Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Reed Spends Public Money On Religious Education

***BREAKING***

The story is here at ABC.

The details are still coming out but as of now the story looks like Reed paid for a staffer to attend a religious institution to receive religious education.

"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."


Chuck Reed's defense?

"Chuck Reed: 'The classes she took made her a better person, made her a better
employee and it was good for the city.' "


Really? Did it really help our city? And do we really want our tax dollars being spent on helping the fat bureaucracy become "better people"?

Come on, Chuck. This is ridiculous. It is getting more and more hilarious that Reed claims to be the fiscally responsible candidate.

Ever heard of the separation between church and state?

32 Comments:

At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was not inappropriate according to City policy and was useful for her in her role as a staffer. Moreover it was approved by the City Manager and Mayor's Budget Director. What a moron Chavez, she is Manny Diaz level sleazy now.

Merc's latest poll is coming out in the next day or 2 and will show Reed pulling ahead further.

Awesome news. Restore the Pride SJ, Reed in '06!

 
At 10:31 PM, Anonymous Suzanne said...

Reed ahead 12 points! No big surprise. By the way, this was "breaking" news yesterday and it hardly made a ripple. It just gave Chavez another opportunity to look dumb.

 
At 3:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chavez is really reaching on this one. Talk about desperate.

 
At 5:30 AM, Anonymous ABC said...

I think a better heading for this post would have been, "Cindy Chavez throws young woman under the bus in desperate attempt to stop her slide into political oblivion". Only Cindy and her lapdogs, uh loyal supporters, buy this as an issue at all. She didn't even ask the city attorney if this was a violation of city policy because she knew it wasn't. If she, and you, feel this is not an appropriate use of the city's education dollars, change the policy. I just wonder what other innocent bystander will get slimed by Cindy and her minions before election day.

BTW, did you catch that latest Mercury News Poll?

 
At 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just have to say this: If Chavez truly had an issue with Reed on his staffer's education, she had every obligation, since it involved someone other than Chuck Reed, to follow it up in house, using proper City proceedures, and not in a campaign style press conference. That was tactless, thoughtless, and showed no integrity whatsoever. Oh wait - maybe there was thought to it: Publicity for her campaign....

 
At 11:46 AM, Anonymous David Nagel said...

The end of open and ethical politics in San Jose is imminent if Reed wins this election. More of the sleaze of Chuck Reed. Cindy may be pulling out all the stops to try and win this election, but Reed pulls out all the stops as an elected official. It's disgusting to think that Reed is going to be able usurp City Hall because Gonzales ruined the name of Cindy Chavez. When San Jose falls apart and becomes the laughing stock of the county under Chuck, I want all of you anonymous commentators to return to this site and read the absolute drivel that you wrote. It will be your own doing, and well, I will have already transferred to Berkeley by then.

Shame our city, Reed in '06

 
At 1:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ABC - the better question is this: what issue will Chavez take a position on that will, again, get the City of San Jose sued in court?

Even if you believe Chavez was right about this expenditure for his staffer's school, then you must also believe it was better to handle in house, with an investigation by the City Attorney, so as to not drag this staffer's name through the mud. Consider that the Mayor, and the City Manager reviewed, and APPROVED this request. None of this is her fault, and she does not deserve to be used as a pawn by Chavez in this campaign. That Chavez did not even consider this says she is so consumed with the election that nothing else matters to her. It is a shame - she was once a caring, considerate individual.

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To David Nagel:
"It's disgusting to think that Reed is going to be able usurp City Hall because Gonzales ruined the name of Cindy Chavez."

Ron Gonzales never had the power to ruin Cindy Chavez' name - only Cindy Chavez had that power. She has been the one to make her own choices on how she votes, and how she conducts herself in office, and on this campaign. If she had made different choices (whatever those may be), we might be looking at a different Candidate Chavez now, and with her experience in campaigns, Reed would not have had a chance. Chavez made her own decisions; now she must run on that record. In the end, the voting public will decide.

 
At 2:36 PM, Anonymous goodness gracious said...

you are mindless morons if you take pride in leads in polls. as your fearless and unethical leader reed correctly pointed out, the only poll that matters is the one that comes out on election day.

chuck has nothing of substance within his campaign. that's why you silly losers cling to leads in polls and more and more mudslinging against chavez. no vision, no substance. nothing.

 
At 2:38 PM, Blogger SiliconValleySteve said...

I didn't see the press conference but I'm told that it included support from members of the clergy but I haven't been able to obtain any names. Are they hiding or is this information available?

 
At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

goodness gracious:

"...that's why you silly losers cling to leads in polls and more and more mudslinging against chavez."

My, my, my. Name calling? Come now, children, play nice...
Those in glass houses should not throw rocks: I seem to remember Chavez supporters clinging to the poll in early October.
Seems like Chavez has done the mudslinging here, and Reed has been talking about issues, just like you want. And Believe it or not, Chavez' voting record, when it closely mirror's Mayor Ron Gonzales', is an issue, just like Reed's voting record is, when it differs from Mayor Gonzales' voting record. Just because you don't like an issue, does not mean it is not legitimate.

 
At 3:29 PM, Anonymous goodness gracious said...

reed's got nothing substantial in his campaign but an endorsement and a poll.

if that's all you can cling to, then that's pathetic.

i don't recall the chavez campaign in october making any poll its central issue. flashback two polls ago, when chuck used his own juiced poll to show he had a lead: the poll results were the HEADLINE on his WEBSITE!

the message is "vote for chuck because he's gonna win". when campaigns play people like sheep, that is about as loser-ish as a candidate can get.

 
At 3:57 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

Yeah, Reed started off talking about some of the issues, but then when every issue came back around to stab him in the back he became a poll man! Mr. ethical was proven to be a liar and now he's laying low and keeping his mouth shut because all he has to go off of now is the polls!

 
At 4:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, If you guys don't want to look at Cindy's voting record, then just say so. It wasn't me who brought up that poll - it was goodness gracious.

 
At 5:10 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson for Mayor said...

What voting record does Reed have to look at, he voted no on everything, of course he is going to be able to say that he didn't vote on expensive projects because he didn't vote for anything. He did everything under the table and then used tax payer dollars to pay for them.

 
At 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben Watson -

Thank you for asking. First, during hard budget times, voting not to spend extravagant amounts of money for things that are not necessities for the City is a good thing. We don't NEED a Grand Prix Race.
He initiated smart developments in our Northern economic area - Housing next to businesses, transportation measures, etc (Smart Growth - housing next to Jobs), and he is a proponent of keeping developers out of Coyote Valley, until the Triggers are met. The Triggers mean no development will happen until there are a certain amount of jobs in that area, jobs that will stimulate growth, add to the general fund, and help pay for improvements that will be needed, like sewers, streets, fire departments, police, etc.
Those are just some of the things he has done.

 
At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

The Grand Prix was an expensive event but it brought in well over what it cost to put on. San Jose businesses thrive and the city makes money when we have events like the Grand Prix. This wasn't just a lucky guess by Chavez either, the Grand Prix was projected to be a huge event to boost the economy of San Jose. And I hate to beat a dead horse, but where was this fiscal responsibility when our struggling economy was spending money to fund Reed's different, personal lifetime memberships and political donations. Chuck has landed on the right side of the vote through default, which gives him illegitimate ammunition against Chavez

 
At 8:21 AM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

Hey anonymous,

You still focus on the things he voted not to do.

You can't point to one thing he has done, can you?

 
At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Mortar -

He led the fight to save the hillsides above East San Jose and Berryessa from development; he held the first ever indoor pet fair at his community center, to help animal rescuers find homes for animals that would otherwise be put down (if implemented citywide on a annual basis, it would save many animals from being put down, and help move animals from our shelter to good homes), he took the lead in our North San Jose economic area in planning, housing, and the creation of jobs (something even Chavez gives him credit for), and took the initiative on the traffic calming initiative when it was created to help the City work better with our neighborhoods on traffic issues. To name a few.

 
At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What has Cindy done? I don't hear her talking about her record; only what Chuck has done.

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

Cindy talk about what Chuck has done? Anonymous once the election is over and you lose your job in Reed's campaign office you should look into a career as a stand up comedian. What could Chavez possibly say about what Reed has done? Maybe he has perfect attendance...that's the highlight of his term on the City Council. Cindy, on the other hand, has championed the effort to bring BART to San Jose, created the Children's Health Initiative to provide healthcare to all citizens until the age of 19, created more affordable housing in Downtown San Jose, and she has turned Horrace Mann school into an academy that has the resources to teach our further generations. Hmmm, when put like that it seems a little more impressive than a pet fair and a gold star for attendance...

 
At 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben -

You might want to check your facts: Chavez did not create the Children's Health initiative. It was a county program, pushed by PACT, that Chavez supported. As to BART - Ron Gonzales is the one that had the referendum put on the ballot during his term of office to see if people wanted BART to San Jose - they did, and he did a lot of work to bring it to where it is. Chavez may have supported his efforts, but RON was the driving force. Horace Mann School was rebuilt as part of the City Hall Project by the Redevelopment Agency and the School District (I think it is San Jose Unified). She may have supported it, but she cannot take credit for it alone. And as for Affordable Housing, Chuck Reed has done as much as she has, especially when you consider the housing he has pushed in the North San Jose Economic area. I agree - she did a lot to support those efforts, but they were not her ideas - they were ideas of others, that she AND the rest of the Council supported.

So you claim Chavez's record is better than Mayoral Candidate Reeds; How? So far, you have put forth items that Chuck Reed either supported with Chavez, or did himself in his own district. How is her record better?

 
At 3:44 PM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

Nobody's said that Chavez deserves credit ALONE for anything she's done. Politics is a collaborative process. I would be more afraid of a candidate who boasted of single-handed accomplishments than impressed.

Cindy has been behind and involved in a number of successful projects in SJ. Her record is inescapable. Shoot, why even reiterate it when it's plastered all over her website?!

I see nothing besides a bunch of NO votes on Chuck's website. It makes me wonder, that's all. So far the ONLY thing any of the Reedites have pointed to Chuck doing solo is putting on a pet fair. Hmmmm...

 
At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you been in attendence at any of the debates since the primary? I have been to all of them. Cindy has taken full credit for everything the Council, including Chuck Reed, has done. What's most discouraging about Chavez is her tendency to hog accomplishments of others, while giving them no credit for their hard work. Chavez has never supported a green environment in her entire career; quite the contrary. She was more than willing to consider developing Coyote Valley in the Primary, but now, is touting that she would be very cautious. Political double talk for "I'm going to do it, but I am not going to tell you that. I just want your vote." Chavez found GREEN only because she was advised to do so to get Clinton's Support. If you pay careful attention to Clinton's endorsement, you will see that (1) Chavez wrote him and asked for his endorsement, and (2) he says he is endorsing her at the request of Barbara Boxer, Feinstien and other elected officials on the State and Federal level. He doesn't know Chavez any better than he knows you. I am very disappointed that Clinton didn't do his homework, because if he did, he would never have endorsed her. As to Reed's website reflecting his 'no' votes, it clearly shows us that he did not participate in overspending, and getting the City sued on several occasions, nor did he participate in making the County an enemy. Now check Chavez' voting record, and I dare you to say that she has protected the City's general fund, or protected affordable housing for downtown. She hasn't. And that is not someone who should be mayor.

 
At 5:20 PM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

Relax on trying to attack my knowledge about issues or the candidates.

And by the way, could you use a name other than anonymous?

Like I said, nobody in their right mind believes that politics is an arena of single-handed accomplishments. If her "credit-claiming" really were offensive, why hasn't anybody stepped up and said so? I am sure it's more fun for you to just make blatant assumptions instead. Like your assumption that Cindy only went green for the Clinton endorsement. How does Chuck stand on Measure A? Oh yeah, he spewed some nuanced bullshit position to hedge constituencies.

The county is now an enemy of the city's? Because of Cindy? Why do so many countywide officials still endorse her then?

Democrats aren't afraid to spend. Neither am I. Continuously attacking her on fiscal spending gets ludicrus. I'm willing to pay an additional $5 per year if it means we get great events like the Grand Prix or wonderful landmarks like our new and improved city hall.

Chuck wants to take us back. Cindy wants to take us forward. It's as simple as that.

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger Mr. 408 said...

What would Price Waterhouse think about all of this wonderful usage of company time?

 
At 5:53 PM, Anonymous lucky lawyer said...

Unavoidable fact is that Reed doesn't see the difference between church and state. He spent money to attend religious events then got reimbursed for it. Now he spends public funds for a staffer to attend a religious institution... and he doesn't see anything wrong with it. He just doesn't get it!

 
At 7:13 PM, Anonymous Bridget said...

Mr. 408,
I have to wonder why you felt the need to expose the bloggers work place, in your response to Anonymous? I think that’s rather sleazy. You attacked me, and other people on the Merc blogg, instead of dealing with the comments we make on the issues. It seems every time you guys get hit with truths you can’t handle, you resort to personal attacks.
Try cleaning up your act, and stop hacking into people's email destination, without disclosing that to the unsuspecting public.
Mr. Mortar,
You need to relax yourself. Many of us Reed supporters like Cindy, and have had a difficult time choosing between Cindy, and Chuck. Let's stop rude attacks on one another, and focus on the facts.

 
At 7:32 PM, Blogger Mr. 408 said...

It was more the fact that our friend was posting using multiple pseudonyms and pretending to be different people.

S/he can choose a name or we can refer to him/her as PWC from now on.

But pretending to be different people = sleeeeeeeeeze

 
At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Bridget said...

Mr. 408, Which is it? He posted under other names or,

Mr. 408 said...
What would Price Waterhouse think about all of this wonderful usage of company time?

5:28 PM
Either way, I think what you did was wrong. If you're tracking people's e address, you should disclose that in writing on your blogg, so people can choose whether or not they want to post a comment or not. It's a matter of honesty, and integrity.
And if you want names, then remove your anonymous choice. None of you are using your real name anyway. I am because I don't care who knows I'm blogging.
I still say low blow 408. Lots of people blogg on breaks, and lunch, from their private e mail. I think you've lost credibility with me, so I won't be returning to your site.

 
At 8:11 PM, Anonymous ABC said...

I have to agree with Bridget, it was really sleazy of Mr. 408 to post the workplace of a blogger. So what if they use different names. If you don't like it, you can have people register or you can just not post the comments from people who are using different names. Instead, you chose the option that says a lot about the type of person you are (a sleazy jerk) . I used to enjoy posting occasionally, but it's obvious that it's not a safe place to post. I'm done posting here. All you Cindy lovers are safe to post your little incestous comments about how smart you all are and wonder why no one disagrees with you.

San Jose Lady, I'll call you out on this. You seem the least strident of the posters here, do you think it's kosher to do what Mr. 408 did?

 
At 9:55 AM, Blogger Mr. 408 said...

Oh please, get over yourself ABC + Bridget.

We did post quite some time ago about the fact that we are well aware who is blogging and said that many of you would be quite shocked at some of the people who were visiting our site.

We said that people can post all they want, but they can't pretend to be people they're not. That's it. Your buddy posted from the same IP using 4 different names. In one back-and-forth, s/he agreed with his/her own comments! That is LAME.

Believe me, we could go further in outing posters. We could go further in outing that particular poster. You want the name? You want the department of the company our poster works in? It's all there!

Attacking us as violating some unspoken ethical code that Reed bloggers have is ludicrus. Our point was solely - use a name and STICK TO IT.

We have received comments from Reed headquarters on this site! But we have not posted when and where because we do not believe in outing people. But if you try to trick us and trick our readers, be prepared.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home