Greg Howe Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 4:30 am

Single Gal, not to worry, Cindy is toast.  Reform in the name of Chuck Reed is on the way!

Employee Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:13 am

Oooh Single Gal, you are going to incite the venom of of Justin, aka D. Brown, aka R. Check, aka illerate writer on these boards. He will be back screaming at us after the article in today’s Merc! And I agree with you, Cindy and Ron were quite close…until it wasn’t politically expedient!

Owl tastes like chicken Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:30 am

It is clearly documented that she officially became a “thorn is his side” on May 16, 2000 when she showed leadership by standing up to him by voting against him and his plan to scrap a developer fee based conservation plan to save San Jose’s burrowing owls. 

Gonzo’s still was able to scrap the plan as Cindy could only muster the votes of Linda LeZotte and Margie Matthews.

This really pissed Gonzo off, and their relationship really soured after that.  They barely spoke to each other.

The Vice-Mayor appointment was just all for appearances.

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:59 am

#1 Reed and Reform don’t seem to have the same ring this morning after the Mercury News unveiled his sneaky and unethical reimbursements.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15610459.htm

Did he really have to get his hundred bucks back from the city for the tsunami relief fund or the whopping 10 bucks back to support his neighborhood association?

Honesty is in his tag line for Mayor.  How honest is it to write a personal check to an organization leading that organization to believe that you support what they do or what they stand for and then run to the city to get your money back?  How ethical is it to donate personal money to organizations that endorse in the Mayor’s race and have the city foot the bill?  Are the donations to these organizations a gift of public funds?  Seems like it to me.

Chuck Reed’s slush fund should be taken away from him.  It is not my job as a tabxpayer to pay for him to get some CD’s and a monthly magazine from KTEH for his, or oops, the city paying for his memberhip.

And how insulting to the Vetrans organizations and other organizations that he, again oops, the city, payed to join.  He says he would not join them if he was not a councilmember, pathetic.

Hey, downtown brown, you ain’t so crazy after-all.

Reed votes for a revision of the gas staion ordinance to help his clients project and does not reveal who those clients are, Let the Sunshine In…..
Reed spends city money for lifetime memberships, political campaign donations, and charitable contributions and says its part of his job, Let the Sunshine In…..

Everybody now….Let the Sunshine, Let the Sunshine, the Sunshine In…..

P. White Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:19 am

Yikes! It took Reality Deflect until 7 AM to conjure up some sort of response? What’s taking you so long, Downtown? Can’t write from two people on the same computer at the same time?
This is the best the Reed haters can come up with? About the only thing this shows is that the city needs to improve its oversight for reimbursements. Even RC has backed off the “illegal” line. And how disingenuous is it of Chirco, Yeager, Campos and Williams to express shock that Reed was reimbursed?? These Chavez supporters could hardly say anything else since they are as loyal to her as she is to Gonzo (or was until this week.)
Clearly it is too bad that both candidates suck. As most have said on this board, neither one causes much excitement or passion. It is more the lesser of two evils. Reed’s reimbursements still pale in comparison to the millions of dollars in public money that Chavez has given away.
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a real choice for a great mayor. We have a so-so choice to select one of two mediocre candidates. Welcome to San Jose.

Wondering Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:25 am

Gee, I feel left out. Although I receive unrequested email from Chavez, I guess we’re not close enough to receive her “Dear Friend” mailer—at least not yet.
Sending out a selectively edited mailer to tell people “I’m not really that close to Gonzales” is kind of like the member of Congress who was named the dumbest member of Congress—and then held a press conference to deny he was the dumbest member. Duh!
Chavez hopes the electorate has no memory or understanding of reality. If she hasn’t been close to Gonzales then today is not Tuesday. C’mon Cindyfans—do you really think we’re the dumbest voters in San Jose?? Is that any way to treat your “Dear Friends?”

Steve Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:26 am

Today’s articles in the Merc show us the next six weeks until the election will be consumed by Reed showing us he is ethical and Chavez trying to convince us she is not Gonzales.

Neither candidate has vision for San Jose at this critical time. Can anybody name one big new idea proposed by either candidate that will generate enthusiasm and support from a large number of San Jose residents? I cannot think of one.

Why isn’t the Mercury News editorial board doing more to get the candidates to talk about substantial issues?  After all the editorials telling us what is wrong with San Jose, why are they not doing more to educate voters in the final weeks of the campaign? 

I would still like to see both candidates release their responses to the chamber and labor endorsement questionnaires.  I could learn more about the candidates with this information than I can reading the Mercury News for the next six weeks as Reed and Chavez sling mud at each other.

Native San Josean Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:27 am

I understand that someone has signed a formal complaint to the present Grand Jury to investigate how Reed has been dipping into public funds to pay for all sorts of goodies which benefit only Chuck Reed.  For example how do the taxpayers benefit from his membership in the VFW?  Maybe he should pay it all back.

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:41 am

#5 P. White
His donations using taxpayer dollars to political campaign accounts as depicted in the paper today are illegal.  He broke the law.

Using his rational, Reed could make a city paid for donation to George W. Bush or Arnolds re-election campaign account and it would be OK with him.  Is it OK with you?

Oh don’t worry, I bet Downtown Brown is putting something together now—it probably begins with, Told you so.

So Reed is ok in your book to get lifetime memberships to organizations that he says he would not support unless he was on the council—Is he planning on putting forth a charter change reversing term limits or is he saying one thing and doing another.  He says he becomes a member because he is a council memeber—why then a lifetime membership?  But its OK because it’s Reed.  If this was any other member of the council, this board would be calling for their heads.

Reed votes to benefit his secret law clients….
Reed gives gifts of public funds to buy his lifetime memberships….
Reed purchases advertisements in various publications during the time he ran for reelection and for Mayor paid for by the taxpayers….
Reed makes illegal political donations using city taxpayer dollars…
Oh, and there is more to come…The clerk has not released his credit card statements yet…maybe he did make a donation to George W. Bush—But hey P. White thinks that is cool, I guess?

Just Wondering II Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:45 am

Looks like this is going to be one of those eye opening mayoral races after all!

Who can dig up the biggest chunk of Pooh and smear the opponent?

Cindy has been dodging defeat since day one of the campaign trail while Reed came in very stealth like and a commanding lead. Unfortunately for Reed, it appears his opponents have him in the crosshairs. Wow!!

Grag your boots and smear gear, it’s going to get messy.

Willow Glen Will Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 7:24 am

Chuck Reed needs to be careful.  This race is not over.  Chavez camp and big labor will pound away at him on the payment issue.  They will go after his integrity.  All good candidates run nervous. 

Now if only Chuck could find out if Cindy is actually reporting the free tickets she gets.  Anyone got info and Barry Witt’s phone number???

johnmichael o'connor Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 7:56 am

Chuck Reed’s sophistry in explaining why the taxpayers should pay for lifetime memberships in organizations he would not join if not reimbursed is unconvincing.  His sophistry in stating that Cindy freeloads because she accepts freebies to community events while he does not—all the while seeking reimbursement from the taxpayers—is a distinction without a difference.

It’s not a small deal to me.  It reflects an attitude of entitlement and a willingness to feed at the public trough for personal financial gain that I find very troubling.

Too bad that write-in campaigns are fruitless exercises.

No matter who wins this mayors race, I’ll have to gargle a long while to get the bad taste out of my mouth about our choices.

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:13 am

Special Edition

http://www.rant.sv411.com

Mark T Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:33 am

Between that pathetic letter from my “friend” Cindy (and doesn’t her proofreader know that for any numeric reference from one to twelve you spell out the number?) and the coverage of Chuck’s reimbursements, my decision to write-in Pandori is becoming more solid as we head towards November instead of the other way around.  So many holes in that letter from Cindy that she should have printed it on Swiss cheese.

So Chuck can write off his donations on his taxes even though we SJ citizens paid him back?  Sounds like free money to me.  I can’t stand cheap people, and this is reimbursement action by Chuck is the lowest of the low.

At this point I don’t know which is really the lesser of evils.  They are both BAD for San Jose and political figures past or present that support either one of them are all shams.  These candidates don’t deserve support from any sector of the community, save for Cindy’s labor support which is totally understandable.

Just waiting for 11/8 when we hear the Einsteins in District 3 have elected Manny.  There’s a saying that goes, “Aim low and you’ll never be disappointed.”  Well, San Jose voters have managed to aim things so low that the only possible outcome can be disappointment.  Way to go, SJ electorate.  Clearly you all want this town to bumble its way through another four years and continue to be the laughing stock backwater that it so truly deserves to be.

P. White Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:48 am

Ah, Reality Deflect, you can’t possibly be as thick as you come across, can you? How you can say I think it’s “cool” is beyond me. Try reading what I wrote, then try to comprehend it.
The problem you and your twin Downtown have is you pick out certain words, twist them to fit your own distorted views and call it fact.
My point, which is obviously lost on you, is that neither candidate is a celebration waiting to happen. But all you do is bash Reed and ignore the misdeeds of Chavez.
I, and others have said, there are problems with Reed—killing the Cisco investigation, etc. But the problems with Chavez surpass Reed’s problems, so there lies the rub. The best choice for mayor is not a candidate so there are two choices left—vote for one of the candidates or don’t vote. Not voing is unacceptable to me. I can’t vote for Chavez because of her total disregard for public process, her gift of public funds, her ongoing support of the most corrupt mayor in our history, her telling people one thing and doing the other, and on and on.
Reed is no saint, but his track record is infinitely better than Chavez.
Try to understand. I know it’s tough for you and Downtown. And don’t tell me I said things I didn’t.

pete campbell Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:54 am

Dear Everyone:

Anyone can read for themselves that Reed’s reimbursement forms were APPROVED.  (the city officials signature can be clearly seen on the copies published in today’s Mercury News).

How can Candidate Chavez distance herself from Gonzales when she was the one who led the discussion and subsequent council vote to END the NorCal investigation?

The tone and conduct of the Chavez Campaign over the past few weeks serves only to confirm the view held by many in San Jose that a Chavez Administration would simply be an extension of the Gonzales Administration.

Proud to be a Reed Campaign volunteer,

Pete Campbell

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:12 am

Pete,

Approved or not, it was wrong.

The City Clerk has no way of knowing whether it was an appropriate expenditure. 

Approval only means it was paid—not that it was right.

Mal Content Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:19 am

For what it’s worth: Reed said today that he is writing a check to pay the city for all the reimbursements. He calls the reimbursements legit but says he does not want this to become a distraction in the campaign. (As if that’s not going to happen!)

SG: It’s going to take a lot more than a letter for Cindy to distance herself from Sugar Daddy Gonzo. The letter might have been more convincing if it had gone out before the indictments, not 6 weeks before the election.

#12. JMOC: Under Reed’s sophistry at least the nonprofits got paid. I don’t see how anybody benefits from Chavez accepting freebies, except for Chavez.

There’s a larger issue here that’s not being discussed. Many of these nonprofits come to the city for funding, permits, etc. The City Council votes on that funding.

Which is worse: a Councilmember buying a ticket for which he/she gets reimbursed, or a councilmember accepting a freebie from an organization for which he/she might later be asked to cast a vote?

Until I’ve seen otherwise I will give Chavez the benefit of the doubt and assume that she has properly reported all gifts of free meals, free admissions, etc., from nonprofits. But even with that assumption the question remains: Is there a potential conflict of interest in the acceptance of gifts?

Just the Facts Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:38 am

#5 & #15 P White… Well said!
So I can vote for Reed, who spends tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on group memberships to get votes, or vote for Chavez, who gives away tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to get labors support and get votes.  JMO you may have to gargle after you vote, I will have to take sleeping pills to be able to sleep at night, before I vote for one of these two characters.  Then again I could write in Pandori and sleep like a baby.  BTW, I felt the Merc did a good job today on exposing both candidates.

Bedtime for Gonzo Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:42 am

Did you see how Cindy’s check register was “stolen” for a period of two years so she couldn’t submit her expense for that time? First, why would someone steal your used check register and you still are able to retrieve that info from the bank. Is she hiding something there?

SJ Downtowner Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:44 am

#17 “The City Clerk has no way of knowing whether it was an appropriate expenditure. “

Uhhh, shouldn’t they? What does the City Auditor say?

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:47 am

Mal Content and others:

Cindy has personally paid to go to charitable events.  In some cases she may have used a political friends account—which is established for that very purpose.

But there is a tremendous difference between using taxpayer dollars and “friends” account.

Also, when the City gives money to charitable organizations it normally takes six votes—when

When Chuck gave out money, it took one vote—his.

BTW:  He was not just reimbursed for his meal, ie. a cost ticket, he was reimbursed for the donation to the cause as well.

This is crazy.  This is so out of character for him it boggles the mind.

That’s a huge check he is writing to the City today. 

I hope he includes the interest owed.

it doesn't matter what my name is Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 10:01 am

This election is utter and complete garbage.  Like #7 stated above, where is the focus on the real issues.  All of the press coverage is about the past; Chavez distancing herself from Gonzo, Chuck “Mr. Ethics” Reed was caught expensing questionable donations to various charities.  BIG DEAL.  The focus needs to be taken off the past and refocused on the major issues facing our city.  Both Chavez and Reed are career politicians and OF COURSE that they have items in their past that are questionable. Politicians who don’t have a few skeletons in the their closet are few and far between.  Everyone needs to GET OVER IT including the candidates themselves.  Reed needs to ease off the “Reform” Platform and start bringing focus to what he’s going to do if elected. 
It the only way he can beat Chavez is to continue to tie her to the Mayor and the scandals of the past, then that’s a sad commentary on Reed. 

I want to hear about attracting big business to San Jose and how we are going to retain the companies that we have.  I want to hear about Downtown and Coyote Valley.  What are they going to do about the fact that people pay over a million dollars for their houses but still have to send their kids to private schools to get the best education because most of our public schools are still crappy.  Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Cupertino, Palo Alto don’t have that problem, why do we?  What about the blight that exists all over this city?

There is so much to be fixed in this town and Reed and Chavez ought to start focusing on it and quit nitpicking about the past.

Prove it Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 10:44 am

#20

I challenge Cindy to produce the police report that shows a stolen check register.

ABC Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 10:46 am

Let’s imagine it was Cindy who filed for these reimbursements… what would Justin… uh RC and RR be saying?

RC: Hay, it waz leegal.  The sity appruved thhem.  wats the big dele?

RR: Cindy followed proper procedure.  If the reimbursements were inappropriate, the city auditor should have said something.

Those two are priceless.  I look forward to Chuck winning in November.  See everyone (anyone?) at Thursday’s debate.

Outraged! Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 10:48 am

22. Do you mean to tell me that slippery rascal Chuck Reed used our tax dollars to support questionable organizations like The Wildlife Center, Tsunami Relief and KTEH?

That sleazeball!!! Doesn’t he know our tax dollars are supposed to pay for backroom Norcal deals?

Obviously Chuck just isn’t playing by the rules!

Mark T Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:20 am

Can anyone here remember an election when we had an even worse pair of candidates for mayor? 

Maybe it would make people like me feel better if I heard about an even more abominable match-up from years gone by.

Meanwhile, it’s going to be at least four years before my faith in the SJ electorate has even a chance of being restored.

Fire + Ice Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:22 am

Cindy’s campaign manager, Justin, knows something about spending other people’s money, about $23,914.76 worth.  Read about the lawsuit here:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/011101/Business/Founder_of_Dish_sites.shtml

He’s worked for Bob Graham’s Presidential Campaign as well as Howard Dean’s.  Be prepared for so good old fashioned beltway style campaign tactics!

But come on, donations to non-profits?  That all you got!

johnmichael o'connor Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:24 am

Mal # 18 asks: “Which is worse: a Councilmember buying a ticket for which he/she gets reimbursed, or a councilmember accepting a freebie from an organization for which he/she might later be asked to cast a vote? “

Neither passes my smell test, Mal.  However, Chuck has draped himself with the cloak of the ethical reformer, the fiscal conservative; all while he engages in repeated ethical breaches ($15k+ @ an average,let’s say, of $100.00 per is 150 times), and what self-proclaimed fiscal conservative spends someone else’s money for his benefit?

Cindy isn’t blameless if she accepts freebies from non profits or other groups or individuals, especially if some of them will come before her for a decision.  This has been the culture in the South Bay at least since at least the mid-‘80s—elected officials get into everything for free.  Its the entitlement mentality that pervades this entire country, and it really needs to be purged.

But to me, Chuck’s lapse is worse due to his preachy claim to moral superiority and that he writes his check, making it look like HE is the supporter, then backdoors it almost secretly by seeking reimbursement from the taxpayers’ checking account.  If there were a reimbursement, it should only have come from his friends account, or whatever they call it these days.

And if, god forbid, he wrote off the money he paid for these memberships, etc. on his taxes, without counting the reimbursement, then we have more than an ethical lapse…we have a crime.  Mayhaps that’s why he is hesitant to disclose his tax returns.

It’s situations like this where we need a strong newspaper to run this one ‘til it drops.  I consider this very serious, and I’d like all the answers on both Cindy and Chuck well before the election in November.  So, new owners of the Murky News, get moving!!!

Whatever Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:38 am

SG- You clearly had a closed mind prior to opening your dear friend letter. Your closed mindedness is a loss for you. Not because Cindy is the best candidate, but because you view the world through a cynic’s eye. No thanks!

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:40 am

#26
Outraged—you should be.  Deceptive and unethical are the words that come to mind when you step back and look at Mr. Reed and his slush fund.

Here is a guy who is running on three things, Honesty, Open Government and Fiscal Responsibility.

Honesty:  Did he tell any of these hundreds of organizations that cashed his personal check that the money he was donating/contributing was not his but rather the city taxpayers?  If he did not then he is not being honest with these groups. 

Open Government: Don’t the voters of this city have the right to know who is paying Mr. Reed at his side job working for developers in San Jose?  Where is the transperancy?  We know that he has voted on an item that will greatly benefit Los Esteros Partnership, just one of his paying private law clients.

Fiscal Responsibility:  Using taxpayer dollars to make political contributions is illegal.  Using taxpayer dollars to buy lifetime memberships to any organization is unethical.  And using taxpayer dollars to the tune of 10 bucks for your membership dues to his neighborhood organizations is just plain cheap.

#26 I did not notice in your post an mention of Mr. Reed’s contributions to political candidates and PAC’s using taxpayer dollars.  I guess it is OK with you that he uses taxpayer dollars to write political contributions, I don’t.

I wonder if Chuck wrote off any of these donations/contributions on his income tax, there needs to be an investigation.

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:49 am

#28
Fire + Ice
When does a political contribution become a donation to a non-profit?  You don’t mention the political contributions, why is that?  Can Reed write a check to George W. Bush and then get his money back from the taxpayers?  I say no—What do you say?

Should the city foot the bill for a council member to join the NRA, a health club, or in Mr. Reed’s case, KTEH?  Reed wrote hudreds of personal checks, some as high as $500 dollars each to organizations that endorse in the Mayor’s race.

He wrote personal checks to look like a good guy and then went to the taxpayers to give him his money back—-What kind of guy tells a group he is going to support their efforts to eradicate and treat breast cancer for $50 dollars and then gets the taxpayers to foot his contribution.  That ain’t right.  Did he really have to get his $50 bucks back for that?

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 11:49 am

There are five stages of grief, obviously the Reed supporters are in the first, denial—quickly dissolving into anger.

But their false allegations and anger at Cindy is misplaced.  They should be mad at their candidate.

As for the theft of Cindy’s briefcase in 2003, there was a police report filed and the family was a victim of identity theft.  This can all be verified—

As for our defending Cindy.  I personally know Cindy to be an honest and caring person. 

Others may believe differently—but I know Cindy. 

However, if she ever so stupid as to use taxpayer money for political events, I would advise her or any of my clients to resign, immediately.

There is no spin for the Reedies—trust me—this goes to the heart of Chuck’s candidacy and it is devastating.

I feel bad for you, your candidate and the City of San Jose.  But as you go through your grief, please don’t misplace your anger.

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:05 pm

Outraged:

“It wasn’t just those, Chuck Reed gave taxpayer money to the Southbay Labor Council, , Asian Law Alliance, Valley Christian Schools, the Arts Council, Stage Company, Monday Night Live, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Berryessa Citizens Advisory Council, the California First Amentment Coalition, East Bay Leaderhip Foundation, John DiQuisto’s Testimonial Dinner, Pat Dando’s Dinner, El Observador, La Raza, the San Jose POA, the Sheriff’s Association, the Veterans of Foreigh Wars, Rotary Club of San Jose etc. etc. etc.

Even the Mercury News got a buck ninety-five.

The question is to whom didn’t he give taxpayer money

Fire and Ice:

That’s taxpayer donations to non-profits.  Is that all they got?  We don’t know yet.

San Jose city government culture needs change Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:18 pm

Mayor Tom

You know that San Jose’s city government has a decades long culture of

1) back room deals some of which make it easy to run city hall and some of which are “pay to play ” political paybacks - both need to be out in the open for the public to see

2) violating the Brown Act by not discussing public decisions in public and using last minute Council ” done deal ” memos and violating City Charter by politicians directing city staff / manager to do what politicians want or else which undercuts city staff and the public’s right to participate
3) giving taxpayers money to non government groups with little oversight or reporting on results for the community Many are politician pet projects along with keeping the public in the dark looks like “support me politically and give me tickets, meals, services, volunteers etc and I will get you city funds”  or “ political support for city pay“ politics.

Many worthwhile community activities like arts, theater, economic development, low income housing, social services that are funded by city government do not meet the public’s expectation for openness and accountability by both city and the community groups

Grand Prix is the worst example – where are the paid attendance, as well as free tickets, meals etc to city government and actual economic benefits numbers - not early estimates and refusing to tell the public what we got for our $4.2 million  

4) public not knowing all gifts, free tickets / meals and contractual payments or tickets, meals etc received by the city or politicians from all groups that receives city funds

Tom - What is the value of thousands of tickets per year, meals, other services and money that SJ Arena gives to city government, where does it go ( City Council members we have heard get hundreds of Arena tickets and tens of thousands in Arena money each year ), what is it used for and who benefits – public or political friends?  What are the numbers?  How many millions ?  1, 2 3 ? 

These questions on reports to the public should be asked of every non government group receiving taxpayers money so the public knows what we received for our taxpayer funds.

5) Many politicians are doing many things that maybe legal - recent example - city reimbursements to Reed and free tickets, meals etc to City Council members - but are not acceptable to public who continue to question City Council’s judgment and ethics

6) City government and elected officials need to stop acting as if what they have been doing for decades is alright and that they have little accountability to the public or the public is not entitled to know –  It did not start in the Gonzales administration it was a continuation of decades of questionable activities and little public accountability – Gonzales is just the worst recent example

It seems the newspaper brings a new city government scandal every week, last week – arts funding lack of oversight and mismanagement, this week – questionable reimbursements and politician free tickets or meals

The public expects a positive change in attitude and ethical behavior in city government now or San Jose is in for many more years of public upset, grand jury investigations and political scandals

Merc Endorsement Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:33 pm

This is why San Jose should change its law an have the top three primary finishers on the final ballot.

Though these topics would still get discussed, there would be a candidate that would keep the focus on San Jose’s future.

At this point, The San Jose Mercury New Should send a message and immediately Endorse David Pandori for Mayor AGAIN.

Neighborhood Leader Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:35 pm

Single, I’m guessing that if Cindy had sent you a letter saying “Dear Resident” you would have been offended at her presuming the “dear” part, also.  And why concentrate on that article rather than the one that shows the potential for the “Reform” candidate to be shown as..not very ethical?  Instead you concentrate on one mailer, intended to address one issue that has come up over and over again….I’m confused..on this site I repeatedly see people bashing her for her connection to Gonzales and when ignores it she’s wrong, when she addresses it she’s still wrong.

#2 am assuming you mean illiterate?  Or was that literate?

The funds from which Chuck Reed was reimbursed are discretionary funds meant to help the council office (as they say in the Wizard of Oz) “do good deeds” and reimburse the officeholder for expenses related to the district.  Many of these funds don’t fall into that category.  You can see the list at
http://www.reeditforyourself.com

As a neighborhood volunteer and “leader” I’m asked to attend a multitude of events, represent different groups, join other groups, donate to causes, etc. and not once have I billed back any of these donations to any of the groups I represent.  It’s part of the expensed I know I’m going to incur as part of my community service.

Chuck attended events and meetings and wrote out membership and donation checks that made it appear he was “doing good deeds” or helping contribute in some way.  Anytime you do that, you influence those people and, presumably their vote.  They think you’re doing a good deed and showing your support by spending some of your hard earned cash; not the taxpayers’ cash.  To do so on the taxpayers dime with funds the taxpayer has given meant to be spent on other things is an ethical blunder at best and criminal mis-use of the funds at worst.  And with his background, there is no excuse.  Others on the council who aren’t attorneys figured this out all by themselves.  It didn’t take a reporter to figure it out for them.

In his statements he said he was reimbursed for expenses he incurred that were incurred only because of his office.  Well, it’s good to know that renewing his membership in the Friends of Guadalupe isn’t his personal thing, it’s what he does for the office.  Money handed out in red envelopes at the Tet Festival to honor elders and family is, again, an office chore.  And, does he watch KQED on city time?  If he wanted to expend some of these funds on field trips for a school, he could have had the check issued by the city, not impress the PTA, teachers, parents or whoever with a personal check..in some way, since it was taxpayer money, we gave him money to give to us to impress us with his goodwill.

I just wonder what could have been done for the community with these funds.  How many neighborhood training sessions, how many special events, how much could he have supported a business district event, how could he have built bridges for his constituents or enhanced their projects?

So I have a few questions:  (1) If Chuck felt these contribution/donation/etc. expenses were legitimate, why is he returning them? (2) How did he feel that advertising in programs was a purpose of these funds?  (3) Since KQED gives you a nice little gift, what was it, and since I’m a taxpayer, can I have it?  What else was gathered in at any of these functions that might not have been reported? (4) Did any of these expenses show up on his personal or business taxes as deductible expenses?  (5) If he’s only joining these groups as part of his job with the city, has he mentioned to any of them he’s only concerned with the image joining presents?  Sounds like he doesn’t really care about them.  And, if he doesn’t care, why go at all to some of these meetings, why join the organizations, why waste the time and money?

For those of you who are wondering about where the issues have gone to, you won’t find them often here because it’s often just snarky finger pointing.  You could try http://www.chavez4mayor.com and see Cindy’s positions on education, emergency preparedness, healthcare or any number of issues.  You could attend the debates, ask questions or just listen to them.

Is it going to be an interesting 6 weeks?  You betcha…

Concerned Citizen Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:37 pm

All these comments being made by various supports of each candidate.  Let’s face it, the situation boils down to a SIMPLE FACT—Cindy Chavez has all along been a protege of Ron Gonzales and a conspicuous (and willing) partner in a corrupt administration.  Understanding this explains all her actions taken thus far (and yet to come)—especially the DIVERSIONS and the “MUD SLINGING”.

If citizens understand this—then they won’t be fooled but will know by her actions who Cindy Chavez really is and what she stands for in the upcoming elections.

Concerned Citizen

#27 - Gonzales vs Dando was worst / CSJ Denial Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:41 pm

The worst recent Mayor candidate race was Ron Gonzales vs Pat Dando both mean spirited, vindictive, nasty and highly questionable ethics

San Jose is better off with Chuck or Cindy even with their public discussed problems rather than either Ron or Pat

San Jose will never fix our decades long city government   ” done deal”  and “as long as Rick says it is not illegal we can do it”  culture which rewards ethically challenged politicians ( fill in the names _______ )

San Jose city government is in Denial - that we have serious city government ethical and organizational problems and many continue to blame individual elected officials - it is the culture and most of city government that need fixing - not just some of it

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person / government is faced with a fact that is painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Otherwise San Jose will continue to repeat our scandals and continue to have unaccountable to the public ethically challenged city govenrment

Rick Blaine Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:45 pm

Outrage! Shock! The world is ending as we know it! I’m in a good place, not supporting either candidate, so my comments aren’t as suspect as RC and RR who are known Chavez backers.
I would expect them to grab this issue and run it into the ground. It’s the closest chance they’ve got to getting Chavez back in this race. But, as usual, her timing stinks. Just when she could try and make a go of it with Chuckie’s silly spending spree, she unloads a stink-bomb of a letter (paid for by the United Democratic Campaign) telling us how she is different from Gonzo and has not been tied to him. She must think we’re as stupid as Reed thinks we are.
How did we end up with dumb and dumber in this race. Is there no hope for a savior to arise from the dung heap that is San Jose?
RR can tell us how good and honest Chavez is. It’s difficult to take seriously the word of someone who is paid to lie and deceive in political campaigns. At least he tells us who he is unlike the lame RC.
We have a huge dilemna in SJ—we have two unqualified candidates running for mayor and without some kind of miracle one of them will actuall win while the rest of us will lose either way. Is this really the best we can do in a city this size?

A. Rena Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 12:52 pm

How many times has Chavez (and all other councilmembers) used the city box at the arena without paying for it? How many times did they provide the box to “friends” at no charge? There is stuff going on everyday that stinks but all the Cindyannas can do is bash Reed and ignore the wrongdoings of their wonderwoman.
Come on! Give us all a break. The ethics of this mayor and council are the alltime worst—all we need is to bring back a few like Al Garza and we’ll have our own Hall of Shame.
#36 has the right idea. Get Pandori—he’s our only hope out of this morass of slime.

David D. Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 1:40 pm

Richard Robinson…

I’d like to ask you a question.

You seem to be a passionate and articulate supporter of the Democratic party’s chosen candidate.  Could you be equally passionate and supportive of the other Democratic candidate if that person were to be the next Mayor?  Or does your passion only lie where the party machine and money point?

Wonder Woman Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 1:45 pm

#37 - Is it really necessary to show your smarts by correcting another’s spelling.  I was disappointed in a few of you, including JMOC last week for correcting the girl who appeared to be from San Jose State.  Seems you are discouraging people to participate in the dialogue.  Some of you must be blessed with the luxury of time, however there are some of us who are not and are lucky to write a comment.

Dale Warner Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 2:13 pm

CHUCK REED, STEP DOWN FROM THIS RACE

Now that his Mr. Integrity persona is disappearing, the time has come for Chuck Reed to step down from the race. All he had was his spurious, self-created image and it is gone.

Readers here haven’t seen anything yet. Wait until you see his reimbursements for attending meetings in and around San Jose.

None of this information was secret. When the San Jose Mercury News said today that this information had “surfaced,” it was very misleading. All they ever had to do was take a look at public records in the City Clerk’s office. It’s good to see it get published, finally.

Neighborhood Leader Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 2:18 pm

#43, no probably not necessary but when somebody responds with a personal attack instead of addressing the issue, and when his personal attack accusing somebody of being illiterate doesn’t have the word spelled correctly, it’s too funny to pass up. ..  if it’s you, I apologize for offending you, but I’d hoped you’d comment on my smarts by responding to the rest of my statements.

David D. Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 3:32 pm

Regarding ethical use of city funds:

$38,000 over 5+ years in small amounts to NON-PROFIT organizations.

$11,250,000 to a FOR-PROFIT organization when:  a) the contract terms did not obligate the such a gift,  b) rate payers didn’t have a vote, and c) tax payers didn’t have a vote .

Both “approved by the City”.

Which can this City afford most?

Richard ?
R C ?
Downtown ?
Anyone ?

Ben Watson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 4:22 pm

Single Gal,
Typically I’m a big fan of your articles. They seem to be the most entertaining, informative, and objective. However, I don’t get why you’re not taking a look at these Reed imbursements. Maybe TMcE has an embargo against any news agaisnt Reed, but throw the readers a bone here. Reed is being dragged through the mud lately, and SJI hasn’t been covering any of it. I look forward to your article next week and I hope that you can push TMcE to let you write about some more pressing issues.

If you guys want to hear about the Reed imbursements, mayor watch had a couple of posts about it earlier today.

http://www.mayorwatch.blogspot.com

Nothing too miraculous about the article, but atleast it’s news.

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:05 pm

#46
When did political campaign contributions become a non-profit donation?

He gave away city money to political campaigns—that is illegal.

Think about it Ben Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:39 pm

#47 Ben & couple other

HELLOOO!

Can you see when Single Gal posted her usual Tuesday Blog?  4:00 AM. 

When do you think she wrote it?  Maybe Monday afternoon, or after dinner with the family?

When did you read about all about Reed’s donations?  When was your Tuesday Merc delivered?

SJI has always followed a DAILY BLOG format.  There’s no CONSPIRACY here.

Typical schedule for the coming days:

Wed. Tom McEnery will post
Thurs: Jack Van Zandt will post
Friday: Unless the contract disputes are resolved - John McEnery spot may go to a guest again.
Monday: Leonard McKay will post
Tuesday: Singal Gal…...

Ben, get over it.  Nothing to see here, move along…..

David D. Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:50 pm

Thank you RC.

Your concern is more about the $635 per month than the $11.25 million dollars of tax payer money?

Is that how you manage your money?

Next?

Richard Robinson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:53 pm

David D.

$38,000 of personal benefits to Chuck.

The $11 million provided garbage service to the residents of San Jose, enhanced the lives of the garbage workers and had a tangible public benefit.  It was the “process” that broke down, not the substance.

In addition, after five investigations it was shown that Cindy did nothing unethical.  She hasn’t had to whip out her checkbook in a feable attempt to salvage her good name.

Can you say the same for Chuck?

Finally, the desparate, unsubstantiated attacks on Cindy have been shown to be false.  But the self-rightious folks who were going to “clean-up City Hall” are now backing an individual who gave taxpayer money to political organizations for his own benefit.

Reedies need to reform themselves before they start casting stones in Cindy’s direction.

Refugio Moreno Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 5:56 pm

Assuming all the dirt will come out before November 7th clearly defining both Cindy Chavez and Chuck Reed as ethically challenged, what kind of government can we expect from the next administration?

Is there a logical alternative?

Can the winner heal well enough and fast enough to be an effective mayor? If not, will the council be strong enough to pick up the slack?

Mal Content Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:00 pm

I find it interesting how little discussion there’s been about the OTHER article in today’s Merc:

http://www.mercextra.com/multimedia/news/elections/chavezletter092606.pdf

The newspaper essentially picks apart the Chavez letter and concludes that she is not telling the truth. That’s pretty strong stuff.

I will say one thing for the Chavez campaign, when it comes to yelling about ethics, they seem to have the loudest megaphones. Can they yell loud enough to hide Cindy’s baggage from Norcal, the Grand Prix deal, Gonzales, etc.? That’s a tough challenge.

Kerfuffles like checks to charities might convince some people who already distrust both candidates to stay home on Election Day, which could ultimately benefit Chavez. But I don’t see it causing serious erosion of Reed’s supporters.

Ben Watson Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:05 pm

You’re right, there is nothing to see here. That’s my point, the media should follow the news. Mayor Watch has had two articles come out today regarding the Reed imbursements. I’m merely giving readers of SJI an opportunity to read about the breaking news. And I look forward to Tom’s article tomorrow about Reed’s recent controversy…that is if he is willing to write about it…

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:35 pm

#50
I agree with former Vice Mayor and current CEO of the Chamber of Commerce Pat Dando and her vote to support the 11 million dollars to pay the workers a fair wage for sorting through our garbage—She was courageous to stand up for working families and I find it unbecoming of you to attack her and her values.

Is it legal for Reed to make political campaign contributions and then get reimbursed with taxpayer dollars? 

He broke the law.  A cornerstone of our democracy is that taxpayer dollars can’t be spent for political purposes.  How can you justify Reed spending taxpayer dollars to give away to a political campaign.  Is it ok for him to write a check to Bush or to Angelides or Brown and get reimbursed by the city?  Of course not.  Know any good defense lawyers?

Oh and did he really have to get his money back, 10 bucks, for joining his neighborhood association—does someone have a hat we can pass around to help Reed out, seems like a quarter million dollars a year is not enough for the poor guy.

Wondering Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:41 pm

Nice try, Rich. Since when is it the city’s obligation to “enhance the lives of garbage workers?” Cindy leads the way to give away $11 million + of public money and all you can find wrong is the “process.”
Both candidates smell—Cindy just smells more than Chuck. Granted, it is not much of a choice.
I have to chuckle though, when Rich sees no problem other than process when Cindy gives away millions of dollars of public money that the city was NOT obligated to spend. No wonder he is salivating over Chuck’s current situation. It’s all Cindy has to go with and that’s not much.
When supporters of any candidate are so blinded that they cannot see the troubles before them, we get either a lame or lamer mayor. SJ has a long way to go before we hit the big time.

David D. Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 6:57 pm

#51 Richard

Richard, you make a good point…”Cindy did nothing unethical.”

She just took advantage of an unethical and maybe illegal move on the part of Mayor Ron Gonzales. 

Yes she is passionate about improving the life of working families in this town.  That’s a laudable and worthwhile challenge and I support that.

But in the face of what was common knowledge at the time, she chose to back Ron Gonzales and use his questionable ethics to advance her cause.  And do so at the cost of $11.25 million dollars, which I might add was not her money to give away.

<<<  It was the “process” that broke down, not the substance. >>>
You’re right.  The process broke down.  And Cindy took full advantage of that to support HER agenda over correcting the process and respecting the voters and rate payers.

Sorry Richard, until Cindy is willing to lead the charge to get the $11.25 million dollars back on behalf of the City,  Chuck Reed’s offer to pay back the $38k stands taller in this voter’s eyes.

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 7:00 pm

#56
When you post, “No wonder he is salivating over Chuck’s current situation.”  Are you posting about his Los Esteros Partnership votes where his paying private law clients benefited by his voting to overturn an ordinance on the books for over 20 years banning gasoline mini marts?  Why won’t Mr Sunshine tell us who his secret clients are?  Can you say conflict of interest?

Or I’m wondering if you are posting about his knowledge of the Norcal side deal between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003?

Or I’m wondering if you are posting about his unethical and illegal contributions to political campaigns at taxpayer expense?

Please clarify, and do you know of any good defense attorney’s, Chuck is gonna need one.

D.O.A. Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 7:07 pm

I’ve read, I’ve seen, I’ve decided. We are one sick group of bloggers. Have we already forgotten the ripping we got with this incumbent click.
  Jmo. is on the inside. Richard is on the out side. Both are subservient knukle heads. All the no names are working for the old system.
  If this site was Spinich, this site would be Toxic. There is definately to much B.S.
  We all know who is still supporting the Gonzo ethitics. They are the same people that are supporting the blond chick. If she got Frank Taylor’s endorsement, It’s probably because Palm trees have no where to hang a rope. 4 more years of the last 8, would be deserving, if one wanted to punish the ignorant.
                      D.O.A.

I.F. Only Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 7:48 pm

Too bad the Cindinistas don’t feel as strongly about the $15 million + of public money that Cindy has given away as they do about what Chuck may have done. Your lack of outrage about Cindy’s lack of respect for the taxpayers makes your outrage over Chuck ring quite hollow.
Wrong is wrong. Until you see what your gal has done that is wrong, going after Chuck only stinks of politics.
When Chavez supporters realize that what Cindy has done has hurt the city and cost us taxpayers millions and millions of dollars, then I’ll be more concerned about the $38,000 that Chuck is reimbursing. Is Cindy going to pay back the millions of public dollars she has given away???

teresa herman Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:25 pm

Cindy Chavez?

Who is Cindy Chavez?

Reality Check Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 8:43 pm

#60
Wasn’t there a public vote that Cindy joined former Vice Mayor and current CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, Pat Dando on that approved paying workers a decent wage to sort through our garbage?

Who voted to allow Chuck Reed to spend taxpayer dollars on lifetime memberships, political campaign contributions, and advertisements promoting himself during election season?

You may disagree with Pat Dando’s vote but she did not break the law, Chuck did—you can not spend taxpayer dollars for political contributions or for lifetime memberships or for anything of value in return.  Is he going to return the gifts he got when he joined over 25 organizations at taxpayer expense. 
Mr. Honesty is no so honest and a little cheap, can’t foot the tab for his 10 dollar neighborhood association fee, sad.

Oh. the poor Reedites Tue, Sep 26, 2006 - 9:59 pm

The poor Reedites.

Chuck lied and took money from people and used it for himself.

The cheapskate needed city money for ten dollars?????????????????

He pays a guy like Armando who is hiding public records dealing with Chuck’s relationship with a consultant, and he cannot pay ten dollars to the the BCAC.

Reedites, you are backing a chump.

A CHUMP!!!!!!!!!!!

I.F. Only Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 4:56 am

Keep up your campaign of desperation, 62. The voters of SJ are smarter than you think. They are already seeing this for what it is—a last ditch effort by a desperate candidate.
It is never pretty watching politics, it is downright ugly to watch desperate politics. The sooner Cindy’s campaign is put out of its misery the better. Then all we will have is Mayor Lesser of Two Evils—what a choice.

Reality Check Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 5:42 am

#64
You must not get the Mercury News.  Front page story about Mr. Honesty, Herhold is calling him Chuck E. Cheapskate, and the Editorial Board guts him like a fish—The voters are smart and they know a phony when they see one and Reed is a phony.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/scott_herhold/15618867.htm

Mark T Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:10 am

64 & 65 You are BOTH ridiculously wrong about the SJ voters being smarter than we think. 

If that were true, there would be no run-off to discuss because Pandori would have won outright in the primary.

Nope, the SJ voters should be ashamed of themselves for what they did to this town in June.

I couldn’t feel any better about my decision to write-in Pandori on my November ballot and the SJ electorate would be much better off over the next four years if they did likewise.

Chuck and Cindy are both woefully unsuitable candidates that simply don’t deserve ANYONE’S vote or any current or former political figure’s support.

Hugh Jardonn Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:27 am

#60, you’re right. THere’s a double standard at work here when Chuck gets bashed for a $38,000 issue when Cindy gets a pass on an $11 million issue. If Cindy is willing to reimburse San Jose that $11 million I’d consider voting for her.

Downtown Brown Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:34 am

Well, I leave for a day…and, to my UNENDING surprise, I come back to find out Chuck Reed is NOT the candidate of “honesty, integrity and accountability.”

SHOCKED!! I AM SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!

Dr. No is not just in the crosshairs of the voters, I imagine his records are being scrutinized very carefully by the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office for misuse of public funds. Some of those things tend to carry felony charges. 

Either way, your boy is dirty, ethically weak and, whats worse, a f(*&)(&ing; cheap SOB. And, this sanctimonious, holier than thou, Mr. Morality has the nerve to call Chavez a “freeloader”...boy, that takes real guts to be such a weasel. (And BTW, this is Tricky Vic’s specialty…)

I mean, for the LOVE OF GOD, he got reimbursed for a measly $100 for a donation to MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING.  As a person who lost two dear friends to drunk driving, I am personally offended and disgusted.

Can any of you, including you Disciples of Dr. No (unless he gets something for it), justify that kind of behavior. Please tell me you can justify this “Conscience of the Council” basically being so damn cheap as to give a donation and then demand the taxpayers pay for it SO HE CAN LOOK GOOD!!

READ THAT AGAIN:

HE GAVE A CHARITABLE DONATION SO HE CAN LOOK GOOD; AND THEN DEMANDS WE PAY FOR IT!!

And its not just the amount of money—although $40K is a whole lot—its the manner in which he did it. Its the unmitigated gall and hubris that Mr. Reed claims to be for reform and then has the temerity to take a charitable donation to a great cause and have us pay for it—so that he can benefit.

I ask the age-old question: Does Chuck Reed have any shame…any shame at all?

If you haven’t the guts to ask Mr. Reed this question, then I strongly urge you to stop telling us what an amazing reformer he is for this city. Because, in the end, his credibility with voters just went to ZERO!!

BTW, for all of you Disciples, it would be useless to say I told you so. I think, in the end, that you and Mr. Reed all should be ashamed that your candidate has done this.

Criticize Chavez all you want for the votes she has taken. But NOTHING can or should forgive Chuck Reed’s behavior in this increasingly sordid affair.  And Disciples, if I were you, I should be very concerned about the continuing viability of a candidate like Mr. Reed.

Wondering Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:38 am

66 - You are correct, but unless we can mount a massive write-in campaign one of these two lame-weights will be elected.
Chavez feigns shock and outrage as do her supporters, but they aren’t much cleaner than Reed (see the same article that the genius, Reality Check, sites above.) The depth of this abuse of funds is not known yet, but how could Chavez (or any councilmember) let this go on for all these years with virtually no oversight by the city?
As has been said many times on this blog, this mayor and council are the most spineless, self-serving group of elected officials we have ever seen in SJ. None of them deserve to be Mayor. Unfortunately, the Chavez fan club still sees nothing wrong with the damage she has wreaked during her years on the council. Talk about see, hear, and speak no evil—the Chavezistas still pretend she hasn’t given away millions of dollars in public funds. They want it both ways, but in politics as in life, it doesn’t work that way.

Downtown Brown Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:38 am

BTW, my dear Disciples….

Where are Chuck’s taxes…

Is hiding them because maybe Mr. Morality wrote off some of his “charitable contributions” off his federal and state taxes.

I just bet you will be surprised by the answer.

Downtown Brown Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:44 am

One other thing, now that we have proof of Chuck’s little problem let me just say…

I really hate being right…

Have a nice day Disciples…

Reality Check Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:04 am

#67 Hugh
You should stop bashing Pat Dando for her vote to pay garbage workers a decent wage.  She did not break the law.

Chuck did.  No one voted on his expenditures and no one authorized him to expend taxpayer dollars for political campaign donations.  It’s usually those that stand on the tallest soapbox and preach about ethics and reform that have the most to hide.

Did he claim any of these reimbursements on his income tax returns?

And did he really have to ask for the city to pay for his neighborhood association dues?  Take your hat off and pass it around so we can get poor Chuck some money.

Dr. Spin Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:15 am

Ah, now we can argue about who holds the “holier than thou” title. The couple of Chavez ranters who ignore every betrayal of public trust she has committed or the Reed supporters who are left to question just what in the hell was he thinking?
Of course, the ranters like to ignore a lot of detail because it just gets in the way of their shouting. As is becoming apparent, many, if not most of the council, is “guilty” of getting reimbursed for questionable expenses. Chavez ignores this because she sees this as her only chance to maybe get back in this race. Her council supporters, quick to line up behind her (kind of how she lined up with Gonzales for all these years) to express their shock have done the same thing (before you rabids start foaming, no that doesn’t make it right.)
Until there is a collective mindset by Chaveznistas and Reeders that wrong is wrong regardless of which side one is on, this city will continue to sink and remain the embarrassment it is.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Downtown and Reality actually contributed something of value to this blog besides their screaming and shouting?  Wouldn’t be refreshing to discuss how we could actually make this city better? Screaming for or against either candidate is getting us nowhere and is making some folks look pretty silly. Anyone up to the challenge???

P. White Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:19 am

72 - Maybe you could actually address an answer to a question with substance—why is it the city’s responsibility to fund a private company so they will pay a decent wage to their workers? Since the city only selectively requires that and does not do it across the board, why NorCal and not every other company with city ties? How about a real answer without your nastiness and spin? Please.

Downtown Brown Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:32 am

Ya know, what stuns me Dr. Spin…

You know Chuck Reed broke the law and yet, you ignore that…

Why? More importantly, why hasn’t he released his taxes?

Why doesn’t he follow through on his pledge of “open government.” Oh sure, he demands that applies to Chavez, et al…but if someone demands likewise from him, puppet master Tricky Vic tells Chuck to say, “there are larger policy implications.”

I think Mr. Open Government is more worried about the opening of a Grand Jury if he actually follows through on his open government pledge.

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:52 am

DOA # 59:  Huh?  What am I on the inside of?  What is RR on the outside of?

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 8:07 am

I was chatting about “Mr. Integrity” with The Village Blacksmith this a.m, and Gil came up with a great suggestion: let’s see the expense reimbursement requests for Gonzo and all councilmembers, and their chiefs of staff.  I’d like to know how pervasive this practice is.

I’d also like to know how many freebies those same people got by not paying to attend events, versus Chuckie getting reimbursed; but there’s no paper trail on that.

The Murky News should request and publish the reimbursements for everyone; and add Manny Diaz to the list from when he “served” the City of San Jose.

In fact, since everyone just rotates offices post-term limits, let’s dig deeper and find out what all these folks did when they were in other offices, as well.

Let’s get some sunshine on this issue.  And if they all pay it back as Chuckie did, we can close the budget gap.

Steve Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 8:10 am

While the partisans on both sides argue here on SJI about who is the most corrupt candidate for mayor, both Chavez and Reed must be feeling some relief because nobody has asked them about that vision thing lately. 

A few ignored topics in this campaign:

BART

Coyote Valley

Community Centers

Parks

Downtown

Baseball Stadium

Closed Swimming Pools

Job/Housing Imbalance

Outsourcing and future job growth

Long term vision for San Jose

Is bickering the best we can do in this campaign?  Both candidates are flawed.  Unless we can get either candidate to lay out their agenda for the next 4/8 years, San Jose will continue to flounder.

Reality Check Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 8:27 am

#74
First off I do not think it is the responsibility of the city to fund private companies to pay anyone anything, with one exception, when it is a procured service paid for by the taxpayers.

It is a city function to pick up the trash and recycling.  The city chooses to not do this internally and hire a bunch more city employees, thank god.

The money, no question was to reimburse Norcal for paying a higher wage to the workers to sort through our garbage.  Gonzo should have never made that illegal promise and is being dealt with appropriately.

But the question before the council was one of policy and in Pat Dando and Cindy Chavez’s grand jury testimony when asked why they voted for the 11 million they both say the same thing; fairness to workers.

Contributing to their vote was the fact that even with the 11 million added to the original amount the ratepayers were still paying less then 1/4 of the city that was being serviced by another carrier.

It was a public vote and a policy question that Pat and Cindy were on the same side of.

Now will you answer a question as well?

How does Reed not think it is a conflict of interest to have a private law client paying him on a developement project that includes a gas station and then voting to overturn a 20 year ban on gas stations having min-marts that his client can now market as opposed to a gas station that was originally entitled for a car wash only and no mini mart?

No spin, right?

Reality Check Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 8:34 am

#77 JMO
Not a bad idea.  Chavez has already released over 14K worth of personal checks to the media that show she paid her own way.  She did not seek reimbursement and rightfully claimed some on her income taxes.

What did Reed do on his taxes and will he give back the gifts he received from his over 25 memberships?

#78 Steve
Go to cindychavez4mayor.com and you can look at video of Cindy at house parties talking about the issues you want discussed.  There are also position papers on the site, but I would recommend the video’s.

P. White Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 9:07 am

74 - Thanks for a relatively straight forward response. Perhaps a new tone can be set here.
Obviously we view the NorCal payout differently. I see it as a gift of public funds and you apparently choose to go with Cindy’s “fairness to workers.” I don’t buy that but I appreciate your response.
As to the question you posed, certainly I cannot respond with any authority. The general and somewhat hypothetical scenario you lay out does seem like a conflict of interest. Not knowing all of the facts, and I am not sure if you do either, makes it difficult to give a factual response.
I thing that is known is that conflicts of interest occur pretty regularly with this council (Campos voting on labor related issues, Williams involved in IBM related discussions even if he doesn’t vote on them, etc.)
This city council and mayor have left a trail of conflict, mistrust, and disgust over the past 7 years. If we don’t demand an end to it nothing will change.
Hopefully you will push your candidate to come clean and really change her habits and honestly address the issues.
If and when I find a candidate I will do the same.

P. White Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 9:21 am

81 should refer to 79 not 74.

Downtown Brown Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 10:15 am

P. White, while I think you are somewhat incorrect, I commend you for making some very fine points in your #81 post.

Unfortunately, Mr. Reed’s credibility has dropped to zero now on his reforms and on complaining about Norcal—since he knew about it before anyone else. And you believe, in some sense quite fairly, that Chavez lacks it as well. So where are we—I am not sure frankly.

So, again, I commend you for making some fine points and moving the discussion forward.

Just a Question Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 10:31 am

If Cindy’s checkbook got stolen, with 2 years of data in it, why can’t she call the bank and get copies of cancelled checks? Just asking.

P. White Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 11:05 am

83 - Thanks. Maybe there is a place here for rational discussion and honest disagreement.

SJ Downtowner Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 11:21 am

#78 Steve - Amen Brother! Let’s get back to the real issues and not all of this mudslinging.

Wonder Woman Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 11:43 am

#84 - Exactly, Cindy must really think the voters are complete morons;  would have been smarter on her part not to mention the check registries.  It almost sounds like she was trying to come up with an explanation as to why she couldn’t produce her records.  Phone the bank, Cindy!  Or do you have off-shore accounts?

Think all the Council’s records should now be made public by The Mercury, and if we go that far, why not the City Managers Office, etc.?

#45:  #43 is not #2, but glad you had the good manners to realize that your original comment was inappropriate.

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 12:25 pm

Steve #78:  Excellent request, Steve.  It’s too bad that campaigns rarely speak to issues that resonate with the people, but instead are mainly pointing out the personal and ethical flaws of the opponent.  I’m dreaming, of course, but it would be so cool if candidates laid out their vision for the future of San Jose (substitute depending upon office sought) instead of spending a lot of time, money, and energy blasting the opposition.  However, campaign consultants want their candidate’s name in the news, and it seems only bad news attracts attention.  That’s all we get from the papers, TV, & radio.

It’s silly—CNN Headline News will cover NATIONALLY a big rig vs. car wreck in butth*le Nebraska…for HOURS.  This wreck means nothing to anyone more than 5 miles from butth*le Nebraska, and it’s on NATIONAL news.  If I want to find out what’s going on of importance in the USof A, I have to turn on the BBC World Service reports.

It reminds me of a comedy album from the 70’s, where the “announcer” said: “We cover a lot of crap, ‘cuz that’s what you want.”

So, other than having an earnest desire to pay hard working folks a gazillion dollars an hour for difficult and menial work, what does Cindy stand for?  Other than being the “reform”, “sunshine”, “ethical” mayor, what does Chuck stand for?  Oops, that mantle is gone, Chuck.

Vic has some serious work ahead of him.  I hope it consists of presenting Chuck’s vision for the next four years, ‘cuz I ain’t heard it yet.  And I hope Cindy’s consultant does the same, ‘cuz I ain’t heard it yet either.

Reality Check Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 12:42 pm

#84 and 87
Right when the tone was ‘a changing you two have to pop off.

She has released all of her personal checks for the period she has been on the council for many of the same events Reed attended and more.  She did not seek or want to be reimbursed by the taxpayers like Reed. 

The Mercury News reported yesterday 13K worth of cancelled checks and the two years that were stolen are irrelevant because she did not seek reimbursement.  But she has produced them anyway.

Did Reed use these city donations on his personal income tax returns?

Mal Content Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 12:53 pm

#75 DB: I thought Reed already released his taxes. There was an article about it earlier this week in the Merc. If, as has been suggested, Reed has taken write offs for the reimbursed contributions don’t you think that would have shown up by now?

#77 JMOC: If you read well into the article in today’s Merc they say that Yeager, Williams, Campos and Cortese have also received city reimbursements for similar contributions to charities and political fund raisers:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15618829.htm

It may arouse a round of cynicism, but Reed has called for the Council to establish guidelines on what is permissible for reimbursements. Election year politics aside, that sounds like a good idea.

I also like JMOC & The Village Blacksmith’s suggestion of making elected officials, and their staffs, account for all freebies. Better yet, perhaps there should be an outright ban on accepting freebies from groups doing business with the city.

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 12:59 pm

WW #87—Sorry to disillusion you, but a large plurality of the voters are complete morons.

Yeah, City Manager, too on the reimbursements.  Full disclosure.

Most govt. agencies, through their legal counsel, spend a lot of time looking for, making up, and asserting exceptions to the Ralph E. Brown Act.  The clear policy of that act is to shine some sun on government workings.  All reimbursement records for all public employees are identifiable public records that should be disclosed upon demand.

So, let’s get Scott Herhold to make the application—not just for Chuck E. Cheapskate, but for everyone.

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 2:38 pm

Mal #91—add to your proposed ban on accepting freebies, a ban on getting reimbursed by the taxpayers.  These things should be paid for by the “friends” account, or personally.

I heard from a local official today that oftentimes officeholders call up the group having the shindig to REQUEST freebies for themselves and/or staff members.  So what’s the group rep. going to say, No?  That is not very subtle pressure if that group must come to the city later for a grant.

The pervasiveness of this inappropriate feeding from the public trough is absolutely out of control.  We must demand FULL DISCLOSURE by all elected representatives and all senior staff.

The City Auditor ought to propose controls and guidelines on this stuff, then run it by independent counsel.  I’m not sure I’d trust Mr. Doyle to come up with an impartial analysis given his record in the Gonzo years.

Refugio Moreno Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:07 pm

Everybody, please take a deep breath:

Inhale…........

Exhale…...........

Baring a miracle where Pandori wins by a write in campaign, Reed or Chavez will be our next mayor.

Now, please read # 78. We only have about a month to to see if Reed or Chavez will subscribe to Pandori’s blue print for the future of San Jose. If you love your candidate, and you want to see a progressive and productive mayor and city council, ask the mayoral candidates to subscribe to Pandori’s plan for “A better San Jose”

If we can’t convince either of the candidates to subscribe to Pandori’s vision, start campaigning for 2010

Mal Contet Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 6:47 pm

#92. JMOC: A public official who calls to REQUEST freebies to a charity event is arguably committing an act of extortion. What’s the difference between a Councilmember making a friendly REQUEST for tickets to an event and Terry Gregory REQUESTING a case of wine from Denis Fong?

Yesterday several nonprofits brought business before the City Council to resolve a dispute over disbursement of tobacco tax funds. It was clearly in the interest of the nonprofit community to have an unbiased Council with no favors owed or personal axes to grind over refused “REQUESTS.”

While we like to think that our Mayor and Council make decisions based purely on the public interest recent history suggests this is not always the case. In the real world a big political ego with the NERVE to ask for free admission is not going to take kindly to a nonprofit that turns him/her down. 

That said is it really such a bad idea to have a small pool of public money available for elected officials to use to attend civic events that are reasonably part of their jobs? While I would draw the line at purely poitical events I have no problem with a few of my tax dollars supporting charitable and civic organizations. I would also much rather see public officials pay for events with well-accounted publicdollars than through special accounts requiring political contrbutions from various special interest groups.

Mal Content the Reedite Wed, Sep 27, 2006 - 7:55 pm

Sure, I know that robbing banks is wrong, but Chuck really had a good reason, and after all, some banks need to be more flexible, and the money was just there not doing anything

Mal Content

Wonder Woman Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 6:00 am

#89- Just wondering where the supposed stolen checks were stored when the robbery occurred.  I haven’t heard of any breaking and entering crimes on Arroyo Way in Nagee Park in the past few years.

Reality Check Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 6:38 am

#96
Call Cannon, or Columbo, McGyver or TJ Hooker because that is the real story here—missing personal check registry is the real story. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15627857.htm

She has released all her checks paying for events she has attended since she was in office and all her tax returns, every page of them, since she has been in office.  Plus she did not seek reedimbursement from the taxpayers for her donations to non-profit groups, so what is your point?

Are you sure the check registries in question were stolen from her home, or was it from storage, or could it have been from her home on 6th Street before she moved to Naglee Park.

Wonder Woman, hurry up and get on the Batphone and round up Robin, Spiderman and even Barny Fife from Mayberry and get to the bottom of it, fast.

Now that Reed has been accused, again, of a crime—will he do as his Reed Reforms call for and resign?  Will he release his entire tax returns to show the people of San Jose that he did not claim any of these reedimbursements on his taxes?  Ain’t open government a great thing.

Wonder Woman Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 7:44 am

#97 - Not going to waste my energy solving the unreported crime of CC’s stolen checks. I doubt if the crime occurred. I’d still rather know her source for her list of e-mail addresses.  If my suspicion that they are lifted from neighborhood organization lists, I’d be interested if those lists are suppose to be used by candidates.  Maybe Batman can help solve this, Robin is too busy in court these days.  Hopefully Superman will elected to the Council and Gotham will be in better shape.  While we’re at it, shall we cast RG as the Penguin?

P. White Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 7:45 am

The real losers in all of this are the people of San Jose. Chuck’s ongoing stupidity in this mess doesn’t make Cindy look any better. Although it does make Chuck look even less appealing it doesn’t seem likely it will drive any Pandori-Mulcahy-Cortese supporters rushing to jump on Cindy’s standing still bandwagon. Just shows what pathetic choices we have this year.
Nothing will make Chuck look better in this, but we still need to know how many events, etc. Cindy has gone to without paying at all (most of us know of quite a few.) Regardless of how many there might be, all this shows the horrendous lack of oversight by the city and poor judgement by our elected officials.
The mayor and council must be audited by and outsider since the charter does not allow the city auditor to do it. It must be done now. Who will call for that audit? Is there a real leader on this gutless council? The city manager and city staff operate under much stricter review and guidelines so I am not as concerned about abuse at that level.
Any council member up to the challenge to really clean up city hall?? Let’s see how long the deafening silence goes on.

johnmichael o'connor Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 7:55 am

Mal:94—of course it’s a form of extortion

I’d rather choose to whom my charitable dollars go thatn to have some councilmember from another district choose for me.

RC:  Reed has not yet been accused of a crime; merely a HUGE ethical lapse.  But since Doyle and Gonzo are tight, Rickie may find an improper gift of public funds to charge Chuckie Cheapskate with.

Stay tuned.

Today’s debate “sold out”.  Should be some fireworks!  I hope KLIV broadcasts it this evening

Angie Taylor Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 8:13 am

Reality Check,

Barney Fife is busy being our police chief. so he won’t be able to help!

Reality Check Thu, Sep 28, 2006 - 9:50 am

JMO
In the FPPC complaint that was filed over Reeds private law client, Los Esteros, he is actually accused of a crime.  He voted on an item that directly benefited his paying client.  At least that is what the complaint says.

Downtown Brown Fri, Sep 29, 2006 - 1:45 pm

As an observer of last night’s debate, I gotta say Chuck looked a little shell shocked.  He was having some trouble answering the questions on the reimbursements…and now, he has to deal with the misuse of his city credit card.

I’ll say it again, Chuck’s credibility on his principal message—that of honesty, integrity and reform—is gone. And he will have a tough time for the next five weeks, I don’t know how he recovers.

Dr. Doom Fri, Sep 29, 2006 - 3:07 pm

He has a good chance to recover because Chavez has nothing to offer of substance. A platform that says “I am not close to Ron Gonzales” doesn’t get you very far.

Downtown Brown Fri, Sep 29, 2006 - 7:03 pm

True enough Doom….but as I said before, when you carry the message of “honesty, integrity and accountability” and wear it as though you are the only one in the race capable of carrying such virtues—you end up having the most to lose.

For Chuck, he wore that message, wrapped himself up in it and believed he, and he only, was ethically clean.

But, in the end, no matter how you cut this—Chuck Reed took money from the taxpayers illegally and he got caught.

What most voters, I believe, can’t swallow is the following a few critical points:

1.) As a very well-known and knowledgable lawyer, he didn’t know he was breaking the law. C’mon this guy has served for a dozen years in government and he didn’t think it was wrong to give TAXPAYER $$$ to a political candidate. Even if he had a SHRED of a doubt, he, as the now-disgraced candidate of reform, should have been smart enough to take a step back and get a legal opinion—he failed to do so.

2.) Reed, not just from a political standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, will have to justify how he used taxpayer dollars to make himself look good and then demanded reimbursements for it. I mean, how do you, in good conscience, claim to have given your money to groups, like MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNKING DRIVING, act like its a charitable contribution from you and then is surprised to learn thats it not only unethical but possibly illegal.

3.) Chuck Reed has now opened up a personal pandora’s box of his own inadequacies in this campaign. People are now starting to really question who lacks ethics in this race. Regardless of whether its true or not, Chuck is totally to blame for trying to paint someone as a “freeloader” and then is shocked and angry when the media all of the sudden turns on him for, essentially, stealing money from the taxpayers to bolster his own political standing.

If I am Chavez, the message is simple:  Chuck Reed has broken several of his so-called “Reed Reforms”—one of which actually requires him to resign if he breaks any ethics laws.

The unfortunate reality is that Chuck, in spite of his apology, will have to defend himself over the next five weeks on a consistent basis. He won’t be able to speak, to say anything or do anything without having this issue come up. Why? Because he is now perceived as a hypocrite in the mild case and a liar in the worst case—in politics, you rarely recover from that kind of blow to your credibility.

If I were Chuck, I would be cringing at the what the TV and mail is going to look like when it hits the voters. He is going to be savaged and, frankly, its his own fault.

BTW, that “apology” at the debate last evening was described by one member of the media as “a non-apology spoken by a man knows he did something wrong and is angry someone actually caught him.”

Downtown Brown Sat, Sep 30, 2006 - 10:59 pm

So, we have learned even more about how Chuck Reed has tried to steal from the taxpayers. Now, he has another problem.

You see, my poor Disciples, if Dr. No’s continuing reimbursement scandal isn’t enough—you really check out his CITY credit card receipts. They include donations to political groups—IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW!!!

You cannot use of city credit card for public purposes. Even if you pay the money back, as Reed has supposedly done (but no one has seen a copy of the check yet), the act itself is still a violation of city ethics laws—indeed, if I am not mistaken, it is a felony.

Why aren’t any of us surprised….the halo of reform/open and honest government has fallen off of the high and mighty head of Mr. Reed. Now, it appears, with these credit card receipts the situation is worse than any of the Disciples feared.

Man, I swear, Chuck Reed will gladly spend everyone else’s money but his own to look good. I am sorry, thats just slimy no matter how you look at it.

Ya know, if this guy is a fiscal conservative then Clay Aiken is straight…

BTW, where is George Kennedy and the Santa Clara DA’s office? Have they been cowed somehow by Reed? The City Attorney is looking into it—where is George?

Time to cowboy up George and start your investigation…this is not the time to look weak.

Clay Feet Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 10:57 am

Assume you will be coming down hard on Chavez and her holier than thou supporters who have also misused public funds? I can’t hear you??

Hugh Jardonn Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 2:57 pm

Yeah, if we’re going to make Chuck’s life miserable about these “charitable contributions”, then we need to audit everyone on the city council and make them pay the City back for their expenses also. And remember, the $40,000 at issue with Chuck pales in comparison with the millions in wasted public money that Cindy voted for. I’ll take Chuck’s indescretions over CC’s any day.

Reality Check Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 3:46 pm

Reed writes a personal check to a political campaign.  Reed gets credit from the elected official for writing a check, in fact the politician endorses Reed for Mayor (East Side Trustee Lan Nguyen).  Reed seeks reimbursement from the taxpayers for the political donation.  That is illegal. 

Reed seeks a lifetime membership in an organization he says he would not join unless he was a council member.  He will receive the benefits of this lifetime membership after he is no longer on the council.  That is illegal.

Reed’s behavior is illegal and unethical.  To complicate matters, Mr. Open Government/Sunshine will not disclose his charitable contributions, why is that?  Did he claim those reimbursed deductions on his income tax?

As for ads, if they are self promoting, I say no.  Show me where Cindy broke the law or did something unethical with her city credit card or with city reimbursments.  She sought and recieved approval from the city attorney, had the city cut a check so she would not decieve anyone as to who was paying for the ad, and did not include a picture or a quote.  If it was so earth shattering why on page one of the local section.  Mr. Reed is unethical and cheap.

Grand Prix Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 4:30 pm

Is cindy and company going to pay back the 40k tab they ran up at the Grand Prix Hospitality suite?  Who paid the for the suite as well?

We are going to balance the budget with the paybacks!!!!!

Downtown Brown Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 5:12 pm

Clay Feet:

Like you Disciples have demanded from me, I want proof. We can talk about Norcal all you want—cause your boy Chuck has as much if not more responsibility in making this such a problem for San Jose. We can talk about Chuck stealing $$$ from the taxpayers to make himself look good and then, only when he is caught red-handed, does he own up to it. Lets talk about why Mr. Reed is spending hundreds of dollars on big lunches for his staff and lobbyists and then claims to be for “reform” of the system.

Oh, and the big difference is, the illegal reimbursements Mr. Reed received and the votes Chavez and her colleagues made—Reed took that money from the taxpayers and used it for PERSONAL means. Tell me, did Chavez do that??? I dare you to give me REAL PROOF that Chavez did something wrong—when you do, I will jack her up too.

BTW, go back and review the hundreds of other votes where Dr. No voted to spend taxpayers dollars in the TENS OF MILLIONS!!! Many of the votes, Mr. Reed voted in the affirmative because he got something out politically, he got something out of it financially and/or his clients got something out of it.

Some conservative he is huh? Or do you just want to talk about votes he made on behalf of current law clients or on behalf of individual campaign contributors? Or do you want to talk about the hypocrisy and lies Mr. Reed has told in this race and then dares to justify his own illegal actions. 

In other words, he justifies using taxpayer dollars for personal gain…how can you stand that and then compare it to ANYTHING Chavez has supposedly done and yet, you can’t seem to prove.

Downtown Brown Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 5:13 pm

Hugh:

While Chavez and colleagues voted for Norcal (A VERY STUPID MOVE), Reed stole money from the taxpayers for PERSONAL GAIN. For godsakes, are you blind or something? Your boy gave $100 to Mothers Against Drunk Driving and then demanded a reimbursement from the taxpayers for it. Not only is he an unmitigated cheapskate, but to cheat an organization like that—one I have a personal affinity for—shows how lacking in character, and integrity your candidate, Dr. No, really is.

Where do you draw the line Hugh. I get the whole anger at the Norcal vote and what you percieve. But that leads me to three critical points

1.) Chuck Reed stole money from the taxpayers for personal and political gain. To try and spin it any other why is lying both to the voters and to yourself.

2.) You say, “I’ll take Chuck’s indiscretions over CC’s any day.” Please tell me how you can justify Reed’s actions of personal gain and then claim to be the only candidate dedicated to reforming the system. He knows what he did was wrong—and yet he tried to, at first, justify it. So, its okay to steal taxpayer money to make yourself look good and then, in effect, get the money kicked back to you from the taxpayers WHO PAY YOUR F@#%#$%#$ING SALARY TO BEGIN WITH.

Chuck Reed is NOT a poor guy. In fact, he is, relative to Chavez, quite well-off. Are you saying what he did was okay? Are you saying its okay to use taxpayer money for personal gain? Are you saying that Chuck Reed has the right to call Chavez a “freeloader” when it is now shown that it is Reed who is the city’s biggest freeloader since Terry Gregory? Please tell me Hugh, you are not that blind or naive to think that stealing taxpayers dollars like Mr. Reed has is okay?

3.) Tell me something—what REAL proof do you have of Chavez’s indiscretions. Please any of you Disciples with an ounce of real courage and research ability, I want you to tell me that Chavez stole money from the taxpayers like Chuck Reed did? I want a paper trail or do us all a favor and shut up…because like your boy Chuck Reed, Chavez had the courage to release her taxes and make over $13K in charitable contributions and, this is important, didn’t demand it back from the taxpayers.

Face it, Hugh, your boy Chuckie is a paper “reform” tiger of a candidate whose ethical misdeeds are gonna get him indicted or, at the very least, censured by the City Council.

Oh, and believe me sport, this isn’t the end of it.

Reality Check Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 5:15 pm

Why won’t Reed release his charitable deductions?  What does Mr. Open Government have to hide?

Downtown Brown Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 5:23 pm

Please tell me, Grand Prix, where did Chuck sit at the race? And yes,  he attended it. Something tells me, given his history, he didn’t pay for those tickets. Or should we talk about the Sharks games he has gone to or the A’s games he got tickets for and attended.

Either he got ‘em for free or was comped somehow.

BTW, did you have see Reed’s city credit card receipts. Like how he supposedly has a staff luncheon (usually its just him and Armando and one other person) and charges the city for it. You know how much, on average, it costs you and I, the taxpayers, ....about $100 EVERY TIME.

While I think its great that a City Council member takes their staff out for lunch now and again. But once a f(*&)*(ing week at $100 a pop!! C’mon guys…you can’t seriously think that this, along with the reimbursements, is really something that a candidate committed to “open government, honesty and fiscal responsibility” would do to protect thet taxpayers.

Ya see, Chuck Reed isn’t the candidate of reform—he is the candidate of ““Do As I Say And Not As Do.”

Gil Hernandez Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 6:36 pm

In response to JMO #77’s post, Many subjects get steam tested at 7 am in our gym’s steam room.
  What I found so interesting was that Reed became the focus of the Merc’s publications after it became public that Reed had been reembursed for checks written to non profits etc.
  What, would have been a great article, befitting the steam room governors, would have been an investigative analysis, of all the canidates running for office. Starting with the canidates running for Cindy’s district, as they did for Reed in the Mayor’s race.
  Now I don’t think that we should pick anyone individule to select and finding a bit of weakness, blow that individule out of the water. That’s reallly what this sensationalisum is all about.
  A well respected individule commented that Reed had given the GI Forum a donation and was reembursed by the City Clerk’s Office. The fact that the GI Forum is in default on a loan from the city, got some pretty good laughs.
  Correct me if I’m wrong , but didn’t the City Clerk retire some time ago. Who appointed the New City Clerk? John’s point is well taken, Let’s see some equality here.
  Hey folks this is not rocket science. I can’t put a hot shoe on a cold horse, yet I can shoe a hot horse, using a cold shoe. The horse and I know the difference. Get it?
  The Merc. should put their GumShoe, back at the City Clerk’s office and go back at the very least 8 years. Now that would be something to talk about for some time to come.
  There’s a method to my madness! I’m creating a manuscript about the politics of my Little Village. I was inspired by my older Brother, when he became a Director of Social Programs in the Hispanic Community north of here. His ill treatment by the very Hispanics he was trying to help, is what gave me the energy to document within my Village how our local politics works and rules. It not only has been fun, it has been painful.
  In order to see first hand what was eaten, I had to crawl into the Lion’s mouth. When I was spit out , I had all that I needed.
  I’ll leave you with this. There are some cold politicians that I would like to shoe with some hot horse shoes.
  I stand proud for the job Marcela, Dan and the new board has done to give our Village the 15th Anniversary of our International Mariachi Festival, at the HP Pavillion. It’s the only teenager I have now! See all of you Friday evening! Viva Mariachi!
              The Village Black Smith

David D. Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 7:04 pm

Downtown Brown,  Reality Check,  Richard Robinson and other Reed bashers and Cindy defender’s are spending a lot of time and space on this site.

Are they that concerned about a few folks that are looking at the larger picture and it’s impact on the future of San Jose?

In a few weeks, the voters will choose and one will be Mayor…  and life will go on. 

Hopefully for the sake of San Jose the next Mayor will learn form the concers raised in this campaign and apply them.

Downtown Brown Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 9:19 pm

David D.,

I completely respect your thoughts here…they are well made.

However, it needs to be said that I think the Chavez bashers, Disciples of Dr. No, et. al. are now interested in talking about the issues when they discovered their own candidate is seriously, and potentially fatally, flawed politically-speaking.

Again, as I have told you all along, Chuck Reed has called Cindy Chavez every name in the book knowing full well his own past actions were, if not illegal, than certainly questionable. Not to mention, Chuck has consistently said that he has never broken ethics laws but the fact is that he has—in numerous occasions.

At the end, Chuck deserves every attack he has received on this blog and the media hits he has taken. He did it to himself by playing “Mr. Morality” and “Mr. Open Government” and “Mr. Reform”—and then getting caught for stealing money from the taxpayers.

Again, Chuck Reed will probably lose this election, not necessarily because Chavez is a better candidate, but because he is a hypocrital, egostical and self-serving SOB. And he finally got called on the carpet for it.

Clay Feet Sun, Oct 1, 2006 - 9:24 pm

111 - Read today’s paper. Chavez has spent at least $1600 in public funds. Campos has also misused funds as have other council members. We don’t know about the mayor yet but I can guess he’s no better than the others.
I don’t excuse what Reed has done. I also don’t excuse your verbosity about Reed and your silence about Chavez. Wrong is wrong and both Chavez and Reed are wrong. When you write thousands of words over and over again about Chavez, then I will give your anti-Reed tirade a bit of credibility.

Reality Check Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 6:12 am

#118
Please see post #109

Also look at the editorial in this weeks San Jose Business Journal.  They, not me or the Cindy backers, but the paper of record for the business community, they say that what Mr. Reedimbursement did amounts to petty theft of taxpayer dollars.

Are you going to attack them as well?

This guy reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker, preach, preach, preach about ethics and point your finger at everyone else and then come to find out that they are the worst offenders.  What size jumpsuit does Reed wear?

Hugh Jardonn Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 9:31 am

I’m not taking anybody’s word on this blog that Chuck Reed committed a crime. He has been extremely stupid, but that’s not illegal. If he has committed a crime, has he been charged by the DA? If not, will the DA be planning to file charges against him? And isn’t he innocent until proven guilty? not on this blog.

Will there be an audit of all the council members so that we can sort out who has been improperly spending city money? And will charges be brought against everybody who spent illegally?

And, most importantly, when will Cindy’s supporters give us a reason to forget all about the HUGE money-wasting schemes that she voted for that have hurt the taxpayer much more than Chuck’s $40,000 spending spree has. I’ll say it again: the problem with Cindy is her voting record, supporting Ron’s money-wasting schemes.

A Republican Family in San Jose Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 12:54 pm

We are both registered Republican’s in Santa Clara County.

She received Cindy’s “Dear Friend” note!

He did not!

How did this happen?

He was dissapointed to have not received Cindy’s warm greeting but surmises that he is not a true “friend” to Ms. Chavez!

johnmichael o'connor Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 1:29 pm

RC #102—Are FPPC violations crimes, or civil complaints?  There’s no jail time, just fines, so I think it is a civil violation, not a crime.  That doesn’t make it any more or less unethical, though.  Are DISCLOSED conflicts of interests FPPC vilations?

DB #105 is correct that this will haunt Chuckie Cheapskate for the remainder of the campaign, as well it shoud haunt a man whose major plank is ethics.  And DB will harangue about it endlessly even if no-one else does.

However, it pales in comparison to the $15 million of our $$ that Cindy gave away needlessly.  So, once again we must hold our noses when we vote.

I believe most of Chuckie’s votes will either stay with him or stay home; few who voted for Chuck in the primary will switch to Cindy in November.  But what about the votes for Pandori & Mulcahy?  What will those voters do—stay home, switch, or hold their noses and vote for “Mr. Ethics”?

In the end, these “scandals” will ensure that the messages to the voters won’t be so much about a vision for the future, how to get us off the worst roads in the nation list, but will devolve into name-calling and justifications authored by the consultants and costing the world a few hundred trees to print the mailers.

Downtown Brown Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 5:55 pm

Hugh:

Sorry, you are wrong. Ethics laws clearly state that you cannot use public funds for political purposes. Chuck did it multiple times—he broke the law, its that simple.  Not to mention the fact that Chuck said, for the last year and a half, that he was the only true candidate for reform in this race. And now, it turns out, he is the only one who broke the law. He didn’t just violate FPPC rules—he broke ethics laws.  The Santa Clara DA wouldn’t bother looking into it if it wasn’t criminal.

BTW, Chuck didn’t release all of his taxes. He neglected to release his Schedule A. Do you Disciples know what a “Schedule A” form is?

Its where you list your charitable deductions…you know, the ones Chuck claimed reimbursements for…

Now, I am no Columbo—but Chavez released her Schedule A, why hasn’t Reed released his Schedule A.  Its because he broke the law and now knows if he releases that document…the effect will be DEVASTATING to this race.

Let me tell you why.

Lets say Mr. Reed makes charitable contributions to groups like, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Now, we know he has received reimbursements for these “personal” donations. Okay, so we know that story and its bad enough, right. But this gets worse.

Lets then say, Mr. Reed then claimed those charitable donations on his personal taxes—even though he was reimbursed by the city. 

Can you now see the problem. He is claiming a tax deduction on a donation that he, in real terms, never made. In other words, for you really slow Disciples, you can’t claim a deduction for a donation that you never made OR you got reimbursed for by an organization.

So, folks, Mr. Reed has yet to release his all-important “Schedule A.” Can anyone tell me why? Do any of you Disciples dare ask your boy Chuck why?

I call on Mr. Reed to release his Schedule A form right now—before the IRS starts to ask why.

C’mon Mr. Open Government, show us something—prove to us you aren’t hiding something.

Start hiding behind legal parsing of your words—the kind of parsing you did both before the grand jury and in every debate/forum you have particiapated in this campaign.

One more thought—Chavez voted for these things, no question. But stop talking about that as though she broke the law.

You Disciples ALL talk about these votes and yet you ignore the simple fact that Chuck Reed voted 95% of the time with the Mayor on things like millions of dollars in giveaways, that he voted to help a client to the tune of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars and stole money from the taxpayers

The difference—Chuck Reed stole this money for personal use only!!

Please, for once, prove that Chavez stole $$$. You see, I proved what Chuck Reed did wrong—

Do us all a favor and do the same—or be quiet. Cause you can spin all you want Disciples—but your boy, “Mr. Honest, Integrity and Open Government” broke the law and got caught.

Sorry, but ya can’t spin that Disciples….so, go ask your boy to release his “Schedule A” and stop hiding beyond legal parsing of words to justify your illegal activities.

Disgusted Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 6:35 pm

DB - Thanks for filling up space again. When, and if, charges are filed, then we will know the law has been broken. I don’t believe you have deputized to file charges or to be judge and jury. You held your breath and stomped your feet when others did the same to Chavez (whom you apparently believe can do no wrong.)
And thanks for bringing the level of discussion down again. We had a brief moment where there was actually civil discourse taking place here, but now you’ve brought it right back down to the silly insults and name calling. Congratulations. I’m sure you will continue with the tirade as soon as recess is over. As for me I’m going to look for more intelligent conversation…with my 9 year old nephew.

k. le Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 9:59 pm

thanks to those braindead reed critics who have added nothing but hot air to this site,  I am more motivated than ever to vote on nov. 7.

chuck may not be perfect, but based on past history, I am a lot more confident that he will waste less of the taxpayer’s money than chavez and her council followers/cohorts. 

I find that criticism about chuck’s lack of vision is not a bad thing.  goverment officials who have ‘vision’ have given us boondoggles like the new city hall.

Downtown Brown Mon, Oct 2, 2006 - 10:24 pm

Disgusted:

Wow, just like the rest of your fellow Disciples, you have the utter nerve to accuse me and others of “bringing down the discussion again.”

Ya see, unlike you my friend, I knew what I was saying because, unlike you, I know the real Chuck Reed. He has been, and always will be, the “do as I say, not as I do” candidate. Its just his way.

And I don’t have to file charges—thats the DA’s job or, in Chuck’s case, probably the U.S. Justice Department. Either way, Chuck needs to release his “Schedule A’ if he has nothing to hide.

As for intelligent conversation, sorry I think you are simple afraid of learning the real truth—that your “golden boy” Chuck is really got a lot of tarnish on him. Its for the same reason that you so self-righteously call for “civil discourse.” Sorry sport, this is politics—not a Harvard debating society. If you can’t take a little bit of what you and your fellow Disciples have been dishing out for the last year—then leave the room and let the adults talk.

The fact remains—Chuck Reed is now once trying to hide the truth.

C’mon Chuck, cowboy up baby and lets see ALL of your tax returns.

Disgusted Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 5:50 am

DB - I’ll give you one thing—you are good at spinning and distorting. I am no more a Reed “Disciple” than you claim not to be a Chavez lover. I, and others, on this board have tried to look at both candidates, which you refuse to do. Keep bashing Reed and keep ignoring what Chavez has done and then keep spinning and calling everybody a “Disciple.” It’s cute but a waste of space. Bias on either side dilutes the discussion and you have diluted it to the point of uselessness.
I will now expect the same response you have already provided 15 or 20 times.
Thanks for the creativity and the concern for San Jose. If you really cared you would look objectively at BOTH candidates, but I realize trying to make San Jose a better community is not high on your agenda.

Just Wondering II Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 5:52 am

Hey Downtown Brown,

We have the newest inadequate city hall, and worst streets of any major city. How does Cynthia Chavez Potter plan to recover some of the funding that was wasted on the new city hall and use it to fix our streets?

I hope she’s not planning on issuing more RDA bonds, my grandchildren are already facing an uphill battle with the current bond debt they will inherit.

Hugh Jardonn Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 6:39 am

johnmichael o’connor #122 sums it up pretty well. Writing about Chuck, he said “However, it pales in comparison to the $15 million of our $$ that Cindy gave away needlessly.” This is the issue for many voters, why should we vote for Cindy given her bad voting record of wasting City money? And is the DA going to file charges against Chuck? I’m not taking DB’s word on Chuck’s “crimes”, let the DA decide that. That’s what a DA is paid for.

Downtown Brown Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 11:25 am

So, Just Wondering II, please tell me EXACTLY where do you think funds come from to fix city streets.

Please since you are so much smarter than us about appropriations for city projects—please give me a clue as to how much Chavez controls of the budget. Tell me, are you saying, among other things, that Chavez is responsible for the condition of the streets too.

Dot Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 12:00 pm

130 - The $15 million+ of public funds that she has given away certainly would have helped to make our streets better. The $4 million+ for the Grand Prix didn’t help and the $11 million+ certainly didn’t help. So, Chavez does hold some responsibility for the deterioration of the streets, as do the other councilmembers who supported the cash giveaway.
The problem is deeper than that, though, so it won’t get discussed here. The Reed bashers seem content to keep things pretty superficial—must have been what the campaign memo told them to do.

Downtown Brown Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 1:34 pm

So Dot, using your logic, would it not then stand to reason that Chuck Reed also has some responsibility because he took votes on legislation that spent millions on specific projects—particularly votes on certain developments where he stood to gain both politically and financially.

Again, using your logic, wouldn’t Mr. Reed hold some responsibility for the condition of our streets. Funny, you fail to mention that somehow…oh wait, I know why, because Armando or Tricky Vic told you not to as that would obscure the message.

Kinda like they are trying to obscure the message with a push poll they have going around the last day or so. BTW, this is a Tricky Vic special and its one of the reasons he fled to Omaha a few years ago.

BTW, once again using your reasoned, if unrealistic, logic, you are saying that Cindy Chavez ALONE controls the entire city budget. Are you that naive or just so desperate to change the issue away from your boy Chuck being on the razor’s edge of a criminal indictment for defrauding taxpayers.

So, once again, when will Chuck Reed release his “Schedule A”. You know, the one that details his “charitable contributions.”

Dot Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 3:44 pm

DB - You are quite a piece of work. You are a master of distortion. You are also a master of repetition. I’m not going to waste time refuting the numerous errors in your post—you’re not interested in accuracy anyway. But, for the record, I am not a Reed supporter, and I don’t know your friends VIc and Armando. Sorry to disappoint you and I know it doesn’t fit into your conspiracy mindset.
If only you would devote your time to trying to improve what is wrong in SJ. You are so overwhelmed by your hatred of Reed, and of these two you speak of—Vic and Armando. I assume they actually exist and are not imaginary friends of yours.
Anyway, reread my post and you will see how inaccurate your comments are regarding what I said. I’ll understand if you don’t since accuracy just gets in the way of your tirades.

Downtown Brown Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 6:46 pm

But Dot…you didn’t answer my question…imagine my surprise.

Dot Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 6:59 pm

DB - You had a question mixed in with all those words? Maybe you should try using a “?” so if anybody bothers reading your entire repetitive posting they would be able to find the question in there.
If I correctly found your question, my answer would be, “I don’t know. When?” But since you like questions so much, here’s one for you: When will you speak out against the entire broken system of expense reimbursements, even if it gores your ox as well?

Just Wodering II Tue, Oct 3, 2006 - 7:11 pm

DB,

The point I’m trying to make is: We’re wasting time on a topic that has been ground to a pulp. We need to know how either candidate will manage the city if elected. Has Cynthia or Reed given any solid commitments on what their polecies will be. The only thing I’ve heard from them is: Cynthia wants to work with everyone, and Reed wants to be fiscally responsible. What’s that?

Before spouting off another 4 or 5 paragraghs of jibber, give it a few minutes and think. Have you heard either of them publicly commit to anything solid?

Downtown Brown Wed, Oct 4, 2006 - 10:43 am

You know what Dot…read it again. I know I used to many BIG words for you and the Disciples.

Just Wondering—here is the deal.  Sure we can talk about issue—lets talk about the issue your boy Chuck has been running on since the beginning.  Lets start talking about the MASSIVE hypocrisy your boy Chuck “Dr. No” Reed has engaged in. Sure, you didn’t mind bashing Chavez with the ethics club from the beginning. And now, when your boy turns out to be the one who is not only ethically challenged—but is looking at a criminal indictment.

Chuck’s ONLY issue has been “open govenrment, honest and integrity.” Its his ONLY message. He has run on this issue, called Chavez unethical and criminal and claims to be the “fiscal conscience” of the SJ City Council. And yet, it now turns out he is the one at the center of growing unethical and criminal scandal.

And now, you, Tricky Vic and Reed wanna talk about issues….

I am just stunned…