It is said that in war, truth is the first casualty. I have often felt that it is the same in political campaigns—where the stakes are lower and the attention slimmer. We will see how much this axiom holds true in the currently forming battle for mayor of San Jose. The result will determine a lot: most everything about our evolution as a city and region, our national reputation, our ethics, and the wellbeing of future generations yet unborn. Now, that is raising the stakes a trifle.
The primary election was largely a struggle between some nice personas and some vague ideas, interspersed with one or two distinct agendas. Chuck Reed had honesty; David Pandori, clarity of vision; Cortese was a proven, aggressive presence; Cindy Chavez offered a litany of accomplishments, a winning personality and a bit of a foggy vision; and Mulcahy, a pleasant demeanor and a chance for a change. The first two really held the attention and weathered the long months well.
All has changed.
The general election will be a battle between a seasoned political machine—with the backing of big labor and most of the major housing developers—and a solitary man with a message. That message carried great weight in the earlier election; it may again. The coming two months will see the lines blurred on who is right and who is wrong; who is honest and who is a prevaricator. Remember Mark Twain’s famous description of falsehoods and issues-fudging as: “… lies, damn lies, and statistics.” We are going to see a lot of “statistics” soon—it has already begun—and there will be more explosions than light, I am certain.
It is up to each of us to decipher the difference and make sure that in this election—the most important in the modern history of the city—the winning vote does not go to the campaign that can best push the “big lie” or best fudge an issue. We must be aware of the strength of such tawdry tactics that divide and confuse, or we may find that our nascent efforts at good government will be the final casualty of this election.
Well you quickly verified your own statement – Will Truth be the First Casualty?
Describing Chuck Reed as a solitary man with a message is truthiness unless you mean his inabiity to gather support for his proposals
General election will be a battle between 2 seasoned political machines – Labor and Chamber using “tawdry tactics” over who will control city government “done deal” culture both financed by developers We will see both candidates as honest and as prevaricators supported by “… lies, damn lies, and statistics
We will see much truthiness and little truth
Truthiness is a satirical term by which a person claims to know something without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts
Truth and Good government was a casualty in San Jose years ago but campaign could be “most important in the modern history” of our city if we insist that – truth and good government be real outcome – not just electing 1 of 2 flawed politicians
Recently, a friend compared Chuck Reed to Bob Dole. Both served their country well, both honest, both bland as white bread. He said Chuck would have a much better chance at getting elected, if he let his hair down. Dole did this after he lost to Clinton and became more likeable. Perhaps Chuck needs to do a Viagra commercial.
Personally, I think Chuck looks and acts more like a blend of Honest Abe and Jefferson Davis. Hows that for playing both sides?
Tom is correct, this election takes on much added significance for a single reason: It actually is a real opportunity to break the unholy alliance of Big Labor and Big Business, both of which have ransacked the city coffers recently, turning our taxes into some weird kind of Big Project slush fund. Hey, whatever creates jobs and pours concretes—we like it.
Reed is no sainted figure, but he stands athwart those interests and says No More. With a simple message of fiscal restraint he gives the sj citizenry an opportunity to take back the power the last administration so abjectly ceded to the labor and development machines.
Vote reed.
Citizens—is Tom right—did anyone see or read the comments in Sundays Mercury News that Vice Mayor Chavez gave at a rally?
Here we go again—we’re getting MUD SLINGING against a candidate running against Chavez by Chavez.
I hope people remember when she—through her cronies on the council—did the same thing to Dave Cortese in the primaries to kill votes for him. Now she’s doing it again but this time against Reed. Remember, all this coming from a vice Mayor who voted -YES- on the garbage deal and who also claimed not to know anything about the 4 MILLION needed for the races in the city. This being said when all along she was at and participated in the meetings where this was discussed with the Mayor (selective amnesia). Then later, she tried to recant by saying that it slipped her mind.
Is this a person the San Jose can TRUST? Is this someone who speaks truthfully or is this, as Tom calls it—the “big lie”—or—“tawdry tactics that divide and confuse”?
I guess if people want corruption and backroom deals to continue, and accept “Truthiness” as the norm—then Chavez’s the one.
Concerned Citizen
Am just curious how anybody can be portrayed as a “..solitary man..” in this day and age when it takes such a huge amount of money to get into office. I saw very little evidence of a home-spun, home-made campaign from most of the candidates, and Reeds was just as professional and slick as all the others. And somebody who has the backing of the Chamber has a huge political machine supporting him which made me curious about who has signed up under each campaign. So, I looked on both sites to see who is endorsing the candidates and there’s nothing in the Reed site. Now, I know he has to have some endorsement or financing or support from some deep pockets and large contributors or he would be touting the fact he’s gathering all that money in little amounts from small, personal donations. …I just want to know the source. Anybody know how I can easily find out this info?
The issue of Chamber vs. Labor support is not as clear as some would make it.
Chavez always had labors support.
Reed will almost certainly get the Chambers endorsement but he will be their second choice behind Mulcahy.
Reed made it to the runoff without the Chambers help. Chavez would not have even entered the primary without labors backing.
This gives Reed a degree of independence from the Chamber that Chavez will never have from labor.
Truth is often a casualty in political campaigns. It is an informed electorate that prevents lies from becoming truth.
But alas with the apathy we face in San Jose, I am less than hopeful.
Another thing about the truth, it is sometimes unpopular and very often not positive.
But one must distinguish truth from fiction and not dismiss information simply because it is couched in the negative.
Opinion is not necessarily fact or truth, but if opinion is based facts it is better than mere conjucture alone. Facts can lead to truth, but isolated they are merely accurate.
The real question is can the electorate handle the truth? And once established, will it be accepted?
To wit: many on this board believed and opined that Cindy Chavez was aware and culpable in the Nor Cal scandal.
Will they accept the truth now, after four investigations? Will they apologize and recognize her courage for saying no to her friends? Or will they continue to use guilt by association as the best way to win a campaign?
I’ve been in this business long enough to know the answer to all four questions—but here is hoping. . .
#4—Cindy – “As it turns out, Chuck Reed knew about the secret deal two years before the rest of the council.”
Reed later disputed knowing of any illicit deal between the city and trash hauler Norcal Waste Systems. All he knew, he said, was that Norcal and its recyccling subcontractor, California Waste Solutions, were having a disagreement over wages paid to recycling workers and that somehow Norcal expected to get money from the city.
Chavez told her supporters that although she has been the mayoral candidate suspected of having inside knowledge of a deal between Norcal and the mayor’s office – because it was labor-related and she is backed by labor – in fact it was Reed who knew of it.
A memo prepared by her campaign asserted that the city council might not have approved a boost of $11.25 million to Norcal’s contract in September 2004 if other members had known what Reed knew.
Reed called that assertion “silly,” adding, “I don’t think anybody was fooled i September 2004.”
This is reminicent of the questionable Cortese assertion. After that, he didn’t move a digit in the polls. Of course, after the primary his name was cleared.
I disagree with Cindy, it’s not because she backed by labor that leads me to think she was in on Norcal discussions prior to the council’s knowledge, it’s that she was too close to Ronnie, after all she began as his aide and should have distanced herself from him a lot sooner than she did.
We can bet it’s going to be a dirty campaign.
Developers and their lobbyists give heavily to both Mayor candidates so who ever wins they win – subsidies, credits, low fees, rezonings, high rise permits and do not pay full costs of fixing problems their building creates San Jose largest uncontrolled growth city in California, Growth is good, developer greed is rewarded and politicians get more contributions, been that way since 70’s
People rate as the “best cities” those that control Developer Greed and Require politicians to fully disclose contributions and other conflicts San Jose does not, so we have uncontrolled growth, bad traffic jams, few pools / parks and poor city services since taxpayers pay for what developers in other cites pay when they build
I just found a new blog @ http://www.rant.sv411.com written by none other than Rich Robinson. He comes out swinging in his first post, and just rips Pat Dando. This is one blog we all have to check out.
#7 RR
You speak as if the investigation is over. Cindy has not been cleared. It aint over till the Fat Lady sings.
San Jose will once again get what BIG LABOR and related Big Business Boys and maybe a few Girls, PAY FOR.
We will see labor (volunteers?) out again door to door, slick, dirty, big buck spot ads and the usual spin from PAID Cindy backers like RR.
To win in this up hill fight, Reed will need all the help he can get.
Will it be the return of the Gonzo Gang?
Hope not! but watch out. We have seen before what gets the votes…
#8 —I agree with your comment about Cindy Chavez—“she was too close to Ronnie, after all she began as his aide”.
Ronnie has been her mentor and teacher and she’s learned well from a consummate politician—sling mud and “Thruthiness” as soon as you can and as often as you can. People always hear the first comments thrown and seldom, if ever, hear nor pay attention to any rebuttals made.
Your right “it’s going to be a dirty campaign” and look who’s throwing the first dirt / mud ———the Vice Mayor. This should give everyone food for thought.
Concerned Citizen
RR,
Glad to hear you wont focus on SJ. If you actually lived in SJ, you wouldnt be spewing your mindless Chavez rah rah dribble.
Truth has not been a factor in SJ politics for the last 200 years. Politicians, by definition, are manipulators of Twain “statistics”. No offense, Tom, I think you were a good mayor. However, I’d bet a lot of money you used some statistics from time to time. Even Honest Abe used “statistics” to hold the union together.
The election, like most, will be driven by three factors:
1.It’s the “economy stupid”. Most voters will believe Cindy will provide more jobs than Chuck. It won’t matter where the money comes from. They just want their jobs.
2.San Jose is a Democrat dominated city. Cindy is a Democrat and Chuck is a Republican.
3.Groups vote for members of their own group – more people will vote in the general election and that means more Hispanics will vote. Guess who they’ll vote for based on a politically motivated last name?
It won’t matter who knew what about any contracts or who’s in with the Chamber and is perceived as honest or any other bla bla. It will boil down to the 3 aforementioned issues.
The pubic looks for and desires honesty in politics. (Honesty in all things for that matter.) However, looking for honesty in politics is like looking for an honest used car salesman.
San Jose politics is like a drunk. It won’t change until it hits rock bottom. Judging by other cities that have suffered similar fates bottom is going to be ugly…
” This gives Reed a degree of independence from the Chamber that Chavez will never have from labor” barely
but Reed and Chavez will not be independent from Developers contributors who expect paybacks from the public purse – let us count the ways again
Well, it’s not the way I wanted to announce my blog on this site, but Republican Guy’s heart was in the right place—I won’t deduct anything from his paycheck.
http://www.rant.sv411.com is up, but still has a few technical issues. People are free to blog on. . .
I want to thank Tom McEnery and Jude Barry for giving me my blogging start. This site has been great fun and I plan to continue reading and contributing—I have no exclusivity clause.
My site will deal strictly in politics with a little sports thrown in now and then. . .I will also include all Local, State, and National Issues. We won’t simply focus on San Jose.
It won’t have the history, culture or nuance of SJI, but I hope the satire, wit, and public discourse are of the same quality.
In any case, we have begun and Metro is picking up the tab, but Dan Pulcrano has assured me there will be no censuring of my comments, including those that are not in the same editorial vein as the Metro.
But as you all are already used to that. . .it should be fun.
Thanks again,
Rich Robinson
Real World, please don’t encourage Mr. Robinson to go away. Counter examples are extremely important. Without, Mr. Robinson’s drivel, logic from other contributors wouldn’t be as vivid.
Are Rich and Reality Check the same guy?
Take a look at this post at SV11:
http://www.sv411.com/?p=84#comments
with Rich repeating the tired claim that Chuck knew about the mayor’s deal. Good to see the SV11 editor does not agree with Rich or Reality Check.
Good luck with the blog Rich. How about a list of clients on your about page?
#17. Dexter. RE point 2 “Cindy is a Democrat and Chuck is a Republican.”
Actually they are both Democrats. Chavez had the local party endorsement, Reed does not.
What will be interesting is how the local Democratic party will relate to Reed if he is elected Mayor, and vice versa.
The fact the Cindy has the endorsement of the Democtratic Party is reason enough not to vote for her. They are so out of touch – and #17 thinks that Cindy will create more jobs – what, more labor jobs?
Chuck said that he knew that Norcal wanted more $ but said that there was no way that they were going to get it. Isn’t that the same thing that Cindy knew and said that she knew? What is different?
Steve,
Those who want a list of my clients need only go to erwgroup.com.
I’m into full disclosure as long as I don’t have to fill out any forms.
Rich
21 – Don’t confuse the Soldiers of Cindy with logic, that will just short out their circuits and cause them to keep repeating their own twisted version of events over and over again. Oh wait, too late, that has already happened.
#21. What is different is that Cindy voted to give Norcal the extra $11 million. Chuck did not.
I guess that’s why Cindy’s attempts to hang Norcal on Chuck aren’t going anywhere.
That’s the thing about Cindy, she seems to be in denial about her voting record. If she’d stand up and say “Damn right I voted for Norcal. It seemed like a good idea at the time…” or “You bet I voted for the takeover of the Tropicana for the following reasons…” she wouldn’t have credibility problems. But instead of making a case for those votes her campaign yells “smear” whenever the subject comes up.
Chuck also has an unpopular vote shadowing him with his vote to shut down the Cisco investigation. But he does not duck the issue and seems willing to talk about his reasons for the vote when asked. I think his vote was dead ass wrong, but give him credit for not hiding from it.
Mal – Thanks for bringing some clarity to the matter. It probably won’t help those afflicted with Cindymania, but it does cut to the chase and explains it quite well.
#5 CWS has contributed to Reed’s campaign
Scott Herhold does a great job in today’s Merc explaining how Cindy is at best confused and at worst a liar about the garbage contract. To quote:
“What I distrust is the warp of the Chavez attack. The evidence is that Chavez met early with the Teamsters’ leader and a Norcal lobbyist in the fall of 2000. She signed on to a misleading memo from the mayor’s office in September 2004. Batting away arguments from Reed and Councilwoman Linda LeZotte about how the secret deal was done, she voted for the $11.25 million bailout for Norcal. Reed opposed it. Those facts aren’t going away.
Politically, the opening for Chavez’s attack came in Reed’s grand jury testimony. The veteran councilman said he had heard of “some sort of deal’’ in late 2002 or early 2003 in which recycler CWS expected to get money from Norcal, which in turn hoped to be reimbursed by the city.
“I had no idea how they could do that, so I was quite curious as to how they were going to pull this off,’’ Reed testified. “And I was watching for opportunities for things to be done that were not right.’‘
In the Chavez retelling, this was an admission from Reed that he knew about Mayor Ron Gonzales’ secret side deal. And his failure to disclose “these extremely important material facts’’ contributed to the council ultimately approving $11.25 million for Norcal in 2004.
This is pure hogwash. By the time the council considered the Norcal request in September 2004—and finally approved it that December—there were few secrets left.”
It’s somewhat sad that Cindy has fallen so far that she needs to resort to rewriting the past to try to cover up her imcompetence.
Thanks Mal – well stated as always.
Cindy really has nothing to lose at this point so why wouldn’t she come out slinging some mud? I am sure that it will only get uglier from her camp. I am not looking forward to that.
#28 – I don’t think it’s imcompetence that she is trying to cover up. I think she knew very well what she was doing and that she and Ronnie would get by without question. Now she’s scrambling to appear clean. And as was noted yesterday by #13, look who began the mudslinging.
Kudos to Herhold for today’s article, I don’t always agree with him, but feel he’s right on target today.
The “Chuck is a republican” strategy introduced here by Rich and floated elsewhere by the cindinistas must be failing. So now we get the big lie from Chavez herself: “Chuck is responsible for the norcal fiasco.”
Pitiful but hope for a big defeat and ms chavez-potter and will be spared her political leadership in the future.
It is sad to watch a political career slip away. Someone who was once thought to have great potential. A person who would make us proud and lead our city to bigger and better things. A rising star, etc., etc., Now we watch as that star crashes and burns and leaves only the ashes of what might have been. No, I am not talking about Gonzales (although it applies). I am talking about Chavez. Watching the self-destruction of a candidate is never a pretty thing to watch but it will be inflicted on us for a couple of more months. It will be ugly but soon it will be over and only the memories of what could have been will remain.
Say goodnight, Gracie. I mean, Cindy.
Have any of those who are bashing our next mayor, Cindy, read Chuck’s sworn testimony? He admits that he knew of the side deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003. Was there some other side deal that he was aware of or was it the side deal that Mayor Gonzales and Norcal cut in October 2000? He is asked no less than four times by the District Attorney about when he became aware, or was told, of about the side deal. Each time he says between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003. REED Chuck’s own sworn grand jury testimony.
The date of September 12, 2002 is very crucial because it was on this date that Joe Guerra, Norcal, and CWS met at City Hall and made good on the October 2000 side deal to make Norcal whole if the CWS workers changed over to the Teamsters. A garbage rate increase was discussed at this meeting to raise enough money to cover the new labor costs.
It was also on this date, in the afternoon of September 12, 2002 that Chuck Reed met with the same CWS representative/lobbyist/consultant who attended the earlier City Hall meeting, Tony Arreola and was told of the side deal. Tony Arreola was in the meeting at City Hall and testifies to what was said and by whom.
Out of all the days in the world why is it that when asked directly by the District Attorney when he first began to suspect a side deal, Chuck Reed says, September 12, 2002. No coincidence.
Why did Chuck not say something before the two rate hikes about his knowledge of the side deal? Why did he not disclose the material fact that CWS representatives met with him and told him of the side deal (Chuck’s own testimony). REED his testimony.
If you want the Reality also REED Cindy’s testimony and Pat Dando’s. Both of them give the same answer as to why they supported the 11 million dollar increase to the Norcal contract, fair pay for the workers. Yes, they give the same answer, REED the testimony.
The facts surrounding any involvement of soon to Mayor Chavez are captured on page 2200 of the tanscripts. On that page Julius Finkelstein says that when the Teamsters me with Cindy and asked for her help in October of 2000 she told them no and Bobby Morales got very mad. Cindy is not mentioned again in the summation of the case that was given to the Grand Jury.
REED the transcripts—and ask why Chuck did not share with the council what CWS told him on SEptember 12, 2002.
Have a nice weekend, RC. Your ship has sailed, your facts are twisted, and your desperation is showing. Come back when you have something new and something of substance. Read Herhold’s column today if you want to understand why most of us dismiss every word you write. Neither you nor Cindy have any credibility. And you can’t be serious by invoking the name of Tony Arreola—he has even less credibility than you.
The only way Cindy and Mayoral will appear in the same sentence will be …former mayoral candidate Cindy Chavez.
Dream on and have a Happy Labor Day.
Wondering,
I can’t understand why you don’t believe Chuck Reed? I believe him, he is telling the truth in his testimony, why do you doubt him? Please let us know what side deal he is detailing in his testimony if it is not THE side deal. Was there another side deal that he and maybe you know about? Why did he not disclose what, he says, CWS lobbyists, consultants and owners told him between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003 about the side deal? Why would he not tell his fellow councilmembers about the side deal before the rate hike votes? Why don’t you believe REED’s own testimony? I do and his own words will reach many voters. I will have a great Labor Day weekend, I hope you spend yours REEDing Chuck’s testimony and educating youself on his own words given under oath.
You’re always good for a laugh, RC. Why don’t you read Herhold’s column today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/15415262.htm
I understand you won’t like it because it uses facts to dispel your “swift boat” type tactics. As he says, referring your Cindy, facts just get in the way.
As they say, that dog won’t hunt. I’d give it a rest I were you, but then again if I were you I’d admit I backed the wrong candidate.
A desperate candidate is not a pretty thing to watch and your rantings make it that much more unpleasant. Spin all you want but most of us will actually read and understand the truth, not the spinning of you and your desperate candidate.
Here is the news story as printed in the Mercury News this past Sunday as opposed to a columnist’s opinion which you equate with fact as opposed to opinion, which it is, you still following me.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15374322.htm
Written in the NEWS article, not opinion piece, REED testifies: “I want to finish bracketing the time period when I would have heard about some sort of deal, and I said earlier, not earlier than Sept. 12 of 2002 and not later than May of ‘03. Because I was aware of it in May of ‘03 when we discussed the rate increases, . . . I was aware that CWS was expecting to get money from Norcal and somehow they were going to get money from the city.’‘
What deal is he describing when he says, “some sort of deal”? Who told him on September 12, 2002 of the side deal? Why did he not disclose to the council what he knew before the rate hike? If Arreola is so uncredible, why was Chuck meeting with him so often? Maybe he likes lobbyists, he does have a San Jose Registered lobbyist as his campaign consultant. Go figure.
REED his testimony. I believe Chuck when he says he knew before the rate hike votes. Why don’t you?
Reality Check – you are so clever with your little “REED” references. What, are you in seventh grade?”
Cindy and Pat Dando just wanted to give fair pay for fair work. No, they wanted to give fair pay in exchange for votes and donations. Fair pay? How about making $90k without a college education? Not fair.
RC – You continue to provide chuckles. Thanks for retelling the “news” story that was based on a Chavez campaign “memo.” Very reliable source of accurate information. Maybe you should try getting your “news” from someplace else besides the Chavez campaign.
Oh, did you hear that Chavez voted FOR giving away $11 million of public money and Reed voted AGAINST giving away that money? Chavez has yet to honestly tell us why she gave away our money. You don’t seem to have a problem with that, though, do you?
Save your breath in your response—you’ve already submitted the same response so many times I almost have it memorized. It’s a typical campaign tactic—distort the truth enough times and hope people will believe it. Not going to happen here. Better try a new tactic—like the TRUTH!
Reality Check,
Even the Metro doesn’t buy your pathetic attempts to blame REED for the $11 million union giveaway:
“But Chavez, in what can only be described as a big leap of logic, has waded into uncharted territory by blaming Reed for withholding material facts when he voted against the $11.25 million contract amendment—a vote, we might add, that he lost. “Everything that I knew was on the table,” Reed told Fly.”
Lets also not forget that Chavez testified on page 1274 that she first learned of the Mayor’s deal from the Graham report. Herhold points out in today’s column:
“…two Mercury News editorials before that fall filled in the blanks, pointing out that Gonzales had given Norcal assurances of repayment before the council voted in October 2000 to begin talks with the garbage hauler.”
Chavez does appear “lost in the fog.”
See http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.30.06/fly-0635.html
Reality check, Justin or whomever you are,
Give us a break. Chavez voted for the deal no questions asked, Reed did not. Chavez’s politics is as dirty as the fountain in Chavez plaza.
When is Chavez going to quit sucking up to labor and developers and start supporting the families of this city? And dont give us that BS about education leadership. The elementary schools in Chavez’s district have the lowest average API scores in Santa Clara County. Read today’s paper. That is spelled R-E-A-D.
#40. Reality Check: 8th grade & dodgeball.
That pretty well sums it up!
#9: unless you live underneath the Julian Street Bridge, you probably live in a residence built by what you term a “greedy developer”.
You speak of “low fees”. Obviously you haven’t a clue about the fees developers pay per unit they construct, and the land they dedcicate to public use, in order to get permits to build your house, especially post-Prop. 13.
You despise development, do you? So move to Zimbabwe; or even closer, Death Valley. No greedy developers there to spoil your sleep. Buy a camel, and you can pump up your chest about saving the air, too.
RR#15: ” but Dan Pulcrano has assured me there will be no censuring “. But will he censor them?
SJ Downer,
8th grade, thank you very much. Did you REED the transcripts? Didn’t think so. Now it’s off to the playground for some dodgeball.
She voted for the 11 million for the same reason that Vice Mayor Pat Dando did, REED or RE-REED the transcripts….I thought the news story quoted from the transcripts…is Phil Yost covering up for Cindy? What side deal is REED testifying about?
#43—Joker
Thank you for agreeing that Chuck Reed knew of the side deal before the rate hikes that were pushed through to pay for the side deal. REED Chuck’s own words, he knew, he admits it and most on this site just choose to keep their head in the sand and not look at the transcripts of REED’s own testimony. I believe Chuck, why don’t you?
Now I have a fingerpainting project to complete.
#37 So if you don’t have a college education you are not allowed to make $90,000.00? My aren’t we an elitist! What world do you live in? Some of the stupidest people I have known have “college educations”. Some of the smartest don’t. Just because you managed to sit through 4 years doesn’t mean you have a monolply on good wages. It’s not fair? You’re not fair! In your world only the college educated get a chance.
RC … First let me make this clear, I am not voting for Cindy or Chuck. With all of your claims about Reed not telling the rest of the council about the secret deal, would you please tell me what he had to gain by not talking. If he was voting against the deal, wouldn’t it have better served him to tell the rest of the council what he had discovered? That is, unless he knew the rest of the council already knew.
The only other reason I could think of why he kept it to himself was, he wanted to make Chavez look like an idiot. If that was the case, it worked!
#47 NGO ….. From reading the transcript it seems fair clear that:
1) Chuck was told that Norcal expected the city to make them well on the Teamster rate increase.
2) and was told by someone other than a principle in the deal…. which makes it hearsay.
3) and that others on the council were being told similar by a ‘non principal’ in roughly that same time period.
4) that in law, the written contract rules… not hearsay, rumor or verbally express expectation on the part of either party.
To accuse a public official of a back room deal (a crime), and do so on hearsay or rumor is in itself not right, if not illegal.
To say that he that he strongly suspected based on hearsay might be correct.
To say that he knew by personal witness, evidence or admission is a real stretch or outright incorrect.
To be fair; consider another possibility….
nCindy was close to Labor and close to the Mayor
nCindy is champion of the living wage
nTo be true to her values and support base, she was committed to support the $11 mil contract amendment, in the contract or not.
nAnd, had someone close to Cindy told a council member that she was part of a back room deal (a crime) to reimburse Norcal and workers…
Would it be fair, right or legal for that councilperson to publicly accuse her of an illegal back room deal without personal witness, evidence or admission?
I don’t think so.
Yes, TRUTH is the first casualty.
#48
You need to proof read what you write or quit posting.
#48-David D.
You should never trust a law degree bestowed from any institution that advertises on a pack of matches. Ask for your money back, fast.
I did not read the word hearsay once in Chuck Reed’s testimony, did you? He was told of the side-deal by CWS, the subcontractor of Norcal (his words).
Is there any testimony, anywhere, that other members of the council besides Ron Gonzales and Chuck Reed knew about the side-deal between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003? Please point it out.
Chuck admits in his sworn Grand Jury Testimony that he knew of the ‘side-deal’, (his words) between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003 (his words). What side-deal is he referencing? There was only one side-deal in this sorry mess—He should have disclosed this ‘material fact’ to the council BEFORE the vote on the rate increases in the Spring of 2004. Why are you and others having a hard time trusting Chuck’s own words? I believe him and have full faith in his testimony and will defend him against those of you who are trying to twist his words to advance your own political agenda. Chuck was truthful……. to a point.
If you need a letter supporting your request to get your money back from your matchbook advertising law school, let me know, I will swear you don’t know what you are talking about, really.
Everyone shouldn’t get excited about anything “RC” or “Reality Check” writes. It obvious he/she must be working for the Chavez campaign—that’s way the comments are presented the way they are.
Remember, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Concerned Citizen
To all who have tired of Reality Check, the one-trick pony from the Chavez campaign, please post the following: “Time Out for Reality Check”. Responding to his rant just eggs him on.
RC
Why no answers to #47’s questions? Short, simple and to the point, please.
#50 RC Thank you for proving my point.
You said…. “He was told of the side-deal by CWS, the subcontractor of Norcal (his words).”
Not Norcal, a party to the deal later indictid.
Not the Mayor, a party to the deal later indictid.
Not Joe G., a party to the deal later indictid.
He was told by CWS that Norcal was EXPECTING to be ‘made whole’ later.
That is in fact hearsay; not first hand admission from the makers of the deal who are now under indictment.
Even Cindy is smart enough to understand the realality of this…. though her ‘people’ to include you do not want to hear it.
Have a nice evening RC.