Wasserman has fundraising lead

Sorry folks, I haven’t had time to go through campaign finance disclosure forms that were released Tuesday. I really wanted to get to them yesterday, but now it looks like it probably won’t happen until next week.

The Wasserman campaign is not so pressed for time. They looked at the results and announced they have more cash than the other two guys.

Here is part of the release I just got: ciao

According to candidate fundraising reports filed this week, Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman’s campaign has $71,649 in the bank, significantly more than either of his opponents in the Fremont Mayoral race. Mayor Wasserman reported raising a total of $101,773 as of September 30.

“I’m honored to have the support of so many members of the Fremont community. During my four years as Mayor, I’ve been privileged to work with residents on many issues that have made Fremont a great place to live, work, shop and raise a family, and I will use these funds to talk directly to voters about our accomplishments and my vision for Fremont’s future,” Mayor Wasserman said of his strong fundraising showing.

Wasserman has twice as much money in the bank as his opponents, consultant Gus Morrison and City Councilmember Steve Cho. Morrison reported with $34,130 in the bank and Cho had $36,635 on hand.

Matt Artz


  1. Vinnie –

    Thanks for taking a few moments to remain involved in this communications venue.

    It certainly is not an end-all – but just another forum – one which, interestingly, pro-other-factions choose to discount urging STRONGLY in favor of other forms of communication with a candidate. . . . . go figure WHY it is important to these factions that constituency communicate one-on-one and in a non-public manner but, they seem to feel it is important. . . . usually, so important that the personal commentary and assaults follow on to their arguments.

    Anyone following these BLOGS for any period can begin to discern which candidates are supported by individuals supporting these kinds of tactics and which, for whatever reasons, dont feel a need to do so.

  2. Look at you, Bbox. An underhanded attack that I am sure was directed at me, so I’m going to respond. Watch out, Vinnie, Bbox has professed his support for you, so by his own hypothesis, anything he says or does on this Holy Grail source of objective information can be directly associated with you!

    Look, as Doug said in a previous post, Argus readership is low. If the newspaper readership is low, then I can only imagine how much lower readership on this blog is.

    How many people visit this blog, usually? How many of those that visit are regulars? How many of those regulars are politicos? Now, with that being said, is it wise for a constituent to get ALL or even a fraction of his or her information from a blog like this, especially one that is obviously biased toward one candidate? And, is it reasonable to expect every single candidate that is running for any office in Fremont to come on here and spend their time responding to every single post that comes up? Hmmmm, this blog may be an end-all to you, BBox-o, but it is not to other constituents. I am not going to get into a long discussion again with you about this. We both have better ways to spend our time, as I am sure that most of the candidates do. If you want to use this blog as your complete information repository, please make sure that your oracle, Mr. Matthew Artz, is diligent, and fair with his “version of the truth” patrols and his coverage of all of the candidates running in Fremont, for every single election we have going on. Good luck with that.

    Have a good day.

  3. Susan –

    I agree with you, that my support extends to Vinnie Bacon, my actions and words within this venue I invite you and others to judge all you want.

    That you (and others) choose to denegrate this venue and defend other candidates who, for whatever reason, choose not to participate herein, I personally find revealing.

    As I repeatedy have stated, the choice to ignore this venue asserts a conscious decision on the part of the candidates and those of you who choose to defend that choice do so (seemingly) only by belittling the veracity of the venue or by assaulting the personalities of the individuals challenging to the contrary. It seems like a legitimate debate would focus on explaining why some candidates CAN and DO participate – but others dont. Instead of intelligent debate – we hear personlized assaults – which I again find revealing as to the character of the individuals involved.

  4. Vinnie – thanks for your response.
    what puzzles me is the routine response from elected officials of a “lack of budget” to ensure adequate staffing levels in the Police Department. Would it make sense to “borrow from Peter to pay Paul” – I mean if people are retiring in other departments, look at moving some of the budget to safety services? Especially when the city tends to re-hire retirees as consultants.

  5. If I understand Storm Trooper’s suggestion, it seems like the practice of “rehiring retirees as consultants” reduces the amount of internal transfer that’s avaiable, presumably the fringe bene’s afforded direct employees is freed up – but, doesnt the consultant garner a big part of the original salary ?

    Also, I’m guessing that there’s only so far one can “rob peter to pay paul” in the public sector – I think there’s limits on the internal shuffling. . . . .

    but, I certainly dont claim to understand this aspect of the city’s accounting and what limitations may be legally imposed.

  6. As election day approaches it is a good time to reflect on the past actions –

    This is text of an Argus Op Ed that ran April 12 2007 –

    Fremont surplus may doom future tax efforts
    Article Last Updated:04/12/2007 07:12:05 AM PDT

    WE SUPPORTED Fremont’s Measure L utility users tax on the November ballot, believing it was necessary to pay for essential services in tough economic times.
    The majority of voters disagreed with us, however. And given the events of the past few months, it’s easy to see why.

    When the $8-million-a-year tax was being pitched in November, city officials were projecting a $1.6 million shortfall for the 2006-07 fiscal year.

    But the following month, after Measure L failed, they announced the city actually would have an $8.2 million surplus.

    In February, the City Council increased City Manager Fred Diaz’s salary by 10 percent to nearly $250,000, and raised City Attorney Harvey Levine’s salary by 5 percent to $232,565.

    Then last month, the surplus was pegged even higher, at $8.7 million, and city officials decided to spend more than a quarter of it by ending the policy of fire station “brownouts” and by hiring 10 firefighters and eight police officers.

    It’s great that our public safety services are being funded better, but it’s also deeply suspicious that the city suddenly became awash with cash so soon after the tax measure failed.

    In the run-up to the November election, opponents of Measure L blamed the city’s problems on poor management, saying that money was being misspent and that increasingly high compensation packages were draining Fremont’s coffers.

    Others went so far as to suggest that city officials had plenty of money stashed away somewhere, or that they were trying to make things look as bad as possible by failing to complete routine maintenance projects until after the election.

    We don’t put much store in conspiracy theories without evidence to support them, but the recent revelations are troubling.

    Even City Councilmember Steve Cho had concerns about the timing of the announcement.

    “Why didn’t we know this earlier? And should we have known this earlier? Why did we go out and propose the utility tax if we did know this?” he asked.

    All good questions.

    Here’s another one: If Measure L had passed, what would city officials have done with the tax revenue after they found out about the surplus?

    Would they have told voters, “Thanks for the support, but because of this good fortune, we’re going to return your money this year?”

    We all know the answer to that one.

    That’s why city officials’ protestations about how difficult it is to estimate revenue these days — “like trying to hit a really good curve ball … in the dark,” said Diaz — are meaningless. The voters don’t care.

    And when it comes to explaining away hefty raises and quarter-million-dollar salaries for public officials — along with generous benefits and retirement packages — the voters really don’t care.

    Fremont residents have rejected two tax measures in three years.

    We hope the city recognizes the futility of proposing any tax measures in the near future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *