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.