Mayor Watch

Who is Larry Pegram? Why is he part of Reed's transition team?

2006-11-30T16:36:00.000-08:00

Today the Mercury reported that Reed has created a transition team that will advise him on policy matters. Some of the names are very familiar, including:

Sharks President Greg Jamison, soccer star Brandi Chastain, San Jose State University President Don Kassing, and newly elected city council members Pete Constant and Sam Liccardo.

And some of the names may not be as familiar, such as Larry Pegram. Who is Pegram? Why should you care? Pegram is on the board of the Values Advocacy Council, a group that states:

We are pro-life
We encourage the use of adult and umbilical cord stem cells for research
We believe that God, not man, numbers our days
We work to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman

The Values Advocacy Council also sent out a questionnaire to candidates in the last election which asked candidates to answer yes or no to these questions:

1. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I support a Constitutional Amendment to make this the law of the land.
I do not believe that “alternative lifestyles” are equivalent relationships to
traditional marriage and should not be taught as such in public school.

2. I believe abortion should not continue to be legal in the United States.
I believe that the procedure known as a “partial birth abortion” should be illegal.

3. I believe the doctrine of “separation of church and state” means that the government shall not establish a national or state religion (Establishment Clause, First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) but does not mean that religion should be totally removed from any and all governmental activity.

4. I believe that health, survivor and other benefits should not be made available to the “domestic partners” of School District employees.

5. The display of religious articles or symbols has a place on public school property.

6. Prayer has a place in the public school arena.

7. Do you believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to or along with the theory of evolution?

8. The “faith based” community should have a “place at the table” in public policy
matters, discussions, and debates.

9. I believe that sex education classes should be designed to promote abstinence.
10. I believe that parents have the ultimate responsibility for the education of our children and should be fully aware of and involved in the curricula to which their children are exposed in public school.

11. I believe that clubs promoting a Christian lifestyle should have equal status on the school campus as other clubs and organizations.

Pegram is clearly to the far right of most of the residents in our city, and one has to wonder why the Mercury failed to mention exactly "who" Pegram is, as well as the more obvious question of why Reed picked Pegram for his transition team. The issues that VAC and Pegram support, prayer in school, anti-choice, anti-domestic partners benefits, are not representative of a majority of residents in our area, and I would also suggest that many people would be at the very least surprised to see Pegram on Reed's transition team.

What advice will Pegram give to Reed? Will he "advise" Reed that we need to open up our public areas for religious symbols? Will Reed become a champion for the far right? We will have to wait and see what happens, my hope is that Reed starts to move a bit more to the center. Stay tuned.

Removal Powers In Place

2006-11-22T08:03:00.000-08:00

The San Jose Council acted last night in enacting policy empowering them to remove fellow officers from office. The legislation comes on the heels of the Gonzo scandals that have dominated city news for over a year now. Most disconcerting for Councilmembers was their utter lack of capacity to do anything meaningful to 'da Mayor for his ethical problems.

While empowering the local politic with the tools to make removal of corrupt officials possible is a good thing, getting carried away with these policies is not. I have not fully read the new enactment so I cannot pass judgment entirely. We had many lessons from the Gonzo scandal. One of which was that an impotent Council can allow corruption to remain unchecked. But we also saw how quickly our local media can cook up good-guy/bad-guy dichotomies. It was partisanship and mob mentality that brought about the Clinton impeachment trials. Politicians should be held to a higher standard than average citizens. But we should be ever vigilant that these removal procedures are reserved for the worst of the worst and not devolve into a new arrow in the political quiver.

Memo to Merc + Metro: THE ELECTION IS OVER!!!

2006-11-21T11:34:00.000-08:00

This just in --- the election for SJ Mayor is OVER! Chuck Reed has won.

Hey Mercury News and Metro "editors": you can stop giving Chuck your blind praise now.

In today's Mercury News editorial and in the oh-so-prestigious SV411, the local media both provided the glorious Chuck Reed ass-kissing that they did so well during the election. The Merc talked about Chuck's "straight talk and clear focus on good government" and his "first sparks of mayoral leadership".

Wow. Chuck must have really done something meaningful, right? Wrong. He showed up at a Sunshine Reform Committee meeting and encouraged the members to accelerate their timeline. Oh yeah --- and he "told the members he wanted at least a progress report on the agenda of his first council meeting as mayor on Jan. 9". All he did was show up at a meeting and talk of aspirations?

SV411 reveals how deep the double standards of our journalists run: when Chuck comes and talks about doing things (*note: he did not actually do anything!*) it is the glorious accomplishments of the new Mayor... but when other officials talked and met and discussed reforms, the committee was "crawl(ing) along at a glacial pace".

All anybody has done so far is talk. Stop praising Chuck for doing the same thing. We all know that both media have their agendas. Well, you got your golden boy in office. You can at least wait before continuing your meaningless brown-nosing until (a) he actually DOES something or (b) he's up for re-election!

It's disappointing that this is what our news media have been reduced to. The election is over! It's time to start holding Chuck accountable, not praising him with rhetoric for something so marginal as showing up at a meeting and pressing for outcomes! When the reforms are effectuated, we'll be the first blog to give Chuck a thumbs up. But talk is CHEAP. Action - which Chuck has a very spotty track-record on - is what counts.

The bias in SV411's writing is hilarious lately. Anything connected to Cindy Chavez is automatically trash. For example:

"One Chavez-LeZotte idea rejected by the sunshiners would have allowed
neighborhood association leaders to blab on for twice as long as the two minutes
alloted to other groups, average citizens and assorted nut-jobs who address the
council."

I don't entirely understand why that's so bad. Oh yeah, it came from Cindy Chavez.

Merc and Metro "editors": it's time to hold this guy accountable. Your duty is to be suspicious of leadership. Your obligation is to challenge rhetoric, not praise it. You both did such a great job on Chuck's campaign team. But the election is over. It's time to be real journalists again.

What We Got With Chuck

2006-11-20T09:47:00.000-08:00

The Merc discussed Chuck's transition team today which is built around Tom McEnery, Deanna Santana, and Vic Ajlouny. This announcement is disheartening for quite a number of reasons.

First, as we wrote about two weeks ago, many - even those that voted for Chuck - hoped that he would help San Jose come together in the wake of a nasty election. Many hoped that he would take a conciliatory tone in his newly elected position. Remember: the office of City Council is meant to represent specific geographic regions but the office of Mayor is charged with representing the ENTIRE city. Bringing these three stooges into the transition team does nothing to that effect. To the contrary, I'd be hard-pressed to find more divisive figures than Ajlouny and McEnery. The article, for instance, outlines some of McEnery's harsh rhetoric toward members of the Council. It is tough to imagine how Chuck is going to rise above partisanship and work WITH the Council when his right-hand man is spitting such vitriol. And don't even get me started with Ajlouny. This guy has pissed off more Bay Area Dems than I can count. Some have called him the Karl Rove of the Silicon Valley. It just doesn't make sense that Chuck would put a political strategist into such a central role. Now is the time to be REACHING out.

Second, we are disconcerted with the fact that Ajlouny is a Republican. McEnery, meanwhile, is a... American Independent? We have no problem with political and ideological diversity, but this team doesn't seem very diverse to begin with. Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and this looks like a pretty conservative transition team. The problem is that Chuck never sold himself as a Republican. This city is NOT Republican. Chuck boasted of Democratic endorsements and pretended to fit the mold of the mainstream values of the city. It is disingenuous to create such a transition team after running on a centrist platform without any ideological counter-balance.

Third, it is disgusting seeing more and more power being consolidated in the privileged few. McEnery, who comes from a long line of influential San Jose citizens, has been Mayor. He now writes a blog which has gained quite a bit of influence. And virtually every election cycle since the early 90's, the print media has stuck with McE's lackeys. It is ironic that Reed won on an "anti-machine politics" platform and is already installing the usual suspects!

Fourth, how silly does this make San Jose Inside look? Their creator spewed his romanticized rhetoric for months only to secure a prestigious post in the new Mayor's transition team? Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't SJI at least pretend to be objective journalists? It would be as crazy as Fox News correspondent Tony Snow suddenly working as a PR man for George W. Bush... oh wait, that did happen. You get the picture. Will SJI still pretend to be the voice of the outsider when it's architect sits in the SJ ivory tower?

Chu Throws His Name In The Hat

2006-11-15T14:05:00.000-08:00

Longtime local activist Kansen Chu has announced he will run to replace Chuck Reed for City Council. Chu has a decorated political past and looks to be the presumptive Democratic fav. MW talked about Chu's likely opponent, Hon Lien, yesterday. As usual, SV411 has resorted to idiotic characterizations of the candidates by comparing Lien to a "Maxxum model" and introducing Kansen with the "chu dynasty" as the heading. Pretty funny, Sv411. I think I get the joke: his last name is Chu and there was a dynasty in China with the same name! That's really funny guys! You know what else would be funny? When talking about Taiwanese politics referring to Chiang Chin-kuo as "P.F."! Grow up guys.... Seriously.

We all know how SV411/Metro have built their distribution chain --- on the backs of the sex industry (porn, escorts, strip clubs, etc. which fill their weekly ad quotas). It's not surprising that their blog has resorted to sex appeal in discussing the new political candidate. If I'm Lien, I don't know if I'm flattered for the compliment or if I'm offended that my first characterization is based on my looks.

Either way, it's clear where the Reed machine will stand on this election. Get ready for COMPAC/SV411/McEnery/Reed/Merc/etc. to chime in with its typical rhetoric soon.

Chuck's Heir Apparent

2006-11-14T15:49:00.000-08:00

Chuck's victory leaves a vacancy on the Council creating the prospect for yet another special election in San Jose. Rumors are that Chuck has already handpicked his favorite for successor. Chuck's buddy Hon Lien looks like she will throw her name into the hat to represent her district. Here is a little background info on Lien.

One age old lesson of politics is the danger and probability of pendular politics. As far back as Oliver Cromwell, political history has commonly featured stories of leaders who climb to power by defining themselves against an "other" only to become the very thing they opposed initially. I hope for the good of SJ, Mr. Reed does not follow this inertia. Chuck's campaign was built on "taking down the machine" of San Jose politics. Whether or not this depiction of City Hall is accurate is beside the point. But for Chuck to already be handpicking successors smells like the beginning of a new machine being built. I have quite a bit of faith that Chuck won't walk down this road. But my faith in the Chamber of Commerce is considerably more dubious. The Chamber has already heavily backed its former leader Steve Tedesco. The question will be whether it plans to continue to aggressively pursue its political agenda by backing Lien. It will be interesting to see if the Chamber attempts to rebuild its machine that was dominant during the 80's. We'll keep you posted when we learn more...

What's Next?

2006-11-13T09:44:00.000-08:00

As San Jose Inside ponders it's role in the future of San Jose, we here at MayorWatch engage in parallel introspection. The campaign is over and there was no Cindy-rella story. COMPAC, big business interests, Irvine developers, and the print media got their way and Chuck has won. Our single focus (admittedly) has been the Mayoral election here in SJ. The same should be said of SJI - although they're not gusty enough to admit it. Well, to be fair, they weren't only dedicated to destroying Cindy Chavez; they also were committed to obliterating Manny Diaz as well. Go read their immigrant-bashing comments today and I think you'll get my insinuation. But I digress. What is the next step?

One election we will continue to follow is the District 6 City Council race where it appears Pierre Oliverio and Steve Tedesco will face off in a run-off. This, of course, is the seat of esteemed Councilmember Ken Yeager who is on his way out. Tedesco is the former chair of the Chamber. You can guess how SJI and SV411 will weigh in on this one! The Pat Dando-COMPAC-Merc-McEnery upper echelon of SJ politics has done a good job of framing an "us-against-them" ethos where the evil amalgam of labor interests has dominated SJ politics for years. In doing so, they have tried to hide their influence. Tedesco is yet another of the Dando-ites who seeks to continue to turn the Council into an extension of the Chamber of Commerce.

Remain vigilant, friends. Let's do some research and find out about these two candidates!

Congratulations to Chuck Reed!

2006-11-11T12:44:00.000-08:00

San Jose will have a new mayor come January 2007, Chuck Reed. Reed, a Democrat, will be the head of the 10th largest city in our nation, a city that will face many challenges and obstacles in the coming years. For instance we see that two of our neighboring cities may become host to major league teams, Santa Clara and Fremont. San Jose, largest city in northern CA will once again be "step sister" to smaller and less well known cities, and will also see local entertainment dollars flow outside our city (though in the case of Santa Clara at least the money will stay in the county.) It is my hope that Reed will take a leadership role in finding new ways to put San Jose on the map.

Cindy Chavez ran a strong campaign, and I anticipate that she will take some time off and hopefully run for another local office in the near future. I know both Reed and Chavez, both are "nice" people, both have strong ethics and morals, and while my support was for Chavez, I am hopeful that Reed will learn how to be a bit more daring in his vision for our city.

Further, how can one be upset when we still find our city lead by Democrats? Reed, a Democrat, will be joined by Sam Liccardo, another Democrat, and both candidates in the runoff for Yeager's seat are Democrats!

In the coming months we will be treated to two more elections in our city, one for Ken Yeager's council seat (District 6), and Chuck Reed's seat (District 4). Our city council will be filled with new faces in 2007, how these new council members perform will of course be covered here, as well as observations on our new Mayor, Chuck Reed.

If there is one "concern" I have about our recent local elections it is that we are seeing fewer and fewer women elected locally. San Jose's city council will have four women serving (out of 10 seats), and it is my hope that in upcoming elections we see more women running for city council.

Of course I can't "sign off" from this post without at least mentioning how GREAT Tuesday was for Democrats, and for our nation. Democrats took back both the house and senate, and our country will be the better for this change of leadership. Now we can see true oversight, now our nation has what our forefathers envisioned, checks and balances, now we can hopefully find a way to end our involvement in Iraq, we can address the health care crisis in our nation, the AMT can be addressed, and so many other issues can be brought to the table for discussion and action.

Enjoy your Saturday, and keep on checking back for more discussions on local politics (with a bit of national stuff thrown in once in a while.)

Twilight Zone

2006-11-08T08:59:00.000-08:00

Am I in the Twilight Zone? Really?

I wake up today - the day after election day - to a national revolution in the House and the Senate of Democratic values. This is probably one of the most dramatic shifts in Congress in my lifetime.

Then, I look at what happened in California - the most liberal, most progressive state in the Union... And somehow we re-elected our Republican Governor and put in a Democrat-in-name-only for San Jose Mayor? Hmmm. Are San Jose and California... more... conservative... than the rest of the country?

And then I flip on the news to hear Ed Gilispie talking about the importance of a recount and the imperative for accuracy.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone, folks.

Big Democrat Victories Nationally

2006-11-07T21:51:00.000-08:00

We'll see how the Dems fared locally and statewide soon...

Update...

2006-11-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

Those preliminary results were from absentee ballots ONLY.

Everybody expected Reed to take a huge lead in absentee votes. Nothing shocking yet...

First precinct in...

2006-11-07T20:19:00.000-08:00

Chuck Reed
38,761
66%

Cindy Chavez
20,149
34%

Time to start counting...

2006-11-07T20:16:00.000-08:00

Polls closed and we've got 1244 precincts to count...

Chavez - Voter Turnout Down

2006-11-07T19:00:00.000-08:00

Rumors - Chavez had the votes but is looking like she is getting 11/100 of her identified supporters.

We'll have some data to toy with in an hour...

Democratic Turnout Low In San Jose

2006-11-07T18:31:00.000-08:00

We've received tips from a number of Dems working the phones who have reported that the voter turnout in our city is remarkably low. This (obviously) will hurt Cindy.

Merc Reports on Irregularities

2006-11-07T18:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15951193.htm

Merc shows problems at:

* Rolling Hills Middle School in Los Gatos
* Boxer Mayfair Village Apartments in San Jose
* Adobe Wells Mobile Home Park in Sunnyvale
* the Foothill Covenant Church in Los Altos
* Slonaker School
* the Tully Community Branch Library in San Jose
* the Chai House on St. Elizabeth Drive near Fruitdale Avenue

Election Irregularities...

2006-11-07T18:04:00.000-08:00

Something newsworthy from SV411?! I know - crazy! SV411 reports that there have been a number of voting irregularities --- much like what is going on throughout the rest of the country:

"The first voting news this morning wasn’t good: election snafus all
around. We had it here in Los Gatos, where some electronic voting machines just
wouldn’t boot up when the polls opened. The voters who had showed up had to vote
with paper ballots, making them the envy of millions of voters around the
country who are still totally freaked out by the hackability of e-voting."

Share your stories/thoughts/experiences in the comments...

Updates

2006-11-07T17:56:00.000-08:00

Word is that Chavez still has 300 volunteers on the streets in their GOTV operation. Chavez-supporters are feeling optimistic. We'll see if that optimism can bridge the gap manifested in the recent polls...

"Chuck Reed Abortion"

2006-11-07T13:47:00.000-08:00

Interesting. The number one search string leading readers to our website over the past month has been replaced. In previous months, the number one google/msn/yahoo search string used to find our website was "Mayor Watch Blogspot". This month, the number one string is "Chuck Reed Abortion" (along with several permutations of the string like "Chuck Reed pro-life").

Reed voted against the symbollic statement the city made against Proposition 85 - the initiative requiring parental notification for abortion. Some of his supporters have said that Prop. 85 does not run afoul of pro-choice values. Some claim that Chuck felt that it wasn't the city's place to speak up on the issue. You make the call!

SV411 - Can you lose any more credibility?

2006-11-07T13:20:00.000-08:00

SV411 awoke from its weekly slumber to provide a final slam against two victims of its yellow journalism. SV411 gives Cindy Chavez a runner-up award for campaign bloopers for attacking Chuck for reimbursing a staffer's religious education. According to SV411:

"But Chavez didn’t mention that the city employee, 32-year-old Mandy Nguyen,
qualified for a $1,400 tuition reimbursement for an intercultural studies
program at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. The religious classes were
only a few of the requirements for her degree."

Huh?

First, it's funny that it took them a week to come up with this spin. How much time did you morons spend digging through codes trying to defend your golden boy? Last week the excuse was that it was justified because it made the staffer a 'better person'. Then the excuse was that it helped her serve Chuck's constituents better. His position shifts daily!

Second, how is it relevant that she only needed a few more requirements for her degree? I don't get it. You desperate zealots may be right - I haven't dug through municipal codes since Chuck Reed blatantly violated the law by voting to materially benefit his client Los Esteros. But could you point us to the law that says that this is acceptable?

Third, when did Chuck Reed become in charge of the "tuition reimbursement" department? Assuming such a program exists, where can I apply? I have quite a bit of educational debt that I'd like to qualify for. Can I send you an application Chuck? Or do you only doll out these reimbursements to your own staffers? Maybe the city said, 'wow, Chuck is so good at spending the public's tax dollars and getting under-the-table reimbursements --- we should have him in charge of reimbursing government official's education costs!'

Another classic line from SV411's post:

"a raunchy virtual meeting place for public masturbators, butt cheeks, nipples and more sexually explicit images that we can’t describe here."

Maybe you guys can't describe it here. But you can put up advertisements for it in your publication! How much of your revenue depends on the sex industry? Readers - grab a Metro! Flip to the back and look at how many prostitutes and escorts keep this ragsheet in business! You want to talk about values? Well, how about you start promoting money-for-sex in other cities!

The underlying fact is that Chuck once again has proven he does not understand the limits of the power he has been awarded by virtue of his elected position. He does not understand that our money is not his to doll out. Even if there were some allowance that his staffer qualified to receive, he needs to understand the difference between what he CAN do --- and what he SHOULD do. Heck, I would be just as incensed if the money went to a secular education. But the fact that he is using public money to promote religious education is unethical. It is the 21st Century. We know Chuck wouldn't do this if his staffer were Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu. Come on!

Is this what we should expect under a Reed administration? As one of your commentors wrote last week, are we going to need to hope Chuck will "throw us a bone"? Are retribution and cronyism part of the Reed reforms?

And if I can get my tuition paid for by working on your City Council staff... can I have an application?

Don't Give Up Yer Fight!

2006-11-06T17:13:00.000-08:00

'Twas the night before the election
and all through our city...

Both candidates feel strong
neither want your pity

The papers have tried
to steal this election

To influence, to steer,
to control our direction

Everyone predicts
the winner and the goat...

But nobody yet knows
how San Jose will vote

Chuck and his buddies
think they've already won

But Cindy, oh Cindy,
thinks that's part of the fun!

Over polls and absentee votes
the bloggers may quarrel

But Chavez's barnstorms
while some sit on their laurels

She thinks: for this city, she's right
And Chuck is wrong!

And that can't be changed
even by the cash of Dennis Fong...

The Merc or McEnery?
Don't be swayed by the elites!

Just take your vision
and go to the streets

Knock on the doors!
Call on the phones!

Leave no undecided voter
all on their own...

Education? Transportation!
The stakes need no explanation!

But only through GOTV
will you feel vindication!

Cindy yells to her troops,
"don't give up yer fight"

Merry Monday to all,
and to all, a good night!

Anonymity is back in style...?

2006-11-06T12:11:00.000-08:00

Recently I stumbled upon a website called Cindy Chavez.net. I googled her and found the site as the 8th highest ranked site! When I took a look at it, it was typical Reed propaganda. I'm not going to bash their site without providing a link so here it is: http://www.cindychavez.net. I do appreciate the reciprocal courtesy that they provided by posting our link as well.

The part that bothers me is that they coopted Cindy's name in an attempt to confuse voters. A very common internet technique is called "domain-squatting". Basically someone takes a domain name that they know websurfers will accidentally stumble upon. In the corporate world, they hold the name hostage until their price is met. In the political world, they keep it because the number of accidental hits they get is huge. I think it's disingenuous to call it "cindychavez.net" and give readers the impression that it's a Cindy Chavez site.

Another curiosity: where are all the bloggers criticizing us for being anonymous blasting them on their site? Where's the article in the Metro or on SV411 questioning their legitimacy for not revealing who they are? Maybe anonymity is... back in style!

Unlike our free blog, cindychavez.net costs money to run. Someone dedicated the time and cash to make a website that deceives its readers. I sure hope that Chuck's campaign is not behind the site: if they are and pretend not to be, they could be in violation of municipal election law.

I asked a computer science buddy about the site. He said "The site is run by the whois database. The whois database information is meant to protect the identity of the registrant. The company is in Bellevue, WA 98007."

I like Cindy's chances...

2006-11-06T09:41:00.000-08:00

Today the Merc covered the final weekend of campaigning from both Reed and Chavez: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15937555.htm.

Despite two recent polls that demonstrated a large lead for Chuck, I like Cindy's chances heading into the election. As the Merc calls it, Cindy's campaign has a number of superior advantages coming into tomorrow. Elections are won and lost on the backs of volunteers. The number of volunteers who have been working around the clock for Cindy is probably quite high.

Zoe Lofgren came out this weekend to fire up the Chavez camp and told the story of her come from behind victory over Tom McEnery. McEnery, meanwhile, is scheduled to appear in a Reed advertisement during the final 48 hours of campaigning.

Hopefully this will be a spirited stretch drive!

Chronicle Endorses Chavez

2006-11-03T08:33:00.000-08:00

This has been a very busy week. Somehow I missed this endorsement that came Monday. The SF Chron endorsed Cindy Chavez: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/30/EDG6PKDSU31.DTL

While blogs with 3rd grader sophistication like SV411 are willing to call it a clean sweep for Reed in terms of endorsements, they do not make any amendment or even a brief reference to this endorsement. (By the way, SV411 - how come you never wrote about Chavez's clean sweep of endorsements from elected officials?)

As many are getting sick and tired of the Merc/Metro's agenda, it is refreshing to see another newspaper recognize the importance of SJ's mayoral election. (Though as an aside - I do have to say that the Merc has made babysteps toward improving the objectivity of its articles over the past week or so.)

Merc Covers Clinton Endorsement; Chavez the Democratic Choice

2006-11-03T08:01:00.000-08:00

Take a look for yourself: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15918994.htm

In the article, Reed claims that the office of Mayor should be non-partisan. Non-partisanship is a fiction. Issues, programs, etc. that require funding are inherently political and always will be. One's political orientation is central to how such funding decisions will be made. And social issues - same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. - are by definition zero-sum.

Chuck Reed is running a campaign that is absolutely silent on how he stands politically.

The only way one can truly be non-partisan is to do nothing at all... If you look at Chuck's record on the council, you may believe that he may just be non-partisan after all. He is pandering to Republicans by sending out literature boasting of Republican endorsements and speaking at Republican events. If you're a Democrat, don't be fooled by this Justice Roberts-like campaign of silence.

Actions speak louder then words

2006-11-03T06:52:00.000-08:00

Yes, I am back. Have been very busy these last few weeks, family, work and volunteering on local elections. Of course I have been reading this blog daily, and posting a comment every so often, and today just wanted to weigh in with some observations on the San Jose Mayoral race.

It has become clear to me that while Reed wants to be known as the candidate that will "change the culture at city hall," his actions during this campaign have shown otherwise. You see, Reed has a problem, it is a problem easily observed in other public officials as well, officials like George W. Bush. What is the problem exactly? The problem is that Reed thinks his judgment is above reproach. In the case of George W. Bush we see that there is a tendency to "dig in" once a decision has been made, irregardless of the results of that decision. Reed has shown some of the same "dig in" tendencies as Bush. For instance when Reed was questioned about his use of tax payer money for questionable expenses he insisted he had done nothing wrong, and until the issue clearly became a campaign problem for him, he refused to see how his actions were wrong. I am still not convinced that Reed, even though he repaid the money to the city, understands the error of his initial judgment.

Secondly, we see that Reed ok'd the use of city money (our money) for religion. Reed sees nothing wrong with using "state" money to fund the religious education of one of his staffers. I do see something wrong with this, as do many people, because there should be a separation between church and state. Reed not only fails to see what the problem is, he refuses to accept the fact that his judgment on this issue might have been wrong.

What really got me thinking about this issue was a mailer Reed sent out yesterday, a mailer that touted all of his local endorsements, fair enough. However, below the page with the headline of how Reed was going to "change the culture at city hall" we see a half page of political cartoons that personally attack Cindy Chavez. How is this any type of change in culture at city hall? Change starts not with words, but with actions, and clearly Reed sees nothing wrong with the culture of personal attacks, which, sadly, does not bode well should he be elected mayor.

Should Reed be elected mayor there are clear indications that he may not easily see the error of any of his judgments, and as he has already shown by his actions, his judgment is not above reproach.

Yes, I am clearly a Chavez supporter, for many reasons. One reason is that Chavez knows how to work with people, she finds ways to bring everyone together, discuss issues and work towards a solution. Chavez has worked hard for our city, and while some here may not agree with her decisions as a council member, her intention has always been to try to do what is best for the city of San Jose and all of us who live here.

Reed, in my opinion, isn't up to "restoring pride" or "reforming" the culture at city hall, especially given his personality which is to make decisions, stick to them and attack anyone who dares to question his actions, even when his decisions are clearly questionable. Chavez, on the other hand, has not only apologized for some of her decisions, such as the last minute vote on the Grand Prix, she has vowed to make sure that she does not repeat the same mistake. No one is perfect, and it is no "flaw" in a personality to admit that you were wrong in a decision and would do things differently a second time, rather a more worrisome flaw is the personality that cannot, will not, see the mistakes in their judgment.

San Jose is a great city, a wonderful place to call home. We are one of the safest largest cities in the nation, we enjoy some of the best weather in the nation, and we are home to some of the brightest and most innovative minds in the country. It is my opinion that Chavez is the best candidate to lead our city forward, however, should Reed be elected mayor, my hope is that he reaches out to those who did not support him and show by example that we can and need to work together for the benefit of our city.

Listen to the Clinton endorsement here

2006-11-02T17:10:00.000-08:00

Here's what Clinton has to say about the election in his radio advertisements:

http://www.cindychavez4mayor.com/sound/clintonspeech.mp3

President Clinton Endorses Cindy Chavez

2006-11-02T16:01:00.000-08:00

Just when it looked like things were over, the Chavez campaign unleashed a secret weapon today. When President WIlliam Jefferson Clinton came into California yesterday for a Proposition 87 rally and fundraiser for the DCCC, he recorded a radio commercial endorsing San Jose Mayoral Candidate Cindy Chavez. As a New York resident and a national leader of the Democratic Party, this endorsement definitely raises some eyebrows.

Why would President Clinton even care about the SJ Mayor's race when the Democrats are in a position to try and win back Congress? Chavez and Reed are both Democrats, and no offense to CIndy...but she's no Monica. So then why would the most successful Democrat in recent years throw his name behind the underdog running against a Democrat in a local election?

Well aside from the fact that San Jose is the tenth largest city in the nation, Clinton legitimately believes that Cindy is the best for the job. Though advisors were hesitant to allow Clinton to give his endorsement because there were two Democrats running in the election, Clinton insisted that Cindy was a Clintonian Democrat through and through. Reed's Democrat Halloween costume couldn't stand up to Clinton, and Cindy's endorsement list has officially released it's 37th volume. Reed recently earned the endorsement of anonymous, which puts him with almost enough endorsements to fill up a post-it. This last minute surprise from the Chavez campaign might be too little too late with the election less than six days away. But, an endorsement from Clinton might be the spark needed to get some undecided voters or unintended voters to go out and vote for CIndy. One thing finally seems clear here, the Democratic leaders, either local or national, want CIndy in CIty Hall. Maybe it's time that this mother and wife step up to the plate and clean up the scandal and rumors that have been stifling City Hall.

Looking Forward

2006-11-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

SV411 has declared victory today in its quest to get its candidate of choice, Chuck Reed, into City Hall. As the election season comes close to its conclusion, I have to wonder how SV411/Metro have any credibility whatsoever. The two publications have been relentless in their partial pursuit of destroying the Chavez campaign. That's not to say that San Jose Inside (or us, for that matter) have been exactly fair and balanced. But remember - we are bloggers. SV411/Metro are supposed to feature journalism. Why did they even announce that they were endorsing Chuck a couple weeks ago? They endorsed him the moment the primary ended. Really. Whatever side you fall on in this campaign, I hope that our readers put pressure on these sorry excuses for journalists. In this day and age, our city deserves better. Next time you pick up a Metro, flip to the back of it. Look at how the Metro makes its money. That piece of trash is a regular printed red-light district. Hookers, strippers, smut, etc. etc. pay their bills and yet somehow we give this publication the right to influence our opinions on values and ethics in City Hall. Remember the fear they tried to instill in voters about an alleged connection between Chavez and Indian gambling? Well, the very existence of these jokers is utterly dependent on the sex industry. But the website correctly points out that Chavez now trails Reed by a double digit margin. It is a little curious how large of a lead Reed has allegedly built when last than a month ago both candidates were within the margin of error. Polls schmolls, some might say. But the import of a 12 point lead can't be ignored. I'm going to bet that the Chavez campaign starts pulling out all the stops with what appears it might be its final Hail Mary drive. Yesterday's announcement that Reed used public money to send a staffer to a parochial educational institution, however, seems to have not stuck in the public consciousness. While certainly not on par with Reed's earlier reimbursement scandal, it is still surprising that there has been little uproar over Reed's most recently revealed gaffe. Maybe I'm too young to understand how people can swallow this. But to me, that separation between church and state is one of the most vital features of a contemporary democracy. Would the staffer been afforded the same privilege if she were Jewish? Buddhist? Hindu? Reed offered a number of justifications for the move. For one, he claimed that the expenditure of public money for religious education made his staffer a better person. While that may sound noble on its face, I think most of us know that that is complete bullshit. If an official took city money and used it for pilates, a history class, or even Oprah's book club, most would agree that it might help improve said official's personhood... but nobody would agree that that is appropriate. I don't think Mr. Reed is this stupid. His next justification is probably more sensical. Reed claims that the religious training will enable the staffer to better deal with Reed's constituents. I am not clear how or why religious training would help accomplish this objective in any way shape or form. Religion is not like language. Religion is not instrumental to constituent services. But even if it were, this is not the type of reality that our politicians should be catering to. Some may point to this miscue from Reed as an example of his lack of ethics. To me, I probably wouldn't take it that far. I don't think Reed intended to enlarge the bloated municipal bureaucracy by using city money for personal gain. I think he honestly believes that this was an appropriate expenditure. And that's what I see this upcoming election coming down to. Chuck Reed is a good guy. There's no two ways around it. I believe his campaign staff has turned him into something he's not. But I do sincerely believe that he is a good dude. But his values and his vision are outdated. Someone who thinks that this type of expenditure is appropriate --- that this practice of keeping religion integrating into the mainstream of our political practice is legit --- is not the type of leader I want. Remember how he voted when the city took a symbolic stance against the initiative requiring parental notification for abortions. Remember how he voted when asked to recognize same-sex marriages in SJ. Many spin these votes as old fashioned values. To me, that's a euphemism for conservativism. Next Tuesday, you can vote for the past. Or you can vote for the future. I'm going to vote for the candidate who wants to move our city forward. I'm going to vote for education, housing, and the environment.

Reed Spends Public Money On Religious Education

2006-11-01T16:25:00.000-08:00

***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?

Why Do Irvine Developers Want Reed?

2006-11-01T09:30:00.000-08:00

Lately there has been quite a buzz about Connecticut donations made to the Democratic Party. Some media outlets - like SV411 - have insinuated that the money was all coming from the same special interest. The evidence for this very serious allegation? That $1,000 was donated from a driver from this development company.

You can go ahead and add "classism" to the list of the prejudices maintained by SV411/Metro. BECAUSE OF COURSE A POOR DRIVER DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY OR SOPHISTICATION TO MAKE A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.

Right.

We talked about this earlier when we discussed how good ol' Dennis Fong has found every way imagineable to purchase this election. We talked about his siblings and his office managers making donations. If you buy that multiple donations coming from the same source must be a special interest attempting to circumvent finance restrictions, then look at Reed's hands as well. His are dirtier, in fact.

But a discussion about circumstantial evidence supporting accusations of evading campaign finance restrictions is not necessary right now. SV411 and the Reed campaign may like to sling mud this way - but we believe that it's just silly.

What we want to know is... why do Irvine developers care who wins for San Jose Mayor?

The Irvine Company President - sitting pretty in San Juan Capistrano - elected to donate to the Reed campaign. Interesting, no? Last I checked, that's about a 10 hour drive away. Maybe he was excited about the prospect of visiting our wonderful city and NOT seeing a Grand Prix or NOT seeing a musical at the SJ Rep? Maybe he just likes touring cities with naysayer mayors?

That may have been plausible - until we saw more and more donors from this corporation going to Reed. Tony Russo from El Dorado Hills, also an Irvine Company employee, maxed out to Reed as well. Who is Daniel Young? He is the VP of the Irvine Company and apparently HE'S A BIG CHUCK REED FAN AS WELL! Living nice and cozy in Coto de Caza - the city made famous for its centrality in Bravo's Real Housewives of Orange County, Young somehow was moved by Reed's campaign to bring transparency to SJ government and decided to max out to Chuck's campaign as well...?

Oh and Richard Lamprecht from the Irvine Company. Living in Laguna Niguel, Lamprecht must have been persuaded by Chuck's vision on education... not on securing development opportunities, right?

Maybe Chuck just has a positive relationship with the Irvine Company. Maybe he frequents their Spectrum in downtown.

But how do you explain the two contributions that came from the "TRC Companies" - more companies interested in development and centered in Irvine?

That's not all the $$$ coming from our friends in the OC! The Sares Regis Group - another Irvine based company interested in development - has also found quite a number of ways of getting the Reed campaign money.

Geoffrey Steck from Sares Regis maxed out. Oh, and SV411 --- his wife, Nancy Steck, also maxed out as well. (Maybe in your attempt to be investigative journalists you could read up on Steck and make unfounded assumptions based upon her economic status as well.) William Thormahlen also from the Irvine-based Sares Regis development company also donated to Reed. And, yes SV411, so did his wife Christine. She maxed out as well. These donors also live in Coto de Caza.

The list goes on and on.

My question is why do Irvine developers care so much who wins in SJ? Much has been smeared against Cindy regarding an alleged development agenda, but nobody has looked at these odd sources of donations for Chuck. What is on Chuck's agenda? His campaign has smeared Democrats for accepting Indian gaming money. The assumption underlying those negative attacks was that special interests don't donate without expectation of reciprocal services. Well, Chuck, using your same logic --- what is the Irvine Company going to get from you?

Bias Against Chavez

2006-10-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

Wednesday’s article on San Jose Inside begins by declaring, “Well, it looks like a clean sweep for Chuck Reed in his quest to become mayor of San Jose.”San Jose Inside is clearly inside the Reed camp. The article goes on to clarify its boastful lead by explaining that Reed has swept the newspaper endorsements. Big surprise. The Metro, The Mercury, and all of David Cohen’s Community Papers have been biased against Cindy Chavez from the get-go. These papers would just look hypocritical if they endorsed Chavez after months of bashing her. Tom McEnery musters up all his civility to admit that Chavez is a “decent” person, not a good person, just a decent person.

While our site has a healthy debate after most posts, the comments on the San Jose Inside article are overwhelmingly pro-Reed. Where’s the discourse?

And the comments really sadden me when they get into issues of race. John Michael O’Connor asks, “Can someone explain to me in what respect Cindy Chavez is a Latina… except for her surname?” He goes on to assert, “To call Ron Gonzales a person of color is a MAJOR stretch. Does he know more than five Spanish words? Gonzo is no more a person “of color” than I am.” O’Connor needs to understand that Cindy’s lighter skin tone and Gonzales lack of Spanish fluency don’t make them any less Latino. Cindy Chavez is Mexican-American and faced the same deeply embedded social barriers to people of color that all Latinos face in this nation. O’Connor’s use of such superficial measures of one’s level of minority-ness typifies the Reed camp’s ignorance. In a city where more than half the citizens are people of color, we need leaders who have a better understanding of race relations and the covert institutional racisms that exist all around us.

Kudos To Herhold For Admitting Bias

2006-10-20T09:35:00.001-07:00

Yesterday's article by Scott Herhold deserves a second look. In it, he did a fair job of assessing a number of the key issues that face voters when determining which candidate will best lead San Jose.

But what is also worth recognizing is Herhold's admission of his bias in Reed's favor.

"Full disclosure: I lean toward Reed."

This shouldn't come as much of a surprise to those of us who have followed the election closely. We discussed his baseless attacks against Cindy about a month ago. Our only question is why wasn't this admitted in previous articles? Why wasn't it disclosed last week, for example, when Herhold "covered" Chuck Reed's attack mailer against Chavez? That mailer, of course, happened to be one of the most unfounded attacks on Chavez yet. It featured Cindy and Ron rolling a giant die from downtown's giant monopoly board. The insinuation was that Chavez is pro-gambling --- even though Reed has admitted that he is not aware of any differences between him and his opponent with respect to casinos. What was Herhold's response? Would he provide the same level of scrutiny to Reed's attacks that he applied to Chavez's attacks in September?

Nope. Instead, Herhold merely summarized how the Reed team found the picture of Ron and Cindy. So instead of applying some much-needed questioning of Reed's newest smear campaign, he instead gave it free airplay. He even provided a link to the "incriminating" picture of Ron and Cindy!

Everyone has their biases. We've admitted ours. We give kudos to Herhold for finally disclosing his. Biases and partiality are inexorable consequences of intelligence coupled with observations. The danger comes when journalists wield their enormous amounts of influence and access without disclosing their "angle". Our only question is --- who else at the Merc has some disclosing to do?

Meanwhile, we continue to wait for Phil Yost to step up to the plate and attack line-by-line this mailer like he did to Chavez's well-known letter providing her explanation for her role in Norcal. Maybe we'll get a similar admission from Yost three weeks after the election passes.

Mr. Yost and Mr. Herhold: You cannot in one instance criticize and scrutinize the message of one candidate and then pretend to be laissez-faire when the other returns fire. You can't have it both ways.

Kudos To Herhold For Admitting Bias

2006-10-20T09:35:00.000-07:00

SV411 Continues To Lose Credibility

2006-10-18T14:00:00.000-07:00

Today awoke from it's two week slumber to continue it's quixotic quest to bring down Cindy Chavez. Say what you will about our site - but at least we're up-to-date!

SV411 - an anonymous blog that attacked us for being anonymous - revealed that the Metro has endorsed Chuck Reed. (Surprise!) Then, later in the day, the blog picked up the story about Chavez receiving donations from developers who bid for contracts. The article parroted Reed's accusations without any examination or scrutiny thereof. One portion of such allegations was that a developer from Connecticut "got" seven individuals to contribute to Chavez. These are very serious allegations. But as we mentioned in our earlier article, Reed's campaign is filled with parallel arrangements that also smell like big interested donors (like Dennis Fong) "got" office managers and relatives to max out in their donations to Reed.

This is the blog that:

1) Went after Nancy Pyle, Ken Yeager, etc. for freeloading at the Grand Prix but never outlined any of the luxurious events Reed attended on the public's dime;

2) Found that the only thing that was relevant from the Norcal Grand Jury transcripts was that Cindy referred to representatives from Norcal by common names, but found nothing improper about Reed's undisclosed conversations with CWS prior to the Norcal vote;

3) Announced the endorsements of Chuck by a handful of local leaders while not once blogging about the pantheon of prestigious endorsers of Cindy;

4) Referred to Chuck's ripoff of $38K from the public's money as "creative juggling of 'job-related' expenses" and a "minor misstep".

At least our site is honest about the fact that we editorialize. At least our site doesn't pretend to be anything but the rants of a couple of young students.

New Levels Of Hypocrisy From The Chuck Reed Campaign

2006-10-18T10:33:00.000-07:00

Chuck Reed has gone on rampant campaign of hypocrisy sinking to new lows over the past week showing the public how truly desperate he has become. Reed is claiming that Chavez accepted donations from parties who "sought or won contracts" from the Santa Clara Valley Tansportation Authority.

Reed asserts that these companies donated money in excess of contribution limits. He supports this claim by pointing to the fact that the officers or spouses of officers from these companies made donations to Chavez. The insinuation is that these were artificial donors.

Besides being blatantly circumstantial and baseless, does Chuck not know that his campaign has been built on the same practices? Remember Dennis Fong? Fong:

"donated $500 to Chuck Reed's campaign, Jennie Fong - the property manager at
Tropicana - donated her $500. Gloria Walker - the office manager at Fong
Enterprises - donated her $500 as well."

I think it's time to get sleuthing into Chuck's disclosures to count up how many husband and wife combinations from companies donated to him as well. (Remember the case of mistaken identity that occured with John Salah?

"He donated $100 to Reed's campaign. (12/31/2005)

Dan Salah donated $500
to Reed's campaign. (1/10/2006)

Janet Salah donated $150 to Reed's
campaign. (3/17/2006)"

Point is that trying to insinuate that Cindy broke campaign finance restrictions by receiving money from officers of companies and/or their spouses is reediculous... and hypocritical.

The crux of Reed's position is that it was unethical for Cindy to accept money from groups that she had voted on the past. Well, what did Karen Getman, an attorney and a former chair of the FPPC say:

"I'm not at all sure that there's any problem,'' Getman said.

Another interesting sleight of hand by the Reed camp comes in the form of the "sought or won" distinction. So Chuck is upset that Cindy received donations from companies that "sought" contracts from the VTA but that she voted against? Somehow... that shows... bias?

Wasn't Reed the one only weeks ago complaining about whisper campaigns and baseless accusations? Well, why didn't he sit back, check with an attorney, check with Chavez, etc. before going on a crusade against Cindy?

Chavez countered that Reed - in all his moral outrage about gambling money being contributed to the Democratic Party (not to Cindy, for the record) - accepted donations from "two investors in a limited partnership called Game Too, which was pursuing a possible Indian casino south of Gilroy in 2004. " Reed's response? He says he had no idea of their intentions "he had never been approached by anyone identifying himself as a representative of Game Too." [But don't forget about his quote only a week ago that "(H)e said he once got a phone call from a representative inquiring whether he'd be supportive" - and we're all confident that Chuck - who has already demonstrating questionable integrity when it comes to political contributions - wasn't referring to Game Too???]

Take a step back: Reed's allegation is that Cindy helped companies receive contracts and then later received contributions from these companies. His implication is that she scratched their back and now they're scratching hers. But the fact that some companies who LOST these contracts donated to her as well suggests that maybe these bidders were just confident in the process that she conducted in the first place. Why would winners and losers donate to her?

Chuck adroitly plays on people's repulsion to a political/ethical norm opposing receiving money and then supporting such donors' interests. But recall that here, the sequence of events was the reverse: she happened to support some people's interests and later received financial support from these groups. Chuck's claim is that this is circumstantial evidence that Cindy will be bought in the future.

It is ironic that this contention comes from Reed. Reed is the one who followed the reverse (and more reprehensible) chain of events:

1) Reed received money from Los Esteros - a client represented by Reed.
2) Reed then voted on proposals that financially benefited Los Esteros.

While Chuck's claim is that her acceptance of such contributions suggests Cindy may act in their interest in the future, Reed's track record shows that he has been bought and sold in the past.

And what ever happened to Los Esteros? One thing we do know is that the shopping center that the gas stations that Chuck represented are inside of or adjacent to later donated $500 to Reed's campaign. That's right: McCarthy Ranch has donated $500 to Reed's campaign.

Explain that one away, Reed.

The Ball Is In Yost's Court...

2006-10-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

Mr. Yost, weeks ago, you went line-by-line through a mailer sent out from the Chavez campaign explaining her involvement in Norcal.

Now Chuck Reed has sent out one of the silliest and idiotic hit pieces featuring Ron Gonzalez and Cindy Chavez holding a large die in front of the oversized Monopoly board near the Children's Discovery Museum.

We have covered time and time again why this is one of the most baseless smear tactics that we've seen to date. We've covered how Indian gaming cannot come to San Jose. We've covered how local card clubs would likely OPPOSE introducing Indian casinos to our area. We've even reprinted Chuck Reed's quote saying that he doesn't think he and Cindy have ANY discernible differences between their attitudes on introducing gambling to the city.

Today the Reed droids are already on the spin and somehow are willing to label Reed's hit pieces as "a classic" and "humorous". But the droids still think that Chuck has taken the high-road: "I am almost fearful for Chuck Reed because I am waiting to see the onslaught of dirt and slime that is thrown his way by the Chavez campaign."

Chuck Reed has DEFINED the new low-road by sending out mailers with implications that he knows are irrelevant but that he knows are inciteful. We knew that Chuck would sink to new lows in his desperation.

The only question is: Will the Mercury News step up to the plate and scrutinize these idiotic mailers the same way it criticized Cindy's letter?

Who Reads This "Waste Of Internet Space"?

2006-10-16T13:56:00.000-07:00

After recently being called a "waste of Internet space" on Phil Yost's blog, we got to wondering, who actually reads this site?!

Does the Mercury News? After getting the ball rolling about who the Merc would endorse, our local paper has delayed its endorsement announcement already by 2 days. At this point, we are wondering that the editors are wondering the same question we are: which way of NOT endorsing Chavez will they go?

Our pool has the possibilities as: 1) Chuck, 2) No Endorsement, or 3) Write-in Pandori.

In the meantime, to be fair, the Merc has provided a couple solid columns to review over the past 2 days.

Read about the candidates on "growth" here from today's paper.

Yesterday, the paper had a section with 5 questions asked of Chuck and 5 questions asked of Cindy. The answers reveal what we already know about the candidates' orientations. No biggie. However, we here at MW like this type of reporting from the SJMN. We challenge you to allocate space for more information that comes from the candidates themselves.

We'll keep you posted as things develop!

Makin' Somethin' Outta Nothin'

2006-10-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

Much has been blogged recently about Chuck Reed's new smear tactic - going after tribal donations to the Democratic Party. Today the Mercury News wrote an article about the bru-ha-ha. Chuck has attacked the Dems for accepting $55K from tribal interests claiming that some of that money would be used by the party to go after him.

We've routinely discussed how this should be a non-issue given that as Chavez and local Dem leader Steve Preminger pointed out that "there's no local support for expanding gambling, city law already forbids gambling money in local campaigns, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proclaimed he won't allow tribal casinos in urban areas."

Nonetheless, Chuck has claimed that gambling interests "have been keenly eye the San Jose area for years." His support for this claim? "(H)e said he once got a phone call from a representative inquiring whether he'd be supportive."

Additionally, Chuck implied that gambling money is relevant because "city officials have for years been battling in court over efforts to regulate two local card clubs." Last I checked, Bay 101 was not run by an Indian tribe. In fact, if Indian gambling institutions did want to come to the SJ area, wouldn't they oppose card clubs like Bay 101?

So 1) Indian gaming cannot come to San Jose because it's against the law and 2) Indian gaming money has no relevance to the preexisting gambling institutions in the city. Wait a second... why is this smearing relevant? Reed even admits that he "couldn't cite any specific gambling issues on which they differ."

Nonetheless, Chavez has asked the local Democratic party to not use any of the gambling money on her campaign. Preminger said that the money would be passed to other counties in their efforts to support. Yet rumors are that Reed still plans on taking this issue to the bank during the stretch-run of the campain. MW has heard that Reed plans on sending out more hit pieces in an attempt to bring the Indian gaming money - which has now been refused - into the spotlight.

My guess is that the voters won't be swayed by these smear tactics. My guess is that the voters will be informed and educated and will know that this is baseless vice-baiting. The REAL question is WHAT WILL THE MERCURY NEWS DO? Remember only a few weeks ago when Cindy Chavez sent out a letter addressing her real role in the Norcal scandal? Phil Yost dedicated an entire column to picking apart this mailer. Will Phil provide Chuck's literature similar scrutiny or will the Merc continue to reaffirm what many of its readers already believe: that the Merc's commitment to its agenda overrides its commitment to objective journalism?

What Will The Merc Do?

2006-10-12T10:51:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, this Sunday the Mercury News will announce its much-anticipated endorsement in the San Jo mayoral election. The Merc has conducted interviews over the past week of the candidates to help inform their decision.

The paper best known for not being able to tell the difference between Gonzalez and Chavez (you know not all Latinos are related) and being about as pro-"downtown business" as you can get (sitting on COMPAC's board) will almost undoubtedly pass on endorsing Cindy. The only real question is if they will pass on Chuck as well.

The coverage since day 1 has been slanted in Chuck's favor. But since recent revelations of Chuck's ripoff of over 38K dollars of city money, the Merc has chastised Reed quite a bit. The paper - sometimes referred to as McEnery's News - is now facing an interesting dilemma. Many Merc-loyalists want a write-in endorsement of Pandori. But would the Merc be willing to take an ideological stand at the risk of jeopardizing its political currency? I guess we'll all have to wait till Sunday to find out. The one thing that is for sure: Cindy's got about the same chance of being endorsed as Hillary Clinton does of getting Rev. Jerry Falwell on her literature.

Around the blogosphere...

2006-10-11T14:34:00.000-07:00

RR had a nice article today appreciating Chuck Reed's disclosures to the Mercury News. The article reiterates some of the same points made on this blog earlier in the day. Many critics of the request for Chuck to disclose his deductions to run contrary to the American legal tradition of being innocent "until proven guilty". Why should Chuck need to prove that he did not commit a crime? If a real legal scholar analyzed this dispute, however, s/he may end up criticizing that analysis. In the legal world, there is a concept often used called burden shifting. When certain facts are present, the burden may shift to an opposing party in ways that would seem counter to the aforementioned legal slogan. When a patient goes under the knife, for example, and wakes up with a sponge left inside his/her body, the doctor bears the burden of proving that it was not his/her fault. I bring this up not to analogize but instead to illustrate the concept of burden shifting. Mr. Reed made $38,000+ donations to personal, political, and charitable causes. He was then reimbursed with public funds. Charitable contributions are often used as tax deductions. He has entered the world of ethical turpitude. He bears the burden of demonstrating that his hands are clean. This was no Salem-like witch hunt. This was a breach of the public's trust that the public was justified in demanding further inquiry.

Meanwhile, our buddy Tom McE continued the vice-baiting at SJI by going after the Democratic party for accepting Indian gaming donations. Mr. McEnery makes a couple of interesting statements. He lines up the $55K of Indian contributions next to the $128K of party money spent on Chavez mailers in an attempt to lure readers into believing that gambling interests are buying off Chavez. How much money does the local party have in its entire pot, Tommy? I don't know --- but I'm not the one making the allegations. The Dems have more races than just the Mayoral election. Local Dem leaders like Preminger are arguing that the money is being spent diffusely. It is unlikely that a large chunk of the Indian gambling contributions are going to a Mayoral campaign. Their interests reside primarily at the state not the municipal level.

The most notable part of Tommy McE's column comes from his final condemnation:

The questions that must be asked are:
Who solicited this money?
What
promises were asked or given?

The local Democratic leaders should
answer—now.

The citizens of San Jose have the right to know—in this most
scandal ridden of times in the history of San Jose—just who is buying what. The
Democratic Party, in its mad quest to gain an election win, is in danger of
losing its soul.

Is that how it worked when you were in office, Mayor McEnery? When you received contributions, you were asked to make promises and/or gave them to your donors? Last I checked, that was bribery. And even if they were sneaky enough to make promises re: these contributions, what capacity does the mayor of SJ have to override state law forbidding Indian casinos in our municipality? I may have a viscerally indignant reaction if Kevin Federline made contributions to Cindy or Chuck, but really, what are they gonna do for him? In fact, I'd be more concerned with the fact that one of the largest donors to COMPAC's smearing of Cindy is Dennis Fong - someone who has had business before the Council, will likely have business before the Council in the future, and has admittedly (been pressured into?) brib(ing) a Councilmember in the past. This is vice-baiting at its finest. This is Chuck's recognition that he is losing ground amongst the voters most concerned with "ethics" and trying to deflect attention from his Cheapskate scandal. Just as the national Repubs are trying to scare undecided voters into thinking a vote for a Dem is a vote for Al-Qaeda, Reed makes a desperation ploy to make voters think that a vote for Cindy is a vote for a new red-light district.

Chuck's Ethics Train Derailed, Not Wrecked

2006-10-11T08:46:00.000-07:00

Recently, this website has called for Chuck Reed to release information regarding his charitable donations. The fear that many had was that after Chuck E. Cheapskate was reimbursed with public funds for over $39,000 worth of political, religious, and personal donations, that some of these were later written off as tax deducations. Apparently, Cindy Chavez volunteers had been asking voters to keep this concern in mind while phonebanking.

We were wrong.

According to today's Merc article, the receipts were reviewed by the Mercury News one week and a half ago. Apparently, they were legitimate.

Chuck proceeds to call the previous questions raised about his deductions "a lie".

As my grandma likes to say, hold your horses there. Chavez volunteers asked voters to inquire of Reed why his full tax information was not disclosed. That sounds more like a request to clear up ambiguity than a lie. Chuck - you created this whirlwind of controversy by your ethical miscues. You cannot play the privacy card when you have abused the public's trust and later are asked to clear things up. You owed it to the public to make this information public. Now you've politicized it by calling your opponent a liar.

This issue was on a lot of people's minds. Look at the comments on our blog and your blog (San Jose Inside) for reference. The Merc wouldn't have printed an article about it today if it weren't something being buzzed about. True, you showed the Merc the controversial information. But you can't blame Chavez and Stone for the paper's failure to report that information.

Why didn't you send out a letter to the Chavez campaign explaining that the info had been disclosed to the Merc and there were no legal transgressions? She has written you letters. Yet you prefer to blast her campaign in the media after the fact.

Why didn't you at least explain this issue on your "Reality Check" section of your website?

The Reed drones seem to be claiming that this is a victory for his campaign. But in reality, this means that the Reed ethics train has not been wrecked... only derailed.

Pressed for Press

2006-10-10T11:17:00.000-07:00

Everyone would have to agree that the big news of the week is the surprisingly close results of the Merc/KNTV11 poll. But fresh news is coming out moment by moment...

Yesterday, both candidates held press conferences to cover two very different issues.

Cindy Chavez held a press conference discussing her pro-environmental platform. The event featured U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer who announced her endorsement of Cindy Chavez and echoed her plans for helping San Jose "go green". Say what you will about Cindy, but you have to respect an endorsement coming from one of the most progressive voices in United States politics.

The center of Cindy's plans focuses on the following priorities:

"the city should create a special committee focused on environmental goals, buy
more clean-energy cars and plant 18,000 new trees"

"Chavez's priority list also includes converting 35 percent of city government energy use to energy derived from renewable sources by 2014; hosting an urban environmental summit and citywide town-hall meetings on the issue; and designating a deputy city manager as point person on conservation in city building procurement, contracting, operations and maintenance."

Reed responded to Chavez's platform by claiming that many of her ideas he had already endorsed - "such as buying clean-energy city cars, connecting the cities' trails and maintaining the city's 'green line' between San Jose and Morgan Hill."

However, Chavez added at her press conference that Reed hasn't even endorsed Measure A - the litmus test for many environmentalists. The Merc explains:

"Reed has not endorsed the measure because he's concerned about its complexity and its potential for unintended consequences."

The League of Conservation Voters has endorsed Chavez but the Sierra Club has not endorsed either.

Meanwhile, Chuck Reed held a press conference attacking the local Democratic Party for accepting donations from Indian gambling interests. Since the local Dems have endorsed Cindy, they are now allowed to jointly conduct electioneering activities.

Cindy Chavez responded to Reed's offensive by calling it "disingenuous" because Governator Arnold has outlawed placing new casinos in certain areas, including near and around San Jose. It is unclear what the impact of Reed's attacks are. It's a little vice-baiting but it probably will end up being effective. The odd thing is that this money will be used to help Phil Angelides - someone Reed allegedly supports. Reed's claims that he truly is a Dem are becoming less and less believable by the day.

The debate less night was somewhat uncontentious. However, Reed brought up his gambling allegations in that forum once more.

Reed used his opening time to accuse his opponent of receiving money from gambling interests through her political party's United Democratic Campaign. 'Arts and education will suffer if gambling money takes over,' he said.

It really was an illogical attack. It makes very little sense and sounds like Reed is hoping to build a buzz about Indian gambling money. Even if (and that's a HUGE "if") casinos were brought to San Jose, it is ridiculous to think that that would somehow preclude improving and investing in arts and education.

But given the tightness of the election, you can't blame Chuck for pulling out all the aces of up his sleaves.

Merc/KNTV Poll: A Closer Look

2006-10-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

We misprinted the results which were leaked our way as a 44-42 split. The actual results are:

42% - Reed
40% - Chavez
17% - Undecided

In other words, Chuck's lead is within the margin of error. These results starkly contrast the poll released by the Reed campaign in early August. That poll showed Reed earning 47% of the likely votes with Chavez only receiving 20%. This means one of two things: (1) Chuck's earlier poll was juiced as many commentors on this site and others have alleged or (2) Cindy is really building a lot of momentum. We here at MW suspect the truth is somewhere in between these two propositions.

Despite the statistical deadheat, Chuck has to be excited about the fact that he maintains a lead amongst more disciplined, likely voters. A large portion of Cindy's support comes from voters who did not vote in the first mayoral election (a demographic which she leads in 46-33). This demographic is generally less reliable. Cindy's gotta still be feeling the heat.

Though the majority of the electoral dialogue has centered around ethics, that issue still ranks only third in the minds of likely voters in terms of importance. But among voters who believe this is the most important issue Chuck Reed's strategy has paid dividends as he leads 58-30. Upon first glance, one might assume that Cindy's closing of the gap might be due to the affectionately called Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal. However, the fact that those who are voting based upon ethics are still favoring Chuck by an almost 2-1 lead suggests that either: (1) people aren't buying the Cheapskate scandal or (2) people haven't heard about it yet.

One of our favorite (and most talked about) themes here at MW is about Chuck Reed's possible closeted Republicanism. It is therefore worth noting that Chuck's largest block of support amongst demographic groups come from those who identify as "Republicans" and "Conservatives". 58% of Repubs are voting for Chuck and 59% of Conservatives are voting for Chuck.

In any case, the election is hot and close. The final weeks will be intense. We're trying to get you news as fast as possible so please keep sending us emails.

Mercury News Poll - 44 - 42

2006-10-08T13:00:00.000-07:00

Rumors are that the results of the Mercury News poll are surprisingly close!

We have received emails indicating that Chuck Reed leads in the poll receiving 44% and Cindy Chavez is right behind at 42%.

We'll update as we learn more...

Reed's-Full-Tax-Disclosure-Watch: Day # 16

2006-10-06T10:37:00.000-07:00

On September 20th, Cindy Chavez asked Chuck Reed to disclose his tax information. Chuck Reed responded by sharing bits and pieces. What inquiring minds want to know is whether or not Chuck wrote off any of his "charitable" donations and then proceeded to write them off for tax purposes.

Initially, most thought that Mr. Ethics would never do something so monumentally... illegal. But after the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal, many of us are really starting to wonder. Chuck initially resisted disclosing this information based on "larger policy considerations". But now that only some of his info has been released, many are wondering if he has something to hide.

Nobody wants to create a Salem-like atmosphere. But when you've screwed up this bad, when you've used more than $38,000 of the public's fund, you've inherited the obligation of demonstrating that surrounding conduct was legal.

Step up to the plate, Mr. Reed and show us that you didn't do anything illegal... It's that simple.

Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign Goes On Offensive

2006-10-05T18:14:00.000-07:00

My mailbox was overflowing with mail today. One piece stuck out. The UDC sent me a hitpiece against Chuck. The theme (obviously) is the Reed Reimbursement scandals. The front page features a portion of a Mercury News editorial highlighting the phrase "The memberships, including some lifetime memberships, promote Councilman Chuck Reed, not the city of San Jose." Under an unflattering picture of Chuck is the large quote that says "I don't think I did anything wrong."

The back of the piece reads in large letter "Taxpayers Paid $38,000 to Support Chuck Reed's Political Ambitions". The backside has 16 of Reed's reimbursed checks.

This could mark the beginning of an intense spending war between the two camps backing Chavez and Reed. With the recent decision overruling the campaign spending restriction, we can only expect this piece to be the tip of the iceberg.

Also, word is that tonight the Mercury News is conducting a telephonic poll - not to be confused with COMPAC's push poll. I'm sure Reedites and Chavezites will be patiently waiting by their phones tonight hoping for a call.

More (on) Reed Reimbursements

2006-10-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

The information about what exactly Chuck Reed was reimbursed for has been spotty at best. In fact, rumblings were that there was another story about non-check reimbursements that was to break soon. Rumors were that Reed also had a laundry list of expenditures made with his credit card that had not been included in the initial $38,000 tally.

Nobody has scooped such a story yet. Our friends at http://www.ReedItForYourself.com, however, now have a link to Reed's "City Credit Card Statements" and reimbursements. As was pointed out in our comments section when this website first broke, the ReedItForYourself site is run by the Chavez campaign. The site now includes a banner that reads "Paid for by the Cindy Chavez for Mayor Campaign". It is unclear if these credit card reimbursements are included in the initial $38K or if Chuck's debt to the city just increased. We'll keep you posted as the story breaks.

Now, the site also includes an excell sheet outlining each one of Chuck Reed's 450 reimbursements with financial details and characteristics regarding the expenditures.

Chuck Reed has since apologized about his usage of public resources for personal purposes. You can watch the clip of his apology at http://www.kron.com after clicking on the local news tab and selecting the appropriate clip inside the video box. In the clip, Chuck Reed calls the recent negative coverage of his reimbursements "Politics 101".

Meanwhile our friends at SV411 have returned from their 2.5 week hiatus with its first article regarding the Reed reimbusement scandal. SV411's brief story calls Reed's reimbursement of over $38,000 of city funds "creative juggling of 'job-related' expenses". Additionally, some minor flak is dished out to the Merc for "hyping up his minor misstep".

And what does Chuck's website say about the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal in the "Reality Check" section usually reserved for disspelling negative stories? Under construction.

COMPAC Goes After Chavez With Push Poll

2006-10-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

In what some are considering a quixotic quest, Pat Dando and COMPAC are reportedly coming after Cindy Chavez again. Emboldened by a recent decision by a federal judge, COMPAC is allegedly pulling out another "push poll" against Chavez.

A push poll is defined as a political technique designed to influence or alter public opinion by emphasizing a particular issue under the guise of conducting a poll. The tactic received national attention when Karl Rove employed it to strip John McCain of his momentum in the 2000 Republican Primary. There, the poll asked people if their opinion regarding McCain would change if they knew that he had fathered an illegitimate child of color. Political scientists consider this push poll to be the critical tactic that cost McCain the South Carolina primary and ultimately the Republican nomination.

Phil Yost's political blog discusses the issue peripherally identifying the push poll that is going around. We have received emails covering the topic reporting that COMPAC and Dando are behind it once again. We are unaware of what is being discussed in the call.

Push polling might not be a unique move by COMPAC. A push poll last May went out criticizing Chavez for her support of using eminent domain over the Tropicana Shopping Center. Many believe COMPAC was behind that call as well --- a claim that Dando denies.

Push polling has been condemned by the National Associations of Political Consultants. Many regard it to be a dishonest tactic. Only time will tell how the voters of San Jose will react to it.

Please email us or put up in comments any additional information received.

Identity Mix-up

2006-10-03T18:47:00.000-07:00

The other day we pursued a curiosity found in Chuck Reed's campaign finance disclosures: a contributor named John Salah was listed as an employee at the Mercury News. It turned out that was a clerical error at the hands of the Reed campaign. We received a post from someone claiming to be Sal Pizarro from the Mercury News. Da Rookie appreciated the research but incredulously dismissed the poster - assuming it couldn't be someone actually from the Merc.

Anyway, today we read this.

Needless to say, some apologies are in order from MW to John Salah and Sal Pizarro. Here is the text from Pizarro's account:

A strange and only mildly amusing drama played out on the Web yesterday that ended with me being accused of not actually being me.

On the MayorWatch blog, a discussion started over a letter published in Sunday's Mercury News about San Jose mayoral candidate Chuck Reed's reimbursement troubles. The letter writer was named John Salah, and as the blog pointed out, he was a contributor to Chuck Reed's campaign, with a $100 donation showing up on the Dec. 31, 2005 disclosure form. But, the blog continued, he was listed on the form as "Manager Mercury News," which raised all sorts of hackles on the blog and accusations that the paper had published a pro-Reed letter from one of its employees without identifying the person as such.

It got even weirder after that.

After I saw this on the blog, I was troubled, too. I've worked at the paper for 13 years and had never heard of a John Salah who worked there. But there are a lot of employees in different divisions that I never come into contact with, so it was possible that it was true and we just hadn't met. So I did a bit of research with my good friend, the Internet, and figured out that John Salah didn't work for the Mercury News -- he works for Mercury Interactive, a software testing company.

After a series of emails with our editorial page folks and our newsroom editors that spanned much of the day, I got the OK to post a reply on the MayorWatch blog (usually a no-no since as a newspaper we've got our own means of talking to the public). I explained the situation: We don't know how it happened, but somewhere down the line someone probably confused Mercury Interactive with Mercury News on the disclosure form, but the letter from Salah was legit and not part of a Mercury News conspiracy to elect Chuck Reed (a conspiracy I'm sure he would consider to be quite incompetent given our heavy coverage of the reimbursement news).

But the kicker was that after I posted this, one of the board moderators thanked me for clearing things up but insisted twice that I was "not Sal Pizarro." There have been a lot of days in my life when I wished that were true, but that was definitely me posting there Monday.

Business Community Condemns Chuck Reed for Reimbursement Scandal

2006-10-02T23:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Antonio Villaraigosa Press Event

2006-10-02T23:04:00.000-07:00

Details are yet to emerge but we have received information that Cindy Chavez and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a joint press event today in SJC. The press conference should be covered in the local papers tomorrow. We'll have details as they develop...

Fun With Numbers...

2006-10-02T14:15:00.000-07:00

I appreciate the mathematical lesson from last night. (I wasn't aware of the fact that 38K is greater than 1.6K.)

I do not know who John Salah is, though I'd like to find out. (I also do not know who Keyser Soze is.)

What I do know is how to have some FUN WITH NUMBERS! Lost in the Mercury's telling of the sad story of a man punished for his charitable giving are some of Chuck's more... interesting/fun... reimbursements:

- $100.00 - Chris Martinon Karaoke Fundraiser - 7/30/02
Who is Chris Martinon? I forgot --- what public benefit did this outing serve? Which song do you think he sang that night:
a) "Can't Buy Me Love"
b) "Gold Digger"
c) "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems"
d) Any song written by CHEAP TRICK

- $4 - Airport Parking Fee (three times!)
Doesn't it cost more than $4 just to copy the receipt, print out the expenditure form, and process the checks?

- $20.57 - "Introduction to Conversatioanl Filipino for Non-Filipino's"
Critical to his role as a City Councilmember. Absolutely critical. Maybe he shoulda spent more time reading the Reed Reforms (maybe focus on putting service above oneself, for starters).

- $267.92 - Kinko service for making enlarged mock checks for "Missing Mayor" ceremony - 11/25/02
What the heck was the "Missing Mayor" ceremony? I don't remember Gonzo being missing in the first place.

- $70 and $150 - Entrance/attendance fee for SJ Chamber of Commerce's Legends and Leaders Dinner (one of which was honoring Arnold Schwarz-y) - 10/19/04 & 11/14/03
The Chamber is backing Reed for no reason but his credentials... not because of his networking/relationships.

- $55 - Pat Dando Dinner - 11/14/04
Pat is the boss of the Chamber. Again: the Chamber is backing Reed for no reason but his credentials... not because of his networking/relationships.

Who is John Salah?

2006-10-01T22:35:00.000-07:00

John Salah wrote this pro-Reed letter to the editor today.

He donated $100 to Reed's campaign. (12/31/2005)

Dan Salah donated $500 to Reed's campaign. (1/10/2006)

Janet Salah donated $150 to Reed's campaign. (3/17/2006)

That's all fine and dandy: My only question is...

Why on Chuck Reed's contribution disclosures does it list John Salah's job as "Manager - Mercury News"?

Click here, download the pdf and look at page 38, row 4 to check it out for yourself.

Why $38,000 is bigger than $1,600...

2006-10-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

Flash back to a month ago: Reed supporters criticize the Chavez camp for complaining about unfair media coverage. The media doesn't have a bias, they say. The unflattering coverage, the negative editorials, the selective discussion of pertinent issues were nothing to complain about - they were Cindy's fault not the consequence of the Mercury News's slant.

Flash back to this past week: After being unambiguously condemned by all major media for the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal, Reed supporters criticize the Mercury News for unfairly focusing on his reimbursement practices. Some choice quotes from Chuck Reed's internet headquarters, SJI are illustrative:

"how do these hypocrites answer charges of spending public money to promote
themself or their office. Are they going to reimburse the taxpayers
too?"

"I am waiting for all the good government Reed bashers to express their
outrage over Chavez and her supporters misuse of public funds. "

"if you want to condemn him, condemn Cindy and the rest of the council as
well. They all did it, doesn’t make it right, but it does mean that you can’t
single one person out for it."

It seems that the tables have turned for the Reedites who now believe that the Merc is out to get their candidate.

Today, their cries were answered, when the Merc printed this article making it sound as if Chuck's reimbursement practices were par for the course on the SJ City Council. Barry Whitt lays out the thesis of the article quite simply in the second paragraph:
"And in that way, they (other local SJ politicians) are no
different from San Jose councilman and mayoral candidate Chuck Reed, whose
public spending habits spurred heavy criticism last week."

Whitt proceeds to downplay Reed's errors in judgment by analogizing his conduct to other members of the Council, including Cindy Chavez. Specifically, Nora Campos, Madison Nguyen, and Dave Cortese were reimbursed $150 for Cinco de Mayo ads they purchased. Campos was reimbursed a whooping $1,200 for ads last year!

(By the way, does that mean that Campos was reimbursed $1,350 in total? No - look at how the article is written. It misleads the reader by listing her total reimbursed dollars and then listing a specific reimbursement suggesting the examples were cumulative and not duplicative.)

But wait a second - Cindy must be the grandmama of all ethical turpitude! According to the article, she was reimbursed for SIXTEEN HUNDREED DOLLARS! Wow. Again the way the story is told reveals Mr. Whitt's bias. Not once was there a specific reference to any dollar amounts of Chuck's reimbursements. So readers are meant to walk away thinking that both candidates have unclean hands.

Shame on you, Whitt.

Whether your slanted article was intentional or not, you fail miserably in addressing this controversy with integrity or accuracy. Yes, you are right that it would be unfair to address Reed's reimbursement scandal without examining whether other public officials have done the same thing. But parroting the Reed campaign's soundbites and pretending that that is objective or newsworthy is pathetic. You know that $38,000 worth of reimbursements is a different level of a scandal than $1,600. You know it and that's why you fail to mention how much Reed has reimbursed. Yet you pretend like they are comparable. Perhaps you think this is "fair". Perhaps you think that you're giving both perspectives an opportunity to be shared. But your job is to step above the soundbites and slogans and provide news. You ignore scale, you ignore proportionality, and in so doing, you reveal your biases.

Reimbursing expenses made in pursuit of promoting oneself above the city is ethically dubious. Shame on Cindy Chavez for including her name, title, and phone number in her ad congratulating Debbie Merrel as the San Jose Unified School District's educator of the year. But this misconduct is not in the same universe as what Mr. Reed has done over the last 4 years. He has usurped public money in order to gain favor with constituencies in anticipation of his run for Mayor. He has systematically abused the public's trust. He has paid for lifetime memberships to organizations that have little to no relation to his role on the City Council. He has handed out $1 bills to children to deliberately make it appear as if his donations were not made from city funds.

That, Mr. Whitt, is why $38,000 is bigger than $1,600...

Money, Money, Money...

2006-09-30T08:45:00.000-07:00

Today's Merc article covered the City Council's last minute attempt at regulating soft money. After COMPAC - the political arm of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce - successfully overturned the previous ordinance regulating electioneering activity in aid of or opposition to a candidate, SJC is left with zero regulations regarding this type of campaigning.

The Council's new attempt at an ordinance is vastly similar to its previous law except with higher thresholds for individual contributions.

Some sort of cap on soft money is absolutely imperative in terms of preserving core democratic values. It is undeniable how powerful on an impact advertising has on the electorate. Cindy Chavez was the frontrunner prior to being knocked by COMPAC's $160,000 hit pieces. Money is what amplifies our speech; without it, our expressive rights are considerably undermined. However, anti-corruption policies dictate that there be some limits to the amount of "bling-bling" given to a candidate per individual. The fear is that too large of donations create too large of influence. Uncapped donations also allow the rich too large of a say in an electoral outcome. Take for example... Dennis Fong. Fong is a property owner/manager at the Tropicana Shopping Center who was adversely affected some years back by the City's attempt at using eminent domain over the center. Fong is also famous for his Terry Gregory bribery a year or two ago that somehow tarnished Gregory's name but didn't do much to knock Fong's cred. Anyway, Fong has had more than his fair share of influence this election. He has donated his $500 to Chuck Reed's campaign. Jennie Fong - the property manager at Tropicana - donated her $500. Gloria Walker - the office manager at Fong Enterprises - donated her $500 as well. And Dennis Fong donated $26,000 to COMPAC in order to help get out these hit pieces against Cindy. The point is if you give people an opening to purchase influence, they will take every avenue they can to do so. Allowing unregulated soft money donations is going to continue to slant politicians in the direction of big dollar donors at the expense of the little guy. We, as a city, should stand up for coherent and constitutional regulations that prevent the purchase and sale of political leverage...

That being said, today is also the final day to make individual contributions to the candidates. Make sure you make your voice heard by getting whatever donation you can to your candidate BY DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY:

http://www.cindychavez4mayor.com/contribute.asp

http://donate.chuckreed.com

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

2006-09-29T14:33:00.000-07:00

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?

Debate Highlights

2006-09-29T09:04:00.000-07:00

Richard Robinson has a nice article summarizing the debate last night.

The Merc also provided this coverage of the debate as well.

The best coverage of the debates has to go to NBC11 which includes actual clips from the debate.#

The coverage focuses quite a bit on the "Chuck E. Cheapskate" scandal. Chuck Reed opened the night by stating that he refused to drag non-profit organizations through the mud and therefore he wanted to repay the city with his own personal funds because some of his reimbursements were "too personal, possibly too political and too religious." Reed made the point that some of the expenditures were legitimate but that if he picked and chose which he felt obligated to repay that that would do a disservice to the NPOs in question. I have looked through his reimbursements. Besides the $4 spent on parking at an airport press conference, I am not sure any of the expenditures "served a public purpose." His attempt at quasi-financial martyrdom was insincere as he continued to stress legal ambiguity. One email we received summarized the controversy in the following words:

"Reed still doesn't "get" the issue: it has nothing to do with hurting non
profits, or giving city money to non profits. The problem is Reed
spreading money around (personal checks, his name and his wifes name),making it
APPEAR that he is the donor, when in fact it is the city that is the
donor. The problem is Reed, not the non profits."

The focus shifted away from the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal but not before Cindy attempted to bring it up one more time. In the words of another of our emailers:

This seems a little shady and Cindy noticed that during the debate when she caught Chuck off guard. Cindy asked how Chuck could reimburse the city and still not admit that he did anythign wrong. Chuck froze after the question and only replied with"I stand on my opening statement."

Chuk Reed did a great job at sticking with his message. There were two slogans that he repeated over and over: "more of the Chavez-Gonzales administration" and (when discussing the Grand Prix) "cars or kids?".

Click on the "Reed: Grand Prix" link on the NBC11 page to hear some of the sloganeering. Reed attacked the Grand Prix on business grounds. He said the Grand Prix was a "great event", "a wonderful time", and "great for the city" but that if he had to do it over again, he would vote against it.

Chavez responded to his cars vs. kids dichotomy calling it disingenuous.

One thing that many felt was inappropriate was when Reed continued to say the "Gonzales-Chavez" administration over and over again. While effective for getting his soundbite (which he did, see the Merc article), many claim that this is a mischaracterization of the facts. Though Chavez was one of Gonzales's Vice Mayors, she was not his VM during 2 Norcal rate increases nor when the $11 million dollar amendment was passed. Pat Dando was the Vice Mayor when that occurred. Many continue to see the lumping together of Gonzales and Chavez as being racist. ("Of course he puts the two latino names together" we've heard in comments and in emails.) Reed called the culture a "cancer". Some called this extreme and inappropriate.

Reed simultaneously attacked some of Cindy's endorsers and the local Dems in the area. Richard Robinson covers this diatribe well on his site. Reed said that local Democratic leaders want the SJ Mayor to be a part of the "Democratic fundraising machine" which he refused to do. He went so far as to trash the honorable Susan Hammer's name by claiming that her endorsement was based on the fact that she was a part of this machine. I don't think I am going on much of a limb but Susan Hammer's name should not be mentioned in the same breath as Ron's.

Robinson says that Cindy's personality stole the show:

She proved once and for all, nice people can win. They can also be
tough, decisive, inclusive and funny...

But the night belonged to Cindy. Obviously giving her “handlers”
the night off, Cindy became a Mayor last night. Freed from
scripts and talking points, she was inspiring, inclusive, humorous, spontanious,
knowledgable and most of all, she showed all of us why she is the
leader to take San Jose forward into the future.

But don't take our word for it - take a look at some of the video clips on NBC11's site! Keep sending emails to sj_rookie AT yahoo.com and/or misterfouroheight AT yahoo.com with your reactions and insights!

Mr. Reed you have some explaining to do

2006-09-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

Today, buried in this Mercury story, we find that:

Among the questionable spending practices Reed has engaged in was his request to the city last February for $80 in $1 dollar cash increments so he could put them in red envelopes and hand them to children at the Vietnamese Tet Festival.

Reed said such use of public money was appropriate because it was part of a ``cultural activity. I'm there as a representative of the city.'"

So, Reed gave out dollar bills at a Tet Festival and somehow those who received the money were supposed to "know" that the taxpayers and NOT Reed have provided the funds? I highly doubt that anyone who received the money from Reed felt obligated to thank the taxpayers of San Jose.

Giving out dollar bills wasn't the only questionable expense Reed billed taxpayers for, memberships were high on his list as well, including lifetime memberships. Yes, those of us who are in the private sector do get reimbursed for some work related memberships in professional groups. For example, if you are a Public Relations professional one could expect their employer to pay for membership to Public Relations Society of America. However, one might also be a member of Rotary, maybe Toastmasters, and a number of other organizations that would provide for personal as well as business contacts. Would employers cover all of these memberships? No, they would not. And as Reed's employer, we the taxpayers, have the right to determine what is and is not related to his job, and Reed, as our employee, has the responsibility to not abuse how he spends our money.

And one has to wonder how honest Reed is when he tells us that he only became a member of the Berryessa Advisory Council when he was elected council member, especially given that he has been involved with them for 30 years. Additionally, maybe someone can explain to me how as taxpayers we are supposed to pay for Reed's KTEH membership.

In looking at the pdf's of Reed's reimbursements we can see that many of the invitations and requests for donations were sent to Reed's home address, and then Reed wrote personal checks out, checks that had both his name and his wife's name, yet Reed sought reimbursements from the taxpayers of San Jose. Did Reed ever note to the organziations that it the funds were being provided by the taxpayers of San Jose?

Further, a number of the events he attended were purely political, and if you view the pdf's of his reimbursements there is no question that the money raised from the event was going to political fundraising.

You can view all of Reed's reimbursements in an excel sheet here (reeditforyourself.com, a site that the Chavez for Mayor campaign has put up).

In his "job" as council member no citizen would expect Reed to go broke attending community functions and events, at the same time all of the city council members are allowed to raise private funds to pay for items such as admission to events and ads in programs. Reed, at the very least, should have shown some restraint in how he sought reimbursement from taxpayers. Instead of restraint Reed choose to use our money for his own political gain, never once noting that it was taxpayer money, not his, that was funding his memberships, donations and advertising.

As I have previously posted, Reed's actions are nothing short of deceptive, a far cry from his "honest" campaign spin.

Letter to the Editor: "A Whole New Ballgame"

2006-09-27T23:56:00.000-07:00

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

Follow the bouncing ball known as "Chuck E. Cheapskate"

2006-09-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

Today we are going to attempt to follow the bouncing ball now known as "Chuck E. Cheapskate's" campaign for mayor. Yesterday, as you may have read, Reed was exposed as having billed San Jose taxpayers over $38,000 for memberships, advertisements, donations and political organizations.

First Reed states he did nothing wrong, yet he is going to pay the money back:

Facing the most difficult moment to date in his campaign for mayor, Reed offered no apologies for spending city money on``community organizations and festivals and events,'' but said he would pay the city back from personal funds because he didn't want to ``drag community groups into a political fight.''

And he also claimed that:

In deciding how to pay for such expenses, Reed said he evaluates whether the money is going to ``community organizations that I participate in as a council member, as opposed to those that I participate in personally, like my Air Force Academy'' alumni association. If the money is being spent as part of his council duties, he said it is appropriate for taxpayers to foot the bill.

And after he told us that he sought reimbursement for items that were related to his city council position, he now states:

Reed has a supporter-funded account. He said Tuesday that he uses most of it for an annual newsletter he sends to homes in his district. But he also said he has been reimbursed from that account for memberships and small donations. When asked how he decided which memberships and donations should be charged to taxpayers and which to his supporter-funded account, Reed said this: ``Sometimes it's just a question of timing, otherwise I don't know that there's real distinction (between the two types of reimbursements).''

The Mecury’s editorial today disagrees with Reed’s claim of no “real distinction (between the two types of reimbursements)” and had this to say:

Well, there is and it should be obvious to anyone concerned about fiscal responsibility at City Hall.

The editorial by the Merc nails the issue:

But Reed has made fiscal responsibility a focus of his campaign, and his explanation falls flat. The memberships, including some lifetime memberships, promote Councilman Chuck Reed, not the city of San Jose. Some of the donations went to advertisements in non-profit groups' fundraiser programs that featured Reed's picture, implying he was the donor. Contributing $100 to a Rotary Club tsunami relief fund was fine, but the money should come from his wallet, not taxpayers'. Should taxpayers pay his annual $500 pledge to Greenbelt Alliance? No.

There were also a number of other council members who were reimbursed for questionable expenses, and they aren’t justifying their actions, they owed up to their mistake and are doing the right thing:

Records on Tuesday also showed other council members used city money for a variety of uses. Councilman Ken Yeager was reimbursed by the city in April for a $150 ticket to a political dinner hosted by the Santa Clara San Benito County Building and Construction Trades Council. The dinner invitation stated, ``Money raised from the event will be used for political purposes.'' Yeager also was reimbursed this year for his $100 membership to the Rainbow Chamber of Commerce and $100 to the Friends of Guadalupe River Park and Gardens. And the city covered his $225 half-page ad in the Congregation Sinai tribute book honoring developer Eli Reinhard.

Yeager, who will become a county supervisor in January, said he was unaware the money for the trades council dinner was going to a political account and said he would review the matter and possibly reimburse the city. He said he also was unaware the city had covered the cost of his memberships and possibly would reimburse those funds, too. He acknowledged that politicians have a personal interest in buying advertising with their pictures.

``There is a political benefit to having ads in those programs,'' Yeager said.

Williams, who appeared at Chavez's news conference, has been reimbursed in recent months for $200 he paid to South Bay Christian Ministers, $115 to Rita Ledesma Home & School Club, and $160 for the American GI Forum East Valley Chapter.

Other council members who used office accounts to pay for advertising in programs and publications have included Campos and Councilman Dave Cortese

.
And Reed continues to state:

`I don't think I did anything wrong,'' Reed said.

That alone should be cause for concern from a candidate that is claiming to be “honest and fiscally responsible.” Scott Herhold is calling Reed "Chuck E. Cheapskate" and has this to say:

Before his sad retreat, Reed had a big idea, a bill of goods, the notion of stiffing the public for his expenses while proclaiming himself the 34-point Grand Reformer.

From a charisma-challenged guy from Kansas, it was a revolutionary concept that we should embrace: Justify your expenses on the grounds they're essential to your work. Bill yourself as a philanthropist. Thump your chest. And make someone else pay.

Now we can disagree about many things, but is there really any disagreement on this issue? Do you like that Reed used your taxpayer money to donate to political parties? Do you think that it was appropriate for Reed to place ads featuring his face in programs at your expense?

Responding with things such as but Chavez did this, and Chavez did that, in no way deflects the issue, it only makes Reed supporters look like they are trying to run and hide from Reed’s actions.

This is an issue about judgment, honesty, and a candidate who wants us to trust him when his actions are anything but trustworthy. Further, Reed continues to dig a hole for himself by insisting that because there was no “rule” on the books to follow, he did nothing wrong. Common sense should not have to be a “written rule,” and Reed not only showed a lack of judgment and common sense, he still doesn’t think he did anything wrong.

Consequences of Chuck Reed and "Reimbursement-gate"

2006-09-26T14:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Reed pays for memberships with taypayer money

2006-09-26T07:50:00.000-07:00

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that:

Since joining the San Jose City Council six years ago, Chuck Reed has charged city taxpayers for such things as his life membership in veterans organizations, donations to tsunami relief and cancer walks, and even his contributions to two political committees.

Examples of these expenses can be found here, and include:

Dec. 15, 2005: Wildlife Center Silicon Valley membership, $100

Nov. 3, 2005: Italian American Heritage Foundation membership, $100

Nov. 3, 2005: Outnow for AIDS benefit, $250

Aug. 17, 2005: Ad in El Observador newspaper for Mariachi Festival, $75

June 15, 2005: KTEH membership, $75

May 25, 2005: Juneteenth Sponsorship ad in program, $350

Jan. 23, 2005: Donation to Friends of Lan Nguyen for school board inaugural, $50

Jan. 14, 2005: Donation to Rotary Club Endowment for Tsunami Relief, $100

Nov. 23, 2004: Donation to Greenbelt Alliance, $500

Oct. 25, 2004: Councilwoman Pat Dando retirement dinner, $55

June 3, 2004: Gay Pride Parade program ad, $160

March 30, 2004: Donation to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, $100

Feb. 26, 2004: Ad in program for San Jose Fire Department 150th anniversary celebration, $500

Jan. 21, 2004: Donation to Tet Festival organizing committee, $500

Jan. 6, 2004: Donation to Equal Rights Advocates, $100

So, Reed is charging taxpayers for his KTEH membership? Making political donations on taxpayer money? How "honest" is it to do use taxpayer money for political donations and memberships to PBS?

Oh, and remember that Reed claimed that Chavez was a "freeloader?" Seems he missed the mark on that one too:

Reed last week accused Chavez of ``freeloading'' by attending such events without paying for them, but Schall said Chavez has checkbook records showing more than $13,000 in personal payments for such events and donations since she joined the council in 1999, a figure that doesn't include two years for which her checkbook register was stolen.

How do other councilmembers handle these expenses? They pay for them out of their personal accounts:

Council members have wide discretion over how they spend money from their office accounts. They must provide documentation for any expenses to the city clerk, who processes the payments. City Clerk Lee Price said the standard for expenses is that the funds must be used ``for official city business and/or in support of city business.'' But deciding what falls under that category generally is left to council members.

Based on interviews with some of Reed's council colleagues and their aides Monday night, it appears that his practice is unusual.

At least four council members say they only use their personal funds or officeholder accounts, which are funded by private donations.

``I'm real concerned that he has done that,'' said councilwoman Nora Campos, a Chavez supporter. ``I think it sets a bad tone and example.''

Councilwoman Judy Chirco said, ``My practice is I pay for it personally.''

Councilman Ken Yeager said he would ``never use city funds'' to pay for such items.

Councilman Forrest Williams said he uses personal funds for all memberships. But he only uses his city expense account for such purposes as a business trip or dinner that is related to his council duties.

It seems that Reed, when left to his own discretion, finds a justification to charge taxpayers for his personal memberships to organizations and donations to political campaigns. How "honest" are these actions? (especially given that he seems to be the only councilmember charging taxpayers for these items)

Just pointing out, once again, that "honesty" is more about actions then words.

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

2006-09-25T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.)

Is Reed as honest as he says he is?

2006-09-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

Well, imagine my surprise today when I read this in the Merc's "Internal Affairs" column:

Mayoral endorsement

IA must return to the scene of its own fumble in reporting the endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club in the San Jose mayor's race.

As IA reported recently, the club, which is not the same organization as the official Democratic Party, endorsed Chuck Reed. It also endorsed Cindy Chavez.

The club offered a dual endorsement -- both candidates are registered Democrats -- a fact not mentioned by Reed in the news release that was sent out.

Reed defends the news release. ``They endorsed me,'' he said. ``I didn't say it was a sole endorsement.''

IA exaggerated the extent to which the club had disregarded the official party line. Chavez enjoys the sole endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party.

Now, I have a question for all of you. How "honest" is it to send out this email:

Santa Clara County Democratic Club Endorses Chuck Reed

After a vote of their membership, the Santa Clara County Democratic Club endorsed Chuck Reed for Mayor of San Jose. They cited his "outstanding service" and "commitment to Democratic values" when they officially endorsed Reed.

Chuck Reed stated, “I am honored to receive the endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club.” Reed continued, “As a lifelong democrat and long time member of the organization, I am pleased to be their choice for next mayor of San Jose."

Honest, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary is:

2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight.

Deceptive is defined as tending to deceive, and the definition of deceive is:

To give a false impression

You decide for yourself, my thought is that at best the email is misleading, and more likely it is deceptive, as the club endorsed both candidates. Reed's claim of being the club's "choice" for mayor gives a "false impression."

Just pointing out that honesty is more then words, it is about actions, and if you are running a campaign based on "honesty" you should make sure your actions are not deceptive.

Upcoming Forums/Debates for Mayoral Race

2006-09-23T12:08:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of the upcoming forums and debates for the San Jose Mayor's race. This list may or may not be complete, as more forums/debates may be added. If you hear of a debate or forum that is not on this list, please make sure to post it in the comments and I will update this list.

Big Five Mayoral Forum
September 28th - 5 - 8 pm
San Jose Repertory Theatre
101 Paseo De San Antonio, San Jose, CA 95113

San Jose Neighborhoods Forum
October 4th - 7:30 - 9 pm
Location to be determined

Art & Education Debate
October 9th - 7:30 - 9 pm
Location to be determined

VEP Almaden Neighborhood Association Forum
October 11th - 7:30 - 9 pm
Gunderson HS Auditorium
622 Gaundabert Lane, San Jose, CA 95136

Strong Neighborhoods Forum
October 13th
Time and Location to be determined

Berryessa Citizens Advisory Council, Asia Law Alliance
October 23rd - 7:30 - 9 pm
Berryessa Community Center
3050 Berryessa Rd, San Jose, CA 95132

Community Round Table Forum
October 27th - 7:30 to 9 pm
Location to be determined

Billy DeFrank LGBT Candidate Forum
October 30th - 7:30 - 9 pm
Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center
938 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126

Tonight's Mayoral Forum

2006-09-22T21:59:00.000-07:00

Just got back home from the candidate forum at San Jose High School. In addition to the mayor's race, the two candidates for district 3 council seat were also present at this forum, Sam Liccardo and Manny Diaz. Liccardo and Diaz went first, with the two mayoral candidates following.

This debate was sponsored and organized by district 3 neighborhood groups and was moderated by the LWV. I would guess that there were about 200 chairs set up, and almost all of them were filled, and the walls were lined with people standing up. The format for the evening was that each candidate was allowed a two minute introduction, and then each of the neighborhood groups asked the candidates a question and the candidates had two minutes to answer the question. After the neighborhood groups asked their questions, written questions from the audience were read, and the candidates had a minute to answer.

Overall I would have to say that both Reed and Chavez did well, each has their strong points, and they both had weaknesses as well. Chavez concentrated on the downtown area too much, yes I know this was a downtown forum and she is the councilperson from that area, but I think she could have broadened her answers to include other parts of San Jose. Reed continued to push his talking points, to the degree that he might want to reconsider how he can work them in a few less times. Not every question relates back to talking points.

Both candidates came up short on a few of the questions, espeically a question that asked them to specify how they would come up with funding for gang prevention and intervention. Reed's answer was that he wouldn't waste what we already have, which doesn't really answer how you find the funding for these other needed programs (granted, wise fiscal management will save money, but it certainly will not make up funding shortfalls). Chavez stated that she would work to make sure that the city would fund those programs that were proven to be effective.

The main issues raised at the forum were crime prevention, traffic, historic preservation, affordable housing, education and coyote valley development. Both candidates wanted to make sure that coyote valley would not see development without either the existing triggers being met or making sure that the community has the opportunity to participate in any general plan changes.

Overall, with the exception of one small barb by Reed, the forum was civil and stayed on topic and flowed smoothly. If you were looking for fireworks, they didn't happen tonight. Both Reed and Chavez are good public speakers and they are well versed in the workings of government.

Was there a winner tonight? You bet, the voters! All those who took the time to participate by attending this forum won the ability to make an informed decision in November.

Financial Accountability

2006-09-22T14:24:00.000-07:00

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...

2006-09-22T00:51:00.000-07:00

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.

What a difference a website makes

2006-09-21T17:58:00.000-07:00

What does a website say about a candidate? What makes a candidate's website good or bad? And given that San Jose is the capital of Silicon Valley, shouldn't our candidates have websites that show the world that they understand what Silicon Valley is about? Also, please remember that this post is about the candidate's websites, not about the specific campaign issues.

In San Jose we have two candidates for mayor: Cindy Chavez and Chuck Reed, both of whom have websites. While both sites have links to the candidates stand on issues, press releases and of course contributions, a quick look by a voter shows that there are many differences in these websites as well.

So, below for your review, is a comparison of the two websites, complete with grades:

First of all one notices the color choices: Chavez's website has a bright color scheme, yellow and blue, with a rolling banner at the top and a star that glows. Reed's website is somewhat dark and has no dynamic graphics.

Grades for overall theme: Chavez: B Reed: D

Ok, so now that we have gotten past the first page, let's start clicking on a few of the menu options. On the Chavez website we can click through to a list of her endorsements here, on Reed's website, well, there is no list of endorsements.

Grades for endorsement list: Chavez: A Reed: F

Next, let's click on events. You can find Chavez's list here, and Reed's list here. Chavez has an extensive list of formal debates, neighborhood coffee's, and fundraisers. The only events listed on the Reed link are formal debates. Is Reed not holding small gathering of voters? Is he also not holding any fundraisers? Or is he just not posting them?

Grades for events listings: Chavez: A Reed: D

Now we go to the "Newsletter Section," Reed has a link to his weekly newsletters here, and Chavez does not have any newsletters posted on her website (unless I somehow missed the link). While Reed does have his weekly newsletters posted, the last edition was June 26, 2006. Both websites have a form for voters to fill out if they wish to receive weekly emails of the newsletter.

Grades for newsletter link: Chavez: F Reed: C

Now we get to overall use of technology on both websites. Reed has a link to two of his TV ads, and a photo album. Chavez has a podcast, video's of many of her neighborhood meetings, a photo album , an area for both her ads and tv coverage and a way for voters to email friends about Chavez. Neither candidate has a blog, which has been noted in the grading section.

Grades for use of overall use of technology: Chavez: B Reed: D
Both candidates have sections for "issues," Reed calls his the "Reed Reforms," and the links are here and here. Chavez has her issues listed at the top of her website.

Grades for overall issues links and apperence: Chavez: B Reed: C

Now, if we were to do one last grade on the overall look, ease of use, links to help voters, feel and timelyness of both websites, we can check these areas on Reeds website: Voting Record and Reality Check . On Chavez's website there is a link to help voters register, information in Spanish, information in Vietnamese, and a way to buy Cindy Chavez for Mayor Gear .

Grades for overall look, ease of use, links to help voters, feel and timelyness: Chavez: B Reed: D

And now, for the final grade in our candidate website exam:

Chavez: B Reed: D

Mayoral Campaign Gets Nasty

2006-09-21T14:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday afternoon, Cindy Chavez and Chuck Reed participated in a heated debate held by the Rotary Club. The headlines today say it all... The Merc declared “Candidates Battle” and “Sparks Fly”. NBC11 said “Candidates Get Testy”. And CBS explained “Race Becomes Harsh”. In reality, most of the debate was pretty chill. It really got feisty when Reed accused Chavez and Labor of campaign violations similar to those from the Chamber of Commerce. In response, Chavez said, “I think the idea that you can make accusations about an organization that did nothing illegal, and is not accused, except by you, and not bringing it to the elections commission is very inappropriate… I've done nothing, not one thing while I've been in office to do anything but bring honor to this city and your accusations are so inappropriate, so inappropriate.” Now it’s one thing when an allegedly separate organization attacks your opponent and you pretend to disapprove of the “negative campaigning” while secretly loving it; it’s another thing to have your opponent calling you out face to face. And let me tell you, Cindy and Chuck were using fighting words. At this point, both candidates must feel very attacked. Up until recently, Chuck didn’t know what it felt like to be personally attacked. In reference to the accusations of wrongdoing regarding Reed’s client’s liquor license, Reed pouts that he doesn’t like the “dirt attacks on me – I don’t like it at all.” In response, Chavez claims “I have only been responding to things that I hear.” Often times, she is simply defending herself. But with the accusation of the council vote that benefited Reed’s client, Chavez was just responding to a consultant that she heard saying “Do more oppositional research and hit him hard!” Regardless, Reed is getting a taste of his own medicine and is now attacking her in a less subtle or thoughtful way. Hopefully, both candidates will steer clear of more unfounded allegations and focus on their distinct visions for the future of the 10th biggest city in the nation.

COMPAC Victorious In Case Against SJ

2006-09-21T07:14:00.000-07:00

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?

COMPAC and Its Consequences

2006-09-20T15:49:00.000-07:00

As COMPAC's constitutional challenge to a San Jose campaign finance restriction continues, there is quite a bit of discussion regarding COMPAC and the ordinance in question around the blogosphere.

Our counterpart SJI gave some analysis here. The article parallels some of the arguments made by conservatives during their defense of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth ads brought out against John Kerry during the 2004 election. Essentially, McEnergy - just like Bush did - that "they started it". Specifically, he writes:

"The Chamber took a page out of their book and did the same. The recent outrage over the Chamber’s spending, led by the local Democratic Party leaders and the impregnable labor bosses, was a hypocritical act unparalleled even in the annals of political chicanery."

I am too young to be familiar with these times that McEnery discusses "twenty years ago when I was mayor". However, I am pretty familiar with the tone and pace of THIS election. I HAVE received "independent expenditures" from the Chamber; I have NOT received "independent expenditures" from Labor. McEnery's mistake is grouping labor/Cindy/the Local Democratic Party as an undifferentiated mass. If 20 years ago, labor sent out hit-pieces as "independent expenditures" against then-Mayor McEnery, it does not make Chavez a hypocrite for condemning mailers sent out bashing her today. If I'm mistaken...and if these type of mailers ARE being sent out by groups supporting Cindy bashing Chuck, then she should stand by his side in condemning them as well. But the focus is on COMPAC now. They broke the law. Their defense should not be that labor started it.

The part of McEnery's article that was distasteful, however, came from his bashing of the police. The particulars:

* "Now, they (the police) have become the epitome of all that we hold disreputable in politics: insider dealing, cronyism, and circumvention of the law"

* "Perhaps doing the right thing—adhering to the spirit as well as the letter of our ethics laws—means little to our cops nowadays."

* "Is there anyone wearing the blue and carrying a badge that can feel shame anymore?"

Rich Robinson's rant takes a decidedly different approach to the COMPAC controversy. Robinson contends that the law itself is unconstitutional. He declares that

"a Federal Judge who has been properly educated in a competent Law School on first amendment issues, should toss the entire arbitrary, unreasonable, over-reaching, vague and unenforcable San Jose Campaign Finance Ordinance into the trash heap–where it belongs."

I am curious how Robinson draws these conclusions. The Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC affirmed the use of SOME limitations on campaign spending. The decision itself carves out a number of rules and standards governing the topic - but certainly does not outlaw these type of restrictions altogether. I'm no lawyer. But I am pretty sure that the issue is not as open and shut as Robinson characterizes it. Regardless, we, here at MW, welcome further enlightenment. If Robinson or anybody else would like to discuss the legal landscape, we would be happy to post it as a separate column.

Robinson claims that these mailers were thoroughly discredited. I'm just not sure if they were. The furor they created along with the headlines they are still producing (like "Mailers Bashing Chavez") have certainly hurt the one-time frontrunner. COMPAC is acting fast and - as was pointed out in our article yesterday - wants to get back in this race to take a couple more knocks at Cindy before November.

In any case, the consequences of this controversy remain to be seen. This website has previously discussed efforts by some local leaders to boycott COMPAC's bbq. After the mailers, Congressmember Zoe Lofgren asked for her name NOT to be used on COMPAC's site. Read her letter to Nancy Williams here: http://www.lofgrenforcongress.com/docs/COMPAC-letter-8-5-06.pdf. A one-time nonpartisan organization will probably face more of this heat from Dems if (1) they win their suit and (2) they continue to go after Chavez. I don't think anybody thinks that COMPAC's hands should be tied on speaking out about politics and issues. I think Lofgren and many others object to what she calls the "unilateral 'trash(ing)' (of) one candidate for local office" in violation of local law.

When a verdict is rendered by Hon. Judge Ware, you'll find it here first...

SCC Democratic Club Update

2006-09-20T14:44:00.000-07:00

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.

MayorWatch Seeks More Contributors

2006-09-20T11:34:00.000-07:00

As our site is now averaging over 250 visits per day, we have found the demand is far-exceeding the supply of posts :)

We are looking for more contributors to the site to help meet the demand for more content. Please email my colleague misterfouroheight@yahoo.com if you're interested! Your emails will remain anonymous so feel free to use your real address.

As we said when we opened shop almost two months ago, we are not looking for partisan hacks. We are looking for anybody who is YOUNG or YOUTHFUL who has an interesting take on this approaching election. We want creative minds who are interested in researching issues. A big plus is if you have any legal experience as that skill set may prove particularly important when the flood of post-election litigation (probably) emerges.

COMPAC Case Continues

2006-09-19T15:52:00.000-07:00

It is interesting how much the Dando camp complains about the city wasting money... but how willing they are to lockup taxpayer money through lawsuits.

For a brief historical reference, Dando's choice to replace her in District 10 Rich de la Rosa challenged the city's usage of eminent domain over the Tropicana shopping center. Regardless of the merits of the case (the lead plaintiff received $6.5M to drop the case), the lawsuit cost San Jose $1.4M in LEGAL FEES! (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:ztOT-Z2D5TsJ:www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/30/17868701.php+Tropicana+lawsuit+cost+San+Jose&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4)
Now, Dando is behind another lawsuit as her organization COMPAC sues the city over its mailers bashing Cindy Chavez. For those who don't remember, COMPAC sent out literature singling out Cindy Chavez for a number of votes she cast while sitting on the City Council. The mailers just happened to be sent out just weeks before the election.

The city requires that independent expenditures "in aid of or opposition to" a candidate be financed by individual contributions not exceeding $250. COMPAC's mailers were financed by contributions that exceeded this limit. COMPAC's argument, therefore, is that this mailing was "issue-oriented" and not "in aid or opposition to" a candidate.

At stake in this case is the very essence of campaign finance restrictions. If this facially ludicrus argument succeeds, the entire structure of CFRs will be gutted. These mailers could potentially serve as the blueprint for flouting campaign finance restrictions: just leave out the words "vote" and "election" and you got yourself an "issue-oriented" mailer!

This case is not about free speech. This case is not about ideology. It is about this election. From the Merc: Sutton asked the judge to be aware of the approaching Nov. 7 election as he reaches a decision. This is about COMPAC wanting to get one more chance to take another low blow against Cindy Chavez.

Goals Outta The Reed Camp

2006-09-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

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.

SCC Democratic Club

2006-09-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

If anybody has any updates on what transpired last night/evening, please email me at misterfouroheight@yahoo.com No word in the Merc.

It appears that Reed probably didn't lose the endorsement judging by the fact that the website has not changed it's list of endorsed candidates.

We'll keep you posted if there are any developments...

McEnry + Pandori Endorse Reed

2006-09-18T22:14:00.000-07:00

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.

More... More Blogs & More Vision

2006-09-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

Between my very well-researched (read: NERDIER) co-editor Mr. 408 and our multiple Internet-scouring commenting readers, I figured that we'd have already mapped the entire San Jo politico blogosphere. Well, it turns out I was wrong...

Mercury News writer Phil Yost and a couple of his buddies maintain a political blog with updates roughly once a week. Take a look for yourself at: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/on_politics. The site bounces from local to state political news and from time to time covers news relevant to our focus. Our view at MW - as always - is the more voices in the marketplace of ideas, the better...

This past week, Yost outlined another prong of Cindy Chavez's vision for San Jose. Yost's article discussed Chavez's plan to take better care of our city's senior citizens. Cindy's plan as Yost points out would probably even make our boy Chuckie smile because "the proposals for seniors didn't contemplate any new expenditures that anyone besides the most vigilant auditors would notice." The plan is built around:

*better publicity for the district attorney's fraud unit;
*a check-on-them program for the housebound elderly;
*"match our seniors with classrooms where their wisdom and live experiences can be put to use''; etc.

While this plan probably doesn't directly relate to us editors (and probably not to most of our readers), it at least brings up something completely and utterly foreign to the majority of this mayoral election's coverage: an actual, genuine, real GOAL.

Santa Clara County Democratic Club To Reconsider Chuck Reed Endorsement

2006-09-15T17:30:00.000-07:00

***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.

Debate Highlights

2006-09-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

The Merc's coverage of the debate can be read here: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15516000.htm.

It seems like the primary focus of this election is ethics. Our city has been rocked by scandal. Our citizens are embarassed of the attention our current Mayor has ignonimously earned for this great city. In the back and forth surrounding Norcal and the recent Los Esteros allegations, it is important to ask how do we make this evidence relevant to our voting decisions. Are we looking to punish candidates for prior unethical conduct? Or do we look to past (un)ethical actions in order to make educated extrapolations about future conduct? However evidence of unethical conduct matters to you, there are some important questions we each need to answer in evaluating the candidates. Were Chuck's undisclosed conversations with CWS - an interested party in the Norcal amendment - proof positive of unethical conduct? Do Cindy's close ties with labor along with her vote in favor of the amendment mean that she was in the backroom abusing her power? And are we really buying Chuck's defense to conflict of interest charges that it is unnecessary to recuse onself from voting on policy that benefits a paying client so long as it does not only benefit that client? In any case, the issue is front and center this election. And it was front and center last night...

A brief syllabus covering some of the issues discussed last night...

I. ETHICS

1. Norcal
a. Chuck says Cindy made a "deceptive statement about what I knew about Norcal''
b. Cindy says she has been all but exculpated by Grand Jury transcripts; Chuck owes
her an apology
c. Reed admits that he had heard that Norcal expected to be reimbursed but did not
know that they expected the city to foot the bill
2. Los Esteros
a. Surprisingly, not much was said about the recent allegations

II. STRONG NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

1. Chuck describes SNI as "one of the great things that's been done in the city'' during
the Gonzales year
2. Cindy says that she was one of the leaders behind SNI and agrees that it is great for SJ
3. Cindy adds that Chuck did not support SNI when first adopted in 2002
4. Chuck countered saying he supported the concept but voted against the program
because of eminent domain concerns
5. Cindy responds that Chuck should hae put forward an alternative ("I don't just say I don't
like something, I try to improve it.'')

III. MEASURE A - HILLSIDE PRESERVATION INITIATIVE
1. Chavez supports it
2. Reed did not say one way or the other whether he supported the initiative ("there are
some problems in understanding that I have with the plan.'')

More Coverage of Allegations Against Reed; Reed Offers Defense

2006-09-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

ABC-7 picked up the story on the recent allegations made against Chuck. The print story and the video coverage is available here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4559458.

The story is yet to be picked up by other major SJ blogs or by the Mercury News.

In the article, Chuck defends his contested votes with two positions:

(1) He charges that the attorney bringing the charges, Mann, is a supporter of Chavez; and

(2) The votes he made without recusing himself he claims dealt with policy issues rather than specific property.

I am guessing this second argument is that he needn't recuse himself when voting on general policy that benefits his clients but should when voting on specific ordinances that benefit them...

Noticeably absent from Reed's defense is his claim that he made in the original KTVU story that he did not know about the conflict of interest at the time he voted. My buddy SJ Rookie thoroughly discredited that defense two posts ago. Put simply, the timeline proves that he did know about the potential conflict of interest at the time of the vote in question...

Other than those defenses, ABC's story did not present too much else new about the story. However, what was different was Councilmember Cortese's response to the controversy:

"I want to withhold judgment until I hear what he has to say, but it's a troubling set of facts that have been presented."

Cortese - who has not endorsed either candidate - provided much more of a negative response in the KTVU story. It remains to be seen whether or not Cortese is going to make a splash in the final weeks before the election. A onetime front-runner, Cortese has a great deal of credibility and support in the community. Time will only tell...

The article adds that Reed received $10,000 dollars to represent Los Esteros. This leads us to a question we posed about a month ago: who else has Chuck's law firm represented?

Debate Open Thread...

2006-09-13T20:06:00.000-07:00

If anybody attended the debate tonight, put up some reviews/comments/etc. The editors of MW unfortunately were not able to attend and are very curious as to how the discourse shaped up...

Chuck Reed Under Investigation For Vote Benefitting His Client

2006-09-13T17:06:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-13T01:37:00.000-07:00

***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...

A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words...

2006-09-12T23:00:00.000-07:00

Click here to see Mr. Chuck Reed speaking at a REPUBLICAN event...

The Chuck Reed D.I.N.O. ("Democrat In Name Only") Watch continues!! The
above picture is hosted by the Silicon Valley Young Republican
Federation's
website: http://www.geocities.com/svyreps/photos.html.
The picture was taken at the Republican organization's Annual Social
BBQ.
Note the Schwarznegger sign above Reed as he speaks to the crowd.
(Click on
the image to enlarge it.)

Mineta Endorses Cindy Chavez; Chavez Outlines Disaster Plan

2006-09-10T00:33:00.000-07:00

Saturday the Merc wrote this article regarding a Cindy Chavez appearance this past Friday. The article highlighted two significant developments:

(1) Cindy's 19-point disaster preparation plan; and

(2) the recent endorsement by Norm Minetta of Chavez.

On the eve of the 5 year anniversary of 9/11 and during the one year anniversary of Katrina, the topic of disaster seems increasingly more and more relevant. Nonetheless, the skeptic in me wonders - is any of this actually important to our city? I mean, SJ isn't exactly a top terrorist target nor is it known for its vulnerability to storms. But I bet folks in Oklahoma City probably humbly thought that they weren't at the top of the list of potential terrorist targets 12 years ago either. Additionally, it is questionable how secure San Jo's infrastructure would be if it faced another large earthquake. In any case, read the specifics of her plan here on her website. What did Mr. Reed have to say about her plan? Well, among other things: "Cindy's got some good ideas".

In other news, ex-Mayor Norman Mineta announced his endorsement of Chavez. What does this mean practically to the outcome of the election? It is unclear. Chavez already boasts a long list of endorsements. Do people even care? Well, Mineta is most recently known for his former role in the Bush administration as Secretary of Transportation. This bipartisanship may add credibility to Chavez and impact moderates in their search for the next Mayor.

Chavez Releases a Podcast

2006-09-07T22:56:00.000-07:00

People my age statistically use their right to vote less than any other age group. So most politicians don’t waste their time reaching out to people age 18-25. Except for Cindy Chavez. She recently began broadcasting, excuse me, podcasting a podcast called Discussions With Cindy. Willow Glen resident Michele Bertolone is asking the questions in the discussion and Cindy Chavez is answering them. Bertolone acknowledges in her premiere podcast that she won’t exactly be conducting hardball interviews, but that she will focus on “real issues” as opposed to imaginary issues. Admittedly, the podcast is a campaign tool, but a respectable one – at least someone is trying to reach out to us young whipper-snappers.

You can subscribe to the podcasts for free using iTunes. I posted the first 15 seconds of an “episode” so you can get a taste of the discussion. Notice the introductory music that sounds vaguely like introductory music to a Skinemax Movie. Also notice the chumminess between the two women that evocates SNL’s famous Delicious Dish parody of NPR. Click here for a listen.

Chavez’s vocal quality oscillates between passionate and tired. In the first full-length episode, Chavez explains that she decided to run for City Council after someone shot a bullet into her bedroom. When a cop arrived at the scene, Chavez asked what they could do to prevent that kind of incident from happening again. In response, the cop told her to “think about moving”. I’m not entirely sure I buy that story. But if it is true, it’s pretty compelling. “Someone had shot my nest,” exclaimed Cindy. After listening to the podcast for just 10 minutes, I couldn’t reconcile the local media’s image of Chavez as Satan In A Powersuit with this nice lady talking about neighborhoods. To find out for yourself, download “Discussions With Cindy”.

San Jose Inside Violates Its Own Policy

2006-09-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

Of course, the right to free speech is as American as Apple Pie, Baseball, and Brittney Speares. But that right is not absolute. The blogosphere recognizes the limits of free speech. So far, we at Mayor Watch have posted every single comment we have received because none have presented a “clear and present danger” (a Supreme Court standard for when it’s appropriate to censor and a delightful Harrison Ford flick). Fortunately, there have been no offensive comments that would merit a deletion so far.

Another big blog in San Jose, San Jose Inside, has its own comment policy. It states, “Please Read Before Posting Comments” and explains that “comments are reviewed before they are posted”. San Jose Insides’s final rule is “4. We will not publish comments that deride a person or group of people for their physical characteristics.” That seems like a fair policy.

And yet, whoever is moderating comments over at San Jose Inside violated that policy a few days ago. I wrote an article titled “Who Would You Rather Eat With?” which compared and contrasted a lunch date with Cindy and Chuck (quite humorously if I do say so myself). In response, a commenter on San Jose Inside wrote, “It would have been more fair, had they have had Cindy ordering twenty meals for herself (to create more jobs) eating off everybody else’s plate while she waited for her’s, (no missed meals there, she wants to contrast herself from the skinny Reed).” That comment (#22) is here. Calling Chavez fat is clearly deriding a person for her physical characteristics. Fat jokes belong on Late Night TV where they are more appropriate and funnier. The fact of the matter is that San Jose Inside is violating its own policy just so that they can put up a comment that rebuts what we have to say. The good news for San Jose Inside and the commenter is that they have a good chance of winning 1,000 dollars cash money on MTV’s “Yo Momma”.

Letter to the Editor: Reed Quotes A Racist

2006-09-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

Mayor Watch presents another letter to the editor...

If Robert E. Lee had his way, black Americans would still be enslaved. If Chuck Reed had his way, San Jose voters would have no qualms with electing a mayor who admires the notorious Confederate General. Chuck Reed released a campaign calendar to voters, featuring “inspirational” quotes for each month. Reed attributes his August 2006 monthly quote to “General Robert E. Lee.”

Simply put, we should not admire those who defend intolerance and inhumanity. Robert E. Lee, more than anyone else, represents the enslavement of over 4 million black Americans. Unforgivable.

San Jose is a majority-minority city, renowned for its diversity. San Jose’s NAACP chapter is the largest branch in the NAACP’s western region, featuring one of the most diverse chapters in the country. Just last year, San Jose State University unveiled “Salute in Bronze,” a sculpture commemorating the world famous black power salute from the 1968 Olympics. Cesar Chavez’s vision of the United Farm Workers was born in San Jose. In fact, Chavez has been forever memorialized by way of San Jose’s Plaza de Cesar Chavez. San Jose has more Vietnamese-Americans than any other city in the country. For the City of San Jose, August of 2006 will be remembered for the groundbreaking of the Viet Heritage Gardens, a place dedicated to the Vietnamese-American community and culture.

But for Chuck Reed, August of 2006 should apparently be remembered for Robert E. Lee. By featuring Robert E. Lee on his literature, Chuck Reed demonstrated either ignorance or intolerance. Either way, an apology is in order. Those who attempted to preserve slavery in America should not be embraced or celebrated— especially in San Jose.

The Underdog Bites Back

2006-09-03T22:09:00.000-07:00

‘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.

Attacks Against Chavez Become Racialized...

2006-09-02T21:50:00.000-07:00

***UPDATE: Merc Takes Down Racist Comment***

Wow. Disgusting.

After reading today's article in the Merc, I was pleased to read a much-needed layout regarding the Mayoral election. I was pleased because after reading yesterday's article/column/rant by Herhold that the Merc got back to what it should be doing: discussing facts, not opinions. Cindy and Chuck both took hits - Cindy was characterized as closely tied to Ron and Chuck was criticized as being nothing but a "dissenter". Check out the article for yourself here.

I checked out the discussion thread that followed the article. There, I read the most recent post by someone who spit out more hate against the candidate. Check the post out for yourself: http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=449.8&nav=messages&webtag=kr-mercurytm. The poster "Joe Sixpack" wrote:

Of course Chavez must be poor. She has a Hispanic surname isn't that enough? Even if she isn't poor she is in a better position to relate to the poor. Right? As far as not helping with a complaint against a rogue cop she is a Police Force of One herself. Why didn't she single handledly demonstrate that she alone could control a near riotous crowd at Mardi Gras?
Posted by: Joe Sixpack

9/2/2006 10:35 PM
449.8 Report as Violation

I am unfamiliar with the Merc's discussion board's rules and regs. I hope that they erase this immediately. Whether you're a Chuck Reed or Cindy Chavez supporter (heck, even a Pandori supporter), please email the Merc and ask them to take this racial hatred down.

I'm just disgusted that people still think/talk in these terms...

To the Merc, facts just get in way of attack

2006-09-01T10:20:00.000-07:00

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.

As the blogosphere turns...

2006-08-31T17:41:00.000-07:00

Another blog has hit the scene: http://www.rant.sv411.com. The blog is run by seasoned politico Rich Robinson. The orientation seems decisively liberal. However, the blog is courteously (and curiously) supported by http://www.sv411.com. We, here, at MW say - the more blogs, the merrier!

If you have a germane blog, post it up in the comments!

Anonymity and Accountability

2006-08-30T22:45:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of the month, I was surprised to see that MayorWatch had caught the attention of the Metro. In its article "Who's Watching Mayor Watch?" (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.09.06/fly-0632.html), the Metro criticized this site for remaining anonymous while criticizing Chuck Reed for not being upfront with his politics. They wrote:

SJ Rookie and Governator Jr. have refused to identify themselves, although they ironically demand that Reed be up-front about his party affiliation in a nonpartisan race.

To me, this logic was a little twisted. For starters, why does the fact that the election is officially 'nonpartisan' matter? To pretend like this election isn't politically charged is absurd. Chuck's attacks against Cindy have centered around labor and spending - two issues that are partisan litmus tests to most. A political affiliation is seen as shortcut for many voters. Attempting to gain support by tapping into both voter bases by using BOTH shortcuts is problematic. His political identity must be front and center especially when Chuck is calling himself a Democrat and yet proudly boasting of his endorsements by Republicans (like Republican Women's Associations - read here.) Reed supporters may challenge this analysis by arguing that Chuck's nuanced political ideals cannot fit into this partisan dichotomy. That might, indeed, be the case. But insofar as Chuck is using these shortcuts to gain support, he owes it to the voters to outline what his true political values are. MayorWatch's point was that if he is claiming to be a Democrat - in an area where a majority of voters are Democrat - we should challenge him to be true to the political ideals of the party. If, for example, he were truly a Democrat, why would he be supported by a website like FreeRepublic.com? Click here to see his banner posted in a discussion board by supporters on a website that includes on its front page "THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA" and "PROLIFE" tabs on the top. To me, it makes no sense. (But remember this article - which discussed Chuck Reed's vote on 3/4/2004 opposing the city's recognition of same-sex marriage and on 9/20/2005 opposing a resolution urging the Gov to sign the Civil Marriage Protection Act.

The Metro alleged that it was hypocritical to request that Chuck be open about his political affiliation while MayorWatch remained anonymous. These issues are as different as apples and oranges. We, the contributors, are politically interested students. Kids. Trying to make some sense out of this election. It is a tad ironic that the anonymity of this site was criticized by a columnist known only as "The Fly" (read the bottom of the Metro article...) Remember who purports to be the REAL journalists in this blogosphere. It reminds me a bit of when John Stewart was on Crossfire and was criticized by Tucker Carlson for making jokes out of politics. (See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmZkw169xEI).

It's interesting that this site gets picked on for anonymity when letters to the editor like this one are printed in the Mercury News:

Chavez missed important event

As a Democrat, I found it odd that mayoral candidate Cindy Chavez chose not to attend the COMPAC barbecue because of the mailers that attacked her (Page 1B, Aug. 25). Chavez claims she has the skills to bring people together, create jobs and become mayor; I don't think boycotting the COMPAC barbecue is a sign of a strong person, nor is it a sign of someone who can overcome differences and bring people together. It's time to get over it; there are more important matters in San Jose that a mayoral candidate should be concerned about.

Denelle Fedor
San Jose

Fedor, after all, was a legislative assistant to Pat Dando. (Check here, for reference.) It should come as no surprise, then, when Fedor - who has written in twice asking to draft Dando to run for Mayor in years past (here and here) - attacks Cindy for not attending an event that raised money that eventually will be spent against her.

Those who have been paid by the very machine that is going after Cindy should not be able to pretend like their letters to the editor are from objective democrats. Come on... we at least admit to our biases...

"Long Time Listener, First Time Caller"

2006-08-30T14:26:00.000-07:00

After email after email pestering SJ Rook and Gov. Jr, I have finally been given my own column on MW! Like most readers, I have been a big fan of the site. Also, like most readers, I am an avid reader of blogs that follow SJ politics. Along with SJ Rookie and Governator, I believe that this mayoral election and its coverage need a fresh perspective and a fresh voice. That's where I come in! My email address will be posted on the side soon! Like the other authors on the site, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Pandori Gets a Second Chance

2006-08-25T23:40:00.000-07:00

David Pandoori must feel like a reality show contestant right now - as if he had been voted off but then put right back in the running after Brandi chose him to compete in the Wildcard round. Although he came in 3rd in the June primary, he will be back in the mayoral race… if the good people at San Jose Inside get their way that is.

Many voters feel dissatisfied with both mayoral candidates, just as they did with both 2004 presidential candidates. Indeed, the language of “the lesser of two evils” and “anybody but (blank)” is all too familiar. So Single Gal, a weekly contributor to SanJoseInside.com, suggested this week that the voters of San Jose elect David Pandori by write-in. It would be a monumental risk for Pandori to actually campaign to be elected via write-in. If he wins, he makes history and garnishes national attention. If he loses, he looks like a sore loser and even worse, a double loser. As Single Gal points out, Pandori is a good guy – he has a solid background in government and good values.

So why should I have to choose between two candidates that I’m not crazy about? In 2004, my values may have aligned more with Ralph Nader’s. But I voted for John Kerry despite the fact that I’ve found dog crap on my shoe with more personality than that guy. I didn’t want to “waste my vote”. Well thank God I put my vote to good use on Kerry. The point is this – voting for someone who is not going to win is not a wasted vote. Maybe if more people had voted for Ralph Nader, the Democratic Party would get the message that they’re losing their base in their attempt to reach out to moderates (i.e. all the lame Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq War). Even if your vote won’t make a difference in the actual outcome of the race, it will make a difference in the sense of mandate that the winner feels and can contribute in the long-run to the evolution of your party’s platform. So don’t let anyone tell you not to vote in the 2008 Presidential election just because California is not a “swing state” and don’t let them tell you not to write-in David Pandori just because he probably won’t win.

Who Would You Rather Eat With?

2006-08-22T15:20:00.000-07:00

At the San Jose Jazz Festival Gala on Thursday, Al Castellano bid $18,000 to win a lunch date with the future mayor of San Jose. Al doesn’t know where the lunch will be or whether it will be with Chuck Reed or Cindy Chavez. Personally, I feel the two determinants of a good meal are food and company. Al must be an adventurous man because he doesn’t know either. So let’s speculate what his lunch could be like…

Doodle doodle doo…. Doodle doodle doo…

If Chuck Reed wins the election…

Al is waiting at home for his date with Chuck. When Al hears the trademark horn of the General Lee from Dukes of Hazzard, he knows that it’s 12am sharp, and Chuck is waiting for him outside. He takes Al to a traditional restaurant, that’s also very cheap. Probably Applebees. Chuck orders the 12-ounce steak with a side of Freedom Fries for only $6.99. They converse about new technology and Chuck explains his confusion about the “tiny new audio box called a Me-Pod?!?” Chuck then reprimands Al when he casually places an elbow on the tabletop. The bill comes. And Chuck is one of those guys who thinks the waiter has to earn his tip. Because this waiter didn’t do anything above and beyond expectations, Chuck leaves an 8% tip.

If Cindy Chavez wins the election…

Cindy pulls up in front of Al’s home in a slick Grand Prix Race Car. She takes Al to the restaurant furthest from wherever Ron Gonzales is eating that day. Cindy is a little younger, so she talks with Al about what movies are hot. She also has a five-year-old son so those movies are likely to include Disney Channel Original Movies. Some Mercury News reporters are probably hiding nearby and are ready to write headlines about any misstep. If she orders a Diet Coke, the Merc will say “Cindy Chavez Encourages Anorexia!” If she whispers when she orders appetizers, the Merc will proclaim “Chavez Makes Secret Deals with Waitress!” And if she leaves an 18% tip, the Merc will declare “Chavez Approves Unreasonable Subsidy!” Hopefully, Cindy’s husband Mike Potter doesn’t enter the restaurant in a jealous rage and whoop on poor Al.

A Good Day For Cindy Chavez

2006-08-20T23:20:00.000-07:00

Today, Cindy Chavez has more than just the nice weather to smile about. Despite the Mercury News talking more smack than the girls on Flavor of Love, Cindy can finally open the paper and see someone else’s name being dragged through the mud. Now it’s Pat Dando’s turn. The Mercury reported today that Dando also joined Mayor Gonzales in approving the $11.25 million for Norcal. During her testimony before the Grand Jury, Dando nervously asked, “Will this be made public?” Yes – Ms. Dando – this will be made public.

Pat Dando is the President of the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, which sent out the illegal hit pieces against Chavez just before the primary election. Needless to say, being tied to Ron Gonzales and that hint of corruption could make Dando look quite hypocritical (just as she did with the Grand Prix). The Merc also reported that “Her aide, Joshua Howard, later testified he was dumbfounded that she had signed the memo.”

Another article reported that the city of San Jose should actually stick with Norcal, at least for the time being. I don’t think that’s something that Chavez will be publicly celebrating. (“See! – this secret deal is not so bad after all!”) But it certainly lessens the sense of condemnation against Chavez.

San Jose State Professor Terry Christensen is urging the City Council to disclose all of their outside incomes. This could be a big step toward regaining public trust in city hall. It could also be good news for Cindy. If both mayoral candidates had to release their outside incomes, the voters would find out that Cindy has not received any income besides her annual salary as a city councilmember. But the voters would find out about Chuck Reed’s law firm’s more unsympathetic clients. One of our frequent commentators, D.H.K. pointed out that Reed’s firm (Reed, Elliott, Creech & Roth) has represented drunk drivers against DUI charges as well as asbestos plaintiffs – 90% of which are estimated to not have legitimate claims.

Finally, Chuck Reed was seen at his 58th Birthday party not wearing his signature American flag tie – perhaps because the gentle criticisms from SJ Rookie finally got to him. That leaves the score at Chuck Reed: 0, Fashion: 1.

Mayor Watch

Who is Larry Pegram? Why is he part of Reed's transition team?

Removal Powers In Place

Memo to Merc + Metro: THE ELECTION IS OVER!!!

What We Got With Chuck

Chu Throws His Name In The Hat

Chuck's Heir Apparent

What's Next?

Congratulations to Chuck Reed!

Twilight Zone

Big Democrat Victories Nationally

Update...

First precinct in...

Time to start counting...

Chavez - Voter Turnout Down

Democratic Turnout Low In San Jose

Merc Reports on Irregularities

Election Irregularities...

*Updates*

"Chuck Reed Abortion"

SV411 - Can you lose any more credibility?

Don't Give Up Yer Fight!

Anonymity is back in style...?

I like Cindy's chances...

Chronicle Endorses Chavez

Merc Covers Clinton Endorsement; Chavez the Democratic Choice

Actions speak louder then words

Listen to the Clinton endorsement here

President Clinton Endorses Cindy Chavez

Looking Forward

Reed Spends Public Money On Religious Education

Why Do Irvine Developers Want Reed?

Bias Against Chavez

Kudos To Herhold For Admitting Bias

Kudos To Herhold For Admitting Bias

SV411 Continues To Lose Credibility

New Levels Of Hypocrisy From The Chuck Reed Campaign

The Ball Is In Yost's Court...

Who Reads This "Waste Of Internet Space"?

Makin' Somethin' Outta Nothin'

What Will The Merc Do?

Around the blogosphere...

Chuck's Ethics Train Derailed, Not Wrecked

Pressed for Press

Merc/KNTV Poll: A Closer Look

Mercury News Poll - 44 - 42

Reed's-Full-Tax-Disclosure-Watch: Day # 16

Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign Goes On Offensive

More (on) Reed Reimbursements

COMPAC Goes After Chavez With Push Poll

Identity Mix-up

Business Community Condemns Chuck Reed for Reimbursement Scandal

Antonio Villaraigosa Press Event

Fun With Numbers...

Who is John Salah?

Why $38,000 is bigger than $1,600...

Money, Money, Money...

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

*Debate Highlights*

Mr. Reed you have some explaining to do

Letter to the Editor: "A Whole New Ballgame"

Follow the bouncing ball known as "Chuck E. Cheapskate"

Consequences of Chuck Reed and "Reimbursement-gate"

Reed pays for memberships with taypayer money

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

Is Reed as honest as he says he is?

Upcoming Forums/Debates for Mayoral Race

Tonight's Mayoral Forum

Financial Accountability

A word from the editor...

What a difference a website makes

Mayoral Campaign Gets Nasty

COMPAC Victorious In Case Against SJ

COMPAC and Its Consequences

SCC Democratic Club Update

MayorWatch Seeks More Contributors

COMPAC Case Continues

Goals Outta The Reed Camp

SCC Democratic Club

McEnry + Pandori Endorse Reed

Updates

Debate Highlights