There was a time when a small clique of special interest developers trying to buy the mayor’s office would elicit outrage and indignation. Perhaps that time has passed because it is happening right now and nothing is being said about it. In recent days, we have seen the few interests who own properties in the Coyote Valley make one of the most brazen attempts at a land grab since the Oklahoma land rush. They—billionaires, Republicans, and out-of-town companies and law firms—have poured donations in $25,000 increments and higher into the local Democratic Party political apparatus. Some of these individuals still write in Herbert Hoover for President, so ardent are their conservative leanings, but here they stand shoulder to shoulder with the most aggressive proponents of a very ambitious labor agenda. It is obvious that this “unholy alliance” of greed and hubris is trying to buy the office of mayor. If Cindy Chavez disagrees with such tactics, she has not shown it and her silence speaks very loudly.
Now, you can say that the Chamber has a pro-business agenda, and the South Bay Labor Council has a pro-labor agenda. But all we can say about those who are cynically pouring dollars into the closely coordinated campaigns of the Democratic Central Committee and the Chavez camp, is that their only goal is to defy the longstanding precepts of good planning in San Jose and impose a speedily concocted and ruinous proliferation of homes equaling the size of the city of Milpitas.
If their proposals are so good, then why do they need these Chicago/Karl Rove tactics? They have calculated that no one can sort it out in time to let the voters know about it. As they sit in Sun Valley, Carmel and St. Moritz, counting their money and joking about the way they finally did a takeover of municipal government in San Jose, we here in the city will suffer the consequences. It should make for many laughs at the salons and nineteenth holes of these super rich.
And, of course, the leaders of labor here in our valley have clearly been genetically purged of the “shame” gene. They can and have taken money from anyone: Coyote land barons, gambling interests, rightwing Republicans, and assorted lobbyists that, if not for the “pay to play” regime of the Gonzales era, might well be working at Dairy Queen.
These interests are very frightened of Chuck Reed. I know. I have heard it from them in firsthand conversations. It is curious that Reed’s promise to give them “fair” treatment and involve the citizens of our city in these major decisions has them all in a panic. They felt the approval of their “new city” in Coyote had been purchased previously and hope people would stay “bought.” I also know that they made representations that they would never allow their donations to fund the Democratic Central Committee’s attacks on Reed; their chief spokesperson gave me her word on that.
As the many late contributions, laundered monies, and dishonest statements continue to surface in the waning days of the campaign, we can rest assured of only one thing for certain: Their word is as good as their plan.
A vote for Chavez is a vote to destroy Coyote Valley. The choice is simple.
There will be a time to dev elop coyote, maybe. Maybe it should be a huge park similiar to Central Park or maybe just stay open space. Whatever happens it should not happen soon nor should it happen by buying the city council an mayors office. Gonzo has made a joke of city hall and himself by selling out to special interests through there paid lobbyists, most of who were his supportors or formerly worked for him, and it’s a disgrace. Pleasse don’t elect anyother Gonzo through Cindy Chavez. WE;ve had enough.
Clearly, nothing is too low for the Chavez campaign. Having supported her in the primary, she has forced me away from her with her continual campaign of desperation. I would have more respect for her is she lost and ran a decent campaign than is she wins by running a pathetic campaign based on nothing but attacks. What happened to the Cindy we used to know?? Or has she fooled us all along and that Cindy never really existed??
I am very concerned about what will happen to San Jose Inside once the San Jose Mayor campaign is finished and the new mayor has been sworn in. We’ve been electing a new mayor in this blog ever since the first hints of the garbage scandal. We won’t have Norcal nor Gonzalez to bash. We won’t have Reed or Chavez to bash anymore. What will it be? I met many of our contributors and editors at the memorial service for our beloved Leonard McKay. I met the two mayor candidates, a previous mayor or two and other notable citizens of our city. All seem to be decent individuals concerned having the best for San Jose. Of course if I met frustrated finfan or other prolific contributors I wasn’t aware. Let’s find a new subject for the improvement of San Jose. Good luck to ALL candidates.
Native San Josean,
This is a legitimate topic. WE (all residents of San Jose) should be very concerned about the large amounts of special interest money pouring into San Jose. It’s no secret that Reed has a better track record of saying no, and in this case, it may be to the ultimate benefit of our City. We need a Mayor who can seperate friends from business and I am not convinced that Chavez can do so.
Personally, I am SO tired of the Chavez mailers. Yesterday I received one from Planned Parenthood urging me to join the thousands of women in San Jose that will be voting for Chavez because she will protect a woman’s right to choose. In the same pile of mail was one from the South Bay Labor Council. Maybe I should view this as “look who is supporting Cindy,” but all I can think about is the $$$ pouring into her campaign.
Cindy’s behavior hit an all time low yesterday with the accusations against Reed for allowing his staffer to attend school. This is decency? People show you exactly who they are in times of crisis and Cindy is showing San Jose that she is willing to play dirty if it means she might win.
The thousands of dollars spent on mailers people will throw away could have been spent on aiding a child’s education. Wouldn’t that drive Cindy’s message home rather than what she’s spewing now? Idealistic? Maybe. But it would have won me over.
Most of us are concerned, at the present, about the mayor’s race. But when that is over I should think there are many many other things that need to be done to improve San Jose and Santa Clara county. We will still have some wimps on the city council that need to be weeded out. Then look at all the overriding services provided by cities and county that should/could be combined for savings to the taxpayers. We have a lot of duplicate staffs. Within San Jose there is the eternal question of how can we make this a city that would be the envy of all. We’ll never have the natural beauty of S.F. but we can use the brain power of the valley to create a place that people would enjoy visiting and living here. We need some good brainstorming and bury the old garbage that has accumulated within the county (not a Gonzo pun). Some way more “rank and file” citizens have to become involved inthe planning and development. We don’t need another situation like VTA where the pol’s are involved in overseeing the operation. If you want something really messed up, give it to government.
So this blog could be a sounding board for some simulating ideas and an occasional blast/rant at the polictical structure.
I copied this post from Bridget, below, regarding a press conference Chavez held, in front of City Hall, regarding one of Reeds’ Staffers. Aparently, she attended a Theology School, and part of her education had religious components to it. BECAUSE THIS IS A PERSONNEL ISSUE, CHAVEZ HAD EVERY OBLIGATION TO HANDLE IT IN HOUSE, WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, NOT IN A CAMPAIGN STYLE PRESS CONFERENCE. This is a new low for Chavez, and Chavez supporters should be disappointed in her. SHAME ON YOU, CINDY CHAVEZ.
Today, Chavez hit an all time low. Holding a press conference to expose Reed for helping a young, immigrant employee get an education, is not only disgusting , it is unforgivable. That poor girl in Reed’s office will suffer horrible embarrassment, and humiliation because of this. I was told this young girl cried her eyes out half the day.
I am really disgusted and angry at the so call religious leaders that took part in this. Standing by Chavez side as she tore apart this young girl’s effort to become a better City employee, competent in the English language, and to support her child is despicable.
I can not believe winning is so important to her that she would sink this low. She is beyond pond scum. If she wins this race, I will be absolutely disappointed in the citizens of San Jose for voting for her.
Posted by Bridget
Tuesday, October 31 at 09:01 PM
S.B #6,
Chavez’s accusations against the staffer are troubling as the city policy is quite vague. What is even more confusing is the presence of the clergy at her press conference as reported by the Merc.
Were these clergy present because of separation of church and state concerns? If so, their concerns would be more credible if they waited a week after the election.
For the clergy to put themselves in the middle of a campaign event for Chavez and claim they are concerned about the separation of church and state is bizarre.
Tom,
Don’t engage in “silly season” stuff yourself.
You can infer many things about Cindy, but a Republican she is not.
Chuck, on the other hand, pandered to the right wing in the primary—tie and all—which is why he won. His campaign is backed by reeps, funded by reeps and he has a reep consultant.
As for Reeps giving to the Democratic Party, if they are, the Dems should take their money and spend it wisely.
Better to use the devil’s money against him than to have the devil use it for himself.
Tom’s article hit it right on the head. Does any of this surprise me—- no, but what does surprises me is that any of the people of San Jose would even believe to the contrary. Remember—Cindy Chavez has been attached to and trained by Ron Gonzales, her mentor. Her actions as a council person have shown her loyalties toward Ron and the atmosphere and agendas he created and pursued.
So would it surprise anyone to know that Cindy would sell favors to the “highest bidders”? Remember, as the consummate politician—Cindy will do and stoop to any levels to get elected, whether it’s “mud slinging” or favor selling. It’s still a good measure and idea to follow the money trail and see whose attached. This will tell the full story of who is buying who and what favors will be demanded and given in return.
Concerned Citizen
Distract and deflect, Karl Rove would be proud of the Reedites.
This not a personnel, it is a gift of public funds issue. It is a church/state issue.
This is not a school, it is a church—get the difference. They did not study accounting, they study Christ.
It is not an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money—period—end of sentence.
#10 – Better to use the devil’s money against him than to have the devil use it for himself.
That money is meant for a certain purpose. If you take that money, knowing that purpose, there is an unspoken agreement. You are leading that person to believe you agree with them. If they knew you were against their proposal, they wouldn’t spend that kind of money on you.
So my question to you is this: how dishonest is it to accept money, knowing that the giver is expecting something from you?
#12: you are missing the point – it is still not appropriate to hold a public press conference announcing how bad this is, when it involves a staffer. If Chavez were really concerned about this, as opposed to her campaign style press conference, then she should have handled it in house, through proper channels.
Good morning!
A volunteer told me that there was discussion on this blog about our race and whether or not it will be a close one.
First of all, thank you to those who have been supporting us – we need your help now more than ever.
Make no mistake: This race will be a close one.
The last couple elections for the downtown seat have been within a few hundred votes. This one will be another nail-biter.
We need your help – walking, calling, volunteering in the office – if we want to win this thing.
Please call the office if you are interested in helping us in any way during these last six days: 283-0646
Cordially,
Mikey Lee
Campaign Manager, Liccardo for City Council
Suzanne Blaine wrote: “Chavez held a press conference today harping on Reed for approving an educational reimbursement for one of his Council Aides to get a MA degree in Theology and Intercultural Studies. The City has a Personal Development policy that allows employees to seek reimbursement up to a certain amount for education expenses/personal development each year. Cindy now has to resort to dragging innocent City Staff into the mix of her desperate tactics. I can only imagine the things that Cindy will pull this week.”
Well, if this isn’t enough to convince those still sitting on the fence to vote for Reed, the city is lost. RR infers that Republicans are “devils” but Cindy’s press conference is truly Satanic. Tell Cindy to get stuffed by voting for Reed.
Some facts some may have missed in Merc Story.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=elections&id=4714766
Susan Hammer, Former San Jose Mayor: “It is simply not appropriate to use public money, public money for private purposes. There’s a big difference my friends between a personal expense and a public expense.”
The Chavez campaign did not name the person who benefited from the $1,400 dollar expense, but Chuck Reed did. He says the money was for Mandy Nguyen. Nguyen has worked in Reed’s council office for five years.
In 2003, she took seven classes at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at taxpayer expense. The classes included principals and approaches to Bible teachings and worship and music in the faith community.
Native ( but naïve) San Jose said ” All seem to be decent individuals concerned having the best for San Jose. ”
Past Mayors and City Council have numerous times failed voters and taxpayers while local politicians past and present knew or should of known what was going on was illegal, unethical and knew about or benefited from decades of ” Pay to Play” politics but did nothing
Many San Jose voters after decades of political watching would not agree. Your “ All seem “ statement would include Ron Gonzales, Terry Gregory, others resignations and convictions s who have been self serving, political careerists, incompetent or San Jose politicians primarily serving special interest supporters who elected them.
For widespread public agreement should read
Some seem to be decent individuals concerned having the best for San Jose but many times are incapable except to look out for themselves, political career ambitions, family interests, political friends, supporters and campaign contributors first and then San Jose’s public interest
Well RR, 7 classes is a lot for one person to take in a semester who is working full time. I believe Cindy put “such classes as…” and looked up what classes were needed for that major rather than actually knowing what Miss Nguyen took.
What is Cindy trying to prove with this escapade? That Chuck Reed is a crook, because please, nobody believes that. Cindy said, “If you want rules, you want Mr. Reed,” but I wonder how many rules were set in motion because of Cindy and her Council Sheeps’ accusations. If I were on that Council, I’d be afraid to rub my nose for fear that my picture would be in the Merc the next day with headlines reading “Chavez accuses fellow Councilmember of being nose picker!”
RR:
Perhaps you could make your point if you quoted the exact policy that was violated, if one was violated. If the policy was for education related only to the job, then it appears it was not appropriate. If the policy was for personal development, it is not just for personal development that you or I approve of. It is for any personal development that well benefit the person. If theological training makes that person a better person, then so be it. But you cannot question that after the fact for political gain as your candidate is doing. You do something to change the policy in the future. Since Ms. Chavez has been in office for quite a while, she could have done something to change this. Instead, she is just making herself look even more sleazy.
Thank you tom for putting in plain words what is rotten at the core of s.j. politics: it’s precisely this ‘unholy alliance’ of Big Labor and Big Business which creates as its progency Big Projects That Pour Lots of Concrete that Create Jobs and Make Developers Wealthier. The fact that RR’s incoherence hits new levels is even more evidence that you have found the soft spot. Say No to both labor and big business. Let’s hope reed can deliver on that level of independence.
RR, I kike your way of describing the seperation of church and state except what the hell were clergy doing at a Cindy press conference re a staffer taking courses at a Baptist College? Seems two faced to me but then that’s nothing new in this election. I have hard feelings about people mixing religion and politics. My belief in God is my business and doesn’t have to be shared by anyone else or should it be. Any pol using religion to get elected should be run out of town, tar and feathered.
You’ve worn out your arguement defending Cindy so bury it!
Good to have the comic stylings of RR back on the board. I know you launch this stuff just to get a discussion going, but aren’t you ever concerned that the naive among us might think you actually believe some of the stuff you write? Aren’t you concerned about your reputation??
If anything Chavez said yesterday was accurate, shouldn’t she have taken it up in-house? If she was really concerned about a possible violation shouldn’t she have gone through the appropriate channels—which don’t include a last ditch, lame public press conference? What happens after the election, during her last few days before her retirement. If she think someone has done something wrong will she call another press conference or will she handle it in a proper and professional manner?? Since professionalism left the Chavez camp a long time ago we can only assume that she won’t do anything about these so-called wrongs because she won’t get any press after the election.
How did she get to be so tragically pathetic??
Cindy Chavez appears to be desperate. Instead of running on her record and making the case why she’d be a better mayor than Chuck, she’s running with this religious education thing for some reason. Cindy, how, exactly, did this violate the law? Isn’t this a personal development program? Who gives you the right to say what the “right” personal development is? And if you’re torqued about church and state, why invite the clergy to your press conference.
This whole thing stinks out loud.
Glen,
The Clergy with Cindy was pointing out how inappropriate it was for Chuck to use taxpayer money for inappropriate religious reasons.
The Clergy was not part of a government press conference.
Is this separation too hard for some?
Of course there should be a separation between church and state. The city has a blurry line when it comes to that separation, though. They often start the City Council meetings with a prayer. And, how many city dollars and city staff time are spent each year on Christmas in the Park??? Nice display but should city money help pay for it.
As far as personal development funds go, did Cindy really make a case for a violation? It appears all she did was what her campaign does so well – smear someone with innuendo, leave out pertinent facts, and then back away after the damage has been done. You can’t get much lower than smearing an innocent staff person.
Can you imagine the ugliness of a Chavez administration? If she stoops this low now, how much lower will she be willing to stoop if she were mayor? I don’t want to find out and I don’t think the city can afford to find out either.
Any of you legal types out there know what kind of damage the clergy who participated in this charade might have done to their congregations? Did they hurt their non-profit status by participating in a blatant political theatrical production?
It is now more than obvious that Chuck Reed has neither the ability, knowledge, and integrity to be mayor of San Jose. Using tax funds to support religious ideologies is unethical and unacceptable.
This is the second time Chuck has been caught using taxpayer money for religious purposes. When will it end?
Chuck, be honorable and withdraw from the race before you embarrass yourself further.
Thank you.
Folks, it’s not clear to me that Chuck Reed has ruled out opening up Coyote Valley to development. Can anyone point me to articles/stories/statements that spell out what Chuck Reed thinks/wants to do about Coyote development? Thanks.
Rich wrote:
“The Clergy was not part of a government press conference. “
So tell us Rich, who organized the press conference? If the clergy were so concerned about the expenses from 2003, why did they wait until a week before the election? To help the Chavez campaign? Did any of the clergy contact Reed to express their concerns in 2004, 2005 or even earlier this year? Why not?
#25 – RR:
You said, “The Clergy was not part of a government press conference.” That sounds funny to me. So are you admitting it was a campaign press conference? If so, even more reason to say, “SHAME ON CINDY CHAVEZ”.
The other question that brings up for me is this: Are you allowed to hold a campaign event at a public building? If this was not a government press conference from the Vice Mayor, then it must have been a campaign event. ARE CAMPAIGNS ALLOWED TO USE PUBLIC FACILITIES (the building, microphone stand, etc.) FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES?
Tom McEnery,
No doubt you have seen Chavez’ press conference about the staffer getting an education at a Babtist college. What are your thoughts on this, as a former mayor? What do you think about Chavez holding a press conference in front of City Hall about this, vs. going through proper channels?
Jean,
Yes they are—public facilities are owned by the public—they are managed by the government.
Some governments don’t even know that distinction. Any person has the right to use a public building etc.—the government can only determine time, manner and place.
#32
RR: You said that they are public buildings, and as such, can be used by the public any time. So, are candidates allowed to campaign in public facilites? And you said that the government has only to determine the time, manner, and place. Are you saying that the Chavez Campaign applied to use this space for a press conference? Were City Workers used in any setup?
Chavez’s irresponsible political press conference yesterday violated San Jose policy about disclosure of personal matters, caused employee embarrassment and created a hostile work environment for Reed’s staffer on 18th Floor
The lawsuit settlement will cost San Jose tens or hundreds thousands in needed taxes and staff time
Rich quoted Susan Hammer from the KGO article:
“It is simply not appropriate to use public money, public money for private purposes. There’s a big difference my friends between a personal expense and a public expense.”
Any expense assigned under the city policy to enabling “personal well-being” would be a private purpose.
Are Hammer and Chavez advocating change to the city policy by removing this expense category? If this is a policy issue, why did they have to attack the lone staffer one week before the election? I am sure many others in city hall have charged expenses to enabling personal well-being.
Tom,
I love ya, but really; “Blame the Republican’s”?
Most of the Republican’s that you and I know are supporting Chuck Reed with the exception of a few very self interested developers with interests in Coyote. Let’s name names.
And…Sam Liccardo gets our vote as well.
34 – So? Isn’t that SOP for Chavez.? Her support of illegal actions has already cost the city millions and millions of dollars, so what’s a few hundred thousand more going to matter??
If she actually had a campaign that focused on issues she might not be losing this race. If she had thought about her votes in the past before selling them to the highest bidder, she might have had a chance to be mayor. As it is, she has alienated many of the people who should be supporting her (moderate to liberal Dems, etc.) Instead, she has forced us away to Reed who has infinitely more experience than she does in key areas such as land use.
Tuesday can’t get here soon enough.
>> If Cindy Chavez disagrees with such tactics, she has not shown it and her silence speaks very loudly. <<
It’s not that she is silent.
It’s that she…. “… doesn’t recall.”
Besides… aren’t these billionaires, Republicans, and out-of-town companies and law firms you speak just San Jose voters that want to improve their neighborhoods, patch their potholes and improve their children’s education?
Tom…. you keep talking like that and you might wake one evening and find the head of a horse in your bed.
Careful…. this sounds like a rough town.
Geez, enough about a $1400 expense and how about talking about some real issues. I think that Cindy would have fared better had she stuck to her “ideals” of children and schools and healthcare.
Rumor has it that someone in the Chavez campaign was heard to promise that “by the time this election is over, Mandy Nguyen will be a household name.”
Interesting to watch the internecine fighting going on amongst Democrats over a campaign tactic that makes the Willie Horton ads look noble by comparision. Horton raped and murdered an innocent woman courtesy of an insane government policy; Mandy Nguyen’s great sin (assuming it’s still okay to use that term about a government employee) was that she improved her education courtesy of a well-meaning government program.
That Miss Chavez did not personally reveal the identity of someone so easily identified is about as convincing as is the fact that Bush 1 never said a thing about Willie Horton being black.
Mr. Robinson and other spinmeisters can huff and puff till Kingdom come (oops, I did it again), but the Chavez campaign has sunk to a low and Miss Chavez deserves to be retired from public office. The appropriateness of an employee’s conduct is an internal matter, not election fodder. No one—not even a panicked, blinded-by-ambition politician—who possessed an ounce of genuine respect for city workers could do to Miss Nguyen what Cindy Chavez did to her.
I would hope that the hardworking folks at City Hall will make their disgust public—very public—sometime before the election.
Sorry, Jean # 8, RR is right this time: it is not a personnel issue. It would be a personnel issue if Ms. Nguyen were accused of wrongdoing; but she is not so accused. It’s Chuck that is accused.
There is a HUGE difference between a Baptist Theological Seminary and USF or Santa Clara U or St. Mary’s or Notre Dame. It would seem that the seminary Ms. Nguyen attended at partial taxpayer expense is the functional equivalent of Novititate or Alma College in Los Gatos, the Jesuit theological school. If anyone has info. to the contrary, please let us know.
No, Jean #14, YOU are mising the point. Nobody accused MS. NGUYEN of wrongdoing in this matter. Cindy accused Chuck. It was a bit tacky, to be sure; but that seems to be Ms. Pearl Necklace’s M.O. these days; but it was not illegal.
RR, do you subscribe to this kind of tacky campaign? You posted earlier in response to me in another folder that you sleep well at night knowing you’re fighting the good fight. Is this how you choose to fight it? It’s Manny-esque, for chrissakes. Theo Logy # 26 said it well and it bears repeating: “Can you imagine the ugliness of a Chavez administration? If she stoops this low now, how much lower will she be willing to stoop if she were mayor?”
Oh, RR #17, you might benefit from a class teaching the difference between “principals” and “principles”…but not at taxpayer expense. And there’s an elective re the difference between “effect” and “affect”, but I’m not sure you need that one. You are however right on the underlying issue, it would seem. I have yet to have it explained to me how studying the Bible passes the constitutional separation of church and state muster.
I can’t swallow the “personal development” defense. What a meaningless bureaucratic psychobabble phrase that is.
I remain unconvinced that the expenditure to attend that particular institution was an appropriate expenditure of public funds.
However, I remain convinced that the method and the timing of Cindy’s disclosure of that expenditure was sleazy to the max, and it gives us all a huge clue about what her administration will look like and how it will function, shoould she be elected.
Chuck has had a couple of huge lapses in judgment brought before the public. Any chance Jude would give him a seminar, or hire on as a part time consultant?
39 – She has floundered because she doesn’t have a platform to stand on. She has drifted from issue to issue based on her polling and her consultants. If she campaigned on what she really believed in she might have had a chance.
It is not a pretty picture when a politician sells out their own beliefs. Now, all she has left is to attack Reed on silly matters that would best be left to handled outside of the political arena.
Richard, #17
You said…. >> Susan Hammer, Former San Jose Mayor: “It is simply not appropriate to use public money, for private purposes. There’s a big difference my friends between a personal expense and a public expense.” <<
I totally agree with her comment. It is also true that the City’s expense reimbursement policy is and has been both specific and vague. It is also true that Chuck realized both, apologized and paid back to the City more than he probably had to or should have.
Judging from the spin, timing and tactics displayed in this campaign, I have to ask you about this quote.
1) When did she say this? Date and source?
2) Was she speaking about the action… a specific person… or both?
3) Was her intent to malign or harm… or state a held value?
4) And do you have any idea how she might feel about the way Chuck handled it?
Rich, What Cindy failed to point out in her press conference was the rest of the classes this women took. If you attend Santa Clara University you must take a number of religious classes, if you just pull those out you could say the same thing about any city staffer who went to SCU.
By the way I heard the Merc did a poll that has Reed pulling ahead, looks like all the negitive campaigning by Chavez will not work on the voters of San Jose.
“It is simply not appropriate to use public money, public money for private purposes. There’s a big difference my friends between a personal expense and a public expense.”
Is this the same Susan Hammer who wanted to evict the Creche from Christmas in the Park?
That was until the news folks a Univision started talking about it and the Latino community was ready to march on city hall. Then she said that it was just a misunderstanding. Yeah right.
Since no one but me reads SV411 I thought I would share todays post with you. I think it is right along the pay to play line Tom has been talking about.
Documents show that Cindy Chavez met with a developer a day before the Valley Transit Authority committee she chairs approved its project and seven weeks before the firm donated $50,000 to the Democratic Central Committee’s United Democratic Campaign. Chavez’s calendar shows that she met with Republic Properties’ Bob Mendelsohn and its consultant, Yvonne Ryzak, on July 19. The VTA Committee of the Whole chose Republic and co-developer Barry Swenson Builder over two other competing bidders on July 20. Republic and associated individuals had already given the Chavez campaigh at least 13 orchestrated donations of $500 each. And Ryzak, who previously donated $1000 to the Chavez campaign, followed up on September 30 with another $500. In addition, individuals associated with Barry Swenson, with whom she met the day after the VTA meeting, according to her calendar, contributed another $1000.
I just heard the Mercury news poll being released later today will show Reed pulling ahead. I guess most of us were not fooled by the Chavez campaigns constant attacks
I’d like to clarify a few things:
#1. It is a personnel matter because the City released Miss Nguyen’s PRIVATE information. Someone is responsible for that lapse in judgement and Cindy should know better than to use it as a campaign attack.
#2. This Personal Development Policy had to be approved at the time by the City Manager as well as the Mayor’s budget director. Is this Chuck Reed’s lapse in judgement or did other offices seem to have no problem with Miss Nguyen’s studies at this institution?
#3. Turns out Miss Nguyen did not qualify for the education credit because of her employment classification but could be reimbursed under the “personal development” umbrella. Under this same umbrella, employees could purchase laptops, software, etc… that became their personal possesions. I think an MA degree is a better investment, don’t you?
#4. Rumor has it that Joe Guerra actually brought the issue up to the Chavez camp. Not connected are we, dear friends? Hmmm.
Geez! Years of complaining about crooked politicians with no morals and then finally someone in government decides to get some religion and Chavez is upset!
I say sign ‘em all up for a little religion. Just call up Jim Beal…its rumored that he went to Bellarmine and thus might know a priest or two.
OK – let me get this straight – by nitpicking as to what constitutes a legitimate reimbursement for personal development courses, it will either be necessary for somebody (committee) to consider each request to see whether it meets the church/state standard or, maybe for the sake of simplicity, they might just cancel the program. Five will get you ten it is part of the union contract. The plot thickens!
Silicon Valley corporations and San Francisco Democrats – Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Finstein, Barbara Boxer and Mayor Gavin Newsom have strongly endorsed Chavez as San Jose Mayor candidate with strongest “commitment to regional collaboration ” – read spending San Jose taxes
Do we really want political outsiders ( more Gonzales politicians ) from San Francisco and Clinton running San Jose government and spending our taxes on her political career and regional issues when we are short tax money for San Jose?
Chavez is using Pelosi and Clinton’s political campaign people who will staff City Hall since their loyality will be to her and San Francisco Democratic regional political agenda but not San Jose voters and taxpayers
Ask Chavez to stop being evasive about who will be on her Mayor staff from Gonzales, campaign staff and labor – like Doyle, Guerra, Justin, Phedra etc
This is what is often referred to as “silly season” in campaigns. There are more and more foolish and demeaning press conferences. Yesterday was one such event. Now the cast of characters supporting the Labor/Democrat/Chavez candidacy includes the “independent” donations of a billionaire, a former chair of the Republican Party here, and assorted land speculators and mayor-makers. Money is the glue that holds this group together and “Coyote Now” is their mantra. TMcE
#41 JMO – You are right in that it is not a personnel issue, since she was attacking Chuck. She still used this young staffer to do it. I still stand behind my main point, that being that it was wrong of Cindy to hold a Campaign style press conference, as opposed to handling this in house, according to city policies and procedures. Chuck’s Staffer is an ‘at will’ employee, and as such, is not subject to the same rules and regulations as regular City Employees. As such, this reimbursement had to be approved by the Mayor and the City Manager. Since it was approved, this staffer was approved to go to this school, and take courses which applied to her position in Chuck’s office. If Chavez had followed city proceedures in checking this out, instead of being so consumed with her political campaign, then she would have known this, and would not have dragged this person into the press like this.
Like you, it troubles me to see Chavez so consumed with winning this election that she will do anything to win, and not think twice. Even cause trouble and humiliation for a young staffer.
Gee, you think Joe G. is auditioning for a spot in a Chavez administration? Wouldn’t that just be icing on the cake? Be afraid, San Jose, be very afraid if Chavez is elected. If you loved the Gonzales administration you’ll feel like he never left if Chavez is elected.
Just think, not only has Cindy just about finished off her political career but she will out of city hall in less than 2 months. That’s a big loss for Labor to digest but they should get used to it. Most of us want our city back and this is just the beginning.
Jean #53—the fact that the mayor and the manager also approved tuition to a Baptist Theological Seminary merely tells me that two more people in authority missed a large potential constitutional issue.
there is a merc editorial today re the flow of coyote developer money into the Chavez/Demo camp. see excerpt below to see why the developers supports chavez:
“Chavez now expresses caution on Coyote. But in the primary campaign, she would not rule out approving development even before San Jose completes a review of its citywide general plan. Reed has been consistent: Any decision on Coyote should wait until it’s clear what’s best for the city as a whole.
Coyote developers seem to be putting their money on Chavez. That should worry voters.”
About Time for 89 – Best Rap Music Video About a Proposition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDhk5J6FGpE
San Jose needs political campaign reform and contribution limits since our career politicians seem to be “For Sale” to highest political contributors
Has anybody actually read the rules as they pertain to this issue? It appears that nobody in the Chavez camp has, but has anybody here looked at them so we know if there is even an issue here?
#55 -JMO:
“…tells me that two more people in authority missed a large potential constitutional issue.”
Maybe so, but my point still stands. Cindy had every obligation to handle this in house, and not in the press (Remember – she did the same to Council Member Cortese over the allegation from D5 and D10 – had her Rules Committee send it to the full Council before investigating it). She would have been better served investigating the policy that allowed it, as opposed to using that individual’s education to hurt Chuck.
With the most recent political polling results, it appears that Cindy is indeed “toast.” Back to the labor council for her, I guess. BTW, has anybody noticed that, when Cindy indicts Chuck, she talks and smiles at the same time? Her desperation and mean-spirited nature is showing.
guys: i warned you about the chavez campaign’s desperate last minute moves. the latest confetti is just the greatest example of the New McCarthyism that Chavez and RR personify. Except this time, instead of communists, it’s republican chrstianists that are the object of their contempt. Disagree with the progressive left at your peril! the Thought Police is back in town.
The merc has a Ask Your Question to the candidate thing on its web site today. Go to http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/qa_forum.htm?forumId=2914#question_form and ask Cindy about her inappropriate behavior on this $1,400.00 reimbursement for the young woman’s education.
Here is my question for Chavez:
How do your attacks on Councilmember Reed show the voters of San Jose that you will lead our City with decency and integrity? As Mayor, will you first go to the press when a colleague is suspected of wrongdoing, even before anything has been discussed or proven?
Steve # 59: I don’t think the city should offer money to go to Santa Clara or USF or St. Mary’s if the student will be seeking a masters degree in theology.
“Personal development” is way too vague a concept to define. It’s bureaucratese, with a distinctly Marin County flavor to it. The rules need shoring up, and some specificity.
We all know that churches could lose their tax exempt status by engaging in political lobbying; and even Chuck now knows you cannot get reimbursed by the city for your contributions to religious or political organizations.
So what could be so hard about setting guidelines for what is verboten with city funds for assisting the education of staff?
Bridget # 60. I agree with you that if Cindy or her staff accessed private/protected personnel records of Ms. Nguyen in order to make her claim, then they clearly violated Ms. Nguyen’s rights for which she would be entitled to legal redress.
I am not sure what Ms. Nguyen’s damages would be, however. Lawsuits are about money damages, not salving one’s hurt feelings. What has Ms. Nguyen lost monetarily over this? How can she be so upset that someone found out she went to Bible College partly on the city’s dime? If she cried all day as someone has suggested, I’d say she’s a bit too emotionally fragile. Crying all day because it was revelaed you went to college????? Puhleeeze!
However, a grand jury or D.A. investigation would clearly be in order to determine how Ms. Chavez got this information if it is indeed protected information. If someone on the city payroll wrongfully provided it, they should be censured, or perhaps terminated. And there needs to be a consequence to Ms. Chavez and her campaign folks who participated in this if law or policy was broken.
But on the other hand (lawyers always have both sides in mind) I am a firm believer that the public has the absolute right to know how all public funds are spent. So, is the fact that Ms. Nguyen received public money to help her complete her degree really a private, and therefore protected, part of her personnel file? I’d have to say if it is private, it shouldn’t be. It’s OUR money, and we have an absolute right to know how it is spent, in my view.
Was Cindy’s tactic sleazy? Yup, to the max.
Was it a violation of law or policy? I can’t say with certainty.
#67, Greg Howe
To your comment about Cindy being “Toast”, I ask you to not let up. It is not over until the final bell rings, and Chavez, Labor, and the Democratic Party have a lifetime of experience in getting out the vote. If anyone can do it, they can.
JMO,
Public workers need some sense of privacy. The City also pays for employees to attend counseling. Should this be released? The tax payers have only a small idea of where their money is being spent. I would be more outraged that my taxes were going to the bottled water fixation of Nora Campos’ Office (request the financial records and you will see) than $1400 to a Vietnamese woman’s education.
Miss Nguyen was crying her eyes out because she has worked for Chuck Reed for the last 5 years. She loves him and supports him. She was upset that something she had done was now being used against him as political foder. Although it was not her fault, it is reasonable to see how that would affect someone. And hey, woman are emotional creatures. What can we say for ourselves?
Jean #67 is right on.
I frankly do not believe the numbers the Murky News reported today on the mayor’s race. But if too many Reed supporters believe them and thus fail to go to the polls, it’s Truman/Dewey all over again.
Then there’s Isaiah Hwang, pictured and quoted on page 1A of today’s edition who’s voting for Cindy because “She seems genuine, authentic, someone with integrity”. Integrity? Huh? Guess Isaiah will be voting for Manny, as well.
Just goes to show you can still fool some of the people all of the time.
So, all Reed supporters need to get out and vote…even if it’s raining.
#66:
Thank you for your thoughts, JMO. First, let me say, that personnel information is not a matter of public record, and I don’t think it should be. Secondly, the City’s policies on education reimbursement are a matter of public record. I agree with you 100%. Taxpayers money used by the City should be disclosed. We have a right to know. As to your comment about the young woman, if I had a boss that I deeply respected, and I was new to a country, and it’s morays, and something innocent I did brought him/her shame, in any way, I, too, would be devastated. In the Vietnamese culture, men are held in high regard by women, as are authority figures. Chuck Reed has an incredible staff, which is loyal, and holds him in high esteem. My feelings are that this young woman felt terrible because she thought she caused him embarrassment, and harm. Therefore, I can completely understand her reaction. Secondly, to have your face and your name splashed over every news station and in the paper, when being used as a pawn in a political spat, would outrage anybody, and I feel public humiliation of this type is definitely worth some type of financial compensation. Also, to have religious leaders, surrounding Chavez, further implies some type of judgement on this young woman. I am deeply ashamed that these ‘religious’ leaders supported this farce. I am angry that they did not discourage Chavez from such a hateful act. If they were so religious, they would have had compassion for a young, immigrant woman and her child, rather than choosing to support this unconscionable display of prejudice.
JMO, you are a decent man, with an incredible ability to decipher through the facts. You truly are unique, in understanding where to draw the line when it comes to ethical behaviour. Unfortunately, you are unique. Many people are angry that a Vietnamese immigrant received funds for her education, when some American born citizens cannot even attend college, because they don’t have the money. This type of action, on behalf of Chavez, has actually spurred hatred, and resentment, toward this young woman. To me, that is unforgivable. Finally, I completely agree with you that some type of investigation of Chavez should be done. I know for a fact that there is no way Chavez could have gotten this information without going into Reed’s Staff’s personal employee information. The City of San Jose is very protective of laws concerning personnel information. I also know that only employees of the City, in Chavez’ position, could research personnel information. My hope is that this young woman files for a Civil Grand Jury Investigation, and has an attorney who will handle this for her. Even if a judge grants this young woman a $1 judgement in damages, that sends a clear message to desperate, sleazy, politicians like Chavez, that this behaviour is unacceptable.
I keep hearing about “religious leaders” that supported this smear. Who are they. The Merc article didn’t say and Cindy’s website doesn’t seem to have anything about it. Does anyone here know?
70 Bridget
I could not agree more. You and JMO make a an excellent case for at least an investigation if not a GJ investigation.
However, Cindy already knows that a GJ investigation would vindicate her of any illegal behavior. She knows this because she cannot remember anything about it. And if she can not remember, there is no wrong doing. So there.
Everyone, I’d like to share a quote from the mayorwatch blog:
“Mayor Watch is the only source with any educated, objective news on the election so I don’t check the other trash at SJI and SV411.”
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30709906&postID=116240356403924439
We can all stop now since we are so uneducated. These are the future leaders of America, folks. Bright SJSU students who think they are smarter than you all.
When Cindy raised the issue of separation of church and state she did so with members of the clergy standing behind her.
Talk about covering your bases!
#71, I guess you didn’t see the 5 p.m. news last night. Chavez was surrounded by a female minister, wearing a frock with a long sash, with large crosses. Forest Williams was there Nora Campos was there, there were members from all kinds of religious orders surrounding her too. My concern is that most of these religious leaders were men, who are clearly legal immigrants. In some of their native countries, women are subservient, treated very badly, and even tortured under their religious beliefs. Many white Americans are already struggling with the wave of immigrants in this country. Hate crimes are on the rise. (I know this because I work in the civil rights arena.) To have religious leaders up there is bad enough, but to incite hate, through using leaders of other ethnic origins is just frightening. I would think given these immigrants struggles in their native country, and the discrimination I know they suffer here in the US, they’d have far more compassion than they did yesterday, in participating in this political ruse.
#72. You crack me up. I think Chavez might even forget her way into the building, if she didn’t have so many developers paving the way for her!
#73, Go on line ans watch Channel 5 news for last night. You will see they actually surrounded her. I guess if I was bashing a poor woman, with a huge smile on my face, I’d want a people shield too.
Well I missed the news but I would like to know who these “religious leaders” are. Why won’t Cindy publish their names?
#74 Bridget
“…Forest Williams was there Nora Campos was there…”
Speaking of Forest Williams, Nora Campos, and the rest of Cindy’s bobble-head support group; if come January they don’t have Cindy to coach them, spoon feed them and help them with their homework, how will they know what to do?
I find this “silly season,” by Chavez to be offensive. The hypocrisy of Chavez, the religious leaders who took part in this conference, and Hammer is just sickening. This $1,400.00 reimbursement did not cover this young woman’s Masters Degree! This small amount of money probably didn’t even cover half of her first semester. To say that Reed is responsible for this incident is just a farce. Chavez knows full well that at “will employees,” follow a different set of rules then regular, LABOR PROTECTED, employees of the City. Gee how many employees covered by the Union would be exposed for this very same issue. None! I’m sure. Of course Chavez left out that Reed DID NOT have sole discretion on this reimbursement. It had to go through the City Manager, the Mayor, the City Clerk…
I graduated from a Catholic school, my fiancée graduated from LeMoyne College with his BA in Political Science. Funny, we were taught math, science, communication, history, literature, etc. Yes, we were required to take religious courses but, we received a better education in these private schools, than if we attended a public school. So to say this young woman came out fully devoid of an education, and only a Bible thumping freak is insulting to those of us with a brain.
Having said that, I strongly disagree with the assertion that this issue is NOT a personnel issue. To find out the origin of this young woman’s education, Chavez had to be examining employees of Reed’s personnel records. There is no other way for her to obtain this kind of personal information unless she did. To be examining Reed’s employees records, in and of it’s self, to find dirt on Reed, is enough to make me head to the nearest vomitorium. If I were this young woman, I’d hire an attorney and sue the crap out of Chavez, and the City for releasing my personal information to the public. And trust me JMO, you know very well, she’d win.
But Hell, it’s just one more lawsuit Chavez would bring the City. We should be used to getting sued because of her stupidity, you know like violating people’s rights in Tropicana, the County of Santa Clara…..On and On….
But here’s the bright side of this incident, Chavez has so angered people in the community by this behavior, I think she just cost herself the race! Bravo Chavez, you finally did something right!
#73 – Disgusted:
The postings on Mayorwatch seem to be mostly interested in insulting you, as opposed to talking about the issues. Sure, we have some banter back and forth here, but we will recognize good points when they are brought up. Mayorwatch seems to only be interested in insulting people that don’t vote for Chavez.
#79 Jean
That must the new sandbox DB and RC have found. Hopefully they will call it home until November 9th.
San Jose is one big joke! It was a joke when we moved here 15 years ago and it is still a joke today. What a bunch of mindless cronies runing this city of nearly 1 million. We’re selling our home and moving on, bye bye San Jose.
Question:
“Do you know the way to San Jose?”
Answer:
“Yes, but we went the other way.”
Jean, thanks for the reminder… you’re absolutely correct. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit to see that Chuck is our next mayor. After all, Cindy could reach even further down into the slime bucket and throw yet more mud at Chuck.
We just received the “Everyone Loves Me” mailer from Cindy… “Official Choice of the Democratic Party”
Let’s see. . . Norm Mineta, Susan Hammer, Janet Gray Hayes, Bob Doerr, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Honda, Anna Eshoo, Joe Samitian all support Cindy. W O W.
Even Bill Clintion called this afternoon in support of Cindy. WOW WOW !!
And if that wasn’t enough, Manny Diaz drove up, got out of his car and knocked or our door to tell us just how wonderful Cindy is. O M G. They’re pulling out the big guns now.
Wait minute… hold on… weren’t these pretty much the same people that lined up behind RON GONZALES and told us how great he was?
Weren’t these the same people that couldn’t be found in his hour of need?
Aren’t these the same folks that quietly let Cindy finish RON GONZALES’S back room contract without so much as a question as to how it might look hanging around her neck come November?
There has to be something fundamentally wrong with a Political Party that calls itself “inclusive” and then like a pack of wild dogs does everything possible to malign, disgrace and run off those of its own that do not line up behind the alpha dog… (and the money).
Is there no room in the Democratic Party for more than one “good, capable, qualified” Democratic candidate for mayor?
Silly me.
Maybe I’m beginning to panic over the thought of “Barista Free San Jose”.
Forgive me.
On the Inside # 68—good points re personal privacy for public employees. I can’t believe that attending any type college fits into that mold, however. What’s “private” about attending college partly on city money?
Does counseling deserve privacy? Of course it does. As to all medical/pshychological records, almost everyone deserves privacy. But, I’d like to know, and I think we all have a right to know, if anyone who could possibly have a finger on the button of a nuclear device had any pshychological issues, for instance; so I think in that instance, personal privacy must give way to the public’s right to know. Does a serial rapist or pedophile who happens to be a public employee deserve privacy regarding that particular issue? NOT. Somewhere in the middle is where the difficult questions arise.
Does the public have a right to know if public employees have serious psychological problems? I’d say yes. Does the public have a right to know if a lot of public money is being spent on “counseling”? I’d say yes, as to the amount being spent, but not to identify who received it. Does the public have the right to know the details of that counseling? No, unless the counselor determines that the public employee presents a credible threat to one or more specific people. There’s clear case law on that issue, starting with the Tarasoff case out of Berkeley.
My response to Ms. Nguyen’s feeling that something SHE HAD DONE had caused Chuck some problems in the election would be to tell her that she did nothing wrong. She made an application for funds, it was reviewed by the right folks and was granted. It is not her job to discern whether her particular education reimbursement fits within the law or policy guidelines. That’s Chuck’s job. So, if there was a failing, it was not her failing, it was Chuck’s, and any others who had oversight to approve or deny the expenditure. Whether that would dry her tears, I cannot say.
At the end of the day, we’re all, including me, Monday morning quarterbacking this expense. From the information I have, I consider it inappropriate. I may not have all the information needed to make my decision, so if there’s more, I’d be pleased to consider it.
My comments re her crying her eyes out was poorly stated. No-one can question another’s feelings or reactions to any situation. What I was trying to convey—clearly poorly—was that such a reaction from a person who did no wrong would be unlikely to elicit a monetary jury award worth the effort to obtain it.
Two things are crystal clear to me, however—Ms. Nguyen is blameless, and Ms. Chavez is not.
Bridget #70: thanks for the kind words.
You must be from The Old Sod, given your spelling of “behaviour”, so you’d likely be more empathetic than I.
You said: “First, let me say, that personnel information is not a matter of public record, and I don’t think it should be. ” I’d qualify that a bit, Bridget. What we taxpayers pay public employees is a personnel issue that I believe should be public.
People in the armed forces give up certain rights. Public employees do as well; or they should realize that they do. They allegedly “serve” the public. I think the public has a right to know some things about them that the public does not have a right to know about private employees.
I’ve run into some public employees that I believe go beyond rude…they’re completely whacko, and should be terminated. I’d like to know a bit about their personality profile. First group—most SF Muni drivers. But that’s another issue.
I’m not sure I’d describe Ms. Nguyen as “new to the country”. She’s apparently worked for Chuck for five years, and I doubt she got the job the day she arrived in America.
The appearance of many members of the clergy at Ms. Chavez’s sideshow is far more troubling. I’d like to know who they are, since they are decidedly “unchristian” and “unbuddhist”, indeed un-any religion of which I am aware. They ought to be completely ashamed of themselves; and were I a member of their congregation, I’d at least have a talk with them, if not quit the congregation over such poor behavior.
At least she didn’t trot out Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton.
You go on to claim: “Many people are angry that a Vietnamese immigrant received funds for her education, when some American born citizens cannot even attend college, because they don’t have the money.” Is this true? Have you heard such things, that people are angry at Ms. Nguyen BECAUSE she is Vietnamese and got college assistance money? Well, clearly, that ain’t right, if it’s true.
Well, Cindy gave us another peek into what her administration would be like. And some people (RR)call her kind, caring, and gentle. Whew!
Disgusted # 73 quotes some person from Mayor Watch as having said :” Mayor Watch is the only source with any EDUCATED, objective news on the election so I don’t check the OTHER trash at SJI and SV411.”
If that “educated” person had paid more attention in English class he/she would have realized that the use of the word “other” labels his/her ramblings as trash as well.
Back to school, mayor watch Dude.
Bridget # 75—wish I could have seen it, but I don’t have a TV at home. I’d love to have eyeballed these so-called religious leaders.
David D # 83 writes: “We just received the “Everyone Loves Me” mailer from Cindy… “Official Choice of the Democratic Party” Let’s see. . . Norm Mineta, Susan Hammer, Janet Gray Hayes, Bob Doerr, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Honda, Anna Eshoo, Joe Samitian all support Cindy.”
If you haven’t voted absentee yet and are in a district where these folks are running, remember this endorsement and be sure to vote for his/her opponent.
Can You belive Bill Clinton, endorsed Chavez for Mayor. The only connection Bill has with San Jose Politics in our County Assesor Larry Stone. Next thing you know Monica Lowenski will be endorsing Manny Daiz. Stop Larry, already!
The Mercury News reported today that Ash P. was Larry Stone’s Attorney, and Many Diaz’s Treasurer. What!
This electon run is one for the books. The good old guys are calling in all their markers.
Looks like the fix is in. We shall see.
D.O.A.
JM O’C, you let the cat out of the bag; think we will see Jesse and Al show up to help Cindy at any moment. Don’t know if I can take them with all the other garbage floating around!
JMOC #41,
You wrote:
“There is a HUGE difference between a Baptist Theological Seminary and USF or Santa Clara U or St. Mary’s or Notre Dame.”
That maybe true but if the city is going to offer funds for “personal development” how could the city approve a religious studies class at Santa Clara U. and deny a similiar class at the Baptist school?
Sounds like a perfect situation for a lawsuit. The only solution would be to ban all expenditures for “personal development.”
JMO, You’re welcome.
What’s with all you spelling sensitive folks? Spelling errors aren’t uncommon on these bloggs, since our spell checkers don’t work on them. Sad but true! I guess I’ll make sure I type my thoughts out on Word first, so I don’t get dinged again….
What’s does the expression comes from the “Old Sod” mean? Never heard that expression before.
Unfortunately, in my line of work ignorant people who hate immigrants look for ways to complain and find fault. It’s sickening, but my job is to educate, and hope it sinks in. If you catch my meaning. As to the young lady’s arrival here in the US, I understand it hasn’t been longer than 6-7 years. The term “new” is a matter of what one considers long, and in my old age, 6-7 years isn’t that long.
I do agree that we have a right to know their salary, but I don’t know, perhaps you do, if that is even legal. Is it?
I also agree that there are some pretty rude employees at the City who need to be sacked, but that is one fault I see with regards to working in government jobs. It’s really difficult to fire someone. I mean look at Gonzo. He gets free legal representation from the City Attorney to boot.
I’d like to see someone send in a Public Information Request to Chavez, and get a list of these so called, self righteous religious zealots! I have a few things I’d like to say to their face. If Chavez wins on Tuesday, I’m moving out of San Jose…..
#61. Bridget: Maybe Ms. Nguyen can file a grievance with her public employees union?
Never mind…bad idea under the circumstances.
Tom, you beat me to the punch with the Old Sod explanation.
Bridget, I assumed the spelling you used was the correct Irish spelling, given your name. My mistake.
Bridget—Tom MvcE beat me to the punch on the explanation of Old Sod
Bridget – with your name you must be teasing and surely know that the “Old Sod” is a lyrical term for Ireland. Land is, of course, a key component to all Irish history, literature and legend – and also to the Coyote Valley land grab! I am sure John Micheal will soon let you know also. TMcE
Just for the record, Bridget, I hope you know that The Irish Sporting Page is the obtits.
Hello All,
Thank you for enlightening me on my heritage, and “Old Sod.” It was very nice to see this on the blogg.
I just read the letter from Hammer, and Honda to the Merc, and the story on Clinton endorsing Chavez. I don’t know if it’s my Irish intuition or not, but something smells and feels rotten here. I have never seen such heavy weights back a Mayor in my life. And at 50, I’d say that’s saying something. Chavez has a horrible history in this City. She’s gotten us sued several times, she’s admitted withholding information from the Council on the Grand Prix, and her entire neighborhood hates her guts. Reed is well liked, respected, and has never gotten us sued. All these big wigs getting involved in this Mayoral race are giving me the creeps.
Anyone have an opinion of what’s going on here?
Bridget,
I’ve already cast my vote for Reed, but I’m wondering where you get the notion that “her entire neighborhood hates her guts?” There are numerous Chavez signs in Naglee Park, several on her street.
Bridget, Tom, John, et. al.
I’ll say it again…..
There has to be something fundamentally wrong with a Political Party that calls itself “inclusive” and then like a pack of wild dogs does everything possible to malign, disgrace and run off those of its own that do not line up behind the alpha dog and the mon$y.
#90 Glen
Speaking of garbage; our garbage was picked up near dark this evening. Usually it’s more like daybreak.
Are those guys out walking precincts for Cindy? … or preparing to go on strike for another wage increase before they loose their connections in City Hall?
I’m sorry; that was not fair.
It must be the fear of Starbucks withdrawal that is messing with my mind.