AD71 Watch: Half-Truth From The Blais Campaign
Posted by: Jubal | 04/01/2008 5:37 PM
Last week, the Neil Blais for Assembly sent out this press release, basically accusing him of corruptly profiting from his council position.
The proximate issue was an attempt by the City of Corona a few years ago to take over local power transmission lines from Edison. I vaguely remember the issue, and to the extent I formed an opinion on it, I recall it being negative.
I don't take issue with the Blais campaign blasting Corona Mayor Jeff Miller over that episode. Records are fair game, so by all means have at it over whether Corona's takeover attempt was good or bad policy.
My objection is the Blais campaign is wrongly impugning Miller's character and integrity with half-truths when pressing their attack based on the facts should suffice.
The Blais campaign release takes an October 28, 2004 Riverside Press-Enterprise editorial recommend against the re-election of Miller and one of his council colleagues. The campaign leads with the scandal angle by excerpting the latter part of the editorial first:
The press release then presents another excerpt from the editorial:
Granted, the Blais campaign didn't write the editorial. But they are using it to deliberately foster the impression that Jeff Miller is unethical.
The Blais campaign closes the press release with this sentence from this June 23, 2002 e-mail Jeff Miller sent to someone (I think his wife, but I'm not positive):
Not that they offer any evidence that Miller did. It's simply left to the reader's imagination.
This is pretty serious stuff, so I asked Miller for his side of the story. According to Miller, he did start a utility consulting business.He also said he didn't make any money at it.
Which, to me, is beside the point. There are plenty of consultants on city councils -- including here in orange County. A number of them represent clients before other local government bodies. As long as they aren't representing clients before their own city government, there's nothing illegal or unethical about it. And if a person acquires some expertise in an area, there's nothing wrong with seeking consulting work in that field -- regardless of the delicate sensibilities of local editorial writers.
I also asked Miller about the issue of "concealing public documents." Miller said the issue got very ugly and contentious and ultimately both the FBI and District Attorney investigated the matter. They wanted the councilmembers e-mails, and Miller didn't want to turn over his private, non-council e-mails. Ultimately, the e-mails were gotten -- and made their way into the media via leaks.
And at the end of the day, both the D.A. and the FBI exonerated Miller.
Miller was also re-elected to the Corona City Council by a wide margin.
Not that that information is included in the Blais campaign press release. And I wouldn't expect them to, either. It's not the Blais campaign's job to make Jeff Miller look good.
Blais strategist Tim Clark told me they're not suggesting Miller is corrupt, but suggesting he has bad judgment.
I like and respect Tim. He's an excellent consultant and an all-around good guy. However, I have to respectfully disagree with his assessment, because the press release is a half-truth that leads the reader to believe Miller is a corrupt law-breaker -- when, in fact, two investigations cleared Miller. For me, at least, this press release reflects more poorly on Neil Blais than on Jeff Miller.
POSTSCRIPT: In the interest of completeness, following is the entire Press-Enterprise editorial:
The proximate issue was an attempt by the City of Corona a few years ago to take over local power transmission lines from Edison. I vaguely remember the issue, and to the extent I formed an opinion on it, I recall it being negative.
I don't take issue with the Blais campaign blasting Corona Mayor Jeff Miller over that episode. Records are fair game, so by all means have at it over whether Corona's takeover attempt was good or bad policy.
My objection is the Blais campaign is wrongly impugning Miller's character and integrity with half-truths when pressing their attack based on the facts should suffice.
The Blais campaign release takes an October 28, 2004 Riverside Press-Enterprise editorial recommend against the re-election of Miller and one of his council colleagues. The campaign leads with the scandal angle by excerpting the latter part of the editorial first:
"Incumbent Miller's willingness to compromise a public office for private gain - and then fight to conceal public records - should disqualify him from a second term."Hmmm, that sounds like code for public corruption to me -- and to anyone else who reads it, I'd maintain.
The press release then presents another excerpt from the editorial:
"The city's failed takeover of Edison's facilities cost taxpayers $ 3 million, and eroded confidence in local officials. At the same time, two councilmen, Jeff Miller and Darrell Talbert, launched a utility consulting business that improperly mingled their roles as city officials and private entrepreneurs - then fought in court to conceal public documents about the scheme."Again, the clear implication is that Miller is corrupt.
Granted, the Blais campaign didn't write the editorial. But they are using it to deliberately foster the impression that Jeff Miller is unethical.
The Blais campaign closes the press release with this sentence from this June 23, 2002 e-mail Jeff Miller sent to someone (I think his wife, but I'm not positive):
"How are you going to explain it when you go to jail? Delete this email."The reader has no idea of the context of the e-mail, or what the subject of the e-mail was or what come before or after that phrase. The Blais campaign dropped it in there to make the reader to think Jeff Miller committed a jailable offense.
Not that they offer any evidence that Miller did. It's simply left to the reader's imagination.
This is pretty serious stuff, so I asked Miller for his side of the story. According to Miller, he did start a utility consulting business.He also said he didn't make any money at it.
Which, to me, is beside the point. There are plenty of consultants on city councils -- including here in orange County. A number of them represent clients before other local government bodies. As long as they aren't representing clients before their own city government, there's nothing illegal or unethical about it. And if a person acquires some expertise in an area, there's nothing wrong with seeking consulting work in that field -- regardless of the delicate sensibilities of local editorial writers.
I also asked Miller about the issue of "concealing public documents." Miller said the issue got very ugly and contentious and ultimately both the FBI and District Attorney investigated the matter. They wanted the councilmembers e-mails, and Miller didn't want to turn over his private, non-council e-mails. Ultimately, the e-mails were gotten -- and made their way into the media via leaks.
And at the end of the day, both the D.A. and the FBI exonerated Miller.
Miller was also re-elected to the Corona City Council by a wide margin.
Not that that information is included in the Blais campaign press release. And I wouldn't expect them to, either. It's not the Blais campaign's job to make Jeff Miller look good.
Blais strategist Tim Clark told me they're not suggesting Miller is corrupt, but suggesting he has bad judgment.
I like and respect Tim. He's an excellent consultant and an all-around good guy. However, I have to respectfully disagree with his assessment, because the press release is a half-truth that leads the reader to believe Miller is a corrupt law-breaker -- when, in fact, two investigations cleared Miller. For me, at least, this press release reflects more poorly on Neil Blais than on Jeff Miller.
POSTSCRIPT: In the interest of completeness, following is the entire Press-Enterprise editorial:
Politics in Corona have been supercharged ever since city officials decided in 2002 they could provide electricity better and cheaper than Southern California Edison - and authorized a municipal utility with little input from residents.
The city's failed takeover of Edison's facilities cost taxpayers $ 3 million, and eroded confidence in local officials. At the same time, two councilmen, Jeff Miller and Darrell Talbert, launched a utility consulting business that improperly mingled their roles as city officials and private entrepreneurs - then fought in court to conceal public documents about the scheme.
It's against this backdrop of rancor and secrecy that Corona residents will fill two seats on the City Council. Of the six contenders, we endorse Jeff Bennett and Bill Melendez. Bennett, who's seeking a fourth term, has been a strong voice on the council for open government. He also provides a balanced view on growth, and supports fiscal restraint on public employee compensation. Those sensible stances have made him a target.
The developer-backed political committee Corona Citizens for Change recently spent $ 49,000 on TV ads and mailers against Bennett. Why? He balked at a plan to annex nearly 20,000 new homes unless developers paid fees to help offset the homes' effects on roads, public safety and other city services.
Public employee unions have also griped because Bennett won't back more lucrative retirement benefits for police and firefighters. Essentially, Bennett has sided with taxpayers over special interests.
Bill Melendez, training coordinator for the Corona Fire Department, has lived in the city for more than 40 years and has dedicated much of his time to community service; he's past president of the Corona Settlement House, an organization that helps low-income and homeless people. Melendez's campaign is underfunded, making him a long shot. Even so, we endorse him on principle. None of the other candidates is likely to restore public trust in the council.
Incumbent Miller's willingness to compromise a public office for private gain - and then fight to conceal public records - should disqualify him from a second term.
Mike Humphrey, a member of the city library board, may not be able to distance himself from developer donors. He just received a $ 10,000 contribution from Ontario developer Jim Previti. Previti's company, Empire Lands, is lobbying the council to annex an upscale subdivision - without developer fees.
J.C. Schnabl, financial officer at Cal State Long Beach, is running a low-key campaign and, if elected, may not be able to keep up with council business and maintain his day job.
Finally, restaurateur Steve Nolan has raised at least $ 106,000 for the race - and the big donors are developers and public employee unions that want concessions from the city. We're also skeptical that Nolan's divisive political style would foster better cooperation on the council.
We recommend Bennett and Melendez as the candidates best able to move Corona constructively - and openly - forward.
CATEGORY:
AD71 Watch
"Jeff Miller and Darrell Talbert, launched a utility consulting business that improperly mingled their roles as city officials and private entrepreneurs"
The original editorial is much more than an "implication" of corruption. It looks like a solid accusation. So did Miller offer any explanantion as to what the editorial writer meant by that line? Clearly there must have been some impropriety, perceived or otherwise behind that. I wonder what it might have been - conflict of interest? If so, how?
What's the story?
Jubal, you seem to have taken your personal bias to a new level. Now you have become Miller's spokesperson. Are you going to start running campaign advertisements for Miller next?
That entire utility deal was dirty from the get go, and Miller knows it. And at the end of the day, the taxpayers lost a bundle.
So lets assume it was "bad judgement". Is that the kind of judgement you want deciding on budget matters in Sacramento? I think not. And why would someone even put themselves in such an obvious conflict of interest situation to begin with? For profit as Miller acknowledges? At taxpayer expense? Or, again, if its bad judgement, is that the type of judgement we want in Sacramento? I think not.
Say what you want about Blais, but it doesn't seem like he has ever put himself in these bad judgement scenarios, otherwise Miller's gang would have already flushed it out.
Miller has clearly demonstrated that he is either questionable ethically, or has an extreme case of terrible judgement, neither of which belongs in Sacramento representing the 71st.
If you want this type of person up there, then elect a democrat instead.
Anon:
Neil Blais is not a LEADER, therefore can not be accused of bad judgment.
Bad judgement? At that time Edison and PG&E were dealing with "brown outs" all throughout the state. Including Corona and RSM. In fact, a very good friend of mine was nearly killed at the intersection of Antonio and Banderas in RSM when the traffic light was out and an oncoming car t-boned his motorcycle. The only ones that seemed to have the power on are those who didn't deregulate--like the City of LA.
I applaud Jeff Miller for turning the situation around and looking for solutions to the problem. (Our friends at the RSM HOA would probably issued a resolution telling people to be careful. Edison and Gray Davis are in complete control of the situation.)
In hind sight it turned out to be a good idea but it is an indication of the kind a leader Miller will be in Sacramento. One that doesn't accept status quo, but looks for solutions.
Doesn't Blais's wife do business with cities?
I guess it is ok for the Blais family to profit from thier knowledge of local government but no one else?
Give me a break!
Jubal, you seem to have taken your personal bias to a new level.
Funny. When I was critical of the Miller camp's blasting Blais for having once been a Democrat, no complaints of bias then.
But when I criticize something the Blais campaign does, suddenly I'm biased.
You certainly have formulated a definition of "bias" I have yet to see in a dictionary.
Now you have become Miller's spokesperson.
So, whenever a reporter asks Neil Blais for a comment, does that reporter become Neil's spokesman for simply relaying the comment?
Are you going to start running campaign advertisements for Miller next?
The Miller campaign already bought a blogad. So has the Blais campaign. Smart moves.
And why would someone even put themselves in such an obvious conflict of interest situation to begin with?
What conflict of interest? No one has yet been able to provide me with anything to substantiate that charge other than a single P-E editorial. Gloriaski -- you've been slinging that charge here in the comments for several days, like someone with Tourette Syndrome. All I'm asking for is substantiation.
That entire utility deal was dirty from the get go, and Miller knows it.
Again - substantiation? Criticizing the policy merits is perfectly legitimate, but you insist on turning into an assault on Miller's ethics without offering any evidence to back up your charges.
You guys raised this issue, Anonymous. Don't have a conniption because I'm not swallowing it.
"Incumbent Miller's willingness to compromise a public office for private gain"
Will some Miller adherent please explain what this means?
redperegrine said:
"Incumbent Miller's willingness to compromise a public office for private gain"
Will some Miller adherent please explain what this means?
It would be like some two bit RSM Councilman coming to Riverside County to peddle his “knowledge of municipal finance" to newly incorporated cities. That would be an example of using being a member of a public office for private gain
"Funny. When I was critical of the Miller camp's blasting Blais for having once been a Democrat, no complaints of bias then."
Jubal - the headline of your post was "Blais was Democrat until late 90's"
Your current headline is "Half-Truth from Blais Campaign"
Now, I'm not accusing you of bias, but come on - the headlines are extremely leading.
Anonymous Blais advisor:
Jubal - the headline of your post was "Blais was Democrat until late 90's"
That was the headline I gave the Miller press release post. Leading? It's true, isn't it? So how is that "leading"?
And you missed my subsequent post, "Do Miller-Blais Charges Even Matter?", in which I wrote it doesn't matter Blais used to be a Democrat because we want people to re-register and shouldn't punish them for doing so.
You didn't have a problem with that one.
And in lest you forget, I posted your press release about Miller and the utility, headlining it "Blais Campaign Blasts Miller Over Failed Utility Take Over."
It's becoming apparent that any time I'm critical of Miller, that's fine. If I criticize Blais, you are going to whine about "bias."
Why attack Jubal? I'm a loyal Blais supporter, but I also have a brain. Something that appears to be lacking in some of the above posts. Newsflash to Anonymous: this blog is not a newspaper and does not pretend to be; Jubal has opinions just like the rest of us hence the success of this forum; and the whole purpose of the 1st Amendment is to encourage individual opinion (even bias) and the expression thereof. Anybody reading this blog in a mildly conscious state would know that Jubal likes Mr. Miller. That's his choice no matter how wrong I think he is.
So who really cares?
Why are all of Miller's folks so adamant about casting aspersions on Blais's city of RSM and the people that live there? What have they got against that city and the city council? Every time this AD 71 race comes up, there are a multituded of Miller bloggers that attack the city and its people.
I would bet that those folks won't stand for this nonsense when they are voting. If this is Miller's attitude toward the people and city councils he expects to represent, who would vote for him?
Or is this just an example of Miller's true character?
Voters, by and large, don't read this blog. Your assertion that voters will know the kind of person Jeff Miller is from what is written here is ridiculous.
Also, I suspect that most of the attacks on the RSM council are directed at one well deserving council member who is a mouth piece for Neil Blais.
Matt.
Did I strike a nerve with my comment that has been deleted? Simply facts without a personal attack yet it no longer appears above!
Anon 1:34:
I agree with you that the vast majority of voters don't read this blog, and what is posted will not have a significant effect on the election.
But, residents of RSM who are not on the council, like me, do read it. I find it extremely insulting for Miller supporters to constantly bash our city as a glorified HOA, and attack our council members with claims that "most of the attacks on the RSM council are directed at one well deserving council member." Where's the justification for that, and what relevance does it have to the election of one of the AD71 candidates?
I've seen first-hand the changes that can be made when people work together, instead of play petty political games. What is most impressive is how people with strong moral character, and conservatism can quickly and efficiently address an issue, resolve it, and move on.
It seems to me that the theme of the Miller supporters is to engage in personal attacks and belittling the city because they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to attacking Neil Blais on his record.
And to be proud of how well they manuevered the CRA system (which again, voters by and large could care less about), rather than of the candidate's accomplishments, speaks volumes in and of itself as to what we'd see should that candidate be elected. What a joke!
Saying that it shows how well he can maneuver in Sacramento is just plain scary. That is the last thing I want representing my interests. I'm looking for someone to deal with the issues head-on, not play games. In the meantime, I will sit back and watch the fireworks as it appears to me that the Miller campaign is imploding.
Did I strike a nerve with my comment that has been deleted? Simply facts without a personal attack yet it no longer appears above!
Larry:
Must you always jump to conclusions and assume the worst? I didn't delete any comments from you, and haven't seen any comments from you in the last several days other than a 4/1 comment on the Mountjoy/CRA post.
Maybe there was a glitch, or perhaps the comment didn't go through. After a certain amount of time elapses, the CAPTCHA words "expire" so when you click submit, you get an error message (but it doesn't stand out and it's easy to close the browser on the assumption it went through).
In those instances, click the back arrow in the browser, refresh the browser, and new, valid CAPTCHA letters/numbers will appear.
Sorry for any inconvenience.