Friday, August 5, 2011

DeMaio’s Real Jobs Plan? You Can Find It In The City’s Print Shop

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Evan McLaughlin, 619-850-2790


DeMaio’s Real Jobs Plan? You Can Find It In The City’s Print Shop


SAN DIEGO – Councilmember and mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio held a press conference to announce a plan he insists will create jobs at some point.

Yet the only jobs DeMaio has supported in his time seeking the media spotlight have been at the city’s print shop, where he’s used city-funded resources to increase his name identification in a never-ending campaign for higher officer. It has been a consistent theme of DeMaio’s tenure on the Council.

The Union-Tribune has addressed DeMaio’s regular use of taxpayer funding to feed his appetite for public attention.  The paper published an article entitled “Spending on Mailers Cost City Large Sum.”  The article states that DeMaio “sent 45 times as many taxpayer-funded invitations last year as all the city’s other elected officials combined, according to records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune under the California Public Records Act.

In a Union-Tribune editorial, “Officials’ Clumsy Actions,” the U-T noted that DeMaio spent $32,000 in public money for the mailers, which prominently featured Carl DeMaio.  The mailers included headlines such as “Carl DeMaio wants to keep your home and family safe,” and “Carl DeMaio fixing the city’s financial crisis.”

Kyle Haverback, spokesman for the Carl DeMaio’s Too Extreme for San Diego campaign, said, “It is disappointing but not surprising that Carl DeMaio poses as a taxpayer watchdog but has used more public resources that any other city official, all to further his personal political ambitions.”


DeMaio’s Never-Ending Taxpayer-Funded Campaign

DeMaio spent $32,000 in taxpayer-funded mailers during his first year in office

In February 2010, the Union-Tribune reported that Carl DeMaio spent $32,000 on taxpayer-funded mailers during his first year in office.  DeMaio’s mailers were sent to constituents, inviting them to town-hall meetings.

“As Union-Tribune reporter Craig Gustafson revealed, DeMaio spent that sum in his first year in office on sending mailers to his constituents’ homes inviting them to town hall meetings he held on pressing issues facing the city.”

The Union-Tribune continued, “His name was prominently featured on the mailings in headlines such as ‘Carl DeMaio wants to keep your home and family safe’ and ‘Carl DeMaio fixing the city’s financial crisis.’”

(San Diego Union-Tribune, “Officials’ Clumsy Actions,” February 2, 2010)

DeMaio Sent 45 Times as Many Mailers as All Other Elected Officials Combined; Amount of Mailers Surpassed Regulatory Threshold that Restricted Mailer Content

“He sent 45 times as many taxpayer-funded invitations last year as all the city’s other elected officials combined, according to records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune under the California Public Records Act. The newspaper requested information on any mailing paid for by taxpayers that was sent to 200 or more people – the threshold under state law that triggers content restrictions for mailers, such as limiting mailers to one mention of a politician’s name.”
 
(San Diego Union Tribune, “Spending on Mailers Cost City Large Sum,” January 31, 2010)


 Money on Mailers Could Have Paid A Fire Recruit’s Annual Salary


“Frank De Clercq, head of the city’s firefighters union, said the money DeMaio spent could have paid the $31,000 annual salary for a fire recruit.”

(San Diego Union Tribune, “Spending on Mailers Cost City Large Sum,” January 31, 2010)


The “Carl DeMaio’s Too Extreme For San Diego” campaign is a project of the San Diego Labor Council, AFL-CIO, which represents more than 192,000 union workers in the region while advocating for more jobs, better jobs and better lives for all local workers, union and non-union. To learn more, visit www.unionyes.org.

###

VOSD: County Supervisor Didn't Work for Civil Rights Leader

Read the story here.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

FPPC Complaint Filed Against Pension Campaign For “Bait And Switch” Petition Tactics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FPPC Complaint Filed Against Pension Campaign For “Bait And Switch” Petition Tactics

Dishonest Use of Gas Prices and Gay Marriage As Advertisement Should Spur An Investigation

SAN DIEGO – (August 3, 2011) – The Fair Political Practices Commission was notified of potentially fraudulent activity by the Comprehensive Pension Reform for San Diego campaign committee this afternoon, including the video documentation of paid-signature gatherers using a phony petition to supposedly “lower gas prices” as a bait-and-switch that resulted in voters signing petitions for ballot measures that eliminate a retirement safety net for city employees.

Similarly, video was taken at the San Diego Pride festival, a major LGBT event in San Diego’s Balboa Park, where signature gatherers for the pension initiative pitched festivalgoers to sign petitions to make gay marriage legal when in fact no such petition has been cleared for circulation by the Secretary of State.

“Even after the gas price petition switcheroo was brought to the public’s attention nearly one month ago, the pension campaign has continued to employ that dirty trick and others,” said Evan McLaughlin, treasurer of the Just Say No, San Diego committee. “Apparently a public shaming was not enough. It’s now time we turn to the authorities.”

More details on the use of gay marriage and gas prices by the pension campaign is included in the attached letter, which was sent to the FPPC earlier today.

For more information or for an interview, please contact Evan McLaughlin at 619-850-2790.


###

Big Business Campaigns’ Ramped Up Efforts Underscore Petition Drive Struggles

From the Labor Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Big Business Campaigns’ Ramped Up Efforts Underscore Petition Drive Struggles
More Expensive Signature Bounties, Robo-Calls, Deceptive Tactics Show Petition Drives Are Struggling To Make Progress

SAN DIEGO – The ballot measure campaigns sponsored by big business have increased their per-signature bounty to $5 on a supposed “slam dunk” pension initiative, five times higher than when the campaign started.

This finding and other recent news illustrate a growing sense of desperation from the campaigns.

-    Petition gatherers have been caught baiting shoppers to sign their petitions under the false pretense that signing will help “lower gas prices.”  No such initiative is on file with the Secretary of State.

-   At the San Diego Pride parade and festival last month, petition gatherers for the corporate campaigns asked passersby to sign petitions to make gay marriage legal in California. No such petition is on file with the Secretary of State.

-   In addition to the five-fold increase in the bounty for the pension ballot measure, petitions for the ban on project labor agreements have doubled to $1.50 per signature.

-   Petition gatherers have made misstatements about exempting firefighters (false), whether city employees receive Social Security (false),  whether non-union workers are banned from working on city projects (yet again, false), and other important considerations about these ballot measures.

-   Republican Councilmembers and their surrogates have held publicity stunts like “drive-thru” signature gatherings at Wal-Mart and placed robo-calls to voters asking them to sign the petition.

-  Media accounts show these City of San Diego ballot measure campaigns have been asking patrons from other cities like La Mesa to sign their petitions in order to drive up their signature count.

The Just Say No campaign has been compiling video and audio footage of examples of where the petition drives have employed the aforementioned desperation tactics.

For more information, or for an interview, please contact Evan McLaughlin at 619-850-2790.

###

KPBS: County Supervisors Explore Creation Of Minority District


Read the story here.

VOSD: What Mayoral Candidates Say about Balboa Park Makeover

Read the story here.

SDUT: For San Diego's delegation, a tough decision on debt deal

Read the story here.

SDUT: Fletcher to chair jobs panel

Read the story here.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

SF Gate: Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bill banning some paid signature gathering

From SF Gate:

Supporters of the measure slammed the veto.

"This is a setback for reform in California," said Justine Sarver, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. "The measure would have eliminated a powerful incentive for fraud while protecting Californians' ability to participate fully in direct democracy."

Maybe they shouldn't be surprised -- the governor may have given a hint at his position last week when he mused, in response to a question, that the bill could make initiatives such as the one he is planning on taxes, more expensive.

Read the story here.

KPBS: County Supervisors Set To Vote On Redistricting


Read the story here.

VOSD: Dumanis' Haul: $150K, Filner's Is $100K

Read the story here.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Martin Garrick Pleads No Contest verse Guilty

Assemblyman Martin Garrick on Friday, July 29th pleaded "No Contest" plea Friday on a drunken driving charge verse guilty on driving over the speed limit, running red lights, not pulling over when ordered by a police officer and having a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent, almost twice the level limit.

Martin will perform 48 hours of community service, paying fines and assessments of $2,416 and lose his driver's license for four months. However, he will not have an ignition interlock device, as he supported in the 2009-2010 legislative session with AB 9 or attend a 9-month Drinker Driver Treatment Program, which he supported in the 2007-2008 legislative session with AB 1487.

Interestingly, he pleaded no contest verse guilty on the charges. On the website DUIAttorney.com it explains why people plea no contest, then taking full responsibility for their crime. They still need to answer yes when asked if they have been convicted of a crime, but they really aren't taking full responsibility for their crime in court.

Many times there is the quoting in supporting term limits is legislators need to go back to the public to live under the laws they pass. I would be interested in what conservatives think of Garrick's plea of no contest verse guilty, the sentencing and if he should seek higher office in the future?