Monday, October 02, 2006

Business Community Condemns Chuck Reed for Reimbursement Scandal

The San Jose Business Journal is no fan of Cindy Chavez. Time and time again we've seen the BizJourn take its hits on Chavez for her connections to labor. With the way that the Business Journal and COMPAC are organized and connected alongside Pat Dando's leadership role in the Chamber, Chuck's strategy to securing their endorsement should be as easy as A.B.C. (Anybody But Cindy.)

But as the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal continues to break, Chuck stood in at the plate taking aim on this softball and striking out miserably.

The BizJourn wrote this editorial condemning Chuck's role in the Cheapskate scandal. (Note: the article requires a membership to read.) The editorial rejects Chuck's attempt at cleaning up his mess by writing a check to pay the city back for his expenditures.

No harm; no foul. Let’s get back to business as usual.
Really?
We think
not.
Over the past week, many have tried to deemphasize complaints regarding the Cheapskate scandal as being partisan hackery. This article shows how our communities are universally offended by Chuck's abuse of the public trust. Tip to the Reed camp: own up to the lapse in judgment - don't pretend like the reimbursements were not unethical. As the article insists, it insults our intelligence when you pretend like this wasn't a breach of your civic obligations. When you spoke at the last debate and stated that you did not want to drag any non profits through the mud, you created an "epic moment when years of well-molded public image crumbled in an instant."

The Biz Journal sums it up as follows:

Say you screwed up; say you learned from this mistake; say you’ll lead the fight
to close the loopholes and find a better way to pay for the civic involvement we
expect from public officials.
And then say you’re sorry to the people of San
Jose and especially those who voted for you in the primary. They all deserved
better.

15 Comments:

At 8:48 AM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

The problem for Reed is that what he did was something a "real reformer" would never have done, thus his whole campaign is destroyed. Add to that his instance for days that he did nothing wrong, and only when he realized it was a POLITICAL problem did he even attempt to deal with the issue.

The fact of the matter is that "Reformer Reed" used taxpayer money for his own gain, going so far as to hand out dollar bills and trying to claim somehow this was his "duty" as a council member. At best his "thinking" is skewed, and more likely his actions and thinking are all about Reed and not about the city as a whole.

 
At 9:37 AM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

heard that the vilaragosa event was about cindy's pro-business platform/goals.

funny that the merc didn't print anything abt it. probably just too inconsistent with the way they're trying to paint cindy as the antithesis of buz development.

you think chuck has done bad enough to lose COMPAC's endorsement? HAHAHHAA. nah, they've already bought in to the Merc's version of the truth.

 
At 9:45 AM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

Did anybody read San Jose Inside? Someone yesterday called them the snooze patrol. I totally agree. They're stories are behind. Today was the first time they've really discussed the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal.

My favorite part of the article? Dismissing Chuck's reimbursement problems as demonstrating his FRUGALITY!

 
At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic, just classic.

 
At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

write-in Pandori.

seriously!

 
At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instead of tearing each other up, what about vision for SJ's future as mayor? I see no vision anywhere. Both candidates have major ethical falws, we get it, let's see what they at least think are the right steps forward for SJ.

 
At 12:15 PM, Anonymous gabe's man lover said...

I love Gabe...yes Gabe

 
At 12:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A's win! Get some bay area pride!

 
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

It is pretty funny how Chuck's supporters have continuously tried to stress ETHICS. Chuck wanted to talk about ethics, Reed Reforms, etc. He was not willing to go toe-to-toe with Cindy Chavez regarding safety, education, housing, etc. She had a platform. She had goals. She has a trackrecord. All he had was his consistent history of...nay-saying. "The Grand Prix was GREAT! But if I had to do it all over again, I'd vote against it..."

But now that Chuck has been caught with his systematic abuse of public funds for campaign purposes, he and his supporters say "enough about ethics...let's talk about ISSUES!" The flip-flopping is so transparent!

 
At 1:14 PM, Anonymous REAL A's Fan said...

thx for the shoutout to A's. but as a real A's fan - important to note that A's owner endorses Chuck not Cindy.

 
At 1:29 PM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

Does the A's owner actually endorse Chuck Reed? That's ludicrus. If the A's were ever to come down to the South Bay, they'd need a STADIUM. You think Chuck would actually support providing money to do something that innovative or productive? Ha!

Chuck would probably try to shoehorn the A's into the Sharks Arena.

I can just see four years down the line after the A's come to town, Chuck saying:

"I think it's great for the city having the A's here. They have brought us tons of revenue and have rebuilt civic pride. Of course if I had to do it all over again, I'd still have opposed the move."

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Richard Robinson said...

I just picked-up a subscription to the business journal.

Their advice to Chuck was perfect from a political point of view.

The problem also lies in the lack of full disclosure--did he report some of his reimbusements as income--as they were for his person use? Did he separate his deductions in a way that shows he didn't try to double dip?

The longer the questions linger, the bigger the cloud and the more likely it is to rain.

 
At 1:59 PM, Anonymous used 2 b insider said...

I wish some press actually covered yesterdays press conference. Chavez talked about her pro-business platform. Of course this is newsworthy but it doesn't play into the Murks plan.

It is idiotic that Reed is automatically the 'business candidate' when nobody has even covered Cindy's pro-business goals.

Take the A's: I don't know where Chavez stands but you know Reed won't fork out any cash to build a stadium. Having a pro ball club in SJ would be a huge windfall for downtown business, hotels, advertisers, restaurants, etc etc. So Chuck probably comes out against business interests but he still maintains their support because Chavez has "labor ties".

See, the media does better when it oversimplifies the issues in order to gain more attention. But the cost of this dumbing down is the actual conveyance of the nuanced positions of the candidates.

 
At 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The A's owner donated to Cindy's campaign and not Chuck's, and met with her multiple times last year.

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the SJ Biz journal connected to Dando?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home