Mayor Chuck Reed is proving that there are limits to his patience. Today, the mayor fired off an unfriendly letter to Councilwoman Nora Campos asking her to publicly apologize for drumming up drama over recent anonymous complaints against former Mayor Tom McEnery.
The elections commission last night ruled that McEnery, who had asked for $6 million from the city’s redevelopment agency funds to help with his ambitious San Pedro Square market project, was innocent of skirting the city’s lobby laws.
The investigation started after an anonymous complaint was filed in December, accusing McEnery of dozens of violations, including not disclosing a conversation he had with Reed’s office about the project. An independent evaluation of those charges cleared McEnery of wrongdoing last Friday.
Meanwhile, Campos, who doesn’t miss an opportunity to go after Reed publicly, asked that the council hold off on approving the redevelopment money while the investigation was pending. She sent out a memo to the press and to the council, citing specifics from the anonymous complaint field about the McEnery family. According to Reed, that violated the council’s stated resolution not to disclose the nature of complaints made to the elections commission.
But now that the commission has cleared Reed and his old friend, the mayor, who is typically unflappable even under severe criticism, is giving Campos a piece of his mind: “Your use of the false accusations as political fodder compounded this abuse of the process and was unacceptable behavior by one elected to serve the public,” he writes. He then went on to ask her to say she was sorry to the residents of San Jose.
Campos’s office quickly responded with a polite “no.”
“Councilmember Campos will not apologize for doing what she was elected to do, which is protect the tax dollars of the residents of San Jose,” says Rolando Bonilla, spokesman for Campos’s office.
#3 has it right. If Campos were discouraged from slinging rumor-based and tenuous accusations then she might go silent and have nothing to say.
That is not to say that one or two of her concerns may not be true—I’m sure some of them are. But her shotgun approach and ‘glory to the people’ rhetoric is a cynical approach that throws the whole bowl of spaghetti at the wall and hopes one or two strands stick. She then rides those two strands of success all the way to the next election.
Chuck Reed is losing it. What is the melancholic mayor going to do if Nora does not apologixe, demand a note from the teacher.
Reed grow up!
Although I am not not a big fan of Reed or McEnery, Nora continues to be an embarrassment. She speaks the words others put in front of her and then they won’t let her apologize no matter how foolish she looks. If the real truth ever comes out about who filed the complaint against McEnery it could well finish off Nora’s political career.
The response from her office—apparently she is not allowed to speak for herself—drips with the worst kind of political arrogance. The sooner she is out of office the better off the City will be.
Before we condemn Campos, we need to ask about any time that Reed has apologized for his use of sleazy & dishonest campaign tactics; his use of short-term & low-amount contracts for secret campaign & staff work off the city public books; his apparently corrupt campaign for mayor with the support of suspiciously-timed & bogus criminal charges against Gonzales by the DA which had the unsurprising effect of smearing Chavez; his pedestrian viewpoints; his embrace of the notorious Ajlouny with his history and his tactics; and his completely hypocritical embrace of sunshine and openness.
If he wants apologies, let Reed be the first to demonstrate how it is done.
Disclosure: I believe Campos could defeat Reed in his re-election campaign, particularly if she were to take advice from outside her team about her presentations.
Does anyone have a link to what the Elections Commission actually ruled; and a link to what the Hanson Bridget (sp?) firm actually concluded/recommended?
Thanks
JMO,
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommissionBoard/ElectComm.asp
Agendas are on the right. Hanson Bridgett found 20 violations of the lobbyist ordinance. Yes, 20. And McEnery claims he is vindicated. And Reed is wholeheartedly supporting that claim.
Here’s a link to the report from Hanson Bridgett:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommissionBoard/Election/2009/20090430/EC20090430att.pdf
Mayor Reed should be embarrassed that he gave his friend and campaign contributor Tom McEnery $6 million when the city is slashing services and laying off employees. He has some nerve to claim any moral high ground on this issue. I fully support what Nora Campos is fighting for. Keep going, Nora. Don’t let Reed try to intimidate you!
#9, Kenny, appears to be correct in his reference to Wikipedia:
“During the Mayoral campaign, Reed was criticized in a series of attack ads by Chavez and Labor Unions for getting reimbursed for various expenses that he had as a council member from his office fund. He repaid the funds when the issue hit the media and apologized to the public for any sense of wrongdoing. The funds in question were all approved by the City Clerk’s Office and in an October 2006 City Council meeting, City Clerk, Lee Price, stated that the reimbursements did not violate City law and was common practice among the City Council offices. Regardless, early in his administration, Reed had the City Clerk’s Office produce a more detailed explanation for approved uses and restricted uses.[citation needed]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Reed
However, Wikipedia is still searching for a citation to back up the apology claim.
Can you provide a link to a Mercury News story that features an unambiguous apology by Reed for his use of reimbursements?
Kenny,
You are wrong. When someone is accused of a crime, then stand trial, and are found to be not guilty, you cannot say that they committed a crime. In Tom McEnery terms, Ron Gonzales was vindicated.
If Chuck Reed is demanding an apology for using these investigations for political fodder, he should be the first to offer an apology. Otherwise, he’s simply a hypocrite.
When Mayor Reed was criticized for improper reimbursements as a City Council member by Chavez and Labor Groups during the 2006 election, he promptly offered a public apology and reimbursed those expenses to the city. His willingness to apologize was considered noteworthy enough to merit a San Jose Mercury News article and a mention on his otherwise short Wikipedia entry.
And I believe Mayor Gonzales was indicted, primarily, because he committed a crime. But I could be wrong.
Did anyone bother to read Peter Campbell’s “I hate Nore” comment. What Campbell won’t do for a smile from Reed the Vampire makes us all wonder.
Those who survived the Gonzales era don’t need a jury to tell them what he did. The City is still recovering from the wreckage he left behind.
Thanks 7 & 8. It’s long. I’ll have to read it later
Reed Demands that Campos Apologize. Or what?
Hello Boomerang klooper take upwards in prejudice of my english jer, buti danged willing re claim .
These are the people that dictate how my tax dollars are spent!