Why Won't Chuck Release ALL Of His Tax Information?

Chuck has revealed most of his tax information. But the question that is on most people's minds is why has he not revealed everything?

Almost a week and a half ago, after Chuck Reed faced scrutiny for allegedly voting for an ordinance that financially benefitted a client, Cindy Chavez asked Chuck to make public his financial information. Chuck primarily refused to do so based on "larger policy considerations". This past week, Chuck's financial history was hurled into the public spotlight for the $38,000 he was reimbursed by the city for attending political and charitable events. To his credit, Chuck has divulged much of his financial records.

However, what many are still wondering, why won't he divulge his deductions? The concern is that Chuck donated quite a large chunk of city money to charity in his own name. If Chuck was later reimbursed for these donations and wrote them off as tax deductions, then his conduct is not only ethically reprehensible - it's illegal. Chuck has not answered these questions and we believe he should.

Nobody wants to drag non-profit organizations through the mud. Nobody wants to deter people from donating to these groups. But people do want accountability.

So, Chuck... why won't you release the rest of your tax information?

Letter to the Editor: "A Whole New Ballgame"

With this new information about Reed, it would seem that the playing field has been repaved. Reed no longer has the moral high ground and the stalemate has returned. There are some who now advocate a write-in for David Pandori, but let's be realistic. A write-in victory is about as likely as catching Michael Moore in bed with George W. For this reason, it is time that we accept that there are two candidates running in this election, Chuck Reed and Cindy Chavez. And for as much criticism as these candidates are receiving, it's becoming increasingly unpopular to say that you're a supporter. However, as a San Jose resident, I am proud to be a supporter of Cindy Chavez.

As you guys pointed out earlier, Cindy Chavez most definitely is down...but not out. News sources are finally reporting the facts, which can only help Cindy. Chuck Reed can play up ethics all he wants but when we look at the track records of both candidates, Cindy Chavez is the only candidate with a vision for San Jose. The ethical conflict of Norcal regarded Cindy's supposed knowledge of the contract prior to the Council vote. However, Grand Jury testimony evinced that Reed knew about the arrangement before Chavez did. Once this news came out, the media hid. No one wanted to admit that they were wrong and crucified Cindy for no reason. Consequently Reed was let off of the hook and was able to maintain his reputation as Mr. Ethics.

Lately people have tried to draw a parallel between Cindy's vote for Norcal and Reed's city reimbursements. Reed supporters justify the reimbursements by saying that they are less than the money spent on Norcal. But there is a difference, and I am furious that Chuck Reed and his underhanded campaign team would have such little respect for me and my ability to discern between right and wrong. So let me explain something to you, Chuck Reed, because I know you and your campaign read this. Cindy Chavez voted with the Council to approve of the Norcal contract. Who voted with you to reimburse your political donations? Cindy fulfilled her duties on the Council, you broke the law. The amount of money spent is irrelevant, the use of the money is what is of significance. The entire city benefits from Cindy's spending, Chuck benefits from his expenditures. Chuck's warped impression of Robin Hood is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. And he is the frontrunner to be Mayor of the tenth largest city in the nation.

So then what is the answer? How do we prevent this unethical and deceptive coward from taking office? The answer isn't simple, but it is worthy. Chavez is down, but not out. It's never too late for Cindy to win this election. People are ignoring the facts and being spoon fed lies from Chuck Reed. There are those who will keep an open mind and will be willing to change their vote, but the old political generation stands firm in their opinions. It may be too late to change people's minds, but it's not too late to rock the vote. Pick up your Cindy signs and stand out on street corners. Don't let Chuck Reed get away with this injustice, make your voice heard. Don't just sit back and watch this election destroy San Jose, every vote counts. Now is the time for civic activism, every action counts for something. It's time for the youth of San Jose to stand up against political corruption. It's time that we show City Hall that we are not an obsolete group of constituents. It's time that we make a difference for ourselves and future generations of San Jose. If the election is a losing battle, then it is a battle worth losing. I'm picking up my sign...I'll be out there on the street corners this weekend...I hope to see you there.

-Ben Watson

Sen. Barbara Boxer Endorses Cindy Chavez…and only Cindy Chavez

This weekend, Chavez announced the endorsement of Sen. Barbara Boxer. To many, this might seem a little extraordinary. Why would a United States Senator weigh in on a local city council election?

Says Boxer, “Cindy Chavez possesses a unique combination of bold vision and pragmatic leadership. She is fighting to protect our open space while encouraging new clean-energy businesses in San Jose . Cindy will always stand up for our values and our environment.”

In an election that has made ethics and trustworthiness at the center of the debate, this is another coup for the Chavez campaign. Cindy currently boasts of endorsements from all across Santa Clara County. She already was endorsed by a handful of Congressmembers. This is her first U.S. Senator.

On a related note (and one that now becomes important in this day and age), Boxer did not also endorse Reed. (See the below post for clarification.)

Financial Accountability

Wednesday night, Cindy Chavez sent the following letter to Chuck Reed:

Dear Councilmember Reed,
In light of the need to give San Jose citizens complete confidence in our openness, I am releasing my tax returns for the past six years along with receipts for all items for which I have received reimbursement from the City's taxpayers.
I will make these documents available to the press for review on Thursday afternoon, September 21st from noon to 4 pm at my San Jose headquarters office.
As you have made accountability a centerpiece of your campaign also, I ask that you join me in sharing your own tax returns and items for which taxpayers have reimbursed you.
Transparency is critical to healthy government operations. Respect for taxpayer dollars can be demonstarted in many ways. One way is to let them see exactly how their dollars are spent.
Sincerely,
Cindy Chavez

The press conference was held yesterday and covered here in today's Mercury News article. The purpose of the request is somewhat ambiguous at this point. Reed claims repeatedly that he tries not to mooch off the city. He is not a freeloader, in his words. However, Reed was reimbursed $15,300 from 2001 to 2004 for admissions to events and parking. On its face, these contentions sound contradictory. However, it is unclear where this amount ranks with other officials' reimbursement. Reed is correct in pointing out that participation and attendance at events is important. What remains to be seen is when reimbursements become too much.

Reed does not want to turn over his financial records because of the "larger policy considerations". Reed is worried that such a precedent would deter particularly rich or particularly poor candidates from entering local elections. I'm not entirely sure if there are many voters who are going to prejudice candidates just because they're rich or poor. Besides, I don't doubt that most voters are able to draw their own conclusions based upon what the candidates include in their stump speeches: we all can make general estimations at the relative wealth of a managing partner of a law firm and someone who has spent her professional career in politics.

I think Reed has a pretty good point in resisting the request. It makes me think that Cindy has something else on her mind in asking for his financial records. Perhaps she is aiming at a much larger fish to fry. One possible theory? Maybe she's trying to get the public more information on Chuck's clients. With the negative press Chuck received from the FPPC filings made by Mohinder Mann, Cindy may be trying to find some dirt on her own. Only time will tell!

A word from the editor...

Since Mr.408 put up his email address, the feedback has been awesome. We appreciate your recommendations and we hope to incorporate that advice into our site over the coming weeks. The message that you all have sent is that you want more. We are dedicated to bringing you more. We are bringing on more columnists and plan to provide around the clock coverage. In the meantime, please keep emailing misterfouroheight@yahoo.com with news, feedback, tips, and scoops.

COMPAC Victorious In Case Against SJ

The Merc has the story here: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15571274.htm.

Groups now may spend amounts of unrestricted money in support of or in opposition to specific candidates as the city's ordinance has been rejected outright.

Supporters of Chavez warn throughout the article that the new tone of SJ elections will be that s/he with the most money wins.

The article also mentions that Dennis Fong contributed $26K to COMPAC. Hmmm...

The last line of the Merc's article states: "The judge ruled that COMPAC is entitled to recover from the city the costs of pursuing the lawsuit." Come on. How ironic that the CHAMBER will likely now seek to cost the taxpayers of San Jose even more money. Isn't the whole essence of COMPAC fiscal conservativism?

SCC Democratic Club Update

We're still trying to piece together the goings-on of this previous Monday night's meeting of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club. We have received a number of emails and are still trying to get independent confirmation of the details. Email sj_rookie@yahoo.com or misterfouroheight@yahoo.com if you have any information. Your email address and name will be kept entirely confidential. One thing we are sure of is that the Club did NOT revoke it's co-endorsement of Chuck Reed and Cindy Chavez. We are not sure who ended up yelling at who but we do know that the meeting was very contentious. We are not sure if representatives of the club or of Chavez's campaign initially called the motion to re-vote, but our contacts have stated that some members of the Club were furious about the attempts to undo their endorsement. Word is that the interactions were vicious. We have heard from one source that Chuck Reed, himself, was in attendance at the meeting defending himself. We have not yet received 100% confirmation of that fact yet. We'll provide a fuller update when we receive details we can verify from independent sources.

Goals Outta The Reed Camp

As promised, when a candidate provides an articulation of his/her goals, MW will be there. Courtesy of one of our fav readers "sanjoselady" (http://siliconvalleylife.blogspot.com), we found the Merc's coverage of a hodge-podge of Reed's goals here. Reed advocates:

1) Solar panels on SJ's struggling arts facilities to cut utility costs;
2) Promoting parks in neighborhoods where the most people are able to walk to them;
3) Conservation of hillsides and open space;

Also, big news was presented that was partially scooped by SV411 last night: David Pandori, Michael Mulcahy, former Mayor Tom McEnery, former councilwomen Judy Stabile, Shirley Lewis, and Lu Ryden, and Lan Nguyen all endorsed Reed. Pandori, McEnery, and Mulcahy were no surprise but the other four represent some interesting endorsers.

It is interesting that Reed still is yet to list any of his endorsers on his website. It seems like there are a number of them out there... but he isn't putting them front and center. My personal opinion is that endorsements shouldn't be that important. However, when trust and credibility are the central issues to one's platform, a candidate needs to put forward the names of those who believe s/he is trustworthy and credible.

The Merc article wasn't all good news for Chuck. Toward the end of the article, his dedication to parks was challenged:

Helen Chapman, chair of the city's parks commission and a Chavez supporter, said she was surprised by Reed's parks proposal because in her experience he had shown less interest in parks than Chavez, even on parks in North San Jose, Reed's council district.

Also, the Merc pointed out that despite his interest in preserving open space, he still has problems with Measure A - the initiative dedicated to that purpose.

McEnry + Pandori Endorse Reed

In what was probably not much more than a formality, Tom McEnry and David Pandori announced their endorsement today of Chuck Reed. The story isn't being scooped by the Merc, SJI, or Reed's website yet and thus far, I've only found it here.

SV411's article characterizes the endorsements in lukewarm terms. Neither endorser was probably thrilled with rubber stamping Reed but both recognized the political necessity of the move.

For reference, McEnry is the guy who serves as one of Arnold's county chairs alongside Pat Dando.

Santa Clara County Democratic Club To Reconsider Chuck Reed Endorsement

***BREAKING***

MayorWatch has learned that the Santa Clara County Democratic Club is planning to reconsider its endorsement of mayoral candidate Chuck Reed at its September meeting this upcoming Monday. MayorWatch has heard conflicting stories on the reason for this reconsideration:

(A) Some have claimed that members of the club identified some sort of procedural irregularity with the endorsement process initially which has justified the reconsideration motion.

(B) Alternatively, others have told MayorWatch that the basis for reconsideration is entirely substantive.

In any case, Mr. Reed is going to have to prove to members of the Club that he still deserves the co-endorsement. As many of our readers know, this is a story we have covered extensively:

*http://mayorwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/picture-is-worth-1000-words.html

*http://mayorwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/is-chuck-reed-closeted-republican.html

The charges against him will range from his votes refusing to recognize civil unions to the now widely circulated picture of him speaking at a Republican function with a Schwarzenegger campaign sign behind him. The battle certainly looks uphill for Mr. Reed. However, MW has learned that it takes a 2/3's vote to reverse prior endorsements.

Please email our co-editor misterfouroheight@yahoo.com if you have any information that could shed more light on the subject.

Chuck Reed Under Investigation For Vote Benefitting His Client

An anonymous poster provided us with this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRTz7ukONM. The link provides KTVU's scoop on the recent allegations that Chuck Reed cast a vote to economically benefit one of his clients. The allegations have been made by local attorney Mohinder Mann (apologies if I misspelled his name). The complaint has been filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Los Esteros is a client of Chuck Reed's. Los Esteros wanted to build a gas station on its property near the San Jose-Milpitas city lines. Reed recused himself on a number of germane votes relating to Los Esteros's interests. However, when a crucial vote came to allow the sale of alcohol and groceries at gas stations - something that would directly financially benefit Reed's client - Reed provided what Mann is calling "the swing vote" leading to the ordinance's narrow passage.

What is Reed's defense?

"It is accurate that I knew - at one point - that my client was interested in leasing the property for a gas station but it was much later."

Reed, however, MUST have known about the conflict at the time of his questionable vote because the timeline provided by Mann in the video shows that he DID recuse himself on other votes:

"June 19, 2001: Los Esteros Partnership rezoned property with a 36 acre gas station, 8 fueling pumps, and car wash. REED RECUSED.

May 13, 2003: Voted to direct City Attorney to draft ordinance to remove prohibition against selling gasoline and food items (mini-marts). REED VOTES.

June 17, 2003: City of San Jose and Milpitas agree on sewage serivce for Los Esteros Partnership. REED RECUSED.

December 16, 2003: Voted to repeal the ban on selling food and alcohol at gas stations. REED VOTES.

June 14, 2005: Votes to direct City Attorney to draft ordinance repealing the ban on selling food and alcohol at gas stations. REED VOTES.

October 4, 2005: Council approves repeal and Reed says he has a conflict of interest arising out of a client that wants to build a gas station/grocery store combination. REED RECUSED.

December 6, 2005: Council approves repeal and Reed says he has a client that owns property that they want to put a gas station and sell groceries. REED RECUSED. "

More on the story as it develops...

Chuck Reed - Conflict Of Interest?

***BREAKING***

KTVU has reported recent allegations that Chuck Reed voted on matters before the City Council in which he had a conflict of interest. Specifically, it is being reported that Chuck made votes that favored the interests of clients of his law firm. I've tried to find the specifics on the story but I have not found it on Cindy's or KTVU's site. We'll keep you posted as soon as details surface...

The Underdog Bites Back

‘Down but not out’ seems to be the new slogan for the Cindy Chavez campaign team. Though the polls still have Chavez trailing Reed, things are starting to look up for Chavez and her supporters. The main ammunition of many Chavez critics has now fizzled into a finger-pointing contest. As many of you now know, Chuck Reed knew about the Norcal arrangement 2 years before Chavez did. But for some reason, every media outlet in San Jose is like a broken record forcing us to read “Chavez, Gonzales, Scandal” every time we open the paper. The Grand Jury testimony has been ignored and Cindy’s accusations against Reed have been referred to as desperate attempts to close the gap between the two candidates.

However, this strategy by the Mercury News, the Metro, San Jose Inside, SV411 and every other supposedly objective news source in San Jose is the real desperate attempt. I hate to sound like a second grade teacher here, but maybe it’s time that the Mercury admit that it was wrong and give Cindy Chavez the apology she deserves (otherwise I will have to put Scott Herhold on timeout). There is still plenty of time left for new information to surface and the public has a right to know if Chuck Reed was the treasurer of a Hilary Duff fan club or if Chavez was once a Disney Mouseketeer.

As citizens of San Jose, we have the right to know the developments of this election, and even more importantly, we have the right to know the truth. While it may be fun to see how much you can fool the public, at a certain point, you have to play “real journalist”. As members of the press, people over at the Mercury News have access to information that the general public is unaware of; therefore, it is their responsibility to report this information to us. But the media is a very powerful weapon and once Scott Herhold and his buddies decided that they wanted Chuck Reed, Cindy Chavez became the victim of libel.

The media has overstepped its boundaries. Every outlet has abused its power in an effort to deceive the public for personal gains. So now, we would like to be the one outlet that will vocalize Cindy’s new bombshell. So again, Chuck Reed knew about the Norcal arrangement for longer than Chavez did. However, during the course of the campaign, Reed and Reed supporters accused Cindy Chavez of being unethical for her knowledge of the contract. Once Mr. Ethics himself took the stand though, he had to come clean about his own involvement with CWS. The Mercury News has already eaten its own words, and now it is time for Chuck Reed to take a look at number 6 of his Reed Reforms “6. Require the Mayor and Councilmembers to disclose material facts before the Council takes action.” It’s never fun to get caught in a lie Chuck, ask Richard Nixon.

To the Merc, facts just get in way of attack

The front page of the Valley section today featured a column written by Scott Herhold regarding the recent negative coverage Chuck Reed has received for his knowledge regarding the Norcal deal. (Read the article here.) Herhold's point is simple: Chavez pointing to Reed's role in the Norcal scandal is like "the pot calling the eating utensils black." On its face, the article seems to not bode well for the Chavez campaign.

Herholds writes:

"The evidence is that Chavez met early with the Teamsters' leader and a Norcal lobbyist in the fall of 2000. She signed on to a misleading memo from the mayor's office in September 2004. Batting away arguments from Reed and Councilwoman Linda LeZotte about how the secret deal was done, she voted for the $11.25 million bailout for Norcal. Reed opposed it. Those facts aren't going away."

And what evidence was out there that implicated Chuck? Two things, according to Herhold:

1) "veteran councilman said he had heard of ``some sort of deal'' in late 2002 or early 2003 in which recycler CWS expected to get money from Norcal, which in turn hoped to be reimbursed by the city."; and

2) Reed's admission that: ``I had no idea how they could do that, so I was quite curious as to how they were going to pull this off,'' Reed testified. ``And I was watching for opportunities for things to be done that were not right.''

Herhold then proceeds to minimize the importance of these two pieces of evidence by calling them "hogwash" and satiricially referring to them in Chavez's words as "extremely important material facts."

If that was all that was in the record regarding Chuck's link to the controversy, Herhold's conclusion re: the pot and utensils might be more justified. But that's simply not the case...

A couple weeks ago a commentor on this site emphasized the importance of getting to the PRIMARY source of information. So that's just what I did.

Volume 7 and
Volume 8 of the Grand Jury transcripts contain Chuck's testimony. In it are the following pieces of evidence that are probably what really serve as the foundation for the recent attacks by the Chavez campaign. When you go through the transcripts and read through Herhold's article, you kinda have to wonder if he actually even read the primary source himself.

1) The all-incriminating memo signed by the Mayor and Cindy that will link them forever as co-conspirators? That was also signed by the patron saint of transparency in government, Pat Dando.

2) Regarding Chuck directing the Mayor's staff to negotiate a contract with Norcal?

“Norcal was one that was approved. I don’t remember if it was unanimous or not, but I did vote in favor of the staff recommendation.”
(p.1290; 17-20)

3) Regarding what Chuck knew prior to his vote on the contract?

“Q. Okay. At this Council Meeting and prior to your vote, did either the Mayor or Norcal say anything about any promises or representations that may have been made to Norcal or CWS?

A. Not the Mayor or Norcal, but I have had conversations with others who talked about it.

Q. Who?

A. Uh – the people from CWS.

Q. Who in particular?

A. It would have been either Victor or David Duoung or perhaps their consultants….” (1297:22-1298:4)

4) Did Chuck know what the purpose of the amendment was?

“Q. When did you first have conversations with either CWS or CWS lobbyists representatives about Norcal reimbursing CWS for the extra cost of using teamsters?

A. I think it was after 2002, because there was a time period where it was all focused on permitting the operation….” (1299:27-1300:6)

5) Were these private discussions that Chuck entertained with CWS a one-time occurrence?

“A. Before you move on, I need to add a comment on the last question. You did ask me about how did I leave things with CWS. The topic came up more than once.

Q. They came back for more discussions?

A. Yes.” (1302:24-28)

6) Did Chuck know about any alleged promises regarding compensating labor costs?

"Q. Prior to the vote (on the amendment), did you speak with any representatives of Norcal or CWS about the amendment?

A. I got written communications from both CWS and Norcal. It was a lot of documents that finally got flushed out during this time period. I do not remember ever talking to Norcal or CWS about the amendment itself.

Q. Okay. In any of the communications, whether written or verbal, did either Norcal or CWS ever put forward the argument that the city should vote in favor of this amendment, because promises or representations have been made to us that it, the city, would pay these extra costs?

A. Yes.” (1310:5-16)

I won't even get started about how much Chuck "didn't know" or couldn't "find records one way or the other" regarding his knowledge and communications about Norcal. While others may find this type of evidence relevant, it doesn't lend much to an analysis of the Herhold editorial.

Another blog has talked a bit about "truthiness". We, too, at MayorWatch are concerned about the same very problem. It seems in this day and age if you repeat something enough it becomes true. I wish I had a quarter for everytime an anonymous commentor wrote about "Cindy costing the city 11.25 mil". That's why we've linked to the primary source and contextualized ACTUAL testimony rendered by Chuck under oath.

At the end of the day, Herhold was correct in introducing the ironic tale of the pot calling the utensils black. But he was accurate only in that he criticizes Chavez for introducing only favorable pieces of the puzzle... by only bringing forward his favorite pieces as well.