Jerry Fuchs, editor and columnist of a couple of freebie journals in town has boiled the election issues down to one thing. In his mind if you want a new Safeway vote for the M&M's, otherwise vote for the challengers!!!!!

What a total crock. ALL the candidates want a new Safeway. They have stated it in their campaign literature, at all the public debates, and every meeting where the issue has arisen. And Jerry knows it, of course. It seems that those opposed to change in this town cling to this trivialization of the issues.

The real issue is leadership and vision, of which, as the Burlingame Voice and many of its readers have clearly pointed out, neither Mike Coffey or Mary Janney posses the smallest scrap. Sure, if you want special interest politics, if you want closed door meetings, if you want exclusion of the peoples voice, if you want your property values to decline, go ahead vote for the M&M's. Whoever you vote for, you will get a new Safeway.

Jerry, roll over!

– Written by admin

An article in a local newspaper dated May 31, 2003 reported that Burlingame Mayor Mike Coffey, who doesn't own property in town, is endorsing a measure on the ballot that would increase property taxes…? Now that election time is around the corner, it seems fitting to again bring out in the open the fact that Coffey does NOT own property in Burlingame, the town where he is running for City Council. It is relevant that Coffey endorsed a measure for which he would not have to pay any tax, and when this was pointed out in an interview, Coffey was reported to have ended the interview.? As a non property owner in Burlingame, he DOESN'T support the schools like the rest of us do.
It is also important to note that Coffey does, however, own property in Tampa, Florida, which he purchased SINCE he has been on the Council.
So the real question remains….Does Coffey want to be re-elected because his heart lies in Burlingame, even though he doesn't own any property here, or does he want to be re-elected, and put in just one more year to get lifetime medical benefits, and jet off to Tampa, where he spends most of his time anyway.
Think hard about vested interest in our city when you vote. Being a homeowner in the city where you are running for office says a lot about how much of an interest you have in that city.
I say go to Tampa and try a run for Council there.

– Written by sue fuller

With the power of technology anyone can now analyse the 460 returns (at least the receipts of election funds) and find fun facts such as :

• Of the $100+ contributions the M&M's have raised 39% of their $20k from outside of Burlingame, while Andersen has raised 29% from 'foreign' sources, Cohen 22% and Nagel 16%. Depending on how you look at it, Paul Prendiville's $0 is either 100% Burlingame money or 100% 'foreign' money! (Note this only reflects those contributions greater than $99.)
• Also interesting is that Nagel has had 61 individual contributions of $100 and more, Janney 51, Coffey 50, Cohen 37 and Andersen 15.
• Mike Coffey had 60 contributions of less than $100 that totaled $6,460! in his 460 filed 9/24/03. Now that's creative math! (60 x $100 = $6,000 for those who are math challenged!)
• 49% ($9,395) of Coffey's campaign funds have come from donations less than $100. That makes at least 94 people (unless you use the Coffey voodoo math). Now wouldn't you love to see that list!

What does this all mean? You decide!!

– Written by admin

It is always fascinating to read the Recipient Committee Campaign Statements of our elected officials. These forms, called the 460, have to be filed during and after elections and reveal the source and use of monies by the campaign committees.

The latest report from Mary Janney reveals that her committee received nine individual donations from employees and partners of the local law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon, one of the nations top 25 law firms. These donations totaled $2,200.

Now we all in favor of people providing financial support, but what is curious is that of the 9 people listed as giving so generously, only two seem to be registered voters here in Burlingame. It's great to see paralegals, legal secretaries and office managers feeling so passionate about our town that they dug into their own pockets to support Ms. Janney. Let's hope their year end bonuses are sufficient to cover their generous donations.

– Written by admin

Some corrections to the "misinformation" that Galligan spewed out in his newspaper letter yesterday:
(1)Dan has spoken 26 times in Council meetings from January 4, 2000 to the present, Terry 6 times, Russ 28 times and Paul zero times. As an accountant Galligan should do the math. (These facts are taken from the council minutes)
(2)Despite the whispering campaign from Galligan to Burlingame residents, Janney and Coffey are not the only ones who worked on Measure A. He knows this simple fact just as most residents know this fact.
(3) Russ provided advertising design services to Councilwoman Baylock's campaign that had a fair market value of $5,000. It was in-kind and not $5,000 cash. Galligan knows this simple fact so why does he keep dredging up this fiction?
(4) Galligan saying that two candidates are "owned" by the likes of three Burlingame residents seems a little paranoid to me. I don't think Russ or Terry are "owned" by anyone and perhaps Galligan is giving the three too much credit!!
Galligan should support Prendiville and Anderson but do it with facts, not fiction.

– Written by Fiona

Wednesday's Burlingame Daily News has a letter from Burlingame City Councilman Joe Galligan of Easton Drive who has suggested people vote for challengers Prendiville and Andersen in the upcoming city council election!!!

I had always thought, for some reason, that Mr. Galligan was supporting Mary Janney and Mike Coffey, but in this letter suggests "IF YOU WANT CHANGE, VOTE PRENDIVILLE AND ANDERSEN."

Councilman Galligan notes Mr. Andersen "Has been to more council meetings and study sessions than the rest of the other challengers combined. His comments at those meetings are never attacking; they are constructive and show that he has done his homework."

– Written by hank

I have been reading unfair and untrue barbs directed at council candidate Terry Nagel's campaign literature by a group of self-serving hypocrites. They scream foul to those without accurate knowledge in hopes of swaying their vote. However, they have turned a purposeful blind eye to their own candidate, Mike Coffey's misrepresentations, omissions, twisted facts, and false statements at the Candidates Night and in his campaign literature. Let's begin.

According to Coffey: "I'm proud…of building a $13 million budget reserve".
FALSE: Someplace in time their might have been a $13 million budget reserve, but not when you sent out your literature…it's actually a little less than $10 million. It appears you owe an explanation as to where the $3 million went. The budget reserve has been in decline since you arrived on the council. You are taking credit for the budget reserves of a past council.

According to Coffey: the reserve…"has allowed us to maintain city services…without layoffs to police, fire or other city service personnel".
FALSE: The City is down approximately 25 employees….many received a golden handshake and were not replaced…other vacancies have not been filled…a position at the recreation center was eliminated….our police department is down 5 positions….and city service fees such as sewer and water, parking fees and Planning Depoartment fees have gone up dramatically. This is actually increased fees and less employees to provide services.

According to Coffey: he "Initiated meetings with PG&E and the City Council to fix the power outage problem".
FALSE: A pattern is developing. It was Terry Nagel that spearheaded the PG&E meetings. It was Terry that formed the citizen's group "BULB" out of frustration with the City Council and PG&E. Coffey merely cut in line and is trying to take credit for Terry's accomplishments.

According to Coffey: "I am proud of ….planting trees on California Drive."
FALSE: This was entirely the Beautification Commission and his involvement at the most was to rubber stamp the project along with the other council members. Coffey is trying to take credit for someone else's concept and work.
According to Coffey: "I am proud of …opening the Aquatic Center, Golf Range, Dog Park, and the Lighted Field at Bayside Park."
TRUE BUT MISLEADING: Coffey was not involved in the design or any aspect of the implementation of the above projects since he had been on the council only a few months. All of these projects were the result of work by previous councils.
ADDED FALSE STATEMENT: When caught and quizzed at the Candidtates Night about the extent of his involvement with the above projects and realizing the questioner knew that he had only been on the council for a few short months Coffey made the following statement…"yes, I certainly did have impact on them (the projects)…I was on the Planning Commission for 4 years where we reviewed a number of these projects."
FALSE: None of these projects went before the Planning Commission …zero…once again caught trying to take credit for the work of others.
According to Coffey: "Experienced leadership is especially needed now."
TRUE & FALSE: Experienced leadership can be an asset but leaves Coffey out. There is a pattern in his character of deception, twisted self serving facts, outright false statements, hidden agendas, taking credit for the work of others and arrogance. Look it up in the dictionary, this is not Leadership. Coffey's character and statements are grounds for throwing a person out of office.

I sat on the Burlingame Planning Commission for 11 years and served with Coffey for 4 of those years. When Coffey was running for the Council 4 years ago not one fellow commissioner supported him. Why? Coffey was caught lying to his fellow Commissioners and subsequently wasn't respected or trusted by his fellow commissioners. Re-election would be a disservice to the citizens of Burlingame.

Jerry Deal
Burlingame

– Written by jerrydeal

Another interesting Council meeting … Coffey publicly apologised to Former Chief Gary Missel for planting false stories about him. The public apology was "on behalf of the whole Council". Yuck! Mr. Coffey was stated as the source of the story but when questioned about this he referred questions to the city attorney. Perhaps Mr. Coffey will clarify this issue on his website? The incumbents have now attacked Chief Deputy Coroner, Mr. Marriscolo and Former Chief Gary Missel amongst others – enough! Get to the issues, babes!

– Written by Fiona

Comcast has just announced the schedule for the re-broadcast of the San Mateo County Times candidates night forum that was held last Thursday.

• Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 8 pm
• Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 8 pm
• Thursday October 23, 2003 at 8 pm

All broadcasts will be on Comcasts channel 27. Note RCN subscribers will not be able to see this. We will try and get RCN to carry this broadcast and will let you know if we are successful.

– Written by admin