Let's Not Lose Sight of the Facts

you're right... (3.00 / 3)

...it would be irresponsible to make those kinds of promises. Too bad Randi Shade didn't make those promises either and has repeated that over and over again:

-Statesman from today
-News 8 yesterday

No offense, but I'm not sure how that doesn't make your campaign attacks lies? Unless trying to sway voters through unidentified, fake phone-calls and relentless mailings about made-up non-truths isn't the definition of deceptive.

---

by: austinite1 @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 16:12:22 PM CDT

who lost sight of the facts? (3.00 / 1)

From the Austinist:

This afternoon, the three public safety unions involved- Austin Police Association, the Austin Firefighters Association, and the Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services Employees Association-teamed up to send a joint press release lambasting the allegations and demanding an apology from Council Member Kim:

   "All three Public Safety Associations want to make it perfectly clear to the voters and citizens of Austin that at no time during any discussion with Randi Shade has Ms. Shade made any promises to any of the three public safety associations to increase either funding or any positions for Police, Fire, or EMS in Austin. Any claim to the contrary is nothing short of an outright lie. Council Member Jennifer Kim owes the citizens of Austin, all three Public Safety Associations, and candidate Randi Shade an apology for this dishonest campaign claim and tactic."

---

by: austinite1 @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:09:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok... (0.00 / 0)

These "facts" were reported by the Statesman in January:

It was highly disappointing that Cid Galindo and Randi Shade, two of the candidates endorsed this week, promised - in writing - to increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits.

http://www.austinpolice.com/lo...

Was there a retraction by the Statesman?  How can you accuse the Kim campaign of lying if they're using a published source?

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also on Jan. 28 (0.00 / 0)

Shade and Galindo, an urban planner who serves on the city Planning Commission, committed in written statements to increase public safety staffing.

http://www.austinpolice.com/lo...

Interestingly, earlier in the article it says:

The candidates said they made no promises to the unions about contract demands. And union leaders didn't discuss the contracts with the candidates during interviews, said representatives from the political action committees of the Austin Police Association, the Austin Firefighters Association and the Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services Employees Association.

So is that the spin here?  We didn't promise anything on the current contract, but we're committing to increasing staffing?

Or is it that the Statesman was wrong, but we didn't decide to correct them until now?

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:12:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quality of News Sources (3.00 / 1)

So the Statesman editorial page and signed new stories maybe less factual than anonymous political blogs. Who can a politician safely quote in their TV commercials and political mailings? I am shocked and appalled. Can an ethics compliant be filed on the Statesman?  

---

by: ssuits @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 18:38:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since when is it such a big deal that who's paying for a call isn't disclosed in the call? (0.00 / 0)

I'm confused.  During the presidential primary and during other elections, I've gotten a lot of automated calls and I can't remember any of them saying who was paying for the call.  I just sort of assumed if the call was favoring Hillary Clinton that her campaign probably had something to do with it and if for Barack Obama, vice versa.  If I get a negative call about a candidate, I assume the opponent is behind it. What's so darn earth shattering about Jennifer Kim running a negative automated call about her opponent? I know she said it was from "neighbor Lisa" but is that really a big deal? I get calls all the time that I'm sure contain a fake name. I don't care who wins this race. I just think this whole phone deal is kind of silly.

---

by: politicsforjim @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 16:44:43 PM CDT

It's a big deal, because it's potentially criminal (5.00 / 1)

Here is the pertinent law which J. Crosby posted in an earlier thread.

PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY ACT
SUBCHAPTER F. AUTOMATIC DIAL ANNOUNCING DEVICES

Sec. 55.127. CONTENTS OF RECORDED MESSAGE.
(a) A person may not use an automated dial announcing device to make a telephone call in which the device plays a recorded message when the connection is completed unless the recorded message states during the first 30 seconds of the call:
(1) the nature of the call;
(2) the identity of the person, company, or organization making the call; and
(3) the telephone number from which the call is made.

Sec. 55.138. CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person owns or operates an automated dial announcing device that the person knows is operating in violation of this subchapter.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(V.A.C.S. Art. 1446c-0, Sec. 3.657(b).)

As has been corroborated, Lisa is an anonymous person who apparently lives in everyone's neighborhood.  I'm also not confident the call reveals the number from which it was was made, but I haven't seen the script.  

In case you're wondering, Class A misdemeanors are one step below a felony and carry a punishment of up to 1 year in jail and/or up to a $2,000 fine.  Examples of other Class A misdemeanors include assault with injury, burglary of a vehicle and resisting arrest, so this isn't something that should be taken lightly.    

---

by: mrexwilt @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:01:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now who's paying, but who's making the call (3.00 / 3)

The law doesn't require Bill Clinton to say that he's calling on Hillary's nickel, but it does require him to say that he's Bill Clinton.  This is especially true of attack calls -- you MUST identify who is making the attack! Saying "I'm Lisa Smith and I don't like Shade" might be barely legal. Saying "I'm your (nonexistent) neighbor Lisa" isn't.

The political robocalls I've received have almost always followed a simpel pattern.  Somebody I've heard of asks me to support somebody (or something) else. I don't mind getting requests from Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy. But slimy illegal tactics like anonymous calls and fake names should be slammed hard, both by the Ethics Commission and by the voters.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:08:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It still looks bad.... (3.00 / 6)

Sorry - but the annonymous robo-call was just not very smart (to put it mildly)...It calls your values and judgement into question. That's probably the last thing you need the voters dwelling on going down to the wire.

---

by: mrcarter1 @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 16:44:45 PM CDT

"I do not believe we were deceptive in any way" (3.00 / 7)

If hiding an attack behind a non-existent "neighbor Lisa" isn't being deceptive, then what is?  Instead of making lame semantic excuses, you should apologize to those of us who once believed in you and expected better.

---

by: LSadun @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 16:54:15 PM CDT

Let's Not Lose Sight of Randi Shade on the Ballot (3.00 / 2)

Anonymous robocall crap is unacceptable. It is just another brick in the wall of erratic, irresponsible, and borderline unethical governance that Kim has displayed so far (my personal favorite being Northcross and the city manager stunt).

---

by: m1ek @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 17:03:21 PM CDT

Sad, Sadder, Saddest (3.00 / 2)

The Kim campaign knows the AAS statement was in error and had seen the statement from the unions.  Big surprise [not], a reporter is fallible.  What is a big surprise is that Jennifer has lost all perspective of right v wrong, pretending not to know that robo-calls identified as from "your neighbor Lisa" and delivering misleading information are slimy/dirty politics beneath us all.  I've received several emails from folks embarrassed to be on her supporter list.  Thank gosh they hadn't early voted.  And, hopefully we all learn from our mistakes.  This too shall pass.  I'm hopeful that after the election and a bit of time off, Jennifer will reemerge as an important leader.  We need her too.

---

by: EugeneS @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 19:56:15 PM CDT

where's your proof? (0.00 / 0)

have we heard from the Statesman publishing a retraction?  How do you know the AAS statement was in error?  You seem to be simply taking one side's word over the other based on your political preference.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:32:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Attacking is one thing, but put your name on it. (3.00 / 1)

Anonymous attacks are not acceptable.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 22:19:38 PM CDT

Bravo, Cnclwmn Kim! (3.00 / 2)

It only took you a week to admit that you knowingly broke the law...but you had to because your opponent blah, blah, blah.

Do you plan to send a letter to the PUC admiting the violation of the law and offering to pay the penalties?

I'm curious as to what your role in the $20m deficit has been. To my knowledge Randi Shade hasn't been in office...you have.

Your statement provides more ammo to those that say you should go.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:46:34 AM CDT

Why don't we let... (0.00 / 0)

the PUC make that determination? Here again, if Shade is beaten because of this call, then she never had a chance to  begin with.

As for the deficit, Kim's been one of the ones trying to hold the line on expenses. They all have. The point is Shade and Galindo seem hellbent, in writing, on throwing gas into the fire. That's pretty dumb.

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the determination was made (0.00 / 0)

she admitted to knowingly breaking the law.  no further determination is needed.

the caller not only didn't identify the origin of the call...they lied about who they were.

what is pretty dumb is flicking your nose at state law.

the true test on this stuff, trey, is to imagine that your opponent had done it and then gauge your reaction. that is how serious it is.

all she had to do was come out and say it was an oversight...her vendor f'ed it up...the draft she saw had the disclaimer...etc.

instead she blamed her opponent's position on issues??

kim is very seriously on the ropes.  the horrible tv ad, the report on expenses, the high-falutin 'tude, the hard-charging shade campaign have all created a perfect storm that she probably won't survive. This is just the latest screw-up.

---

by: colin @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kim's Campaign Was Sleazy (0.00 / 0)

Let's face it - the tactics were sleazy and speak to the candidate.  An incumbent is supposed to run on the incumbent's record and run in a manner that dignifies the office.  With illegal and unethical tactics, Kim's campaign staff has let her down and she has let Austin down.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, again, why don't we wait (0.00 / 0)

and see what the PUC says. There may be things of which we are unaware and it's likely that it may have been a vendor mixup.

Who knows what happened? Who really cares? As for what I would have done, I would have run it first. Whenever something like this happens, the other side squeals about it, usually because they got beat to the punch.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 13:07:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

on second look (0.00 / 0)

and with a little argument from a friend, consider this:

Sec. 55.127. CONTENTS OF RECORDED MESSAGE.
(a) A person may not use an automated dial announcing device to make a telephone call in which the device plays a recorded message when the connection is completed unless the recorded message states during the first 30 seconds of the call:
(1) the nature of the call;
(2) the identity of the person, company, or organization making the call; and
(3) the telephone number from which the call is made.

One could certainly argue that the nature of the call is apparent...AND that the identity of the person was made apparent...AND the number wasn't ghosted.

My initial reaction was that the name "Lisa" wasn't sufficient to identify...but there is no provision that proves or disproves that reaction.

Furthermore, one could easily argue that the collection of circumstances proves at least that there was no intent on the part of kim.

I've been told in no uncertain terms that the number wasn't ghosted (backed up by reports here), the "Lisa" is a real person (which satifies #2), that the universe matched the direct mail universe exactly, and that the campaign immediately acknowledged having delivered the robo call.  Most importantly, I've been told that the PUC said the calls were ok (and I haven't seen them on record stating otherwise).

So Kim has some serious challenges to overcome, but violating the PUC rules isn't one of them. This could easily turn on Shade if they harp on a violation that didn't occur.

I'm assuming that Kim's campaign is going to get the PUC position on the record and in front of the electorate and media sooner rather than later.

---

by: colin @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 13:25:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your expenses (3.00 / 1)

Councilwoman Kim,

In order to help balance the city budget will you commit to:

1.  No more rest and relaxation retreats paid for by taxpayers?

2.  Use regular ballpoint pens like other city employees use?

3.  Avoid staying at W Hotels when traveling at taxpayer expense?

4.  Pay your speeding fines instead of asking "Do you know who I am?"

---

by: Jobu @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:32:18 AM CDT

Oh, come on... (0.00 / 0)

You talking about this rings about the same tone with me as President Bush bitching about earmarks.

Have YOU ever tried getting a hotel room in Manhattan for less than $300/night that wasn't run by the YMCA? As I stated yesterday, an Omni in Dallas is $300/night. At least my company doesn't require me to foot 25% of the bill like the city does.

It's funny you're calling out Kim for crap that every member of the City Council has availed themselves of. Where do the rest of them stay when they're on city business? The HoJo?

Yeah. I totally see Brewster doing that.

In the end, this is best Shade and Co. can come up with? A few hundred dollars in extra expenses? Considering the pay cut she's having to take to work at the city (compared to what she WOULD be making) it's nothing.

Pathetic and irrelevant.

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last time I was in NY (3.00 / 1)

I stayed the year before last in a Marriott Courtyard out towards JFK for about $149, and that was the nights of 12/29 and 12/30. A normal business hotel (even though it was a leisure trip). Somehow, I lived! We took a car service to the Jamaica subway station and then an express train into Manhattan each day. Amazingly, we survived!

The car service guy also offered to drive us all the way into Manhattan, but I wanted the boys to get the subway experience.

When I travel for business, I usually have to stay in a place like that, too -- as do most people with real jobs.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 15:28:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Kim's 'pay cut' (0.00 / 0)

GMAFB. Her past experience doesn't exactly scream high-flying high-tech wages.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 15:30:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about tech? (0.00 / 0)

She could easily be making more than 100k/ year. Most, if not all, on the council could.

No one runs for the great paychecks.

Last thing... if you REALLY wanted the fam to have a New York experience, you should have flown into Newark, then taken the PATH into LM. From there, you could have given them the public transport tour of NYC. Why worry with all that stuff on top of the ground when you can see subterranean New York.

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 23:08:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, she couldn't (0.00 / 0)

Her past experience with "ComputerMoms" doesn't scream high-dollar, but it was high-tech. Do you even know anything about the candidate on whose erratic behavior you spend so much time rationalizing away?

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:04:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ComputerMoms (0.00 / 0)

So those guys from the Geek Squad and Computer Moms are in the high tech industry?  I didn't know connecting cables and installing software qualifies as a high tech job.

I guess I've been working in the high tech industry for years.

---

by: Jobu @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

"medium-tech", then.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (3.00 / 1)

I also know she's worked in government. That pays better depending on what you do.

As for rationalizing, just because I don't see things, which you view with a great deal of concern, as important doesn't mean I'm rationalizing away the behavior.

Here's an example for you to chew on for a bit while you're dreaming of another fun trip on the J train from Jamaica to Broad. You've rationalized support for toll roads by dreaming that everyone living outside the city is wealthy beyond all your dreams and can easily afford the tolls. I've pointed out to you, on a number of occasions, that nothing could be further from the truth and that the working poor living in the burbs are just as much stakeholders in this as you or I and don't deserve to be soaked for benefit we'll both enjoy. Despite this, you continue to think your argument is valid because to you it's not rationalization, it's reality. You don't think my arguments (or reality, for that matter) are important.

Same case here. I don't care that she overspent by maybe, what, $1500 on her expense account. It's just unimportant to me on a $2.3 bn budget.

What I'm most irritated about is her shopping at Wal Mart.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 13:20:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have a real job... (0.00 / 0)

and if I have to go anywhere I certainly don't stay at the Marriott Courtyard that's 15 miles from where I need to be.

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in my life. How much was the car service? Did your $149 cover the city taxes?

This would be a far more valid argument if she'd stayed in a $1000/night suite which is REALLY easy to do in Manhattan. She didn't. She stayed in a place that was $300 a night. The Hyatt downtown in HOUSTON was $400/night last time I stayed there.

Why the hell didn't you fly into LGA?

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 22:58:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you're on the company dime you sure do (0.00 / 0)

Most people with real jobs don't have an unlimited expense account. Yes, really. That's why hotels like that one even exist.

I'm not saying Kim should have stayed out by the airport - I'm saying that it was worth considering; not completely crazy like you've been claiming. And if she's too important to rub elbows with the hoi-polloi on the subway (although it would do her some good to do so in my opinion), she could always take the car service all the way in.

And you need to work on your reading comprehension - the car service was just to the subway station (original plan was taking the hotel shuttle back to the airport and then the AirTrain to Jamaica, but hotel desk pointed out that car service to the subway was same amount of money - $20 with tip - and a lot quicker).

And we flew out of JFK because of JetBlue.  

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:09:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Subway vs 'train' (0.00 / 0)

I just went back and read my first comment and figured out where you might have gotten the idea we took a surface train (LIRR), since I said "train" instead of "subway" and of course you can do both LIRR and subway there. Sorry. We took the subway each morning and evening.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:55:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah... (0.00 / 0)

so you took the J or the Z?  

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I don't don't... (0.00 / 0)

even if the company is making the arrangements, if I need to be somewhere they put me closest to the event/meeting regardless.

I really want to meet you sometime.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]