Chuck And KLIV Play Softball

Following up on last week's discussion of Armando Gomez' work on J and K, Bob Kieve's KLIV brought Chuck Reed out to the softball park, and gave him two floaters.



For those who can't listen, the questions posed to our beloved Mayor, Mr. Openness himself, were, "Did Armando Gomez break any law?" and "Is this common practice?" Chuck replied, "Yes, he broke law. And this has never been done before."

No, not really. But, come on. Obviously KLIV wants to keep this weekly check-in going, so they aren't going to push Reed too far. But the question is: does having a key Mayoral staffer making calls for money violate the spirit of Chuck's "reform" efforts?

This is the guy who railed against officeholder accounts and wanted disclosure when Councilmembers raised money for non-profit groups - presumably because he believes (or believed while politically beneficial) that such fundraising implies a future quid pro quo.

Measures J and K need to pass, for the sake of the City. But Chuck, likely following the advice of Vic Ajlouny, is playing his hand badly. Luckily for him, the local media isn't that interested in forcing him to do better.

What To Do When There's No News

The Mercury News had a legitimately astonishing revelation today. Did you know that someone, somewhere, considers Pete Constant to be a viable Mayoral candidate?

This shocker comes in an 861-word piece (I counted) that delineates the areas of contention between Sam Liccardo and Pete Constant, and which ends with a typically hypocritical quote from Tom McEnery.

But before we delve into the meaty parts of the story, however scrawny that meat might be, please be aware, Mercury News, that it's obvious you didn't have anything else to write about. Unless Internal Affairs is now a daily column for Josh Molina, there's nothing to this article beyond this: a moderate Democrat and a conservative Republican disagree. Really? What a scoop! Just a tip. When you have nothing to write about, try contests, Google fights or making graphs. I've heard those work. Now, on to the article's contents.

First of all. Pete Constant is not a contender to be Mayor. This ain't Wasilla.

Fact is, San Jose is a heavily Democratic city, and Pete Constant hews pretty closely to the conservative strain of Republican. He would pretty much have to be in a three-person race against two incompetent Democrats. (Which, of course, is how he won his Council seat.) But consider this - San Jose chose perhaps the most conservative of its choices for Mayor in 2006, and that guy is a strongly moderate Democrat.

Liccardo, on the other hand, definitely seems viable. He's got a strong base. He's sharp, has a good resume, and knows how to play both sides. And I know Constant will call me sexist for saying this, but he ain't bad-looking either.

But time will tell. San Jose's track record with Mayoral elections has its bright moments and its turgid, festering embarrassments. Which reminds me.

McEnery, for one, said that the bickering is OK, as long as it doesn't morph into "mean-spirited" personal attacks, which don't sit well in Silicon Valley.

That's a quote from the article. And, yes, it refers to Tom McEnery, whose nasty, negative blog makes personal attacks that are solely "kindness-spirited".

See, hypocrisy like that you can flesh it out to 861 words. Maybe tomorrow.

Well, Pierluigi, Who Influences You?

Today on Obnoxious Blowhards, Pickles Oliverio waxes superior on his strong stance against doing fundraising. After all, as he expresses:

I have heard the line before that a politician should be able to take money and be impervious to influence from the donor. Yet, when I look at the reality of politics in this country, I don’t believe that is true.

So, he says:

For me, I concentrated on raising money from friends and family first, then others second, including calling friends from grade school is an excuse to connect....

I do not have a friends account, nor do I raise money for “pet projects.” Sometimes I think my stance might be too harsh. For example, I would love to raise money for schools in my district. However, I believe keeping myself free from influence as best I can is best for everyone. Better to be too cautious then not cautious enough.

Nobility at its finest. God bless you Pierluigi!

However, in true Blowhards fashion, the reality doesn't align neatly with the rhetoric. Below, for example, are a large number of contributions - some $22,000 worth - which don't exactly seem to be from his grade school chums.



Notable names: Henry Schiro, gambling lawbreaker; Boots del Biaggio; any number of developers, including big chunks from the DiNapolis, Brandenburgs and Swenson; ROEM Developers, who have frequent business before the Council, including Sam Liccardo's affordable housing issue tomorrow; realtor and apartment association political action committees; mobile home park owners; and business after business after business.

So, Pierluigi. Since you admit you're not impervious to the influence of these donors, why not make next week's column about how and where you've succumbed to it? Thanks in advance!

Hypocrisy Overload

Allow me to quote from Tom McEnery's post last week on Obnoxious Blowhards.

The owners of Garden City were the subject of some very stringent enforcement, grand jury probes and indictments, and received the harshest of sentences. That should have been a lesson to the city. It wasn’t.

Under Susan Hammer and her budget director, Bob Brownstein, a very permissive attitude evolved, and a gigantic club, Bay 101, was permitted. They made large contributions to politicians and had significant ethical problems involving the same. At one time, they and their lobbyists were the most powerful special interest political donators in the city.

The bleak description McEnery lays out is this. After he left office, and Hammer came in, the clubs multiplied, salting the soil of economic development and laying waste to the ethically weak. Orphans and widows lines the streets, wailing unearthly laments and being callously run over by wealthy card club owners racing their Lamborghinis. McEnery may be Irish, but he sure wishes he were Dickens.

But a tipster provides another quote, from a May 23, 1987, article in the Mercury News describing the Garden City situation. Emphasis added.

Fourteen Garden City owners or associates were indicted early this month on charges ranging from tax fraud to campaign violations. Thirteen of them were accused of conspiring to launder political contributions.

Club records show that Garden City owners handed out money to 17 candidates, including San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery, county Supervisor Tom Legan, District Attorney Leo Himmelsbach, Sheriff Robert Winter and others.

The biggest recipient was McEnery, whose campaigns have received $16,960 from the club or its associates since 1981. That does not include approximately $8,500 given to the Measure J, the San Jose city charter amendment that last year substantially increased the mayor's power.

Yes. You read that right. At the height of the despicable corruption and widow-wailing, the casinos were handing out cash to no one more than Tom McEnery, who undoubtedly assumed his favorite position: hands out.

In fact, another article from January 29 of that year, goes into more detail.

McEnery, who over the past five years has received more than $10,545 from Garden City employees, and Winter, who has received $7,401 during that time, confirmed last week that they have been contacted by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office about Garden City campaign contributions.

Many of the contributions were under $100, meaning they didn't legally have to be reported, though some, including McEnery, did. But, to most, that would seem to raise questions, including, apparently, the DA, who must have gotten tired of looking into McEnery by the time his term was up.

And where'd the money come from? A March 2 article answers.

To get around that, [Garden City President Nick] Dalis said, he would tell employees and partners he needed checks, then repay them in cash.

''I'd deliver them (to politicians) myself," he said.

No, in case you're wondering, that's not legal.

And of course, in classic small-town San Jose politics fashion, this plant's root run deep.

• The Garden City folks who went down were mostly targeted for tax evasion - skimming cash off the top of Garden City's profits. One of the main guys who took the fall, operations manager Henry Schiro, was stepfather to none other than the Chamber's favorite Mayoral contender, Michael Mulcahy. Mulcahy, in fact, is quoted in one Merc article calling his stepfather a "victim of a game of greed."
• The reporter on these articles? One Scott Herhold.
• And, of course, the campaign treasurer for many of the recipients of this money was none other than our old friend Chuck Reed. He was responsible for reporting this income and was paid, in part, from it. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Please Welcome Your Host...

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to play America's favorite guessing game...



Yes, it's Well, Which One Is It?, where our contestants try and guess how San Jose power brokers really feel about issues on which they've taken both sides! Feel free to play along at home! Let's play!

(The lights lower.)

The San Jose Mercury News has been potty-training our puppies for decades. But how do they feel about backroom deals? When it's Ron Gonzales, they hate them - but when it's Chuck Reed meeting with card clubs, full steam ahead. Well, Mercury News - which one is it? (For that part, you at home are supposed to yell along. This is more fun if you're drunk.)

Then there's Chuck Reed himself. During his campaign for Mayor, gambling made him cry. But now that he realizes casinos make money, more more more! Well, Chuck Reed - which one is it?

We can't forget our old, old friend Tom McEnery, the man who discovered that bitterness can be a laxative. Yesterday on Obnoxious Blowhards, he denounced card clubs and their efforts to influence politics in San Jose, but, a tipster recalls, then-candidate McEnery himself took many contributions from card room dealers, in cash. So, Tom - which one is it?

That's all the time we have for today. Join us next time as we consider Pat Dando (does she hate negative campaigning or love it?), David Pandori (does he swear to uphold the law or to abuse it?) a return appearance by Chuck Reed (his 2006 views or 2008?) and special guest Dan Pulcrano (T or A?).

Good night, everybody!

Hotel accomodations for today's guests were provided by the Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco.

Chuck Reed Really, Really Hates Gambling

Look. Chuck Reed hates gambling. Couldn't like it less.

Proof? You got it. Here's him at a really popular press conference back in the fall of 2006, back when he still wanted people to trust and believe him. I believe the gentleman in the gray suit is his grandfather.



For those of you too lazy to click play, here are some highlights, emphasis added:

We are here today to sound an alarm about a serious threat to our quality of life in San Jose.

A negative impact to the broad range of community interests.

Gambling money.

Gambling money is back in San Jose politics - in a big way. And the future of our city as a great place to live is in danger....

For many members of our community, gambling is a disease that destroys families. Casinos bring sex, drugs and alcohol along with political corruption.

I'm totally opposed to having a casino located in San Jose, or anywhere in Santa Clara County.

[I]f I am elected I will do everything I can to keep the casinos out of Santa Clara County, out of San Jose, and out of our community....

We cannot let gambling interests become a funding source for political campaigns in San Jose. We cannot allow casino gambling to come into our community.

See? That pretty much proves it.

Oh. Wait.



In a memo for tomorrow's Council meeting, Chuck - and only Chuck - tries to make the case for why, not only should gambling not be "kept out" of San Jose, but why we should have more of it.

He thinks every card club should be allowed to have ten more tables. Nothing, now, about how it's a disease. Nothing about the poor community. No mention of how many thefts occur near the card clubs (like the six thefts within three-quarters of a mile of Bay 101 in the last week) (according to the awesome Crime Reports.com). Just cold, old-fashioned realpolitik seeking to expand card clubs to get a little extra cash for the City.

So I hate to break it to you but, in the words of a great leader, "the future of our city as a great place to live is in danger." On the plus side: more sex, drugs and alcohol!

Mr. Sunshine Goes Dark

We are, as always, pleased to bring you the latest news in the lawsuit against Dan Pulcrano.

To recap, and to ensure this is nice and high in Google searches for his name, Dan Pulcrano, the skeezy publisher of the skeezy Metro, is being sued for fraud by a former business "partner". The word "partner" is in quotes because, according to the suit, Mr. Pulcrano and his company acted less like partners and more like Gordon Gekko dismantling an orphanage.

But now, according to a tipster, Dan Pulcrano, that member of the City's Sunshine task force and obsessive advocate for openness, has managed to finagle a deal with the plaintiff in his case to have the suit go to mediation - meaning, we won't be able to see what ends up happening.

According to the judgment in the case, the judge determined that:

...this case is ordered to mediation and the parties shall mediate this case with David J. Meadows of the Law Offices of David J. Meadows by a mutually agreeable date no later than September 30, 2008.

And so, it seems, ends the public awareness of an accusation of fraud against someone that purports to be a paragon of our fair city.

Hypocritical? Sure. But rest assured, fair reader. Our efforts to expose Mr. Pulcrano for what he really is won't relent. Especially when he makes it so easy.

Challenging Bullies

Scott "Gas Opening" Herhold is really a piece of work.

Last week, as you know, a young girl was killed as an SUV turned left from Park Avenue onto Selborn, near Lincoln High School. The girl, Breanna Slaughter-Eck, was struck as she biked across the street, in a terrible, lamentable accident - one that echoed through a community that, for years, feared precisely such an incident. Rose Garden residents have repeatedly warned that the mix of cars and kids was a dangerous one.

But the simple fact is this: traffic calming measures, by every appearance, would have done nothing to prevent the death of Breanna.

Traffic calming is not a blanket term for ways to improve traffic conditions. In reality, it is a term used to describe methods to slow traffic in neighborhoods, often stemming from streets becoming pass-throughs to avoid busy intersections of highways. An SUV not seeing a kid crossing the street on a bicycle wouldn't have been prevented by putting up more stop signs or speed bumps.

The term, which comes up often in budget discussions and at neighborhood meetings, should be well-known and understood to anyone with a deep familiarity of the San Jose political scene. And Scott Herhold, now celebrating his 225th year of covering San Jose politics (first article: "We should welcome the Spanish with open arms") knows exactly what calming entails.

That didn't stop him, however, from drawing an inaccurate parallel in column smearing Nora Campos yesterday. In his haste to rush to the defense of the brother-in-law of his mentor, Chuck Reed, Herhold claimed that Campos' attempts to reduce traffic calming funding to put more cops on the streets would result in more parents suffering as did Breanna's. Simply put, he's wrong. And, simply put, there's little doubt that he knows he's playing fast and loose with emotions to score a political point.

What Campos did wrong isn't advocating for her community, or trying to stem the tide of increasing violence by getting every police officer she can. What she did wrong is simple. She went against the old guard. She dared challenge Reed and, by extension, McEnery and Herhold.

Not even facts can hold up to a threat like that.

The Old Man Is Getting Senile

Well, someone is finally taking the Chamber to task on their slimeball campaigning. Sort of.

Unfortunately, however, the criticism is tempered by who it comes from - an octogenarian former Mayor whose grand contributions to our City were a convention center with an awful facade, a hockey team that can't win playoff games and a statue of a white guy who appears to be attacking Highway 87. And it's tempered by how badly he wants his opponents to be guilty of the same.

Yes, the remarkable thing about McEnery's Elections Commissions tirade over at Obnoxious Blowhards is how desperately he tries to paint his opposition with the "dirty campaigning" brush. Or maybe slinging mud is a more apt analogy, trying to see what charges stick.

The Democratic Party, of which McEnery is ostensibly a member, earned Tom's ire by not backing David Pandori in 2006, and then working for Chavez in the run-off campaign. To say that the campaign work they've done is dirty lacks any evidence that I've seen. And to compare it to what the Chamber does is embarrassing.

Compare how the two sides are approaching this campaign cycle.

Here's what the Chamber is doing.

And here's what the Democratic Party is doing.

One of these, it seems to this observer, is a positive contribution to the political world. One is not. You be the judge.

Examples that disprove my assessment above are welcome. Good luck.

Sold Out!

For those who still wonder whether or not Dan Pulcrano is a complete pawn of the City's business interests, wonder no more. The answer, unsurprisingly, is yes.

I don't link directly to Obnoxious Blowhards because to hell with them, but Pulcrano's screed on the site yesterday has to be seen to be believed. The issue at hand: the fence.

As in, Chamber website sponsor ROEM Development's telling Shasta-Hanchett residents that they need to pull down their fences so that ROEM can put up a new one, three inches further back. Three inches max.

Pulcrano, astonishingly, takes the side of the developer. This is kind of like saying that Idi Amin was rational and the Ugandan people were whiny. Please, for a moment - a thought experiment. Imagine that a developer wanted to put in housing behind Pulcrano's Naglee Park estate, and asked his highness to remove his back fence. Think he'd have been so generous in his assessment?

It's amusing to me that people assume, based primarily on the physical format of the Metro, that it is a progressive advocate for the community. Nothing could be further from the truth - from their toeing-the-Chamber-line endorsements to their partnership with McEnery's conservative (in the classic sense) blog.

Here's a quote from Pulcrano's take on the fence issue:

Good fences make good neighbors, it’s said. In this case the fence will be good, but it can’t make all the neighbors that way....

I can’t understand all this to-do about a redwood fence, and how one angry homeowner managed to sucker a daily newspaper into a minor property line dispute.

The neighbors are bad and suckering the Merc. Got it.

Taking the side of a developer who is bullying homeowners (even resource-heavy homeowners) over a really ridiculous issue, Pulcrano earns a special place for hypocrisy and a complete selling out of whatever progressive values he has tried to express.

He's still coming in second for the week, though.

...And Pat Dando As Two-Face

The gall of Pat Dando is remarkable. Really, truly remarkable.

During Pat Dando week, last year, we covered, in order, her hypocrisy on development, her disingenuous stint on the blue ribbon ethics panel, her role as Vice Mayor during Norcal, the Chamber's anti-neighborhood agenda (schoolyards should count as parks?), and how and when the Chamber broke the law as Dando first began her scummy political tactics during the 2006 Mayoral race.

When, a few years ago, Pat Dando took over for Jim Cunneen as head of the Chamber, few anticipated that exchanging one Republican career politician for another would result in such a fundamental shift in the focus of Chamber politics.

In lieu of a proactive agenda - can anyone out there name a single intiative of the Chamber's? - the Chamber has resorted to finding candidates willing to stand up to the progressive Council majority and then trying to muddy their way to victory.

Case in point - June 2006. COMPAC, the Chamber's political arm, spends tens of thousands of dollars in the aforementioned smear campaign with its illegal mailers and push polls in an attempt to destroy Cindy Chavez in the polls. The Chamber's candidate, Michael Mulcahy, comes in fifth.

Case in point - May 2007. The Chamber's political committee sends mail to District 4, repeating incorrect information about Kansen Chu's businesses. The false information, spread by Hon Lien's Council campaign, is an attempt to smear Chu's experience. Chu wins election by a double-digit margin.

Case in point - May 2008. The Chamber, instead of pushing a positive campaign, as Council candidate Pat Dando once promised, sends out new mailers attacking District 8 candidate Craig Mann.

Then, today, as these mailers are still arriving in mailboxes, Dando sends in a letter to the Mercury News, declaring that public safety should be the City's top priority.

And, of course, elected officials continue to sign up for the Chamber's annual lobbying junket - this year, to Chicago. On this trip, our Councilmembers - just shy of a majority - spend three days with a group of registered lobbyists, Dando included, on the Chamber's dime.

I can't be the only one who is outraged at the complete lack of accountability the City's scummiest political activist faces. The ship that is the City of San Jose is slowly being turned, with Pat Dando's and Tom McEnery's hands on the wheel. No person of any moral strength can be pleased with the direction they're trying to take us.

Will any media outlet stand with us in protest?

Politicking As The Chamber Knows Best

We give the Chamber of Commerce and that person that runs it a lot of grief on this blog, and deservedly so. But credit where it's due: when campaign season rolls around, they run above-board campaigns that focus on the positive benefits of their candidates, not cheap smears on the folks they're most afraid of.

Oh, wait.

Someone faxed me this beautiful piece of campaign strategery that is hitting campaign mailboxes this afternoon.

Paid for by the business leaders of your local Chamber of Commerce, the smear focuses on Craig Mann's stint on the East Side Union High School District. The issue being raised was inevitable, but it is still surprising that the Chamber decided to go after one of the several strong candidates running against their gal, Rose Herrera.

This comes, of course, from Ms. Patricia Dando who, while running for Council, made a cheesy videotape stating, among other things, that "[w]e're all tired of negative campaigning." Watch for yourself once again, starting at the 5:13 mark.


A whole different level of hypocrisy. After all, the Chamber could, instead, have touted the business acumen and experience of Herrera, couldn't they? Couldn't they?

Attention: Imminent Press Conference

David Pandori and Tom McEnery really, really hate casinos. So much so that they, during the 2006 Mayoral race, held a press conference condemning the imaginary influence of casinos on the Democratic Party and, by extension, Cindy Chavez. A very long, dubious extension.

During this press conference, in which they sprayed City Hall's new sandstone facade with angry man spittle, each touted his strong line against casinos while Mayor/Councilmember, and railed against the hidden effort to bring casinos to our City. (A video clip is available via the link above.)

So they'll doubtless become apoplectic when they see this photo sent by a tipster:


Prepare to be chilled to the bone. The name of that casino, emblem of evil and corruption of our children, appears on a list of new members of the Chamber of Commerce.

I'm not sure what time the press conference in which Tom and David (oh, and Chuck, who plays some role in their cabal) will be - once we find out, we'll let you know. Or maybe, recognizing the complete ineffectiveness of the Chamber at actually bringing jobs to the City, they'll give them a pass.

Or maybe that first press conference during the Mayor's race was complete grand-standing by men desperate to hold on to the old system of power and privilege they established.

Only the Shadow knows.

Pulcrano Lawsuit Documents

More information has come from the tipster who alerted us to the Pulcrano lawsuit story, which is a lot of fun to type. Dan Pulcrano: sued! Try it! It's fun!

We've been sent the full original complaint by Finley, and the response by Pulcrano. In his response he, not surprisingly, denies that he defrauded his one-time business partner.

For those wondering - yes, this is the same Dan Pulcrano who sits on the Sunshine Task Force, who railed against City ethics as the Mercury News made it fashionable, and who is rumored to have run cindychavez.net - a smear website against Cindy Chavez which no longer exists - during the Mayoral election. A hypocrite of the highest order.

As the case progresses, we'll keep you up to date on happenings. With enthusiasm.

Putting The 'Pay' In Taxpayer

Since San Jose Revealed didn't exist last year at this time, we never got the chance to bring up a classic example of Chypocrisy (which is our attempt to combine 'Chuck' and 'hypocrisy').

Shortly after his inauguration, Mayor Reed decided to change how the annual State of the City Address functioned. Mayors Hammer and Gonzales made the event a free, public speech with refreshments, in an attempt to encourage public participation and accessibility. Not so Mayor Reed. He announced that, like the addresses of lobbyist Tom McEnery, his event would be a breakfast that required attendees to pony up.

At first, he made no exception for those unable or uninterested in paying, but public outcry (a month into his tenure, mind you) forced him to allow a limited number of seats for those interested in attending only. They, of course didn't get breakfast. No limit was announced for those willing to pay.

This year's breakfast follows the same mold:


Reed, of course, has never had a problem with the taxpayers paying for meals - but he's never really been interested in paying for them himself. Here is a sample, from just the first 18 months of his time as a Councilmember, of other meals that Reed enjoyed on the taxpayers' dime.

(Love that Mr. Chow's!)

In total, Reed was reimbursed for thousands of dollars of meals while a Councilmember. Enough for over a hundred folks to attend a 'Community Breakfast'.

So, somehow we doubt that Reed is paying $25 for this year's meal. And, if he does, Lee Price may as well have his reimbursement check cut in advance. Or maybe he's sitting in the free seats. Let's hope Pete Furman sets one aside for him.

Next Thing We'll Learn - The Chamber Doesn't Really Like Businesses

Say what you will about the leadership over at the Chamber - they definitely stay true to their core principles. Whether or not those core principles are the ones they publicly espouse, however...

The front page of today's Merc has an article about attempts by the Saratoga Cemetery District to acquire two private residences in order to improve the cemetery. At a meeting last night, the home owners spoke out against the plan, criticizing both the plan and the process that has been undertaken (pardon the expression) as it seems that the Cemetery District has quietly been trying to figure out how to take control of these properties for at least a year now - running back to, let's see... November 2006. The Chair of the District is even willing to consider the use of eminent domain to seize the homes.

Which brings us to our point. The afore-mentioned Chair of the Cemetery District is none other than Phil Boyce, who some of you may know as a member and current chair of COMPAC, the Chamber of Commerce's political action committee. The same group, you'll remember, who exhausted tens of thousands of dollars in mail, phone calls and push polls to the voters of San Jose to remind them exactly how evil Cindy Chavez was. For using eminent domain to take private property.

So at the time that Phil Boyce and his fellow boardmembers were beginning to discuss how to acquire these private houses, up to and including eminent domain, Boyce was happily acquiescent in slinging mud on the very same issue.

If there's one thing you can count on from those folks at the Chamber - it's that you can take them at their word. Or at someone's word, anyway.

The New Vision of Independent Government

Earlier this month, our friends at the Chamber of Commerce invited a few close friends to join them in Austin, Texas. In attendance:

Adam Alberti, John Armando, Victor Arranaga, Rick Callender, Pete Carrillo, Dave Cortese, Pat Dando, Nick Ammann, Tom Armstrong, Bill Baron, Dirsten Carr, Pete Constant, Doug Dahlin, Gerry De Young, Jim Eller, Bruce Fairty, Debra Figone, Bob Fuselier, Laura Guio, Ramish Hariharan, Joe Horwedel, Jonathan Emami, Dan Fenton, Dennis Fong, Linda Gold, Jody Hansen, Scott Hayden, Daniel Hudson, Mary Ellen Ittner, Daniel Katz, Bill Klein, Paul Krutko, Selene Lenox, Donna Long, Michelle Mann, Michael Jacobson, Bob Kieve, Brian Kneis, Scott Landsittel, Sam Liccardo, Patrick Love, Harry Mavrogenes, Michael Mulcahy, Chuck Reed, Rich Roth, Bill Sherry, John Tang, Ted Trujillo, Nancy Pyle, Heather Richman, Jan Schneider, Larry Stone, Mark Tersini, Nanci Williams, Kerry Williams, Blage Zelalich

Folks underlined, of course, are one shy of a quorum of the City Council, plus Larry Stone, who must have heard there would be free wine. Those in bold? Lobbyists registered with the City of San Jose.

You'll notice many of the names are of folks who are, in effect, lobbyists: Nanci Williams from the Chamber, several developers, centenarian Bob Kieve from KLIV.

The trip, which lasted three days and is funded by the Mayor/Council Travel Budget (thanks to a specific carve-out in travel policy (Component E)), covered everything from how Austin treats its retirees to how Austin became a "world-class city", which apparently it did while no one was paying attention. Other highlights:

• A visit to the ballet
• A visit to IBM
• A tour of the state university in town
• Meals at Mexican restaurants

In other words, a lot of stuff you couldn't do here in San Jose.

Day after day on the schedule, the same name pops up: Pat Dando, moderator. Pat Dando, speaker. Pat Dando, facilitator. An agenda determined and facilitated by a registered lobbyist designed to discuss, in part, issues on which the lobbyist has been lobbying.

This is not the first of these trips, nor will it be the last - these trips weren't instantiated by Dando and Reed. And neither, I think, will they be ended by them. The opportunity for Dando and the multitude of other lobbyists is too great, and - let's be honest - Chuck really couldn't care less.

Life Before McEnery Had A Lackey In The D.A.'s Office

For those new to our town, it may seem like a fairy tale - that, once upon a time, the District Attorney's office was willing to try to hold the Mayor accountable for reasons other than politics.

In the past, on this site, we've made flippant remarks about Tom McEnery's financial windfall from his time as Mayor. Today, we're going to give a little more background.

A downtown renaissance championed by San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery has helped his family's San Pedro Square property nearly triple in value since McEnery took office in 1983. Merc, April 10, 1987.

In 1987, in McEnery's seventh year in office, the Merc finally got around to noticing McEnery's increasing real estate wealth. His properties, including San Pedro Square, had begun to balloon in value. Not to worry, of course, as McEnery signed an agreement with the D.A.'s office after his election forbidding him from voting on projects within a mile of his property.

That agreement fell by the wayside when McEnery began, in 1988, voting on issues related to the coming San Jose Arena - located, as you know, a few hundred steps from San Pedro Square.

The D.A. stepped in. In an extraordinary move:

San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery, who led last year's fight for the city's $100 million arena project, has been barred from voting on most aspects of it because he has a conflict of interest, District Attorney Leo Himmelsbach said Tuesday. Merc, March 15, 1989.

The D.A. determined that McEnery's interests fell squarely within the realm of conflict barred by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and strong-armed McEnery into an agreement on his behavior moving forward.

To imagine the reaction from the Mercury News today on such an issue is fairly easy. Outrage, followed quickly by a call for censure. Depending, of course, on who was doing the conflicting.

At the time, the Mercury News editorial board took a shrugging attitude.

Basically, here's what it says: All the important things that already have been done, McEnery can't do; but most of the important things that remain to be done, McEnery can do -- as long as the city council says so. Well. We will all sleep better at night knowing that. Merc, March 20, 1989.

The Merc referred to it as "costly hair-splitting", despite the fact that even the initial action by the D.A. was reviewed to determine if it should be strengthened.

To this day, McEnery maintains ownership of the downtown properties. This is a fact that cannot be ignored - that a sitting Mayor explicitly ignored an agreement with the D.A.'s office in a way that profited him personally, and today continues to try to influence City leaders to his benefit. Ron Gonzales had nothing on this guy.

Worth noting, of course, McEnery's campaign for Mayor against Claude Fletcher in 1982. Central to that effort? Criticizing Fletcher's secrecy in his financial holdings.

Hypocrisy Check: Day 273

"I promise you, if I am elected mayor, the special interest groups, the fixers, the influence peddlers, the lobbyists will not run City Hall." - Chuck Reed last year, to ABC 7 News, and anyone else who would listen

Just for the record, here's Victor Ajlouny's lobbyist registration form with the City of San Jose - presumably the home of the City Hall referred to in the quote above. Ajlouny, of course, is still a paid* advisor to the Mayor, although his salary and role are hidden from view. In fact, Chuck's calendar itself indicates that he and Vic had a Saturday meeting within the past few weeks.

Am I the only one who finds this a little hypocritical? And maybe a little alarming?

UPDATE: Please also read about how Ajlouny's lobbying client is being specifically recommended for support by the City. Surely unrelated, since we have open, honest government now.

* UPDATE: Apparently, he's doing it for free. Or at least not with City funds.

Front-Running Candidate: Hon Lien

Front-running if she were running for World's Biggest Hypocrite! (In street parlance, that's called a 'dis'.) She is certainly not leading the District 4 race, and she is poised to sink further. Why?

Because this woman is absolutely unbelievable. I won't bother going over all the previous hypocrisy, lies and libel (or maybe I will) - but today's action takes the cake. A quick recap:

Hon sends out a mailer accusing Kansen of having liens against his business. Then, it is revealed that she apparently intentionally misled voters by using erroneous information about liens on another, similarly-named business.

Now, guess what? Turns out Hon actually had liens filed against her business. I have no idea why this surprises me.

That's right. She owes the County over $7,000 (including late fees assessed after the document above was sent out). Seven grand. And she tried to nitpick Kansen over a $50 lien that wasn't even for his business. Note as well, she had already filed to run for school board when this was sent to her. What kind of person runs for office while they owe the County seven large?

The key question: Will Hon Lien do the right thing and let voters know about her mistake? Kansen Chu, according to a press release sent to us, has called on her to do just that.

No wonder she doesn't want to debate Kansen. Who would, after spending thousands of dollars lying? Plus side to all this is that we have a new nickname: Hon "Tax" Lien. Catchy.

Hon Lien Goes Negative (UPDATED)

Hon Lien's campaign also released a hit piece yesterday, attacking Kansen Chu for health code violations at his restaurant in the early 1990s. Because if there's one primary job responsibility of a City Councilmember, it's keeping roaches of out the building.

It also lists tax liens (pronounced "leans") and includes photos of the code violations, most of which are snapshots of grubby counters and buckets. None of the photos or code violations is after 1994 - and the dates of the liens aren't listed.

The mail has the same aesthetics as Chuck Reed's "Roll the Dice" mail piece from last year - plain white backgrounds, awkward text - and has a warning, for faint-hearted readers, about the photos within. Frankly, you'd have to be pretty faint-hearted.

The piece definitely whiffs of desperation. Mountain from a molehill anyone? These violations were thirteen years ago. The piece indicates that all problems were taken care of. And, frankly, none of the issues seems like anything related to being on the City Council. Now if, say, the company in Kansen's control had gone bankrupt, just last year - that seems like more of an issue.

As a service to the Lien campaign, I have created the following graphic, to put on future versions of this piece.

You're welcome, Hon. Let's do lunch! Chinese?

UPDATE: An anonymous tipster points out the sheer hypocrisy of this mail piece given that one of Hon Lien's companies, Sunnyvale Seafood, for which she was the CEO (and which was sued by creditors), received a warning letter in 2002 from the Department of Health and Human Services for "serious deviations from the Seafood HACCP regulations". I believe the vocabulary word you're looking for is gall.

Who Is Paying Vic Ajlouny?

And, for that matter Dean Munro?

A source revealed to us that a recent trip down to the City Clerk's office discovered that neither man a) is listed as a City employee, nor b) has a public contract with the City.

Each, however, has a city email address, speaks on behalf of the City, and has been mentioned repeatedly as a 'consultant' or 'advisor' to the Mayor's office. (See, for example, here for Vic and here for Dean.) I have a strong suspicion that neither is doing this for free.

As if secret contracts for the Mayor's political friends weren't bad enough, each is also working separately for entities that can receive a direct benefit from association with the Mayor. Ajlouny is the consultant to the campaign of Hon Lien, whose marionette strings are becoming more visible by the minute, and Munro, of course, represents the Sports Authority, recent recipients of Chuck Reed's commitment of millions of dollars from our City's general fund.

Mayor Chuck Tweed ran on a platform of openness. A platform of fiscal accountability. A platform of honesty. This scenario fails all three of those qualifications, and fails the smell test to boot.

ATTENTION MERCURY NEWS: Once you're done fawning over our new Mayor, see above for an editorial that writes itself.

Fiscal Responsibility Rears Its Ugly Head

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we? Once upon a time, the City Council considered a subsidy for a car race.

"I'm dreading the budget shortfall we are going to have to deal with over the next four months," Mr. Reed said during he council meeting. "We don't have enough money for streets, parks, libraries and crossing guards. We can't afford this event." (emphasis added)

That is from the Business Journal on January 16, 2006, by then Mayoral Candidate Reed. Lest his point not be clear:

“Four months from today we’re going to be sitting right here in this room and we’re going to be talking about cutting the crime-prevention staff, reducing library hours, eliminating school crossing guards… I’m sorry, we can’t afford this event.” (emphasis added)

This was from a quote in Wave Magazine from a Merc article.

Key point to remember: the Grand Prix subsidy, as all of us should have seared into our brains by now - $4 million dollars.

Now, back to the present day.

Mayor supports city money for HP Pavilion improvements - from the most recent Business Journal.

Long story short? Mayor Chuck Reed supports giving 8 million dollars to the San Jose Sports Authority for a new scoreboard and other improvements. 8 million. Twice what was spent on the Grand Prix.

"Well then," you're obviously thinking, "the City's financial situation must be on the uptick."

Well, it wasn't in March of this year:

The City of San José is in an extremely difficult financial situation. (page 2)

"Well, then, surely there must be a difference between the two organizations!," you have no doubt exclaimed. There is. The people involved.

Dean Munro, Executive Director of the Sports Authority and Mack Truck afficionado, is now working for Mayor Chuck Reed.

And, of course, we should mention another link. Who founded the Sports Authority and happens to be a huge Chuck Reed fan and confidante? Mr. Tom McEnery.

I don't know how Webster's defines good-old-boy network, but I know how I do. See above. This is Chuck Reed's brave new world. Enjoy.

Understanding Tom McEnery

How wonderful it is to finally have an older, white Mayor who is willing to do whatever Tom McEnery wants. That hasn't happened in years.

And no one is happier with this new day than Mr. McEnery himself. He's so pleased with his new-found relevance that he is already up to his old tricks.

Tricks like:

• Lambasting attempts to increase awareness around city subsidized projects while he and his partner investors in the Earthquakes try and cut a private deal with the city. Something so egregious even The Merc had to speak out against it. The Merc!


• Strutting around pretending to revel in how honest and forthright this new administration is while knowing that, just a few short months ago, on Chuck Reed's behalf, he called developers and told them none of their projects would go through if they gave money to Cindy Chavez. That's how good government runs, per Tom McEnery. By dictatorial edict.

Long story short is this. Good old boys are never outsiders. They're just sometimes harder to see.