Ward 1
Dick Israel. Running unopposed, so this is easy. Regardless of policy views, you can count on his knowledge and positions to be well researched and have reasoning. Any rumbles of discontent for Israel running after promising to (possibly) leave after one term for health reasons have deferred to the respect due this incumbent alderman.
Ward 2
Fred Paone. Also unopposed, but it wouldn't matter. A solid legislator and independent thinker, Fred often makes funny comments that are printed here and increase the popularity of this blog, and he remains the only person with an official fan club. Also, he stands 9 feet tall, a menacing sight.
Ward 3
Scott Bowling. This is a 5 star special endorsement, a candidate offering a rare combination of dedication to the issues and community service, logic, and willingness to accept a $12,600 salary while in the prime of one's bill-paying life.
Ward 4
Sheila Finlayson. I don't want to say "no endorsement", but it's likely I would have endorsed any candidate the Republicans would have put forward. Since they/we didn't, here we are.
Ward 5
Jim Conley. I've met Silverman (Conley's opponent) and he seems to be nice, but I support the tax cap and Conley is basing his whole campaign on that, which makes him at least 60% likely to vote for an actual tax cap bill if he's elected.
Ward 6
Greg Stiverson. Another 5 star special. Every time Greg writes about an issue, it's the most insightful and accurate position statement on whatever it is he's talking about. Greg is always 3 steps further than anyone else when considering appropriate solutions to city problems.
Ward 7.
Jennifer Monteith. I've met Jennifer once and believe her to be a human resources professional. As we all know, 85% of the city's budget is on salaries, and whereas salaries are determined by union contracts, and whereas human resources professionals know about union contracts, let it be resolved that she share some tricks of the trade and save the city some money.
Ward 8.
Ross Arnett. Brave move on my part to break party lines on this one, but Arnett has broken party lines while on the council. Plus he's an economist, which I would have been had I not decided to flip burgers for fraternity members. His experience and work on the council-manager and budget are enough to outweigh the fact that he has a full time job and has been criticized for being slow to respond to citizen concerns.
Showing posts with label election 09. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election 09. Show all posts
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Soon-To-Be-Famous Cohen Postcard
It might be hard to see, so I'll summarize. It's a Cohen piece with Obama's picture that says "continue our progress by voting for the following candidates", then shows Cohen along with the African American Democrat candidates running on Tuesday. Noticeably absent are the Caucasian Democrat candidates, prompting obvious cries of racial politics, divisiveness, the same old story, and certainly NOT the politics of change and bringing people together.Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Pierre Withdraws From Race; Central Committee Can Choose Replacement
Whenever something confuses me in politics, I always look for the most cynical explanation possible. Such an approach is usually accurate in ascertaining the truth, and has served me well on several occasions where suspension of total disbelief was a good quality to have.
One day after Zina Pierre was officially certified as the Democrat nominee for the Mayoral election, details of legal problems surfaced. The Capital sent out an email confirming that, in the face of these revelations and citing personal reasons, Zina had decided to drop out of the race. I believe The Sun will run a story tomorrow.
To quote a poker promo from ESPN: this is beyond fairy-tale, it's inconceivable. So what now? You're going to like this. Section 4.20.150 (C) of the city code allows a candidate nominated for office to decline their nomination within 10 days of receiving that nomination. And wouldn't you know it: it's less than 10 days since Zina received the nomination. And wouldn't you also know, section 4.20.160 allows the central committee--in this case the Democrat Central Committee--to fill the vacancy with WHICHEVER CANDIDATE THEY PICK.
Here's the email from the chairman of the Democrat Central Committee:
The statement that "we in no way urged" Zina is of course believed by everyone to be fucking bullshit. I'm sorry to cuss but it's such an arrogant attitude that one is left with no other articulation of one's feelings.
The email chatter has been off the charts on this issue, so I'll pass that along to you. In addition to the email chatter, I've had several verbal conversations about what's happening. My promise to you, the blog reader, is that I will plagiarize equally the thoughts I heard from emails and those from phone conversations.
I enjoy email chatter, because it tends to offer the most cynical and far-fetched explanations of any given event. And as we learned at the beginning of this post, that makes it correct. Even the most amateur politico could follow the storyline. The "chosen candidate", Josh Cohen, gets in the race because he has the backing of the machine and thinks he can win with their money and influence. The "machine" is defined as Mike Busch, John Astle, Ellen Moyer, and the Democrat Central Committee. The machine got Sam Shropshire elected in this manner, and they're at it again.
I guarantee this info about Zina is not new. The machine likely dug it up when Zina jumped in the race, but sat on it in hopes that Josh would win straight up and they wouldn't have to use it. When Zina won, they sprung into action--and they worked quickly because they knew the code says Zina would have to resign within 10 days of winning the primary. I mean, think about it....Zina knows politics. She worked for Bill Clinton, and runs a lobbying firm. She had enough expertise to beat Cohen--despite his machine backing; and to beat Trudy McFall--who ran a perfect campaign for 2 years. You mean to tell me that one setback would be enough to convince her to drop out of the race for personal reasons?? Shenanigans!! I call shenanigans! The legal problems seem to deal with economic circumstances. So Zina is facing economic hardship...just like half of freeking Annapolis! A clever candidate could spin that in their favor...not bow out of the race.
You know what else is interesting?? People always talk about "ending the partisanship"...the bickering between Republicans and Democrats. But this wasn't the Republicans sticking it to the Democrats--this was Democrat skulduggery all the way!! "Incest Partisanship" is what I call it--don't be surprised if that term catches on. Heck, the Republican candidate hasn't done anything political in, like...8 years! It's not enough for the machine to retain power for their party; they have to retain power for their lineage.
Now, as far as I know, Josh has not yet been officially selected as the replacement for Zina. I know Josh on a quasi-personal level, and I will say that he's been pleasant on the few occasions we've ordered beers from the same bartender. He's commented on this blog before, and is more than welcome to offer an explanation. But this whole thing reeks of a sinister plan executed as designed.
Edit: After posting this, I spoke with someone who I consider to be reliable and knowledgeable, and that person swears the machine had no prior knowledge of these issues. It's hard to believe but I guess it's plausible. Could it possibly not be Cohen that is chosen by the central committee?
There is still much to consider. First, as the first commenter says, what a failure of journalism. If the Capital spent as much time researching their candidate profiles as they do the Home of The Week, we would have known about Zina's problems long ago.
...which brings me to another point--Zina deserves blame. The charges against her, if intentional, represent characteristics we don't want in a mayor. There were questions--including on this blog--about Zina's candidacy when she entered the race. And for every question answered, we have 3 new ones in its place.
One day after Zina Pierre was officially certified as the Democrat nominee for the Mayoral election, details of legal problems surfaced. The Capital sent out an email confirming that, in the face of these revelations and citing personal reasons, Zina had decided to drop out of the race. I believe The Sun will run a story tomorrow.
To quote a poker promo from ESPN: this is beyond fairy-tale, it's inconceivable. So what now? You're going to like this. Section 4.20.150 (C) of the city code allows a candidate nominated for office to decline their nomination within 10 days of receiving that nomination. And wouldn't you know it: it's less than 10 days since Zina received the nomination. And wouldn't you also know, section 4.20.160 allows the central committee--in this case the Democrat Central Committee--to fill the vacancy with WHICHEVER CANDIDATE THEY PICK.
Here's the email from the chairman of the Democrat Central Committee:
Dear ADCC Members and Friends,
Zina has withdrawn her candidacy after the revelations of her legal
problems. We in no way urged her to do so and left it to her judgment. We feel
sad for her and all her supporters.This puts a great deal of importance on
the ADCC, that by city code is charged to name a successor by October 2. ADCC is
under no City Charter/Code restraints in our choice and we then must establish
the procedures for our choice.
We will have to meet shortly. Our meeting for September 23 is still on.
Let me know if these dates are available to the elected members: Sept. 24, 25,
26, 28, and 29. In the meantime, consult with Democrats in your wards, our
elected officials, and your own thoughts.
Still, Victory in ‘09!
Nick
The statement that "we in no way urged" Zina is of course believed by everyone to be fucking bullshit. I'm sorry to cuss but it's such an arrogant attitude that one is left with no other articulation of one's feelings.
The email chatter has been off the charts on this issue, so I'll pass that along to you. In addition to the email chatter, I've had several verbal conversations about what's happening. My promise to you, the blog reader, is that I will plagiarize equally the thoughts I heard from emails and those from phone conversations.
I enjoy email chatter, because it tends to offer the most cynical and far-fetched explanations of any given event. And as we learned at the beginning of this post, that makes it correct. Even the most amateur politico could follow the storyline. The "chosen candidate", Josh Cohen, gets in the race because he has the backing of the machine and thinks he can win with their money and influence. The "machine" is defined as Mike Busch, John Astle, Ellen Moyer, and the Democrat Central Committee. The machine got Sam Shropshire elected in this manner, and they're at it again.
I guarantee this info about Zina is not new. The machine likely dug it up when Zina jumped in the race, but sat on it in hopes that Josh would win straight up and they wouldn't have to use it. When Zina won, they sprung into action--and they worked quickly because they knew the code says Zina would have to resign within 10 days of winning the primary. I mean, think about it....Zina knows politics. She worked for Bill Clinton, and runs a lobbying firm. She had enough expertise to beat Cohen--despite his machine backing; and to beat Trudy McFall--who ran a perfect campaign for 2 years. You mean to tell me that one setback would be enough to convince her to drop out of the race for personal reasons?? Shenanigans!! I call shenanigans! The legal problems seem to deal with economic circumstances. So Zina is facing economic hardship...just like half of freeking Annapolis! A clever candidate could spin that in their favor...not bow out of the race.
You know what else is interesting?? People always talk about "ending the partisanship"...the bickering between Republicans and Democrats. But this wasn't the Republicans sticking it to the Democrats--this was Democrat skulduggery all the way!! "Incest Partisanship" is what I call it--don't be surprised if that term catches on. Heck, the Republican candidate hasn't done anything political in, like...8 years! It's not enough for the machine to retain power for their party; they have to retain power for their lineage.
Now, as far as I know, Josh has not yet been officially selected as the replacement for Zina. I know Josh on a quasi-personal level, and I will say that he's been pleasant on the few occasions we've ordered beers from the same bartender. He's commented on this blog before, and is more than welcome to offer an explanation. But this whole thing reeks of a sinister plan executed as designed.
Edit: After posting this, I spoke with someone who I consider to be reliable and knowledgeable, and that person swears the machine had no prior knowledge of these issues. It's hard to believe but I guess it's plausible. Could it possibly not be Cohen that is chosen by the central committee?
There is still much to consider. First, as the first commenter says, what a failure of journalism. If the Capital spent as much time researching their candidate profiles as they do the Home of The Week, we would have known about Zina's problems long ago.
...which brings me to another point--Zina deserves blame. The charges against her, if intentional, represent characteristics we don't want in a mayor. There were questions--including on this blog--about Zina's candidacy when she entered the race. And for every question answered, we have 3 new ones in its place.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
You, Too, Can Analyze Campaign Finance Reports
A commenter on a previous post suggested that "some ambitious blogger with an economics degree" take the time to review the campaign finance reports recently submitted by the mayoral candidates*.
(*This is not an exact quote...I didn't bother to look it up. Because I don't have to. Because this is a blog. Not NBC.)
I am happy to inform you that almost anyone, regardless of the level of economics accomplishment you've achieved, can successfully analyze a campaign finance report--and I'm here to tell you how.
You don't really need intelligence--what you really need is time. and a cynical attitude. Every person who donates to a campaign has a motive. The most romantic of the motives is altruism--some people donate to campaigns because they truly believe that candidate will be the best for the city. Some donate because they think they will indirectly benefit from the candidate, such as a builder donating to a pro-development candidate. And some people plan to benefit directly, in the form of a job with the incoming administration or some type of business steered their way. Sometimes it's hard to tell one type of donor from another, but here's what you can look for:
-amount of donation. the maximum donation to a mayoral candidate is $2500, and this is typically done by businesses hoping to recoup this cost and then some. If you've got a donor for more than $2500, you've got a violation. If you've got an odd business, you might have a candidate with interests different than those of the citizens of Annapolis.
-type of donors. Individual donors typically represent a grassroots campaign, and business donors typically represent a stakeholder campaign. This is highly generalized but can be a useful tool.
-location of donors. One can assume that the amount of donors from the city proper can be used as proxy for votes, whereas the amount of donors outside of the city proxies either the level of business ties or the amount of friends of that candidate.
-amount of money raised. People like to support a winner, and it can be argued that the amount of money raised by each candidate sets rough odds as to who is the favorite. The caveat is that the people who don't donate money may not vote for candidates proportionate to the amount of donations those candidates receive.
-ending cash on hand. Pretty logical: the more money a candidate has in the bank, the more propaganda they can promulgate between now and the election.
That's about it I think. I'm confident that anyone reading this could look at the campaign reports and come to the same conclusions I would. Hopefully you have more time to do it than me!
(*This is not an exact quote...I didn't bother to look it up. Because I don't have to. Because this is a blog. Not NBC.)
I am happy to inform you that almost anyone, regardless of the level of economics accomplishment you've achieved, can successfully analyze a campaign finance report--and I'm here to tell you how.
You don't really need intelligence--what you really need is time. and a cynical attitude. Every person who donates to a campaign has a motive. The most romantic of the motives is altruism--some people donate to campaigns because they truly believe that candidate will be the best for the city. Some donate because they think they will indirectly benefit from the candidate, such as a builder donating to a pro-development candidate. And some people plan to benefit directly, in the form of a job with the incoming administration or some type of business steered their way. Sometimes it's hard to tell one type of donor from another, but here's what you can look for:
-amount of donation. the maximum donation to a mayoral candidate is $2500, and this is typically done by businesses hoping to recoup this cost and then some. If you've got a donor for more than $2500, you've got a violation. If you've got an odd business, you might have a candidate with interests different than those of the citizens of Annapolis.
-type of donors. Individual donors typically represent a grassroots campaign, and business donors typically represent a stakeholder campaign. This is highly generalized but can be a useful tool.
-location of donors. One can assume that the amount of donors from the city proper can be used as proxy for votes, whereas the amount of donors outside of the city proxies either the level of business ties or the amount of friends of that candidate.
-amount of money raised. People like to support a winner, and it can be argued that the amount of money raised by each candidate sets rough odds as to who is the favorite. The caveat is that the people who don't donate money may not vote for candidates proportionate to the amount of donations those candidates receive.
-ending cash on hand. Pretty logical: the more money a candidate has in the bank, the more propaganda they can promulgate between now and the election.
That's about it I think. I'm confident that anyone reading this could look at the campaign reports and come to the same conclusions I would. Hopefully you have more time to do it than me!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Renaut To Possibly Withdraw, Would Support McFall**
**Super rumor alert. From this blog.
Hard to say how much weight this carries. Gil was a relative latecomer to the Democrat race, if I remember correctly. I could envision a scenario where he ran on behalf of his Ward 1 comrades to broker such a (city-manager-supporting) deal as this, and I could also envision a scenario where he ran because he knew he would have the Ward 1 votes, which just might be enough to win in a diluted primary race.
Edit: THIS says the rumor is fake.
Hard to say how much weight this carries. Gil was a relative latecomer to the Democrat race, if I remember correctly. I could envision a scenario where he ran on behalf of his Ward 1 comrades to broker such a (city-manager-supporting) deal as this, and I could also envision a scenario where he ran because he knew he would have the Ward 1 votes, which just might be enough to win in a diluted primary race.
Edit: THIS says the rumor is fake.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Mayoral Debate Last Night
Paul Foer hosted a debate for Mayoral candidates last night, and you know the rule--when more than 1 candidate is in the same place, we write about it! Paul, realizing that writing about his own debate would constitute "100% bullshit", asked me to write a bit about the event. In return, I promised to keep the BS level to between 20%-44%.
All of the candidates were repeatedly invited. Six of the nine attended: Cohen, Fox, McFall, Pierre, Renaut, and Shropshire. Don't know where Cordle was. Don't know where Sears-Deppa was. Word is that Wayne Taylor was hosting his own meet and greet somewhere.
The debate was much more moderated than the recent HACA forum. Paul asked questions, either of his choice or submitted by the audience, and would interrupt candidates if they answered something that was not the question, or if they exceeded their time, or if they were "grandstanding". (Josh Cohen requested permission to grandstand, to which Paul replied "don't you always?"). The candidates were all able to practice avoiding a question when an audience member asked what they knew about "corporate memory" and "city employee hiring practices". Now, I switched from the business school to the behavioral & social sciences school halfway through college, but I have never heard of 'corporate memory'. The person who asked that question must have been some kind of consultant.
I thought the debate went well, with the first half focusing on general things, and the second half focusing on transportation. The candidates reaffirmed their positions on the city manager, and the budget woes. Regarding transportation, the general agreement was that the bus system, ADA compliance, sidewalk usability, and overall management of transportation was laughable. One could argue that Paul interjected a bit more of his own philosophy than was appropriate. One could more successfully argue that Paul has been building credibility on a wide variety of issues, and mentioned those issues to spur debate. One could most successfully argue that a bit of interjection made the debate entertaining, which is a requirement when listening to 6 people talk about the same thing for 2 hours.
Here's what I thought about the candidates' performances:
Josh Cohen:
Josh was characteristically somber and well informed on the issues. Perhaps in a reflection of his personality, he suggested that the reason the city and county haven't been able to get along is that the city has failed to approach the county in a position of humility.
Best Moment: Candidates were asked to distinguish themselves from the candidate sitting to their right, an apparent attempt to get them to attack each other. Josh was sitting at the end of the table, with nobody to his right, and Shropshire was sitting at the other end of the table. Josh got up and said "Sorry Sam, but you are not to my right". Get it? More liberal? Political humor!
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Development, Spending, Attitude.
Chris Fox:
Chris is looking more and more comfortable as he participates in more events. He hasn't had as much experience in political-type events, which actually benefits him at these events because he hasn't had experience lying to the public or failing to answer questions. He stuck to the platform he has been developing: let's save money wherever possible, let's bring professional city management, let's bring common sense to government: such as equipping buses with air conditioning.
Best Moment: When asked how he is different from the other candidates, he looked at the other candidates, smiled, and said "I'm the only one here who's guaranteed to be on the general election ballot". The audience laughed, as did the other candidates--certainly a nervous laughter that reminded them of their tough fight ahead.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Common Sense Decisions.
Trudy McFall:
In 11th grade speech class, we could win our debates either on content or on "speaker points". I think Trudy did really well on speaker points. She smiled a lot, was engaging, and communicated her vision reasonably well. She made it a point to emphasize 2 things: her attendance and involvement in even the most laborious city meetings, and her experience running both public and private organizations.
Best Moment: "I started my business like most small businesses start--sitting with my co-founder at a desk in a small room with my entire life on the line, determined to make it work".
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Experience Running Organizations.
Zina Pierre:
Zina does well at these events and this was no exception. She doesn't support the city manager, but made efforts to reassure voters that accountability would be maintained under her administration. She seems to keep locals in mind, making sure to oppose the idea of moving a city ladder truck nearer to Parole, saying that seniors in a nearby 6-story high-rise would be put in greater danger.
Best Moment: When talking about transportation, Zina went on a bit of a tangent. Paul interrupted her, reminding her that the question was about her experience with the bus system. 'Our bus system sucks' was her response, and then she sat down, realizing that no further elaboration was needed.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Reform, Revitalization, Reinvestment.
Gil Renaut:
Gil's style is what I envision my style would be were I to run for office. He answers the questions without a lot of flash or puff, and is able to convey vast knowledge of the issues and vast sense in approaching problems. He does well to position himself as a Democrat candidate somewhat unique from the other candidates, perhaps more conservative than his primary election opponents.
Best Moment: When talking about the city manager, Cohen said there would always be politics in local government, to which Gil responded 'I think we can take the politics out of potholes'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Bring People Together.
Sam Shropshire:
Sam was certainly the most grandiose of the candidates, offering passionate and typically idealistic justifications for his policies. In some instances he seemed to stick to his rehearsed views on general topics rather than address the specific questions, even when abruptly interrupted by Paul for doing just that.
Best Moment: An audience member asked about the Market House, saying 'how did this happen? It wasn't just the mayor...the council voted on it', to which Sam replied 'yes, there were 7 or 9 votes for Site Realty, but we were 7 or 9 unprofessionals and we didn't know what we were doing'.
All of the candidates were repeatedly invited. Six of the nine attended: Cohen, Fox, McFall, Pierre, Renaut, and Shropshire. Don't know where Cordle was. Don't know where Sears-Deppa was. Word is that Wayne Taylor was hosting his own meet and greet somewhere.
The debate was much more moderated than the recent HACA forum. Paul asked questions, either of his choice or submitted by the audience, and would interrupt candidates if they answered something that was not the question, or if they exceeded their time, or if they were "grandstanding". (Josh Cohen requested permission to grandstand, to which Paul replied "don't you always?"). The candidates were all able to practice avoiding a question when an audience member asked what they knew about "corporate memory" and "city employee hiring practices". Now, I switched from the business school to the behavioral & social sciences school halfway through college, but I have never heard of 'corporate memory'. The person who asked that question must have been some kind of consultant.
I thought the debate went well, with the first half focusing on general things, and the second half focusing on transportation. The candidates reaffirmed their positions on the city manager, and the budget woes. Regarding transportation, the general agreement was that the bus system, ADA compliance, sidewalk usability, and overall management of transportation was laughable. One could argue that Paul interjected a bit more of his own philosophy than was appropriate. One could more successfully argue that Paul has been building credibility on a wide variety of issues, and mentioned those issues to spur debate. One could most successfully argue that a bit of interjection made the debate entertaining, which is a requirement when listening to 6 people talk about the same thing for 2 hours.
Here's what I thought about the candidates' performances:
Josh Cohen:
Josh was characteristically somber and well informed on the issues. Perhaps in a reflection of his personality, he suggested that the reason the city and county haven't been able to get along is that the city has failed to approach the county in a position of humility.
Best Moment: Candidates were asked to distinguish themselves from the candidate sitting to their right, an apparent attempt to get them to attack each other. Josh was sitting at the end of the table, with nobody to his right, and Shropshire was sitting at the other end of the table. Josh got up and said "Sorry Sam, but you are not to my right". Get it? More liberal? Political humor!
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Development, Spending, Attitude.
Chris Fox:
Chris is looking more and more comfortable as he participates in more events. He hasn't had as much experience in political-type events, which actually benefits him at these events because he hasn't had experience lying to the public or failing to answer questions. He stuck to the platform he has been developing: let's save money wherever possible, let's bring professional city management, let's bring common sense to government: such as equipping buses with air conditioning.
Best Moment: When asked how he is different from the other candidates, he looked at the other candidates, smiled, and said "I'm the only one here who's guaranteed to be on the general election ballot". The audience laughed, as did the other candidates--certainly a nervous laughter that reminded them of their tough fight ahead.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Common Sense Decisions.
Trudy McFall:
In 11th grade speech class, we could win our debates either on content or on "speaker points". I think Trudy did really well on speaker points. She smiled a lot, was engaging, and communicated her vision reasonably well. She made it a point to emphasize 2 things: her attendance and involvement in even the most laborious city meetings, and her experience running both public and private organizations.
Best Moment: "I started my business like most small businesses start--sitting with my co-founder at a desk in a small room with my entire life on the line, determined to make it work".
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Experience Running Organizations.
Zina Pierre:
Zina does well at these events and this was no exception. She doesn't support the city manager, but made efforts to reassure voters that accountability would be maintained under her administration. She seems to keep locals in mind, making sure to oppose the idea of moving a city ladder truck nearer to Parole, saying that seniors in a nearby 6-story high-rise would be put in greater danger.
Best Moment: When talking about transportation, Zina went on a bit of a tangent. Paul interrupted her, reminding her that the question was about her experience with the bus system. 'Our bus system sucks' was her response, and then she sat down, realizing that no further elaboration was needed.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Reform, Revitalization, Reinvestment.
Gil Renaut:
Gil's style is what I envision my style would be were I to run for office. He answers the questions without a lot of flash or puff, and is able to convey vast knowledge of the issues and vast sense in approaching problems. He does well to position himself as a Democrat candidate somewhat unique from the other candidates, perhaps more conservative than his primary election opponents.
Best Moment: When talking about the city manager, Cohen said there would always be politics in local government, to which Gil responded 'I think we can take the politics out of potholes'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Bring People Together.
Sam Shropshire:
Sam was certainly the most grandiose of the candidates, offering passionate and typically idealistic justifications for his policies. In some instances he seemed to stick to his rehearsed views on general topics rather than address the specific questions, even when abruptly interrupted by Paul for doing just that.
Best Moment: An audience member asked about the Market House, saying 'how did this happen? It wasn't just the mayor...the council voted on it', to which Sam replied 'yes, there were 7 or 9 votes for Site Realty, but we were 7 or 9 unprofessionals and we didn't know what we were doing'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: No Tax Cap.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Imposter Attempts To Sabotage Bowling Campaign
Apparently, someone using a POP3 email server sent an email to the city clerk posing as Scott Bowling and purporting to withdraw from the race. The city clerk--who is one of the best city employees I have come across--immediately identified the false communication and notified the real Scott.
Scott's campaign sent out the following communique:
The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated:
Dear Friends, Neighbors, and Supporters:
Earlier today, a fictitious e-mail was sent to City Clerk, Regina Watkins-Eldridge and copied to various media outlets. I want to thank the City Clerk for contacting me immediately to confirm that this e-mail was a malicious hoax. Her prompt and professional attention has precluded the damage that this e-mail intended to create.
The e-mail was created and sent from a free e-mail server by an imposter posing as me (although spelling my name incorrectly twice.) It attempted to indicate my withdrawal from candidacy for Ward 3 Alderman. The e-mail was replete with punctuation, grammar, spelling, and factual errors. It is shameful that someone would endeavor to waste the Clerk's time with this nonsense, and my campaign will be working with the proper authorities to investigate the origin of this e-mail.
I want to assure the voters of Ward 3 that I remain fully engaged in my candidacy. I look forward to meaningful debates on fiscal responsibility and accountability, the proposed tax cap, comprehensive planning, traffic, safety, and the need for a Council-Manager form of government with my fellow candidates. I appreciate the bipartisan support my campaign is receiving from the voters of Ward 3, demonstrating the importance of the issues in this election.
Scott's campaign sent out the following communique:
The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated:
Dear Friends, Neighbors, and Supporters:
Earlier today, a fictitious e-mail was sent to City Clerk, Regina Watkins-Eldridge and copied to various media outlets. I want to thank the City Clerk for contacting me immediately to confirm that this e-mail was a malicious hoax. Her prompt and professional attention has precluded the damage that this e-mail intended to create.
The e-mail was created and sent from a free e-mail server by an imposter posing as me (although spelling my name incorrectly twice.) It attempted to indicate my withdrawal from candidacy for Ward 3 Alderman. The e-mail was replete with punctuation, grammar, spelling, and factual errors. It is shameful that someone would endeavor to waste the Clerk's time with this nonsense, and my campaign will be working with the proper authorities to investigate the origin of this e-mail.
I want to assure the voters of Ward 3 that I remain fully engaged in my candidacy. I look forward to meaningful debates on fiscal responsibility and accountability, the proposed tax cap, comprehensive planning, traffic, safety, and the need for a Council-Manager form of government with my fellow candidates. I appreciate the bipartisan support my campaign is receiving from the voters of Ward 3, demonstrating the importance of the issues in this election.
Baltimore Sun Profiles Chris Fox
See HERE for the original article or read below for the text. By Olivia Bobrowsky
July 19, 2009
Chris Fox landed his first job before he turned 7. He took up a paper route, mowed lawns, shoveled snow and then served hot dogs on a street corner in Washington from the age of 12 to 19.
In all those years, the 35-year-old Annapolis resident said he never wanted to get into politics.
That was before he left his stand, bounced around the hospitality industry and opened an Irish pub on Church Circle in 2002. Since then, repeatedly trekking up to city hall to fight business policies made him grow tired of the current administration.
He quit complaining in 2007 and started a petition to join the 2009 mayoral race. Five-hundred signatures later, the independent candidate is officially on the ballot.
"Our nation was founded by regular people who were mistreated by their leaders," Fox said. "We need to stand up and fight."
Although Fox's fight stems from his business grievances, his biggest issue concerns the proposed city manager form of government. He's encouraging Annapolitans to sign the petition to push forth the referendum, and said if he's elected, he'll hire a professional city manager right away.
But he clarified that it's not enough to change the title of city administrator and call it a day. If he's elected, he said he'll make sure the city manager focuses on day-to-day operations, including the budget - giving aldermen more accountability.
A city manager would have had the oversight to sidestep the Market House issue, he said. But it's too late for what-ifs, so Fox has developed a comprehensive, long-term plan for the property. He wants to divide Market House into two parts, a cold side and a hot side. A wall would separate a fresh market and deli from vendors who serve hot food.
"When you have pizza next to flowers and fudge, the airspace is never going to work," he said. A malfunctioning heating-and-cooling system led to a legal battle over the property in 2006. "I've had structural engineers look at my plan and they say it's very feasible and cost effective."
Fox urges the city to avoid a long-term deal regarding Market House until the next administration takes over. Then, he wants the space filled with locally owned and employed shops.
Annapolis' businesses come into play again as part of Fox's proposed solution to the city's public housing problem. He wants to get physically and mentally capable residents out of public housing and into local jobs through a tax credit program.
"It's not feasible for them to drive in a car to Baltimore or D.C. to go to work," he said. "Local businesses have to be part of the solution."
Eric Brown, the executive director of Annapolis' Housing Authority, said Fox's solution is "worthwhile" to explore, although it all banks on whether the city can afford it.
"The Housing Authority is looking to continue a partnership with the city with respect to enhancing affordable housing opportunities in the area," said Brown, who doesn't endorse any candidate.
In order to fund such a program, which Fox proposes would reward businesses with a one-time tax credit of $2,000 per public-housing resident hired, Fox emphasized the need to cut expenditures. For example, he said, the city's decision to spend $75,000 predicting where the water level will be in (ninety-)five years was excessive.
Still, he doesn't support the proposed cap on property taxes. He'd like to lower the taxes, if possible, but said imposing a limit is irresponsible.
"You can't handcuff local government into making necessary expenditures," he said. "What if they [government officials] have to raise taxes by a penny and they can't do it?"
All of these issues, he said, revolve around common sense, a message that's reflected in his campaign theme. If he were in office at the time, he never would have let Market House sign a 20-year lease with Site Realty, he said. And if he's ever in office, he'll make sure no business has to suffer all the little headaches he's had as owner of the Sly Fox Pub.
Joe Mack, an Annapolis real estate appraiser who has known Fox for about seven years, said Fox will serve the city well even though he's never been involved with politics.
"His lack of experience is one of his greatest attributes because he doesn't have any serious political affiliation," Mack said. "There's no room for partisan politics in a small city government."
Experienced people are the ones responsible for most of Annapolis' misfortunes, Fox said.
"We need someone who loves this town and has a good vision regardless of experience," he said. "I don't think anyone is more qualified."
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Fox Officially Files Candidacy
Yesterday, Chris Fox filed a certificate of candidacy, and officially became the first candidate to qaulify for the general election. Candidates who run as a Republican or Democrat have to participate in the primary election process, and a continuously updated list of those candidates can be seen HERE. As an independent, Fox had to obtain 500 signatures from registered city voters, with a minimum of 5o from each ward. The signature drive took the Fox campaign to hundreds of doors in each of the wards, and its recent completion signifies a spot on the general election ballot.
I am providing you with the following press release for further enjoyment:
Chris Fox
www.FoxForMayor.com
Press Statement Contact: Devin Heritage
FOR IMMEDIATE RELASE 301-717-0167
JULY 2, 2009 devin@foxformayor.com
Independent Candidate Fox Officially Files Candidacy
Annapolis, MD – Chris Fox officially filed for candidacy to run for the elected position of Mayor of Annapolis, Maryland today. Fox is running as an independent candidate, which requires him to secure 500 signatures from registered voters in the City of Annapolis in order for his name to appear on the ballot this Fall.
On June 30, 2009, the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County approved Fox’s petition to run for Mayor of Annapolis. Fox is a longtime downtown resident and business owner that believes the partisan bickering at City Hall has only hurt residents of Annapolis.
“Republicans and Democrats vote along party lines; it is my fear that the council all too often considers other motives when voting on legislation.” Fox stated, “When voting the only consideration should be ‘What is best for Annapolis?’”
Fox plans to run a grass roots campaign focusing on a number of key issues but not limited to:
· A need for a City Manager form of government
· A reduction in property taxes through government transparency
· Creation of a thriving market place
· Providing a clear path through job placement for residents of public housing.
Bio for Chris Fox:
Chris was born in Prince George's County, the 13th of 16 children. He now resides in downtown Annapolis, where he has lived for the better part of the last 14 years.
After working in the restaurant industry around the country for several years, Chris opened Sly Fox Pub with his brother Andrew Fox in 2002. The brothers revitalized a historic property on Franklin St. and Church Circle, setting out to create a casual atmosphere to serve locals and offer a refreshing alternative to the downtown restaurant scene. It was this business venture that sparked Chris's interest in politics. Frustrated with the city's policies towards local businesses, Chris began to follow the political process. Fox soon came to the conclusion that being part of the decision process ultimately results in better solutions. It is this commitment that drives his mayoral campaign.
Chris is not what you would expect from a politician--far from it. Fox is what you would expect your neighbor to be: concerned about the community, unafraid to tell it like it is, and willing to fight for his beliefs. Fox understands that some may characterize his current political experience as a disadvantage, however, Fox feels the city of Annapolis can only benefit from a Mayor unbiased by party lines and focused on the needs of Annapolitans. Annapolis voters can bring about the day when an elected official is finally able to bring common sense to government.
Candidates Given 2 Days To Find Campaign Chairmen
So far, I have memorized roughly 3% of the city code, and frequently quote it during parties and stand-up comedy routines. Since I am helping with a mayoral campaign, I made it a priority to read the city code about campaigns.
Most people know that campaigns need committees, and those committees need treasurers. However, there is another requirement in the city code regarding campaign staffing, and it is NOT a campaign manager. The code makes no reference to a campaign manager, and you don't have to have one. The code does make mention of a campaign chairman, who has to live in the city and meet certain other requirements.
Rumor has it that the city attorney was on the phone yesterday, informing candidates that their candidacies were invalid because they didn't have chairmen. Of all the candidates that filed for office, only 3 had chairmen listed on their applications. Why these applications were accepted in the first place remains a mystery. The ultimatum was: find a chairman by Friday, or withdraw the candidacy.
This marks a change in election code enforcement. The election code review committee, as well as chairs of the election board, lament that they have no teeth to enforce the code. The only means of enforcement was thought to be referral to the state's attorney for possible prosecution. You might remember that Alderman Sam violated election code by (1) not filing a campaign finance report because his apartment flooded and (2) used city hall chambers for a clear campaign event--only to have nothing happen.
I guess something happened this time. (I don't know if Shropshire's campaign was one of the offenders.)
Most people know that campaigns need committees, and those committees need treasurers. However, there is another requirement in the city code regarding campaign staffing, and it is NOT a campaign manager. The code makes no reference to a campaign manager, and you don't have to have one. The code does make mention of a campaign chairman, who has to live in the city and meet certain other requirements.
Rumor has it that the city attorney was on the phone yesterday, informing candidates that their candidacies were invalid because they didn't have chairmen. Of all the candidates that filed for office, only 3 had chairmen listed on their applications. Why these applications were accepted in the first place remains a mystery. The ultimatum was: find a chairman by Friday, or withdraw the candidacy.
This marks a change in election code enforcement. The election code review committee, as well as chairs of the election board, lament that they have no teeth to enforce the code. The only means of enforcement was thought to be referral to the state's attorney for possible prosecution. You might remember that Alderman Sam violated election code by (1) not filing a campaign finance report because his apartment flooded and (2) used city hall chambers for a clear campaign event--only to have nothing happen.
I guess something happened this time. (I don't know if Shropshire's campaign was one of the offenders.)
Friday, June 5, 2009
Polling Places Set For 2009....So What About Next Time?
From sources close to the situation, I understand that there have been some problems with the location of city polling places. Despite the strong educational (lobbying) ties enjoyed by a couple members of the council, most polling places located at public schools remain off limits.
I am going to publish a list of the new polling places now--not because I think you don't know, but because I foresee a need to reference this list, and I would much rather search for it on my own website as opposed to any other.
In parentheses are the previous locations.
Ward 1:
Maryland Hall (Bates Middle)
Parks and Rec Building on St. Mary's St. (Annapolis Elementary)
Ward 2:
Trinity United Methodist Church (Germantown Elementary)
Taylor Ave. Fire House (West Annapolis Elementary)
Ward 3:
Who Cares!
Just Kidding.
City Department of Transportation (Parole Elementary)
West St. Library (Same)
Ward 4:
Heritage Baptist Church (Same)
American Legion Building (Same)
Ward 5:
Salvation Army (Annapolis Middle)
Salvation Army (both precincts will vote here instead of just 1)
Ward 6:
Mt. Moriah AME Church (Tyler Heights Elementary)
Eastport Community Center (Same)
Ward 7:
Georgetown East Elementary (Same, apparently for both precincts, because no suitable location could be substituted and the law required the school's use)
Ward 8:
Eastport Fire Station (Same)
Eastport Fire Station (Eastport Elementary)
The mayor has been quoted as saying that the changes could cost the city $200,000. Special elections, which happen when sitting Aldermen leave their posts to run for other offices, cost the city something like $50,000 each I think. You may be sensing a need to explain why the city has elections in odd years.
I asked at least 1 person if they knew when or why the city started breaking with the election cycles of other jurisdictions, and that person didn't know. Since asking more than 1 person would make this blogging thing a profession rather than a hobby, I quickly ended my quest for this answer, and watched a rerun of Hey Dude.
Here are the reasons why it might be beneficial to keep the city elections on the same cycle:
-It's hard to change the process and nobody can agree on the way to do it.
-Having the city election as the only one going on at a particular time means people will pay more attention to it and it won't get lost in other campaigns.
-Voters are theoretically more educated because they are focusing only on one election.
And here are the reasons why the city might want to change the elections to align with the elections the county, state, and/or national government:
-It saves money because the county will already have to set up the polling places.
-We wouldn't have a problem finding polling places......you guessed it, because they will already be in use.
-Elected officials looking to further their political career won't have to resign if they are elected (since the election won't be in the middle of their aldermanic term).
-Voter turnout would be higher and city officials will be elected by a higher percentage of the voters.
Hopefully I haven't missed any major reasons.
For me, the city should share an election cycle. Political apathy is no doubt a problem, but the reduction in that problem is outweighed by the new problems created by an off-year election. And if any Aldermen are reading this, you can't try and extend the term you are already serving.
I am going to publish a list of the new polling places now--not because I think you don't know, but because I foresee a need to reference this list, and I would much rather search for it on my own website as opposed to any other.
In parentheses are the previous locations.
Ward 1:
Maryland Hall (Bates Middle)
Parks and Rec Building on St. Mary's St. (Annapolis Elementary)
Ward 2:
Trinity United Methodist Church (Germantown Elementary)
Taylor Ave. Fire House (West Annapolis Elementary)
Ward 3:
Who Cares!
Just Kidding.
City Department of Transportation (Parole Elementary)
West St. Library (Same)
Ward 4:
Heritage Baptist Church (Same)
American Legion Building (Same)
Ward 5:
Salvation Army (Annapolis Middle)
Salvation Army (both precincts will vote here instead of just 1)
Ward 6:
Mt. Moriah AME Church (Tyler Heights Elementary)
Eastport Community Center (Same)
Ward 7:
Georgetown East Elementary (Same, apparently for both precincts, because no suitable location could be substituted and the law required the school's use)
Ward 8:
Eastport Fire Station (Same)
Eastport Fire Station (Eastport Elementary)
The mayor has been quoted as saying that the changes could cost the city $200,000. Special elections, which happen when sitting Aldermen leave their posts to run for other offices, cost the city something like $50,000 each I think. You may be sensing a need to explain why the city has elections in odd years.
I asked at least 1 person if they knew when or why the city started breaking with the election cycles of other jurisdictions, and that person didn't know. Since asking more than 1 person would make this blogging thing a profession rather than a hobby, I quickly ended my quest for this answer, and watched a rerun of Hey Dude.
Here are the reasons why it might be beneficial to keep the city elections on the same cycle:
-It's hard to change the process and nobody can agree on the way to do it.
-Having the city election as the only one going on at a particular time means people will pay more attention to it and it won't get lost in other campaigns.
-Voters are theoretically more educated because they are focusing only on one election.
And here are the reasons why the city might want to change the elections to align with the elections the county, state, and/or national government:
-It saves money because the county will already have to set up the polling places.
-We wouldn't have a problem finding polling places......you guessed it, because they will already be in use.
-Elected officials looking to further their political career won't have to resign if they are elected (since the election won't be in the middle of their aldermanic term).
-Voter turnout would be higher and city officials will be elected by a higher percentage of the voters.
Hopefully I haven't missed any major reasons.
For me, the city should share an election cycle. Political apathy is no doubt a problem, but the reduction in that problem is outweighed by the new problems created by an off-year election. And if any Aldermen are reading this, you can't try and extend the term you are already serving.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Cordle To Make "Major Address"
Wasting no time after the defeat of the city manager proposal, Ward 5 Alderman Dave Cordle is set to make a big announcement at the Wednesday Republican Breakfast Club, which meets at the Eastport Yacht Club at exactly 7:30 every Wednesday morning.
The 'major address' will most certainly be Cordle's formal announcement of his candidacy for Mayor.
It has been theorized that Alderman Cordle would only run for Mayor if he had the prospect of the power that the office currently holds. With that power intact and a $50,000 mayoral pay raise on the table, it seems that Alderman Cordle is rushing to join the party, at least officially.
This is an interesting political move by the Alderman from the city's most glamorous ward. For about the past year, Alderman Cordle has been careful to support most of Ward 1's causes, correctly speculating that a successful Republican candidacy would need their support. With a
'no' vote on City Manager, Cordle has squarely abandoned this strategy, and it will be interesting to see the consequences that he might face.
If not the only Republican candidate, Corlde is still the most viable candidate for the primary election for his party.
The 'major address' will most certainly be Cordle's formal announcement of his candidacy for Mayor.
It has been theorized that Alderman Cordle would only run for Mayor if he had the prospect of the power that the office currently holds. With that power intact and a $50,000 mayoral pay raise on the table, it seems that Alderman Cordle is rushing to join the party, at least officially.
This is an interesting political move by the Alderman from the city's most glamorous ward. For about the past year, Alderman Cordle has been careful to support most of Ward 1's causes, correctly speculating that a successful Republican candidacy would need their support. With a
'no' vote on City Manager, Cordle has squarely abandoned this strategy, and it will be interesting to see the consequences that he might face.
If not the only Republican candidate, Corlde is still the most viable candidate for the primary election for his party.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Israel Will Not Run For Mayor
Contrary to mounting suspicion, and the expectations of some Ward 1 higher-up's, Dick Israel will not run for Mayor. I recently renewed my Capital subscription, which allows me to publish the following:
In deference to Alderman Israel's potential bid for mayor, the Ward 1 Residents Assn. has heretofore declined to invite potential mayoral candidates to speak, a practice that will likely end given this news.
I can say with some (although not total) confidence that this comes as a surprise. I have heard election chatter involving strategy to compete with the good Alderman. I would surmise that the threat of a heated primary campaign with opponents assailing his health was a formidable factor, in addition to the actual hardships of such a disease.
I disagree with Alderman Israel's policy towards bars, amongst other things, but I find him to be the most prepared and knowledgeable Alderman on the council. Every time he sponsors a bill, most of the other Alderman immediately ask to be named as co-sponsors, presumably because they can be assured that the bill is well researched and will probably be helpful to the city.
I wish him luck in his next campaign.
Alderman Richard Israel, D-Ward 1, has revealed that he will not run for
mayor in this fall's municipal elections.
Rather, Mr. Israel, 66, said he will seek another term as alderman.
Mr. Israel, who has been fighting Parkinson's disease, said his health
would prevent him from serving as a full-time mayor.
He touted that he has never missed a council meeting, and said he still
wants to focus on strengthening the city.
In deference to Alderman Israel's potential bid for mayor, the Ward 1 Residents Assn. has heretofore declined to invite potential mayoral candidates to speak, a practice that will likely end given this news.
I can say with some (although not total) confidence that this comes as a surprise. I have heard election chatter involving strategy to compete with the good Alderman. I would surmise that the threat of a heated primary campaign with opponents assailing his health was a formidable factor, in addition to the actual hardships of such a disease.
I disagree with Alderman Israel's policy towards bars, amongst other things, but I find him to be the most prepared and knowledgeable Alderman on the council. Every time he sponsors a bill, most of the other Alderman immediately ask to be named as co-sponsors, presumably because they can be assured that the bill is well researched and will probably be helpful to the city.
I wish him luck in his next campaign.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Cohen and Moyer To Swap Support**
**Rumor Alert.
It is common to describe a rumor as 'hearing something second hand'. This info is probably like fourth hand, but I've heard that County Councilman Josh Cohen and Mayor Moyer are collaborating to support each other in election cycles in the next year.
Cohen, a relatively recent (presumed) entrant into the mayoral race, would get the backing of the Moyer machine for the upcoming mayoral election. The return favor is a bit more curious. My understanding is that Cohen wouldn't have to resign from the county council until January (assuming a victory for him), which would mean that the county Democrat central committee could appoint his replacement. Cohen could then lobby for Moyer's appointment to that seat.
Chuck Weikel used to be the chair of the AADCC, but now the position is held by a person named Kory Blake. That's unfortunate, because Weikel was the Mayor's former heir apparent, but seems to have since fallen out of favor. It would have been awesome to see what happened if he had the power to appoint her to her next job.
Anyway, I know that Councilman Cohen reads this site occasionally, and he is certainly invited to respond. I don't know that the Mayor has ever read this blog, but I do know from one of her old employees that she knows of city political blogs, and she is invited to respond as well. In fact, everybody's invited. We'll have a party.
It is common to describe a rumor as 'hearing something second hand'. This info is probably like fourth hand, but I've heard that County Councilman Josh Cohen and Mayor Moyer are collaborating to support each other in election cycles in the next year.
Cohen, a relatively recent (presumed) entrant into the mayoral race, would get the backing of the Moyer machine for the upcoming mayoral election. The return favor is a bit more curious. My understanding is that Cohen wouldn't have to resign from the county council until January (assuming a victory for him), which would mean that the county Democrat central committee could appoint his replacement. Cohen could then lobby for Moyer's appointment to that seat.
Chuck Weikel used to be the chair of the AADCC, but now the position is held by a person named Kory Blake. That's unfortunate, because Weikel was the Mayor's former heir apparent, but seems to have since fallen out of favor. It would have been awesome to see what happened if he had the power to appoint her to her next job.
Anyway, I know that Councilman Cohen reads this site occasionally, and he is certainly invited to respond. I don't know that the Mayor has ever read this blog, but I do know from one of her old employees that she knows of city political blogs, and she is invited to respond as well. In fact, everybody's invited. We'll have a party.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Fox For Mayor
So, as you may know I am the campaign manager for Chris Fox, who is running for Mayor this cycle. I am not going to use this blog to campaign because these are my opinions and not Chris' opinions.
That being said, I am going to publicize his web site right now because (1) I want him to win and (2) I designed the website from scratch, and I am proud that it functions. I previously knew nothing about web design, and now I know 1% of everything there is to know about the web design, which makes me a web design expert.
The site is foxformayor.com, and you can certainly make donations*. But remember, my thoughts are on this site, and Chris' thoughts are on his site.
(*subtle hint)
That being said, I am going to publicize his web site right now because (1) I want him to win and (2) I designed the website from scratch, and I am proud that it functions. I previously knew nothing about web design, and now I know 1% of everything there is to know about the web design, which makes me a web design expert.
The site is foxformayor.com, and you can certainly make donations*. But remember, my thoughts are on this site, and Chris' thoughts are on his site.
(*subtle hint)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
McFall Campaign Response To Weikel
This is from Dennis Conti, the campaign manager:
Although Trudy McFall's campaign will not get into endless debates with
Chuck Weikel, we will answer his most recent remarks.
Regarding Trudy’s personal contributions, she felt strongly as a matter
of principal that if she was asking her long time friends and professional
colleagues to help her, she should demonstrate her own commitment.
After reimbursements, therefore, she has contributed $2,538 to her campaign,
indeed a few dollars more than her largest contributor. Other big contributors
mentioned in Chuck’s memo do include Trudy’s Mom, brother and best friend and
business partner, Nancy Rase, which makes Trudy a very lucky person since they
are all persons of modest means.
Of the 113 donations Trudy received, about 1/3 are from the Annapolis
area – they are long-time friends, volunteers, and business colleagues. With
respect to the Annapolis area, this initial fundraising phase did not intend to
reach beyond these people. When Trudy reaches out beyond her
local long-time friends in future fundraising, we expect she will have a
strong Annapolis grassroots’ response. As to the other donors who are out of
town, they do represent Trudy’s longtime friends and colleagues from her field,
affordable housing. Remember that Trudy has spent 40 years at the Federal,
state, and local level as an affordable housing expert. This has given her many
close colleagues around the country. There contributions are a demonstration of
their respect and affection for Trudy.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Chuck Weikel Positions To Challenge Trudy McFall
Earlier today, Trudy McFall's campaign manager sent out a press release announcing the "July surprise" that we were promised, in the form of a big fundraising head start for Trudy. The point of such an exercise is to impress potential future donors--most politically involved people try to support the winner (regardless of ideals or policies), and interpret current cash as a sign of future success. I can't reproduce the press release here because Blogger doesn't support the format that it's in, but the email preface says enough:
I have placed the odds of Chuck's candidacy at 1-55 (nearly a guarantee for you non-gamblers), and I stick to that. He has been all over the place, and for better or for worse, has been cultivating the persona of the heir apparent to the Mayor. He is a known political operative with ambitions, and the only reason why he would care so much about Trudy McFall is because she poses a big threat to him in the primary--he could have made the same criticism about nearly everyone else with money to spend. Rest assured that at this time next year, they will both have a lot of money, and will be spending it to combat each other.
Thought you all would be interested in the latest City campaign filings andChuck Weikel, another purported mayoral candidate, quickly responded in an email blast:
results. Attached is a press release announcing the substantial lead in fund
raising that Trudy McFall demonstrated in the recent July 1 City-wide campaign
filings. Also attached is a spreadsheet showing all of the other candidate
filings.
As indicated in the release, Trudy was not only the leading
overall fundraiser (raising over $56,000) since her committee was formed in
August, but almost more significantly, had a substantial lead in net funds,
after expenses and obligations. This by the way is the last filing until July of
next year.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Dennis Conti
Committee Chairman, Friends of Trudy McFall
All:Weikel is an interesting case. He claims that he is not running for mayor, an assertion that would not be contradicted by the sub-$1000 balance in his city campaign account. Weikel, however, also has a county committee which took in some $14,000 in contributions last year. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Weikel's city committee was opened in November--why would he need to open a city committee if he didn't plan on running for office? Is he planning to transfer the balance of the county account into the city account? Is that even legal? It is already done?!
What isn't in this email:
1 - Trudy's number one
contributer is... Trudy. And her business
partner is a top contributer also:
Trudy McFall $1,500
Trudy McFall $1,200
Trudy McFall $2,000
Nancy Rase (business partner) $1,250
Nancy Rase (business partner) $500
2 - Why all the contributions that, on the surface, have no relation
to Annapolis? Take a look at the list of contributions $1,000 and over:
Annapolis Towne Center, Greenbelt MD $2,500
Rosemary Miller, Bloomington IN $2,500
Michael Miller, Cincinnati OH $2,500
James Humphrey, Annapolis, MD $2,500
Dworbell, Ind, Washington DC $2,500
Eugene Ford, Silver Spring, MD $2,500
John Manning, Boston, MA $1,000
Hamel Builders, Elkridge, MD $2,000
H&G Properities, Elkridge, MD $2,000
David Reznik, Potomac, MD $2,500
Gallagher, Evans & Jones LLP, Balto MD $1,000
Hankins Builders, Marriotsville, MD $1,500
Habitat America, LLC Annapolis, MD $1,000 (affiliated business?)
Mark Joseph, Baltimore, MD $2,500
M-B of Annapolis $1,000
Unit Construction LLC $1,500
Osprey Property LLC $1,000
Only one individual who is a
resident of Annapolis. Boston &
Baltimore? Annapolis Towne Center?
You can see it all on line on the city's website. Reports are all
posted there now.
Chuck
I have placed the odds of Chuck's candidacy at 1-55 (nearly a guarantee for you non-gamblers), and I stick to that. He has been all over the place, and for better or for worse, has been cultivating the persona of the heir apparent to the Mayor. He is a known political operative with ambitions, and the only reason why he would care so much about Trudy McFall is because she poses a big threat to him in the primary--he could have made the same criticism about nearly everyone else with money to spend. Rest assured that at this time next year, they will both have a lot of money, and will be spending it to combat each other.
Zina Pierre
So, someone asked in my "Who will run for mayor" post if Zina Pierre was going to run, and at the time I didn't know who she was. I still don't, but apparently I should. 
So who is she? The short answer is an Annapolis native who has been active in politics, including at the federal level, for quite some time. She seems to be a Democrat super-lobbyist and career political operative. For the long answer, you can look HERE, to the extent that it's true.
Let's talk about some of the more interesting politics. A look at her report shows a lot of large donations, amounts large enough to disqualify her from eligibility in an aldermanic race, which suggests a Democrat candidacy for mayor.
There is a residency concern. In previous campaign reports, her address has been identified as 1915 WOODSHADE CT, Mitchellville MD. She now shows an address within the city (at 1901 West); however, the charter stipulates that a mayor must show voter registration in the city for 2 years prior to the date of the general election. There are other discrepancies. Notably, Ms. Pierre's campaign committee owes her $5000 for consulting fees. It is ok to pay yourself back a loan, but it's not ok to be a paid employee of your own campaign.
Today's rumor mill involves the office sought. The amount of money would say Mayor, but hold the phone. Zina Pierre lives in Ward 3, home of the soon-to-retire* Alderman Hoyle. Rumor has it that the Democrats are trying to convince Zina to run for Alderman to hold that seat. The experience is there, and the money probably will be there, plus the residency requirement for an alderman is more lenient.
(*if you believe the hype)
At least now we know something.
Zina has been raising money, and has been getting involved--at least in Democrat circles. Her campaign finance report shows her as having raised over $26,000 since September--a substantial amount for this point in time--and the Democrat Central Committee report shows her as buying tickets to a couple of events. However, her disbursements and obligations are amazingly high, and she actually owes like $5000 more than she actually has.
So who is she? The short answer is an Annapolis native who has been active in politics, including at the federal level, for quite some time. She seems to be a Democrat super-lobbyist and career political operative. For the long answer, you can look HERE, to the extent that it's true.
Let's talk about some of the more interesting politics. A look at her report shows a lot of large donations, amounts large enough to disqualify her from eligibility in an aldermanic race, which suggests a Democrat candidacy for mayor.
There is a residency concern. In previous campaign reports, her address has been identified as 1915 WOODSHADE CT, Mitchellville MD. She now shows an address within the city (at 1901 West); however, the charter stipulates that a mayor must show voter registration in the city for 2 years prior to the date of the general election. There are other discrepancies. Notably, Ms. Pierre's campaign committee owes her $5000 for consulting fees. It is ok to pay yourself back a loan, but it's not ok to be a paid employee of your own campaign.
(EDIT: A commenter pointed out that the $5000 probably IS to pay herself back for a loan, which is within the law.)
Today's rumor mill involves the office sought. The amount of money would say Mayor, but hold the phone. Zina Pierre lives in Ward 3, home of the soon-to-retire* Alderman Hoyle. Rumor has it that the Democrats are trying to convince Zina to run for Alderman to hold that seat. The experience is there, and the money probably will be there, plus the residency requirement for an alderman is more lenient.
(*if you believe the hype)
At least now we know something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)