Commission Impossible

It's Bertagna's 2nd not "3rd attempt at the Supervisor's seat." "Conservation Voters" who are really only David Guzzetti and Kelly Meagher always lie like cheap rugs.

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought that was the case (Bertagna's second attempt, I don't know the people in the CCV or their similarity to floor coverings)

I didn't show the front of the mailer but the group listed itself as CCV and left off its FPPC number. Neither of which is illegal but both are examples of making it intentionally harder for voters to find out who sent the mailer.

Lon

"They could have put employment in government" i.e. feeding at the public trough. As trough feeders they have little oversight and the public has little recourse.

A little like the City Council itself isn't it? In its present configuration the public are the last to benefit from these occupants. If the University was only on our side. But they are trough feeders as well and will muster a 30-40 member "truth" squad of wizened students (for council meetings) at the drop of a class.

"Beware the politician/public employees complex" isn't that what Eisenhower said?

The Po Box they used as CCV’s googles back to South Chico Neighborhood Association. Whoever they are. Why lie?

Two of these people have records, why don’t they brag about it. I think all four of them are CCV. It looks like Another fake front group like the Greenline Coalition. Which by the way the only other political person to acknowledge its existence is Jane Dolan. See janedolan.com. I have started noticing that the extreme left in Chico can only stretch the truth and attack their opponents.

They seem to lack the integrity it takes to keep it clean. Can anyone please tell me why? Fake front groups, misleading mailers, and nothing from any of them telling us what they really are. Sad! all four of them should come clean!

The CCV is a real PAC (meaning it has been active in the past, not meaning it has any grass roots origin) and held a fundraiser for "progressive" candidates at ARC earlier this year. Their financial forms have not been updated at the city web site for a while.

They are probably filing at the county now, in order to take some shots at the supervisor campaign. If they're not filing there then they are not following the rules.

It is interesting that the CCV is also the South Chico Neighborhood Group. There was some discussion of them getting some RDA money after they complete their neighborhood plan.

Ed McClaughlin's Chico Avenues Neighborhood Association (CANA) received $7.5million in RDA finds (out of $14million available for the City of Chico).

I wonder if these neighborhood groups are just the latest fad in funneling city funds to supporters? It will be interesting to watch who is associated with groups that get the fast track to improvements.

Lon says >>I wonder if these neighborhood groups are just the latest fad in funneling city funds to supporters? It will be interesting to watch who is associated with groups that get the fast track to improvements.

BINGO Lon Babee! You little conspiracy theorist you! This neighhborhood association thing stinks to high heaven.

It's going to be all about who your neighbors are, and those who don't go along with the crowd are going to get left out. When I attended the So Chico meetings, because we own a rental in that hood, Jane Dolan was running the show. It's a clicky little group and nosey questions are not welcome. One man tried repeatedly to ask why we needed to form a group to get our streets repaired, where this money was coming from, etc - neither Dolan nor Claudia Stuart would answer him and then Steve Schuman basically told him to shut up. They promised to answer his questions at the end of the meeting, but they never did.

I have never received notice of any subsequent meetings, but it looks like they are still quite active.

Can they give money from their association pot to their favorite candidate or PAC? In fact, who accounts for the money? Questions, so many questions.

Fixing streets is what Fritz McKinley if for, and he's pretty darned good at his job when he is given adequate funding. And he's got great hair.

Hey Juanita (check spelling...OK),

I think CANA’s board is aligned politically with the “progressives�. But as I’ve said before, in a small town those connections are bound to exist. That neighborhood also has real issues with sub-standard neighborhood infrastructure. I believe they received unanimous support from the City Council for the $7.5million in RDA funds they received. They asked for much more than that.

I had heard that the South Chico Neighborhood group was organizing, and didn’t think much of it. Knowing that a PAC is sharing addresses (and I need to verify this myself, which I haven’t yet done) with that group is a concern.

The city had previously suggested it would spend money on neighborhoods that “came to them� with a plan. With $200 million in needs, and $6.5 million in funding, I’m not sure that it matters. But I would hope the city manager would come up with a plan to put money where it is most effective and most needed, and not just where the neighbors are most “connected�.

We’ll see.

Lon

The Chico Conservation Voters, or CCV, are registered with Butte County as a PAC. An older 2005 form 460 is on the city web site. Newer versions would need to be viewed at the county.

Their PO Box address does match several online listings for the South Chico Neighborhood Association.

Lon

Lon wrote: "I didn't show the front of the mailer but the group listed itself as CCV and left off its FPPC number. Neither of which is illegal but both are examples of making it intentionally harder for voters to find out who sent the mailer."

PYPR answers: Actually it is illegal not to put their PAC name, treasurer’s name and FPPC # in not less than 8 [or 6?] point type on their mailer. Look close they are very sneaky. Last election cycle they printed the required information on the front of their mailer and then covered it over with a mailing bar code sticker. You had to peal off the sticker to read who sent the mailer.

Frankly this concealing that the mailers are coming from Chico Conservation Voters PAC is more about David Guzzetti's pathological paranoia than any real need. The mailers would have more impact if the voters knew that CCV is Chico’s oldest PAC founded in 1990.

It is amusing that an anonymous poster to a blog writes,

" . . .is more about David Guzzetti's pathological paranoia than any real need . . ."

I could be mistaken, but the information I used to determine if the fppc# was required was from the fppc site. The page at this link covers requirements for identification of mass mailing (200+ pieces I think).

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=100

Pypr posted who he is in an earlier thread, so he's really not that anonymous.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2006/05/who_are_the_chi.html#comments

It is amusing that I posted that without knowing the facts.

It is amusing that I posted that without knowing the facts.

That could be the slogan for my blog. Oddly enough, it covers most local press "work product" as well.

Lon

Lon I see that I am wrong. The last election I worked was 2002. The law was Revised 5/2003, sorry for my error. These FPPC laws are a moving target when it comes to the small details. ~ John