First he behested $200,000 on behalf of a shadow group under the control of John Arnold, the former Enron executive who helped crash California’s economy before making big bucks as a hedge-fund manager. Then he acted as chief requester for $50K from Richard Riordan, the former mayor of LA, and a matching denomination from a couple of pension-busting obsessed businessman in Silicon Valley. Now, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, in his quest to put a state pension reform measure on next year’s ballot, appears to have joined forces with the Manhattan Institute and its billionaire chairman Paul Singer, an ardent supporter of The One Percent.

Mayor Chuck Reed is a good lawyer. That’s why his pension reform proposal for the city of San Jose made no sense. And that’s also why he’s moving forward with a statewide petition to change the state Constitution. It is the biggest admission we have to date that Reed understands the legal flaws to San Jose’s pension reform initiative, which voters passed last year.

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed on Tuesday filed to put a polarizing state constitutional amendment on the November 2014 ballot that would allow government agencies to dial down public pension benefits. If voters OK the Pension Reform Act of 2014, it would change the state constitution to empower government agencies to negotiate existing employees’ pension and retiree healthcare going forward.

Hyperbole is the crudest way to make a point. It’s also the easiest way to lose an audience. But there’s a desperate talking point in local political circles going unchallenged. No longer.

What in tarnation is Chuck Reed up to? Pension reform, of course. The mayor of San Jose got future benefits for city employees scaled back last year with Measure B, and now he’s taking aim at a state ballot measure with the help of Texas moneymen and California libertarians.

After failed past attempts to regulate medical marijuana collectives in San Jose, the city should take up the issue again, says Councilman Don Rocha—just as a voter initiative to legalize the stuff cleared for signature gathering. Other items on the agenda for Wednesday’s Rules and Open Government Committee meeting include Councilman Xavier Campos asking for the city to sponsor a gun buyback event, Voice Mayor Madison Nguyen wanting some pension reform clarification and David Wall doing his best David Wall impersonation.

Everyone loves applause—especially politicians. Yet leadership in difficult times often requires making decisions that don’t draw applause. It means having the independence to stand up for everybody, not just the loudest voices or the most powerful groups. When leaders have the independence to tell those groups what they don’t want to hear, it threatens the status quo. And threatened people yell. So, let’s take a breath, hit the “pause” button on the yelling, and start where we all agree. First, San Jose needs more police officers.

After royally screwing up the Environmental Innovation Center (EIC) project, the city’s trying to clean up the mess by hiring a financially stable contractor. The City Council will consider a takeover agreement with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company when it meets Tuesday. Other items on the agenda include a project to house homeless people, new developments at the airport and a review of local cities’ disability retirement programs.

All the votes were counted weeks ago in the District 2 county supervisor race, but the total campaign finance numbers have only recently become available. One thing is clear above all: A staggeringly high amount of money was spent in an election in which a staggeringly low number of people actually voted. But why would the county’s Democratic Party spend so much money on one candidate when there were two viable Democrats on the ballot, especially with so many important races coming up next year?

UPDATE: The proposed “soda ban” did not make it out of committee Wednesday.—Editor

What’s the most pressing issue facing the City of San Jose? Is it following through on pension reform to reduce unsustainable sky-high pension liabilities? Paving our streets? Hiring more police officers? Restoring library hours? Unfortunately, some at City Hall believe that telling you what you can and can’t drink trumps all of these other pressing concerns. Today a City Council committee will discuss a proposed ban on “sugary drinks” at all city properties and all city events. Just what is classified as a “sugary drink,” you ask? The answer may surprise you.

In a move New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might appreciate, Councilman Ash Kalra wants to ban sugary drinks from all city-owned buildings and city-sponsored events. Other items on the Rules and Open Government Committee agenda include a potential raise in the airport’s noise curfew fines and David Wall alleging that the Environmental Innovation Center fiasco was a ponzi scheme.

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed worries about the unlimited spending by independent expenditure committees during elections, saying it gives outside interests more sway than individual candidates. At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Reed and his colleagues will consider a motion to lift voluntary spending limits on candidates to even the playing field with committees during campaigns. Other tiems on the agenda include updates on contracts related to the Environmental Innovation Center and the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

News slows down in the summertime, so San Jose Inside columnist Rich Robinson takes note of some of the bigger and more under the radar stories of August.

A funny thing happened after Willie McDonald announced in a June 10 email to San Jose Fire Department staff that he was staying on as fire chief. He decided to send another email, only in this message, dated June 13, McDonald thanked everyone for their hard work and abruptly informed them he was leaving for Las Vegas, where he would oversee Clark County’s fire and ambulance services. So, why would a fire chief leave for a job expected to pay him less and demand more? And what would make him change his mind?

In what may turn out to be one of the most expensive races ever for a local county office, Cindy Chavez has captured the District 2 Supervisor seat held by her disgraced former ally, George Shirakawa, Jr. The victory places the largest county government in the global home of leading edge technology—from Teslas to Google Glass—firmly in the hands of an old-fashioned political machine; a classic one that delivers votes, wins elections, rewards its followers and dispenses benefits. Over the next two years, the board will vote on billions of dollars in employee compensation contracts—the county spends $3 billion a year on salaries, benefits and pensions—for the members of the unions who returned the former San Jose city official to public office.

Voters in Santa Clara County’s District 2 will choose a new county supervisor Tuesday, when Teresa Alvarado and Cindy Chavez face off in a special election. The two Democrats are vying to replace the seat vacated by George Shirakawa, Jr., who resigned amid scandal in March.