A day after Jennifer Kim's campaign confirmed they had placed anonymous robocalls, the campaign sent out an e-mail today titled, "Let's Not Lose Sight of the Facts."
The e-mail accused Randi Shade's campaign of "attempting to use this to distract from the fact that she is taking unpopular stands that will have a direct effect on city services and your taxes."
The e-mail denied the claim by some that the calls were intentionally misleading since they failed to say who was paying for them.
This call went to voters who received a mail piece about this same issue and used the same language in the mail piece. I do not believe we were being deceptive in any way.
Near the end of the e-mail, Kim once again brings up Shade's agreement to "increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits."
On January 24, the editorial board of the Austin American Statesman reported on the police and firefighters associations making their City Council endorsement. They said," 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."
I agree with these sentiments. It is irresponsible to make such promises without knowing the financial condition of our city.
The questions (whether they prove to be legitimate or not) about Randi Shade and the public safety unions could help Jennifer Kim in this race, but distractions like the anonymous robocall story are not what the Kim campaign needs less than a week before Election Day.
(Jennifer Kim has been (dual) endorsed by Burnt Orange Report. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
There has been much to-do in the last few days about a supposed anonymous automated call from my campaign, and my opponent is attempting to use this to distract from the fact that she is taking unpopular stands that will have a direct effect on city services and your taxes.
First, let me confirm that my campaign did do an automated call to voters about Randi Shade's promise to police and firefighters for increased staffing while seeking their endorsement. This call went to voter who received a mail piece about this same issue and used the same language in the mail piece. I do not believe we were being deceptive in any way.
More importantly, my opponent's objections to the call and resorting to calling me a liar show how concerned her campaign is that we are pointing this issue out.
On January 24, the editorial board of the Austin American Statesman reported on the police and firefighters associations making their City Council endorsement. They said," 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."
I agree with these sentiments. It is irresponsible to make such promises without knowing the financial condition of our city.
Our City budget is now facing at least a $20 million deficit. At the same time, we have the highest paid police and firefighters in the state. I think we need to ensure we are taking care of all the city staff, providing essential services, and balancing the budget before making more promises.
I hope I can count on your support so I can continue to stand up for our community values which start with our budget.
Kim denies having anything to do with the anonymous calls.
"We only did one call, which had to do with her commitment to raise the budget for public safety-without knowing the details of the budget-when she was endorsed by the public safety union," Jennifer Kim said. "But if there's anything else, then that may be uncoordinated with my campaign."
News 8 has updated their story to reflect the campaign's admission to placing the anonymous calls.
The Kim campaign said it was political speech protected by the first amendment, and not against the election code. However, it said it will check state law to see if it was an "inadvertent technical violation."
The Shade campaign said the information in the call is false and that State law states such anonymous, automated calls are illegal.
The April fundraising reports are out in the Austin City Council races. The Statesman has the story.
In Place 1, Jason Meeker raised only $2,960 in April. The incumbent Lee Leffingwell raised $23,690 in April bringing his total since November to an impressive $192,065.
In Place 3, Jennifer Kim outraised Randi Shade by $10,250 last month but still trails to Shade in overall fundraising $184,425 to $179,475. The only council candidate to have raised more than Kim and Shade is Leffingwell. Ken Weiss, another contender for Place 3, raised $215 in April.
In Place 4, Cid Galindo led with $50,030 raised last month. Laura Morrison raised $21,491 and Robin Cravey raised $12,974.
Galindo has had a pretty singificant financial advantage in Place 4.
Galindo has also spent the most money since fundraising began in November — $158,961 — compared with Morrison's $114,214 and Cravey's $48,501. Galindo has loaned himself $60,000; Morrison has loaned herself $40,000.
The following mail paid for by the Jennifer Kim campaign hit in the last day or two.
At issue is Randi Shade's campaign mangager/advisor Mark Nathan. Now, many BOR readers may know him from successfully managing a number of the current council's campaigns, and it is that point which the mail piece refers to. Fair enough.
But being a political blog, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't point the irony (or hypocrisy, take your pick) in this story- the key point being that the very same "developer lobbyist" that Jennifer Kim attacks in this mailer... was originally sought out by Jennifer Kim to run her campaign.
And the following were provided by Nathan himself as background for this. There are more but I think this illustrates the point. According to Nathan, Kim asked him to work on her 2005 campaign as well (he declined) and back in 2002, Nathan quote "personally hired her to work directly for me on the 2002 Tony Sanchez campaign, which she did for five months".
------ Forwarded Message
From: Jennifer Kim < jennifer.kim@... >
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:51:35 -0500
To: Mark Nathan < mark@... >
Subject: RE: Hi Jennifer...
Hi there, Mark. Yes, thanks for calling. I'm in DC right now and would be
able to meet Friday if you are available.
Jennifer
______________________________
From: Mark Nathan [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 3:51 PM
To: Jennifer Kim; Jennifer Kim
Subject: Hi Jennifer...
Thanks for the call about your campaign. I left a voicemail on your cell
last week, thought I would email to see if we can find a time to talk. I
hope this finds you well!
Early I posted about apparent anonymous robocalls in the Austin City Council Place 3 race between Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade (oh, and Ken Weiss).
Well, it appears they may not so anonymous after all and indeed are from the Jennifer Kim campaign.
The number used to call has been previously identified as one used for Kim autocalls.
The issue now- is "Lisa" enough of a disclaimer for the Kim campaign to not be breaking the law? (Ironic given yesterday's 'ethics' hullabaloo?) Jeff Crosby points this out in the comments on the prior post.
It's against state law (Texas PUC Regulations). Robo calls that fail to properly identify the caller within the first 30 seconds of the call are illegal.
And for those not convinced this is from the Kim campaign, two scans of the latest attack mail from her campaign are below the fold. The messaging is the same.
Jennifer Kim's campaign manager Elliot McFadden has filed an ethics complaint against Randi Shade.
The ethics complaint alleges Shade's campaign failed to report the bundling of money from development firms with ties to the Domain and the Wal-Mart Supercenter at Northcross Mall.
McFadden, who filed the complaint with the City Ethics Review Commission, released this statement by press release:
“It appears from her campaign finance reports that Randi Shade has had thousands of dollars in donations bundled from certain development firms and failed to report the bundling as required by law,” McFadden stated.
City election code requires individuals that raise $100 or more from 5 people or more on behalf of a candidate be listed as a bundler. Randi Shade received contributions from 11 out of 13 principals at Endeavor Real Estate Group, 17 out of 28 attorneys at Ambrust & Brown, and all 4 partners at Reagan Advertising totaling $16,500 in bundled money.
“This begs the question of what Shade is hiding by not reporting this information.,” McFadden continued. “We have firms involved in unpopular projects, which Jennifer Kim has opposed, like tax giveaways for corporate retail, the Wal-Mart at Northcross, and billboards on scenic roadways, and Randi Shade appears to be hiding her direct association with these firms.”
Endeavor is the developer of The Domain which is expected to receive over $65 million in tax subsidies from the City and Ambrust & Brown is the law firm representing Lincoln Properties in their development of Wal-Mart at Northcross Mall as well as representing Endeavor. Reagan Advertising owns a majority of the billboards in the Austin market and had been promoting a proposal that would have put billboards on some of Austin’s designated scenic roadways . . .
The ony poll taken in this race showed Shade with a lead of 1.5%, well within the margin of error. Burnt Orange Report has endorsed both Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade.
I know there are readers who understand election law much better than I do: what do you all think about the validity of the complaint?
The following is intended to be a one-stop post for all of the information you could want for the Austin City Council races. Please let us know if we are missing any information, and feel free to share this post with any and all friends and neighbors who want to get more informed on Austin City Council races. Thanks for reading Burnt Orange Report.
ABOUT CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS - Explanation, Endorsements, Polls, Election History
"There are seven members on the Austin City Council: one Mayor and six Council Members. The entire Council is elected at large by the voters of the City. Each member serves a staggered three-year term. Thus, three of the members are voted on one year, with the remaining members, including the Mayor, elected the following year. Term limits are now in place, which means the Mayor and Council Members may serve in their respective seat for a maximum of six years, or two consecutive terms."
These are our 2008 endorsements. Click here for our current 2009 endorsements.
Burnt Orange Report offers up the following endorsements based upon a weighted consensus of its editorial board. Those working for or with personal conflicts in any given races have recused themselves.
The Big Picture: We will be honest in saying that our decision making process for the Austin City Council races is, in large part, not based upon specific issues, votes, developments, or ballot questions that have come before the council. While important, the greatest challenge the city council has faced in recent years is its evolution into a mediocre, consensus driven body, often bereft of the passion, hope, and big-city vision which powers its citizens and creative economy on a daily basis. This is not to say that every member must be a champion or an advocate- it is just to say that an occasional clash of ideas based upon personal philosophy rather than personal politics would be nice.
This said, the weighted consensus of our staff recommends the following candidates.
Three years ago, Lee Leffingwell came into office as Austin's Place 1 city councilman with scattered and ineffective opposition. In two weeks, he will return to the dais in similar fashion.
Rarely taking the limelight as others are prone to do on council, Leffingwell has served Austin well enough, working the system behind the scenes to effect positive change for the city. We appreciate his efforts towards a greener, more sustainable Austin through less-flashy programs and development. He leads more than he follows on council and serves as fatherly (and at times grandfatherly) voice of reason and consensus. The council needs a steady hand and Leffingwell provides one.
But it is for many of these same reasons that this endorsement (and others by local publications) appear to be lacking in energy. Leffingwell's calm demeanor makes him an affable candidate, difficult to run against, but equally difficult to promote. If he hopes to be Austin's mayor someday, we hope he injects his campaign and leadership style with the energy that is effervescent among the city council electorate.
As to his opponents? Allen Demling is entertaining and smart. He promotes a positive pro-Austin campaign that is overshadowed by the fact he's had his campaign turned into a caricature. Jason Meeker is driven and aggressive, a stark contrast to the incumbent, but has been stymied by the fact that few outside of his activist world see his campaign as anything but a personal single-issue soapbox.
Like much of Austin, our staff is split in this race, our Editor's employment on behalf of Jennifer Kim notwithstanding (and not included). The split is for good reason between two good candidates. As mentioned in our preface, the council needs more passionate voices, and either candidate has proven to us that they will provide that on the dais.
Incumbent Jennifer Kim has been an independent voice and vote on the city council, opposing the consensus at times, and occasionally as a minority of one. While some decry her votes as political, we appreciate any member who is willing to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves on council business. She has worked toward solutions for small businesses, affordable housing, and issues affecting neighborhoods. While difficult to satisfy the political needs of the highly diverse Asian-American community in Austin, the council and community are better served by her representation. We support a council diverse not only in opinion, but in ethnic make-up given it's current all at-large configuration.
Randi Shade, as Kim's primary challenger, has been up-front in saying this race is between her and the incumbent. Shade, as a business owner and woman, will retain representation for those groups on council, but if elected would give Austin's large gay and lesbian population a voice in city government. Open, energetic, and bright- Shade carries little pretense with a personality and work-style that will engage positive discussion among parties with business before the council. While some may be wary of her resistance to be pinned down on hypothetical specifics, we see this as her recognition of the complexity of governance. Shade's admission that sometimes the best answer is not a quick answer does contrast with her opponent, who at times has given more than one answer to issues in her first term on council.
In an ideal world, there would be a place for both Kim and Shade on the council. We endorse both of their campaigns.
Perhaps the most interesting debate over the future of Austin is represented by the candidates running for Place 4. Every known (and unknown in the case of Ken Vasseau) community of interest is represented in some form of fashion here. From development to neighborhoods to environmentalism to urban planning to sheer entertainment- voters have the choice of any of the above in this election.
But one candidate stands above the rest in blending the balance of qualities we seek in a councilmember- Robin Cravey. Independently (and unbeknownst to each other) our staff collectively settled upon Cravey as our one choice among six in this race.
His personal history is as diverse as it is long in Austin. It arcs across touchstones of our community- from Friends of Barton Springs to Save Our Springs, from the Zilker Neighborhood Association to the Zilker Elementary PTA, from the Daily Texan to Ecology in Texas and Tilted Planet Press. Cravey is no stranger to city politics having hands on experience with the Planning Commission, Councilmember Daryl Slusher, and Mayor Pro Tem Max Nofziger and his Democratic credentials are some of the most visible in the field.
His bio aside, Cravey's vision is rooted in Austin's environmental movement. He has a sincere desire to see growth occur in a manner consistent with those natural values. Cravey isn't interested in capturing the city in a morass of NIMBYism (or letting it run wild with unfettered development). His campaign may not have the most money or the most consultants, but it has far and away the most unique, down to earth engaging candidate. We believe it's time for that to matter again in Austin's cookie cutter council campaigns.
Robin Cravey embodies the spirit and essence of Austin. We enthusiastically endorse him for Place 4.
Jennifer Kim has a new ad called "Independence." The ad highlights that she voted against toll roads, opposed subsidies for the Domain shopping center and refused the council's pay raise.
The ad also touts her endorsements from the Austin Women's Political Caucus, Austin Sierra Club and the Austin Neighborhoods Council.
