says he reacted poorly ,to my “ridiculous question”. Would that question be the one I posed @ the end of #78: “So, can we all back off hacking at the other person, and ask Chuck and Cindy to do the same, so that each will have time to fashion and to communicate to us and to the voting public what they intend to do to get San Jose out of the mess it’s in? ” I can see why DB would not like such a question. It would silence him. [not such a bad thing, eh?]
#89 – prior to the march vote, I think most polling data had cindy as the frontrunner. maybe she can win some poll votes prior to the nov vote as a consolation prize since it doesn’t look like she is going to win the real race.
compared to the money they spent, cindy still got trounced in the march vote.
JMOC:
This is why people is San Jose call you a ill-informed, over-reactive bomb-thrower.
I was reacting to the idiotic question you made in #77, you tool. Not the one at the end of #78.
BTW, for your information,I think the question you posed in #78 was very logical and well-thought out …lord have mercy.
Novice:
First, you are ANOTHER ill-informed Disciple of Dr. No. The page he talked to AND IM’ed AND proffered for sex was not 18 at the time…he was 16. Jesus, go read the paper for once—either in print or online. Thats the whole point of the investigation and the scandal. Maybe you will see there the proof of Dr. No’s misdeeds…
Second, I care more that Mark Foley is a dirtball pedophile whose Republican “colleagues” covered for to protect their majority.
Third, Monica Lewinsky was 22 at the time…not 19. She actually WAS legal.
Fourth, I am condemning Foley for his actions as a human being—his sexuality is irrelevant but nice try at the spin cycle. But I am very disappointed that in the current political atmosphere run by you Republicans, he couldn’t express the fact that he was gay. Jim Kolbe (he was a Congressman from Arizona) did and the morality police in the Republican caucus forced him to retire.
But then, when I consider the utter stupidity of your question, I remember that you support a candidate like Chuck Reed who agrees, in large measure, with many of the same socially repressive issues that his Republican friends and his Republican consultant, Tricky Vic Aljouny believe.
Fifth, it was said in jest…as was JMOC’s comment in #7
Listen, Novice, I don’t mind the slings and arrows—I enjoy them. But for chrissakes, at least know what the heck you are talking before you run your trap.
BTW, I will ask for the umpteenth time: Can someone please tell me where Chuck Reed is hiding his IRS form Schedule A and why, Mr. Open Government, won’t release it to the public like Chavez has done.? Why does he allow this hypocrisy to continue?
Well, RC/DB has finally gone off the deeper end. Today at City Hall he was out front in a chicken suit (I kid you not!) Dancing around handing out flyers asking about Chuck’s taxes. When told he couldn’t hand out flyers w/o a permit, he went back to the hen house and got a sign that had some chicken scratch on it. He walked around bleating like a sick chicken every once in a while. It was a hoot!
Oh Employee…why so bitter…I guess the sugar medication isn’t working. Now, like your boy Chuckie…you just make stuff up.
Clearly, you need more to do in your cush City Job. Is getting Chuckie’s coffee and bagel in the morning not enough for you?
JMO – #69 – They’re here only to do jobs no one else will – remember?
Ain’t getting low prices on avocados and having you’re grass mowed cheaply great?
The smackdown got you down brown clown?
Getting hit with folding chairs of truth has that effect on hypocrites.
But don’t feel bad – you’re not alone – this board is littered with the wreckage of leftist hypocrites who’ve tried and failed.
If I bang my head against the keyboard this is what happens: ;zxcdsldsl;cax[opzxc0ozx9iwsiw3iozsi.zs
(Man, you got to work HARD to be the craziest S.O.B. on this board!)
Downtown Clown,
Yeah social oppression – good one.
Look no further than Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell a ‘house slave’. Instead of outrage, the sound of chirping crickets and tacit approval was all that could be heard from the left.
The silence was deafening wrt to Clinton’s sexual assaults. Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones, and on and on – women who were all thrown under the bus by the left without a peep or a “hey hey ho ho” from the feminists.
Aunt Jemima caricatures of Condolezza Rice by leftist political cartoonists? No problem-o.
Any racial slur or bigotry is fair game when minorities dare to wander off the democratic plantation.
All Foley had to was to pull a Jeffords and he would be welcomed into the Democratic fold with open arms and a defense fund started in his name.
After all democrats have a history with sex offenders – only difference is the democrats not only don’t kick their sex offenders out of office – they reelect ‘em!
You know – like your pervert Gerry Studds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds – reelected 5 times *after* engaging in multiple sexual releationships with minors by the moral high ground types in Mass.
Or Barney Frank and his male prostitute ‘partner’ and the prostitution ring run out of his house. Apparently not a problem for Mass. voters.
I think Cali should look into paroling our sex offenders to Massachussetts.. scratch that.. not a good idea.. they’d just end up getting elected.
Novice, you poor ignorant right wing sap…go back to watching your friends on FOX News and Hannity & Colmes. Let the adults talk about important things.
#94 Sounds more like RR to me.
Will Chuck release his charitable tax deductions soon? Will he release his private law client list soon?