There are many things that must be done to change the ethical culture in City Hall. The mayor alone cannot make the changes necessary. It will take a collaborative effort between the mayor, the council and the professional staff.
Next year, we will have a new mayor, a new vice mayor and a new city manager. It’s a golden opportunity to make major changes.
I am running for mayor on a platform of honesty, fiscal responsibility and open government in order to give the voters a clear choice of direction for the city so that the people can send a clear message that things must change.
If I am elected mayor, I will present a package of reforms to the city council for adoption to make city government more honest, open and fiscally responsible.
Some of those ethical initiatives are proposals I made in the past but the mayor and council refused to support. Some are new. They will include changes in the Charter, changes in ordinances, changes in policy, and changes in behavior. I am presenting them to the public for critique and debate over the next few months.
The Reed Reforms are posted on my web site: www.chuckreed.com.
Here’s a direct link: http://www.chuckreed.com/pressreleases/060110_Reed_Reforms.pdf
Following decades of unchecked behavior in City government, it is, indeed, time for the Reed Reforms.
Chuck, while we’re on the subject of reforms, what is your opinion on our “mini-mayor” form of government by Council District? It seems to me that Council Members spend a lot of time gaming the system for projects.
It also appears that Downtown gets the lion’s share of RDA funding. In your call for a voter survey prior to annual budget proceedings, it is your intent to include the RDA budget?
I am with you Mr. Reed.
Last evening I had the chance to be on David Bonasera’s show, Environmental Concerns. It will air tonight. Dave is a supporter of yours and he passed me the copy of reforms you gave him. If I am elected as San Jose City Council member for District 3, where the most money is spent and the least is accomplished, I will support a serioius change in the political climate down at that barn they built on Santa Clara Street. Thank you for your leadership, I hope you will continue to work towards the removal of the liars who have embarrassed the Valley of Heart’s Delight.
“Environmental Concerns” airs in Campbell and San Jose on Thursday nights at 9:30 p.m. on Comcast’s channel 15.
Greg,
The mini-mayor form of government is an unfortunate element of the shift of power into the Mayor’s office and away from the professional staff. I would like to see the Councilmembers spend more of their time and effort setting policies and prioritites and stop micromanaging city staff.
I would include the RDA budget in my community based budgeting process.
Chuck
Chuck: Nice to hear from you again on this blog after a four month absence.
Did you ever get an answer to your 8/24/05 memo re unfunded pension obligations? If so, what was it? If not, have you followed up? If not, why not?
Any idea how to grow spines on councilmembers so they stand up to power grabs by the mayor? OOps, if you’re the mayor, would you want that?
Chuck: On you proposal #7—eliminate the words “in exchange for a vote”, since all politicians routinely deny that they exchange their vote for money or other consideration.
Chuck,
Given the less than stellar results that we’re seeing downtown – some on this board suggest that RDA has harmed, not helped downtown.
Why not give voters the opportunity to vote on whether RDA should be shut down and have the money spent on projects that benefit *all* of San Jose – not just the downtown.
Seems to me that at least 1 component of RDA – deciding which businesses get subsidies – is little more than a slush fund for special interests.
Enough with ethics and reform. Tell us about leadership and vision on other issues. How can we separate ANY of the individuals on the Council from the result of the full body? As Tom pointed out this week, under the current City Council we lost SJMC and our only major downtown grocery store. We also lost the Earthquakes. We now have 99 cent beer advertised on signs on gas stations (this was called a business development decision at the City Council meeting). And on and on. Are we better off today than a few years ago? It’s debatable, and I think the public is more interested in leadership and vision applied to “external” issues rather than this focus on internal government affairs.
Chuck,
At the January 10th meeting, the council approved the formation of the hotel business improvement district expected to generate $1.6 million per year. The funds raised from this room occupancy tax can be used for “research/rebranding San Jose, co-op promotions, new promotional material, and sponsorship of room generating events.”
Why did we have to subsidize the grand prix with the general fund instead of funds from this new tax? If the grand prix does not meet the objectives of this new fund, how are the funds going to be spent?
Charles,
Thirty four “new reforms”—you must be joking. But in the interest of good government let’s go through them.
1) It should not be easy to recall anybody. If the public were as “outraged” as the Mercury News and this board, Gonzales would have been recalled years ago. They are not, removing people from office would make Victor and myself a lot of money—but it is not good government.
2) The Oath of Office—why not just include the Boy Scout pledge of honesty, trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obediant, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent—that about covers it.
I especially like the thrifty part. Nobody has been born that hasn’t lied, people are not perfect. I would argue there are good lies, when someone wants to know where we are attacking in Iraq—an the Public Official lies—it saves lives—possibly some family members you know.
As Mary Poppins once said, “It is a pie crust promise,—easy to make and easy to break”.
The only outcome could be a constant tit for tat over who lied and what is a lie. That would grind government to a halt.
I like 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 25, 26. 33—but you can reduce it to one or two—much of it is redundant.
Requiring and prohibiting are two words that do not work—ie. requiring the Mayor and Council to sign a “code of conduct”. Prohibit Mayor and Council from “interference” with City Boards and Commissions. Prohibit Mayor and Council from “interfering” with RFP process.
Giving more power to the bureaucrats with no recourse for the citizen is a bad idea. I didn’t vote for any appointed official or employee of the City. If I have a problem I go to my elected official, I expect them to inquire and to be knowledgeable about the process and the subject matter. Is that interference?
If a bureaucrat is holding up an issue or a project and a Councilmember inquires is that interference?
Chuck this is a bad idea.
What are the vague proposals? “Plug loopholes in the lobbyist ordinance or Plug loopholes in campaign finance laws”
What loopholes are you refering?
What’s the difference between a volunteer, paid campaign worker, a worker who takes vacation leave to work on a campaign, etc.?
When Victor volunteers on your campaign before you are allowed to spend money—is he a volunteer or an in kind contribution?
And if he is an in-kind contribution and you have not reported it as such, are you not yourself in violation of the City Campaign Laws?
When you held coffees outside your district as you began your Mayoral Run, who paid for the coffee? Was it disclosed? If so, wasn’t that an expenditure before you were legally allowed to make one?
These ethics laws are absurd.
#29 Surveying the public in regards to budget priorities? I didn’t know they were so well informed on the City Budget. Most can’t even tell you how much the City spends, much less where it should go. That’s why we pay you—it’s called representative democracy.
If you wish, we can all make decisions over the internet and do away with the City Council entirely.
By the way, without polling I can tell you what the “citizens” want—less taxes, more services. Good luck.
#21 is grandstanding. I don’t need to know when you go to the rest room, dentist, doctor, meet with Gonzo, whatever. Besides if you are going to have a secret meeting—it won’t be on your calander.
#5 Prohibit late staff memos—even if they have information you need that came in at the last minute? Can you think of anytime new information came in at the last minute that helped you make a decision? Some decisions need to be made immediately—with limited information. How about do the best you can. . .
#11 the Brown Act already does an adequate job—stop putting more restrictions on people—besides they are advisory, volunteers. Did you know many people won’t volunteer for these commissions because they don’t want to disclose everything about themselves? It is called privacy and even public officials deserve some measure of it.
14 and 15 are just meant to embarrass people. Some things should be dealt with in private—including employee relations.
#8 What a concept? Negotiiate in public—that will give you unions—who do not have to negotiate in public a huge advantage. Think about it, Chuck.
Anyway, I know you are a good person trying to run on reform. But my advice would be to simplify—don’t make it any more difficult and think about the consequences of new laws, prohibitions, requirements and restrictions.
It will simply be used as a weapon in political wars. That way we don’t have to talk about real issues like Alviso.
Chuck,
I got it, propose one reform:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I think it works and I’m not even religious.
I actually agree with a few of Rich’s comments that some of the proposals are silly and/or redundant. Seems like a good editor rather than a political consultant could help.
Despite Rich’s critique, at least Chuck has made some proposals in an attempt to fix a very broken system? What has Cindy done in that arena? (and making the secret deal to give away $4 million doesn’t count.)
I’d rather have Chuck put out a list of proposals, even if flawed, than have Cindy continue her plundering of my taxes.
Chuck, thanks for your reply. I’ve long thought you were the right individual for our next mayor. I am only one but you can count on my vote!
#9 ??? ” I would argue there are good lies, when someone wants to know where we are attacking in Iraq—an the Public Official lies—it saves lives—possibly some family members you know”
Stick with Vic, Chuck.
Were you aware that there was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place? Did you know there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Give me one good reason for a lie? That is the bottom line, what are the intentions of the liar? In the case of Iraq it isn’t to save a soul, it is to murder innocent civilians and children. And dump radioactive weapons all over the soil.
The intentions of the players in San Jose is to line pockets, feed egos, and play golf on money losing courses.
The problem starts way down here at the bottom of the food chain when our local political adviser seems to think we should simplify reform because everybody lies, and life must go on.
Stop the Madness.
Lying is a language game that has nothing to do with ethics.
Example: The gestapo comes to your door in Germany WWII. He asks you if you are hiding any Jews. You are, but you know that if you turn them over, they will be killed. Is lying in this case moral?
The greater good is often beyond language; resting in right action above all forms of speech. “Words are cheap”, afterall.
Get off your soap box and actually DO something good rather than complain about what is bad.
Lying is nothing more than a tool in the belt of the speaker. Used properly, one can use this tool to win what would otherwise be lost. The only problem is, who has the right to decide what ‘properly’ is?
Who cares about lying politicians? Is this really a news flash? Lyers tell you what you want to hear. so Is it any wonder that the truth speaking would be politicos get routinely beat?
Formula for success: Pander to the crowd. The individual and their ‘rights’ are mere details.
Chuck,
Today’s and earlier Blogs as well as my comments below point up some of the valid problems with a rules based approach rather than a community core values approach to a San Jose Code of Ethical behavior / Values
1) What is your viewpoint on the use of a community core values approach to establishing a Code of Ethical Behavior / Values for all participants in city government ?
2) Would you please in a future Blog give your viewpoints on San Jose’s current public participation process in the development of public policy and City Council decisions to include any suggested improvements
Thank you
————-
One of the greatest challenges facing democratic representative governments today is the development and maintenance of a code of ethical behavior / values based on our community’s core values for elected officials, city professionals and staff and all others that participate in city government.
The code of ethical behavior / values should set forth clearly the standards of ethical behavior which the community can and should expect from their elected officials, government and all other participants as well as procedures to maintain an ethical culture which will be a greater challenge that the initial establishment of our code of ethical behavior / values.
A community core values approach is preferable to a rules based ethics code since most rules based codes either have designed in loopholes or are open to various individual or legal interpretations resulting in confusion and differing viewpoints about compliance and in the worst cases the use of the ethics rules for political attacks resulting in a loss of public confidence in the honesty and integrity of elected officials and city government
It is widely prevalent in government that elected officials especially career politicians and their senior staff come to believe that by virtue of their positions they are entitled to certain privileges or owed an exceptions in terms of their behavior expressed as “ the ________ ( ethics / campaign / disclosure / public participation etc ) rules, really don’t apply to me / us etc “
This belief permits elected officials to rationalize and justify to themselves and others, on the basic of “the public good “ time constraints, efficiency or political reasons, behavior that is clearly unacceptable to the community, possibly illegal.
A rules based approach to ethics many times does not make unacceptable behaviors unethical or illegal since it depends on how well the government ethical code is written or the talent of their lawyers and political consultants to find loopholes or questions of interpretation assuming that the writers of the ethical codes did not purposely write ethical loopholes or vague definitions.
A well written values based approach clearly shows that when the core community values are violated the behavior is unethical with significantly less individual or legal interpretations or what is acceptable ethics confusion
San Jose’s City Charter Ethics section has very vague definitions of city government ethics and what is acceptable behavior that allows for significant amounts of individual or legal interpretation of acceptable ethics while at the same time many people in the community could view these behaviors as unacceptable.
SECTION 204. City Government – Ethics.
The citizens of San Jose expect and must receive the highest standard of ethics from all those in the public service. City officers and employees must be independent, impartial and responsible in the performance of their duties and accountable to the members of the public.
San Jose city government has not clearly set forth our community core values, that violations of our city charter or other laws are ethical violations and what is the code of ethical behavior / values that the community can and should expect from our elected officials, city government and all city government public participants
2 things are certain if you get elected Dennis
– We’ll have a good reading on the size of the moonbat demographic in D3.
– The ratings for the weekly televised city council meetings will go through the roof.
The Holocaust. You are equating backdoor garbage deals and Grand Prize millions that violate the Brown Act with the Holocaust?
I, too, know that lies are being told every second of the day.
So, I ask you to remember what I scribed above, “the bottom line is, what are the intentions of the liar?”
In the case of the Holocaust it was to protect humans from being murdered.
In Iraq the intentions are to kill innocent civilians and children and lace the soil with uranium.
At City Hall it is to line pockets, feed egos, and build dysfunctional golf courses, and communities and economics.
If the wonder twins had been sitting up there telling lies to keep gang members from shooting up our streets, or businesses from falling out one after another, I might agree that the lies were within reason.
But they are not. Reform is needed. Lies won’t get us anywhere this time.
Nobody is equating backroom deals with the holocaust—don’t be silly.
The philosophical truth is that everbody at some point lies. It could be a white lie, Chuck Reed’s tie look fabulous. It could be a statement based on erronious facts:.. “WMDs is a slam dunk.”
It could be posturing for negotiations, we can only afford to give the Union a 1% raise—when in fact you can afford a 2% raise.
It may be a slip of the tongue, dyslexia, a unthinking comment,—the point is everybody including Chuck has lied.
But lies come in degrees, Chuck is not a dishonorable person. He is a human being.
A problem results from putting everyone’s comments under a microscope—to find the lie for political purposes, to skewer your opponent.
All lies become equal in the eyes of the public. All politicians become crooked and dishonest as a result.
Lying about you mistress is put in the same category as lying about going to war. But the consequences for such dishonest behavior are vastly different.
A lie is not enough, did a person intend to lie, why did he/she lie—usually the most damning lies are those that are intended to protect the liar from some adverse consequence because their actions were devious. In government, business or personal actions these are the lies upon which we should focus.
But lying has become such a great issue to hammer your opponent. Whether it is about his mistress, her lover, his/her past drug habits, who gave them money for their campaigns, if they have a conflict, etc.
I think the legitimate press does a pretty good job overall in discerning the nature of public lies and exposing them.
The problem is in the degree a public lie is given. If all lies are equal, then Clinton should have been impeached for killing over 100,000 people for no good reason.
Which, I might add, is a better reason to impeach him rather than he got sexual satisfaction in the Oval Office without the knowledge of his wife.
Reed’s reforms will make criminals of them all. In fact, most previous reforms have made criminals of some very honest people.
But welcome to politics in the 21st century.
Dennis,
If you want to marginalize and have a unsuccessful City Council campaign race as some are already talking that you are already doing – keep on brining up non San Jose issues and examples when we have many important local political and other issues with local examples to discuss.
Please stay on local political issues and develop a well thought out campaign message for your district rather than rant on about national politics
As has been pointed out to you, this is not Berkeley or San Francisco and we have more then enough local issues to comment on. or should be conclude you are not knowledgeable about our local issues and therefore you revert to what you know – national anti war and envirnomental issues
You might want to list out the important District 3 and city wide issues and post them for comment to see if others agree with you.
Look forward to you running a good strong local political issues race since we sure need it, but the choice as always is yours
It’s interesting to read rebutals to Chuck’s ethics proposals. I’ll say this for the guy, at least he HAS proposals.
In contrast Cindy seems to have pulled off a Gonzales-style backroom deal with the Police Officers Association, getting an endorsement without the other candidates even being interviewed.
While that is certainly the POA’s right, it makes me question just how much thought the organization put into it’s endorsment process. As endorsements go, it doesn’t seem to be worth much.
Dennis is right, lying is a local, state and national issue.
Mal Content,
I think our law enforcement folks give great thought to who they will endorse and why.
Interestingly, Cindy was able to garner the endorsement even though Victor A. works for the DSA—a brother organization. The DSA and POA have always supported each other’s endorsement. It will be interesting to see what happens at the DSA.
As for Cindy not proposing any new laws, especially in a knee-jerk fashion, I think that shows tremendous character. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon, it’s tougher to govern in an enlightened manner.
Moreover, less is better—we already have too many laws.
Mal (#22 ),
You are right to question the police officers’ endorsement of Cindy Chavez and I should hope, in fairness to Chuck Reed and Dave Cortese, SJI might spend a day examining this issue.
Coming on the heels of its structured and seemingly objective assessment of each of the four DA candidates, the cops’ surprising, case-closed endorsement of Cindy Chavez stinks of quid pro quo. Given that the mayor is significantly more important, pay and working conditions-wise, to the cops than is the DA, the police union’s decision to slam the door on the other, very viable mayoral candidates carries with it significant risk—four years of risk, to be precise.
But why? Why didn’t the cops at least give Cortese and Reed the semblance of a fair hearing given that they might well be working with one of them should Cindy be defeated? And, more importantly, why was this endorsement engineered by the union’s an ex-president—a Gonzo/Chavez coconspirator on the verge of retirement? Why the hell would a union allow someone immune from its ramifications engineer such an important political decision? And what on earth was his personal motive? Keeping an under-the-table promise, greasing his next career move, or serving the membership? I’m not sure, but it looks like he screwed his union and his successor—big time.
So Dennis
What do you think about the other candidates in the District 3 race and when are you going to update your web site with the local issues you consider important or how you are going to handle them?
Makes me wonder… do you suppose the POA endorsement of the Vice Mayor was championed by that elite cadre, the Vice Squad?
The other candidates are outstanding.
With the article recently published on Sam Liccardo, I am excited. Change is possible. It is good to see someone from the DA’s office getting in on the madness and lies down at City Hall. The candidates, Jose Posadas, Tim Quigley, Manny Diaz, Joel Wyrick and Bill Chew, I have met them all and am postive they are interested in a different course at city hall. They each could get my vote if I wasn’t in the race. There are some other candidates as well, that I have not met nor know anything about.
My website gets updated regularly. We recently added the contribution button.
In terms of local issues, do you mean rhetoric like less taxes, more benefits??? My webpage is not intended to be that impersonal. However, as my letter states, feel free to contact me anytime during this campaign and let me know what you think I should be raising hell about. I will.
Viewing Dennis’ website gave me a headache.
The POA endorsement speaks more to the ignorance of the POA leadership than anything else. Even if they actually believe Cindy will be best at fighting for them to get an even higher pension package, it’s not very smart politics to not interview the other candidates. It just proves that City Hall is not the only place that stinks.
#28 – If you would actually vote for any of the candidates you mentioned then you haven’t done your homework. Some of the folks are OK and might make a decent councilmember, but some of them would be a disaster. Hopefully, you will study the issues better than you have studied the candidates.
Dennis,
If you’re elected to represent district 3, how will you use your seat on the city council to:
– stop global warming
– stop the war in Iraq
– stop the pollution of San Jose’s gutters and sewers
I am on Chuck Reed’s Reforms. A local issue.
To lie, with degrees as Rich states so very eloquently, reminds me of what my gramp taught me “it is your lie, tell it anyway you want it.”
I don’t need to do it anymore. I grew out of it. I was thinkig most adults had too. But with people like you supporting the lies, how can we expect to ever get a respectable conversation going about local issues?
Why adults seem to think we should keep on telling lies to each other is a local issue. I would like people to stop thinking that it is ok to self justify a lie.
To lie is one thing, but don’t step into the tradition that to lie is somehow justified. Now you are the one who is going to self appoint yourself as the justification judge.
Come on, talk about redundant. This is as local as it gets, it is the basis of our community, and the neighborhoods we live in.
While I was just following Rich’s lead on the Iraq Attacks in post #9 subpoint 2, War is a local issue, we have lost San Joseans. Might I mention that Pat Tillman, a San Jose hero, was killed by friendly fire, not anywhere near the lies the government released. Is that local enough for you?
How about them LIES?
#30 I actually used the word could, not would. There is a very strong symantical difference. What homework are you talking about? Does running for office mean I am supposed to say something cynical or degrading about the other candidates, or fear the snide remarks of not doing my homework will follow? The real issue is if we all sit here on San Jose Inside and in the candidates pool, circle the wagons and shoot inwards, the caravan won’t go anywhere. And Ron Quixote will still be running things? If that is what you are looking for, have it your way.
Novice, I don’t know a darn thing about stopping global warming. I speak about the effects of depleted uranium on the environment because it is radioactive and has a 4.5 billion year half life.
I think the war should be stopped because we are trashing the cradle of civilization with thousands of pounds of uranium. What good is democracy if you are breathing radioactive dust?
We can stop the pollution locally by enforcing the very codes that are written in CEQA and a number of other city, state and federal mandates. Forcing a builder to put a tarp/net around the site so that all the dust and particles don’t blow into the surrounding area is a start. That is going to be one of the defining moments of really becoming a big city. In the late 80’s they were already talking about oxygen portals for the people in Mexico City, Mexico. Air Quality has to be managed first, it has a causal relationship to water quality.
“Just one of us, restoring the pride of San Jose”
Please don’t forget where that came from…..
http://www.Larryfloresformayor.com
Chuck and David don’t feel so bad, Larry Flores didn’t get an invite too from the POA! He said that will just make his mesage be heard out even more. You three should have a sit down one day! I like what # 30 has to say…
The POA offices are located in district 3 is most likely how Cindy got the endorsement. The only other thing I can recall about Cindy, being a district 3 resident , is she championed some city code regarding the homeless posessing shopping carts belonging to shopping centers. It was a major Merc story at the time…
Some of these might be redundant but we need to put it in their faces like ABC or they won’t understand. these council people aren’t the sharpest tacks in the barrel.
John Michael,
I got the answers to my questions on the pensions. They are in a memo that is posted on the city’s web site as part of the agenda for the December 1st Making Government Work Better Committee. I cannot give you a link because the site is not responding at the moment.
The answers are basically as follows: San Jose is fully funded for retirement pension obligations. There is an unfunded liability for health care benefits for retirees that must be calculated and booked starting in 2007 in order to comply with GASB standards. The best guesstimate I have seen is a few hundred million dollars. The actuaries are working on it.
Chuck
Novice,
If we shut down RDA, we shut down the cash that the state allows us to keep and spend in redevelopment areas. Even though the money comes with state mandated restirictions, it’s still worth a lot.
Whether or not it gets spent downtown is a policy decision made by the City Council.
Steve,
The Tourism BID will be paid for by the hotels and it won’t be spent on things they don’t approve of. They don’t have any money in the fund yet, but if they did I would bet they would not spend it on a car race.
Ed Rast,
I am trying to do a couple of things.
First, make clear to everyone what kinds of behavior is considered unethical. I think you have to start by having clear standards.
Then make it harder to hide unethical behavior by having a more open government.
That combination will change behavior.
I don’t understand what you mean by using “a community core values approach to establishing a Code of Ethical Behavior / Values for all participants in city government ?”
What’s going on why is the Mercury trying to hide Larry Flores? They talk about all the money that Cindy has raised. She is the furthest behind in this race is this why she has raised so much money? What ever happened to 181 days before the race to start collecting money? The election is June 6, 2006. Does Cindy lie, cheat, and steal to run. She was telling the whole town she was going to run but took her time at filing and putting up her website. Larry I think took the bull by the horns and did this long before any of the others. He sure does have his priorities straight. This is why I am going to vote for Larry, he is just one of us, an average everyday blue collar worker.
The Sunshine Chronicles
A sunshine ordinance has been discussed for seven years. It was just defanged in non-public meetings. And it looks like nothing will happen until after the mayoral elections anyway.
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/04.05.06/sunshine-0614.html
Wow…its amazing how quickly things change in 10-month period. Mr. Reed’s reforms and talk of open government are all just a paper tiger.
So with that in mind, I challenge you Mr. Reed to do the following:
1.) Release your taxes. Stop hiding behind the lie that there are “larger policy implications” to consider. Prove to us that you didn’t take the “charitable contributions” that you made with OUR tax dollars off your own taxes.
2.) Release information regarding your clients and their direct connection to your work on the City Council.
3.) Release all check stubs to the public/media showing where you paid the city back for the money you stole from us to make yourself look good.
4.) Oh, and just for good measure, fire YOUR consultant, Tricky Vic, and send him back to Omaha—you know, the place he ran too to avoid ethics charges the last time he ran a mudslinger race in San Jose.
5.) Reveal how you stand on abortion rights (we know you are pro-life), working families and why you always vote no unless you get something for it.
6.) Please, in any way, justify the following:
a.) Why you stole money from the taxpayers and how you and Tricky tried to justify it.
b.) why you vote NO on everything, including keeping libraries open a few extra hours—is it because the libraries couldn’t pay you off fast enough?
Do these things now Mr. Reed—because you are quickly becoming the toxic candidate you desperately.