Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Consequences of Chuck Reed and "Reimbursement-gate"

By this point in the day everyone is familiar with the story that Chuck Reed has reimbursed himself for numerous exquisite expenditures - some that have led to political gain, many that have prioritized "himself" above the city of SJ. It is unclear what the consequences will be of today's revelations, but it is clear they are not good for Mr. Chuck Reed.

Cindy Chavez held a press conference earlier in the day in which she blew up checks illustrating that her tickets to prominent SJ events were paid for using her own personal funds while Chuck's were reimbursed with city funds.

Chuck Reed followed Chavez's press conference by announcing that he will repay the $15K to $38K with his own personal money. Opponents have to be asking 'does that make everything right again?' Supporters have to be wondering 'is he using our donations to repay the city?'

The blogosphere has been abuzz all morning and afternoon with comments about the recent scandal. We received an email covering a NEW blog/website (?) on the scene called "ReedItForYourself". (http://www.reeditforyourself.com/) The site features pdf's of Chuck Reed's reimbursements from 2001 through today. At this point, it is unclear who is behind the website. It would appear that Cindy's campaign might be connected. For the record, the email we received with the tip was sent from a computer using a personal IP address without a name on the network.

ReedItForYourself is not the only blog/site that has covered the story. Below are reactions from all around the rest of the blogosphere:

- Richard Robinson's rant (http://www.rant.sv411.com/) went on the heavy offensive. RR says supporters of Reed must be telling themselves "Say it ain't so Chuck, say it ain't so". Robinson identifies the contradiction Reed has created with Reed reform #3 which states among other things "No stealing" as well as pledging to put "service above self". Robinson explains:


It is clear that in paying for political and charitable dinners with
his own check and then reimbusing himself with taxpayer money, Chuck Reed
has
put self above service. It will come as a major shock to these
community groups that the donation they recieved from “Chuck Reed” is
actually a
donation from the taxpayers of San Jose.

Second,
is giving taxpayer money to political organizations
considered stealing?
Chuck is a lawyer, so I will assume he can parse a
legal answer to that
question. But it will be tortured logic and it
certainly won’t pass the
smell test. If it is not illegal, it ought
to be.
- The Mercury News political blog also saw the recent revelations as a potential hit against Reed's integrity. According to Yost, this "turnabout" will put Reed on the defensive in the debate regarding ethics.

- San Jose Inside - a blog run by an open endorser of Chuck Reed - tried to focus the debate today on Cindy Chavez's letter sent out attempting to distinguish herself from Mayor Gonzalez. But SJI readerswere much more concerned about 'reimbursement-gate'. Comments from conservative and liberal posters alike expressed disappointment in Reed's lack of judgment. Some of the more interesting observations include:

* If Chuck Reed wrote any of these donations off on his tax forms and then sought reimbursement by the city, than he has not just been unethical - he has committed a crime.

* Some suggested the grand jury should investigate Reed's reimbursements. Those alone might rise to the level of illegal conduct. Donations to political campaigns are illegal when reimbursed by the city.

* Quite a number of comments called for a write-in campaign for David Pandori.

20 Comments:

At 3:43 PM, Anonymous l. fitzy said...

You can't steal something, give it back, and expect to be forgiven.

 
At 3:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

let's wait and see cindy's reimbursement records before we start condemning chuck...

 
At 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still the fact is Cindy Chavez STOLE 11.25 mil from the taxpayers by voting for the Norcal amendment.

 
At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Recall Jacquie Heffner said...

"At this point, it is unclear who is behind the website."

Are you serious? What do you take us for?

It is registered to...

Whitesand Works, Inc.
PO Box 18608
Tampa, FL 33679-8608

The CINDYCHAVEZ4MAYOR.COM domain as well as Cindy’s other campaign domain SANJOSENEIGHBORS.ORG use these name servers
NS2.WHITESANDWORKS.COM
NS3.WHITESANDWORKS.COM

Coincidently or not if I dial another 813 phone number I reach Justin Schall on his cell phone.

Duh!

 
At 4:19 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Anonymous...tsk, tsk, tsk...that is the best you can do? Did she get that money in her pocket? Do you not understand what it means to have a vote by the whole city council?

You can't deal with your candidates meltdown....and it is a total meltdown at this point.

Cindy has already released her record, including her tax records.

 
At 4:44 PM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

Hey anonymous,

Apparently some of us are not as good at internet investigation as you are.

Like you do best, you take your 'duh' quote completely out of context. Our site said "At this point, it is unclear who is behind the website. It would appear that Cindy's campaign might be connected."

Yeah, I'll bet the Chavez campaign is behind the site. I wouldn't doubt it. That's why we tried to track the email address. Those results did not pick anything up. You continue to assume that anytime someone has something positive to say about Chavez (or negative about Reed) that they must be part of their campaign. You must be aware of the irony of you making such arguments while claiming not to be a part of the Reed campaign. (If not, we'd be happy to spell it out.)

Though SJLady does not mind your usage of her name in your posts, we do. Some of us have things to do in our lives. We need all the help we can get in keeping this site up to date with information. We'd prefer if you refrain from attempting to harass or intimidate our contributors in the future. No more lecturing from us :)

Regardless, we appreciate the scoop on confirming our suspicion that the ReedIt site came from the campaign.

 
At 4:48 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

Pretty funny that all the Reedites can say now is their silly 11.25 line.

Your guy is falling from grace rapidly. Mr. Ethics has lied and now is dirtier than his campaign consultant Vic Ajlouny.

 
At 5:18 PM, Anonymous WL24 said...

The only thing you can say about the ReedIt4YourSelf site is that the Chavez campaign is behind it?

Shame on you.

And shame on you Mayorwatch editors for putting anonymous's stupid, repetitive comments on the site over and over.

 
At 5:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did not know Merc had a blog.

thx for link

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Hey Anonymous..I did not say any such thing...was not my post...but I am starting to think you have a thing for me as you are so fixated ...sorry, am already taken.

And if Chavez is posting a website with links to Reeds reimbursements....exactly what is your issue? Reed, remember, is the "open government" candidate.

 
At 5:31 PM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

Here's the link on the Reed reimbursement story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15613919.htm

 
At 6:10 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

It's funny how the Mercury News picks and chooses what groups Chuck made donations to.

Look at the documents. Tons of his reimbursements are for parking.

He got reimbursed also for tons of donations to political events.

Do the research Mister 408. Give us a sumamry of what's in the pdfs.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

I have been looking at the pdf's and well....parking for mormon tabernacle choir? There is a whole bunch of things, all of which are paid for with Reed's personal checks....so that people think "he" donated.

Will have a post later for you.

 
At 6:36 PM, Anonymous da critic said...

Why doesn't SV411 cover Reed's bullshit?

They're quiet now for weeks.

 
At 7:54 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

Great posts so far SJL.

Keep up the good work.

 
At 8:00 PM, Anonymous lovinsj said...

It does seem like the Murkury News picked and chose the most favorable reimbursements.

How biased is the Murk!

I have a feeling the cry from the Reed camp will be "but his reimbursements were to such noble causes!" Yes, the causes ARE noble. But there is nothing noble about using taxpayer money to appear like a giving guy in order to create political currency!

 
At 8:07 PM, Anonymous obvious said...

This site and reeditforyourself are obviously propaganda of the Chavez campaign!!!!!!!!!

 
At 8:37 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

And you obviously have nothing intelligent to say now that your Golden Boy has been exposed as a fraud. Is that Reed's new campaign strategy? Make random accusations without any grounds or relevance to the real issues? This site is talking about real issues, if you want to repeat your same senseless point over and over again why don't you go check out SJI. You'll fit in just fine with the authors and commentors over there with your pointless and redundant comments.

-Ben Watson

 
At 10:27 PM, Anonymous Recall Jacquie Heffner said...

Ben,

What profound statements have you made? All you do is insult others.

Maybe we should all go to SJI, this blog has no credibility. At least Tom has the guts to post with his real identity.

 
At 11:09 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

And where exactly are your guts? I honestly doubt that your parents were that cruel to name you "recall jacquie heffner." SJI has no information about the Reed reimbursements because gutsy Tom doesn't want to say anything negative about the guy who he has tried to champion through to the mayor's seat. The discussion here is that Chuck Reed misled the public and used taxpayer money to make himself look better. It would be easy for me to make a donation to a noble cause if I could just run to the city and get my money back. Once again Reed is trying to get the best of both worlds. You can't be a philanthropic politician then turn around and take the money back from the people. Sorry, but that's not what being ethical is all about.

Regardless of who established the ReedIt material is irrelevant in the context that it is true. Now unless you can defend Chuck's actions and deception of the public, I suggest you sit tight for a while. Saying "duh" after every comment doesn't add any significance to your rants. Enjoy your night.

-Ben Watson

 

Post a Comment

<< Home