Early in her campaign, Amy invited me to blog on her site with no preconditions and with the understanding that I was not necessarily "endorsing" her as I feel there is more than one qualified candidate in the field. Since then I have been unfortunately too preoccupied with other volunteer work, involvement in other political races and more personal events to comment at any length.
That said - a primary is the time to vote for the candidate you believe is best, not necessarily the one who will win. This is not a nominating contest in which "viability" in the fall is an issue - this is a chance to choose the candidate you believe will do the best job. Amy has one key characteristic as an executive that sets her apart from most in politics and that would make her an especially excellent City Attorney - she makes decisions not based on what serves her politically or makes her personally look best, but on what and who best serves her city. For example, I cannot imagine Amy dismissing someone from their post for a mere difference of opinion - on the contrary, Amy values diversity of every kind and values competence ahead of blind loyalty. The fact that she would invite a former politician like myself to blog on her site without any promise of support or advance disclosure of content says a lot about her quality. The fact that she has been willing to correct unfactual allegations made not only against herself but against rivals as well, says a lot about her character and ethics. Amy is not necessarily the only candidate in this race who could do a great job as City Attorney. But, if you are looking for a competent breath of fresh air this is an excellent chance to vote for a candidate who can shake things up in a responsible way.
I have worked with Amy as a member of the Board of the Lawyers Club of San Diego and on the Lawyers Club Leadership Development Committee. Amy has excellent personal and professional qualities that would serve the city well, and she deserves to be considered on the basis of those qualities. Although you might not know it from some of the commentary out there, democracy isn't a horse race - it's a race to determine our future.
Good luck, Amy!!
Tim Nader
(former Mayor of Chula Vista)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Just Ask, by Cynthia Fields
Its crunch time people and we only have a few days before we go to the polls and cast our votes for our choice, Amy Lepine for City Attorney.Now a lot of us have said that we’d be happy to do anything to help, "just ask." We’ve offered to attend or host fundraisers, we’ve offered to walk the neighborhoods passing out flyers and talking about our candidate, "just ask." Some of us have even said we’d wear a lapel button display a lawn sign, "just ask." Well, as a friend of Amy Lepine, and more importantly, as a resident of San Diego who does not want to see anyone else win this election because I failed to follow through on my offer to help. After the elections don’t be one of those who will undoubtedly say, I would have done something if they had just asked.
Today I am asking you to do something. Pick up a few lawn signs at campaign headquarters, place it in your yard, ask neighbors to place one in their yard. Put your support for Amy to work by doing more than waiting for someone to ask you to do something. There is still time and there is still a lot we can do to show Amy our love and support. Let’s do all we can do to put someone in office that we know has a heart and love for all of the people of San Diego.
I’m asking each of you to get on the phone and ask your friends who they are voting for on June 3rd. You’d be surprised that many of them have not yet decided, and your phone call could be the thing that helps them to decide on Election Day. I am asking you to knock on doors and introduce Amy to your neighbors and ask on her behalf for their vote. We need you and we are asking each one of you to do something. It’s never too late and it’s never too little. My prayers go out to Amy as she runs the final stretch of this campaign and I’d like to thank her for running with class, dignity and style. I hope to run into some of you at campaign headquarters, or on the street as we make that final push for Amy before June 3rd. Remember, you’ve been asked!
Our voice at the Voice: Linda Cianciolo
Hi All!
Recently, Linda Cianciolo blogged on Amy's behalf on the Cafe San Diego, as part of the Supporters Debate. We have reprinted Linda's blog, and a rebuttal by Linda to one of the commentsto her original post. Check out Linda's turn as a blogger here, and below!
Recently, Linda Cianciolo blogged on Amy's behalf on the Cafe San Diego, as part of the Supporters Debate. We have reprinted Linda's blog, and a rebuttal by Linda to one of the commentsto her original post. Check out Linda's turn as a blogger here, and below!
A TOUGH HILL BUT NOT INSURMOUNTABLE
A rebuttal by Linda Cianciolo, to comments posted to Linda's original post on Cafe San Diego at voiceofsandiego.org
Yes, Amy has a big hill to climb, but not an insurmountable one. Her opponents
do have more name recognition and certainly, years of experience as politicians. However, if you look at Amy's history, she has more than demonstrated that she has the ability to master a job when given the opportunity.
Prior to becoming an attorney, Amy ran a non-profit domestic violence clinic, managing. the entire office, including support staff and volunteer attorneys. She testified in front of the California Senate to advocate for domestic violence legal reform. Amy handled large scale class action suits, requiring that she manage lawsuits pending before many courts at one, working with attorneys and with judicial officers to facilitate a settlement. She also served on a steering committee for a multi-district class action. Further, as a new attorney, Amy argued a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. She now runs her own law firm. She has the experience and skill necessary to be our next City Attorney.
After leaving the City Attorney's office, due to "constructive termination", certainly not by choice, she opened up her own law firm. In two years, she has prospered and grown, almost singlehandedly, adding attorneys and staff as her caseload demanded. As anyone who has started a business knows, hanging out your own shingle takes faith in your abilities and when you prosper, as Amy has, it is a sign of determination, skill, and lots of hard work! Even today, as Amy runs her campaign with a volunteer staff, she is handling a full caseload, including a five-day trial this week at juvenile court. She continues to donate her time to various causes and takes legal cases on a pro bono basis.
Each time Amy speaks at a campaign function, more and more people approach her to indicate their support. I have heard from many people that do not know Amy that after hearing her speak or participate in a debate, that they are impressed with her. Amy has worked hard in this campaign and she will work hard as our City Attorney.
For more information on Amy, see the April 28, 2008 article by Will Carless of Voice of San Diego, and also visit Amy’s website!
Yes, Amy has a big hill to climb, but not an insurmountable one. Her opponents
do have more name recognition and certainly, years of experience as politicians. However, if you look at Amy's history, she has more than demonstrated that she has the ability to master a job when given the opportunity.
Prior to becoming an attorney, Amy ran a non-profit domestic violence clinic, managing. the entire office, including support staff and volunteer attorneys. She testified in front of the California Senate to advocate for domestic violence legal reform. Amy handled large scale class action suits, requiring that she manage lawsuits pending before many courts at one, working with attorneys and with judicial officers to facilitate a settlement. She also served on a steering committee for a multi-district class action. Further, as a new attorney, Amy argued a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. She now runs her own law firm. She has the experience and skill necessary to be our next City Attorney.
After leaving the City Attorney's office, due to "constructive termination", certainly not by choice, she opened up her own law firm. In two years, she has prospered and grown, almost singlehandedly, adding attorneys and staff as her caseload demanded. As anyone who has started a business knows, hanging out your own shingle takes faith in your abilities and when you prosper, as Amy has, it is a sign of determination, skill, and lots of hard work! Even today, as Amy runs her campaign with a volunteer staff, she is handling a full caseload, including a five-day trial this week at juvenile court. She continues to donate her time to various causes and takes legal cases on a pro bono basis.
Each time Amy speaks at a campaign function, more and more people approach her to indicate their support. I have heard from many people that do not know Amy that after hearing her speak or participate in a debate, that they are impressed with her. Amy has worked hard in this campaign and she will work hard as our City Attorney.
For more information on Amy, see the April 28, 2008 article by Will Carless of Voice of San Diego, and also visit Amy’s website!
MORE THAN ELECTABLE by Linda Cianciolo
originally published on the voiceofsandiego.org
I have known Amy for about 12 years – dating back to when we served on a domestic violence committee together. She is one of the smartest, ethical people I know. I was thrilled when she decided to run for City Attorney so that I would have a good candidate to vote for! I believe that Amy is not only electable, but would do an excellent job as San Diego’s city attorney. Amy has a wealth of experience and spent time as a deputy in the City Attorney’s office. She is a leader. Her skill set is what is needed to bring the city attorney’s office back to the people.
I have heard it said that Amy "can’t win" and so should drop out of the race. I find that line of thought interesting. I also am a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president, and there have been calls for her to drop out of the presidential race. I am grateful that Hillary has stayed in the race and I know that Amy has no intention to drop out of the city attorney’s race. Until every person has had an opportunity to cast their vote, no one should be asked to leave a race in which they –and their supporters – have contributed so much.
Amy would be an independent city attorney. She has a diverse background having worked at the City Attorney’s office, litigated class action lawsuits, and now runs her own law office involving family law, consumer law and elder-abuse law. She is energetic, ethical and hard working. Unlike the other candidates for this office, she has no votes to cover up, no special interest money to pay back, and no political agenda.
I am proud to support Amy Lepine for the office of City Attorney and I ask that you cast your vote for her, too.
I have known Amy for about 12 years – dating back to when we served on a domestic violence committee together. She is one of the smartest, ethical people I know. I was thrilled when she decided to run for City Attorney so that I would have a good candidate to vote for! I believe that Amy is not only electable, but would do an excellent job as San Diego’s city attorney. Amy has a wealth of experience and spent time as a deputy in the City Attorney’s office. She is a leader. Her skill set is what is needed to bring the city attorney’s office back to the people.
I have heard it said that Amy "can’t win" and so should drop out of the race. I find that line of thought interesting. I also am a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president, and there have been calls for her to drop out of the presidential race. I am grateful that Hillary has stayed in the race and I know that Amy has no intention to drop out of the city attorney’s race. Until every person has had an opportunity to cast their vote, no one should be asked to leave a race in which they –and their supporters – have contributed so much.
Amy would be an independent city attorney. She has a diverse background having worked at the City Attorney’s office, litigated class action lawsuits, and now runs her own law office involving family law, consumer law and elder-abuse law. She is energetic, ethical and hard working. Unlike the other candidates for this office, she has no votes to cover up, no special interest money to pay back, and no political agenda.
I am proud to support Amy Lepine for the office of City Attorney and I ask that you cast your vote for her, too.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Why NOW Means So Much to Me
I hope you’ve heard that I was recently endorsed by the San Diego County NOW PAC. This endorsement resonates with me on so many levels and, more importantly, refreshes my hope and commitment to elected public service.
The first time I heard of the National Organization of Women, was in 1972. My mom was recognized by the group as an exceptional woman because she was raising three kids on her own and putting herself through college at the same time. The youngest of three daughters, I grew hearing things like "it doesn’t take a - - - - - to push a lawn mower . . . get on out there and do it." My mother’s appreciation for education served us all well. Each of my sisters has gone on to receive advanced degrees, Laura, my oldest sister, in teaching, Lis, the medical doctor, and me, the lawyer.
I guess we’ve all been "doing it" ever since.
For a candidate, knowing one’s base is crucial. I could not be prouder to have the National Organization for Women at the center of that base.
On another level, as a first time candidate, my eyes have been opened to some harsh realities of the democratic process. Of course fund raising is at the heart of campaigning - those demands were a contingency I was aware of. But the endorsement process used by most groups was something I had not fully understood.
I’ve learned that most groups allow their members to pay the membership fee, join, and vote. That means that the general membership attending that day votes on the endorsement. Stacking the vote by making timely memberships is, apparently, the norm.
NOW, on the other hand, decides its endorsement by vote of the board of directors; that is, the people who work with their mission statement on a regular basis; the people who care enough about that mission to give up their Saturdays and free time to tend to the business of the committee. Their endorsement can’t be bought or stacked. And that makes receiving our local NOW PAC endorsement all the sweeter to me.
Thank you, Sisters!
And to be true to my promise of setting the record straight, I was recently interviewed by City Beat on this subject. Mr. Wolfe mixed up the groups we were talking about: it was a key representative of the San Diego Democratic Women’s Club that expected candidates to seek them out, and thought that holding an endorsement forum for selected candidates is appropriate, not the Downtown Partnership. Kudos to Scott for fairly stacking that vote after the club president failed to secure the endorsement of her candidate at an earlier forum where the only San Diego Democratic Woman candidate in the race was prohibited from speaking. You’ve got some great women working on your campaign, Mr. Peters!
The first time I heard of the National Organization of Women, was in 1972. My mom was recognized by the group as an exceptional woman because she was raising three kids on her own and putting herself through college at the same time. The youngest of three daughters, I grew hearing things like "it doesn’t take a - - - - - to push a lawn mower . . . get on out there and do it." My mother’s appreciation for education served us all well. Each of my sisters has gone on to receive advanced degrees, Laura, my oldest sister, in teaching, Lis, the medical doctor, and me, the lawyer.
I guess we’ve all been "doing it" ever since.
For a candidate, knowing one’s base is crucial. I could not be prouder to have the National Organization for Women at the center of that base.
On another level, as a first time candidate, my eyes have been opened to some harsh realities of the democratic process. Of course fund raising is at the heart of campaigning - those demands were a contingency I was aware of. But the endorsement process used by most groups was something I had not fully understood.
I’ve learned that most groups allow their members to pay the membership fee, join, and vote. That means that the general membership attending that day votes on the endorsement. Stacking the vote by making timely memberships is, apparently, the norm.
NOW, on the other hand, decides its endorsement by vote of the board of directors; that is, the people who work with their mission statement on a regular basis; the people who care enough about that mission to give up their Saturdays and free time to tend to the business of the committee. Their endorsement can’t be bought or stacked. And that makes receiving our local NOW PAC endorsement all the sweeter to me.
Thank you, Sisters!
And to be true to my promise of setting the record straight, I was recently interviewed by City Beat on this subject. Mr. Wolfe mixed up the groups we were talking about: it was a key representative of the San Diego Democratic Women’s Club that expected candidates to seek them out, and thought that holding an endorsement forum for selected candidates is appropriate, not the Downtown Partnership. Kudos to Scott for fairly stacking that vote after the club president failed to secure the endorsement of her candidate at an earlier forum where the only San Diego Democratic Woman candidate in the race was prohibited from speaking. You’ve got some great women working on your campaign, Mr. Peters!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Setting the Record Straight: Feet to the Fire
Once again, I am compelled to blog to set the record straight about another candidate’s inaccuracy: this time a flat lie out by the incumbent to the good people attending the NAACP candidate forum held on Tuesday night.
The question presented by Dr. Shirley Weber was, "Do you agree with the handling of the pension litigation by the City Attorney’s office?" I could not believe my ears: the incumbent had the audacity to tell this group of civic minded people that he "did not sue" but rather "was sued" in the pension litigation. He then went on to tell the group not to believe anything the other candidates would say on this issue, because it would not be the truth.
My morale outrage was aroused and, yes, I called B.S.! The incumbent had lied! I told the crowd the truth: He filed at least two separate suits as plaintiff - on the offense, not the defense - attacking pension benefits. These are easily verifiable facts. I urged them to go home and look it up. The man who had just told them not to believe anything his opponents would say had just told them a bald faced lie! The truth I’m telling you and that I told them is a public fact that can easily be verified in a few minutes on the internet.
This blatant misrepresentation is more than a simple exaggeration. I would let that go, and chalk it up to politics, or "mere puffery" as the law calls it in false advertising. But this deliberate misrepresentation was an insult to the people attending the forum and it’s offensive to all voters who keep informed on the issues. Are we really expected to drink the Koolaid?
That wasn’t the only untruth I heard the incumbent speak that night. He also told the crowd, at least two times, that the City Attorney’s office is a great place to work, that people like working there. I went on the record to tell them the truth: I’ve walked those halls and it’s not a nice place to work. While there are plently of lovely people and many highly qualified attorneys there, the overall atmosphere is anything but "nice." There is a reason people avoid the elevator. And that’s "not Union Tribune speak" as the incumbent refers to what he thinks is a conspiracy against him. That is first hand testimony from one of a number of former employees who have filed hostile work environment suits against him. The claims range from gender bias and sexual harassment to age discrimination and retaliation. I wish someone (who’s not busy running a law firm and a city-wide campaign) would research exactly how many suits have been brought against this City Attorney, and compare those numbers with other City Attorneys. I suspect the results would be very revealing.
But the B.S. didn’t stop there. The third was directed at my brother candidates, the council members. The incumbent, again falsely, stated that they were personally interested in the votes they made to underfund the pension system. What?!
In conflict of interest law, a personal interest would mean that they financially benefitted by voting in favor of MP 2 in 2002. The council members don’t even participate in the City Employees Retirement Plan! Plainly, they were not legally conflicted by their vote. I personally believe they would be conflicted ethically by those votes from being City Attorney because their past "mistakes" would prevent them from being able to act independently, as I have said repeatedly. But that doesn’t mean that they financially benefitted by their votes to underfund.
Let’s stick to the true facts. There’s plenty of accurate material one can use to discredit opponents. The incumbent should not resort to fabricating more. And the public should not tolerate it when he does. If this keeps up, I’m going to change what I wear to these events, from business suits to rubber boots.
The question presented by Dr. Shirley Weber was, "Do you agree with the handling of the pension litigation by the City Attorney’s office?" I could not believe my ears: the incumbent had the audacity to tell this group of civic minded people that he "did not sue" but rather "was sued" in the pension litigation. He then went on to tell the group not to believe anything the other candidates would say on this issue, because it would not be the truth.
My morale outrage was aroused and, yes, I called B.S.! The incumbent had lied! I told the crowd the truth: He filed at least two separate suits as plaintiff - on the offense, not the defense - attacking pension benefits. These are easily verifiable facts. I urged them to go home and look it up. The man who had just told them not to believe anything his opponents would say had just told them a bald faced lie! The truth I’m telling you and that I told them is a public fact that can easily be verified in a few minutes on the internet.
This blatant misrepresentation is more than a simple exaggeration. I would let that go, and chalk it up to politics, or "mere puffery" as the law calls it in false advertising. But this deliberate misrepresentation was an insult to the people attending the forum and it’s offensive to all voters who keep informed on the issues. Are we really expected to drink the Koolaid?
That wasn’t the only untruth I heard the incumbent speak that night. He also told the crowd, at least two times, that the City Attorney’s office is a great place to work, that people like working there. I went on the record to tell them the truth: I’ve walked those halls and it’s not a nice place to work. While there are plently of lovely people and many highly qualified attorneys there, the overall atmosphere is anything but "nice." There is a reason people avoid the elevator. And that’s "not Union Tribune speak" as the incumbent refers to what he thinks is a conspiracy against him. That is first hand testimony from one of a number of former employees who have filed hostile work environment suits against him. The claims range from gender bias and sexual harassment to age discrimination and retaliation. I wish someone (who’s not busy running a law firm and a city-wide campaign) would research exactly how many suits have been brought against this City Attorney, and compare those numbers with other City Attorneys. I suspect the results would be very revealing.
But the B.S. didn’t stop there. The third was directed at my brother candidates, the council members. The incumbent, again falsely, stated that they were personally interested in the votes they made to underfund the pension system. What?!
In conflict of interest law, a personal interest would mean that they financially benefitted by voting in favor of MP 2 in 2002. The council members don’t even participate in the City Employees Retirement Plan! Plainly, they were not legally conflicted by their vote. I personally believe they would be conflicted ethically by those votes from being City Attorney because their past "mistakes" would prevent them from being able to act independently, as I have said repeatedly. But that doesn’t mean that they financially benefitted by their votes to underfund.
Let’s stick to the true facts. There’s plenty of accurate material one can use to discredit opponents. The incumbent should not resort to fabricating more. And the public should not tolerate it when he does. If this keeps up, I’m going to change what I wear to these events, from business suits to rubber boots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)