« Post on Bandrapalli | Main | Il Piccolo Finally Makes Breakfast and Lunch »

September 28, 2013

Comments

Alexander Kent

Joe,

You're always one to slander others without really understanding what you're talking about.

If you actually read my entire 460 statement, it says that I loaned my campaign a total of $403.94 across various expenses which added up to that amount.

Instead of nit-picking others, perhaps you should discuss the conflicts of interests on the existing city council.

Enjoy the beautiful day!

Thank you,

Alexander Kent

www.alexkent.org

Residents to Elect Alexander England Kent for Burlingame City Council 2013

Joe

It's an interesting approach to reporting, Alex. You note in the other post that you "led Symphonic/Cornish brokerage team for a $25.55M Class A Office / School purchase in San Jose."

And your Form 460 notes a contribution from Symphonic of $1,000. Then your out-of-pocket expenses appear to be listed as a loan. Is that your position?

Poppy Guy

Alex, technically, your accusation is libel, not slander.

Scooter

Joe, I'm not sure of your campaign finance background but your post seems to have some inaccuracies albeit routine ones. As I've dealt with these things fairly often, I believe I can help clear a few of these up. I don't see any reason to attack any candidates about the above info based on the Burlingame City Campaign financial ordinance, minus one possible exception.

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ordinance/city/R_Burlingame.pdf

They can donate as much money as they want to. It is only a loan if they wish to pay themselves back and according to the ordinance they can pay themselves back no more than $12k. Which leads to another inaccuracy in your post, Nirmala based on your info. only (I did not look at the filings myself) loaned herself $14k+ which would be more than she is allowed to, however I think she can correct that moving forward as amendments to filings are allowed and very common. I don't know if either Duncan or Peceimer wish to, but until or unless they try to pay back more than $12k, neither has done anything wrong. With Mr. Peceimer, I'm assuming having "donated" over $30k and accepting $900 in donations he is not actively requesting donations. Its easy to make accusations about "buying elections," but perhaps it should be noted that he is spending his own money, instead of begging for a little here and a little there from folks I'm sure would prefer to use their money on bigger priorities. I received his mailer and do not recall any request for donations. As for Mr. Kent... it is quite normal to indicate you loaned yourself money that would be used for expenses, of course it should come from a campaign account not a personal account and then he should fund the account with his personal funds to recover it. I'm not sure if he did this... either way... getting in to the odd amount of his rather small personal loan (and Ortiz) seems just a bit unimportant when we certainly have much bigger issues to deal with. I would hope Russ Cohen who I believe controls this site would find more meaningful debate about our town instead of picking on Kent's pennies.


Joe

Scooter, thanks for the input. I think you misinterpreted the sentence "Money can't always buy elections but it certainly helps." Nor do I believe you think money doesn't matter.

The main purpose of distinguishing between personal money (or money from one's own firm) and donations from citizens is that is a proxy for support out there. Hard to dispute that.

As for "meaningful debate" you are welcome to peruse the last couple of hundred posts. There is no lack of meaningful debate here.

Scooter

Joe,
Though you are correct about the value of donations being PR just as much as the monetary value, there is something to be said for self-funded candidates. If Mr. Peceimer had spent $10k of his own money and only raised $900 that would be one thing, but clearly by the amount he has spent, he is intend on spending his own money and not bother the voters for donations. As best as I can tell, Mr. Peceimer has not actively tried to fundraise, and I doubt the other candidates, most notably Ms. Keighran are just sitting back watching the money role in. I'm sure they are actively lobbying for donations while Mr. Peceimer seems to have committed to self-funding, if that means focusing on campaigning and not begging for a nickel and dime here and there, power to him.

Of course, the real point of my post was pointing out your inaccuracies about how he and Duncan reported their loans vs. donations. Your thoughts on "buying an election" really mean nothing to me. The readers know you are actively supporting one candidate and that is fine, certainly your right and nobody would deny that. However in doing so you have essentially insinuated wrongdoing on the part of those candidates who did nothing wrong indicating revenue as a donation not as a loan. If your post had done nothing but report the cash on hand, donations etc... that would be one thing, but your personal input as to what was right or wrong was inaccurate and I think it would be appropriate if you removed your false comments now that they have been proven wrong. Being that your response to my comments included no further information about the donation/loan issue, I'm assuming you do now realize you were not correct and owe it to those candidates to either apologize or remove the wrongful information.

Alexander Kent

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I tried to answer some of your questions on this thread on September 29th (6 days ago), but Joe Baylock and Russ Cohen didn't let my statements get posted, as they moderate any comments.

Yes, the $1,000 from my company Symphonic is getting amended as a "Loan" instead of a "Contribution". This was my mistake, and it was not intentional.

Please feel free to email me at alex.kent@symphonic-inv.com or call me at 650-793-0541, if you have any questions.

You can also check out my website at www.alexkent.org

I'm happy to chat with you or meet you in-person for coffee or a beer.

Cheers,

Alexander E. Kent

Residents to Elect Alexander England Kent for Burlingame City Council 2013.

Joe

Thanks Scooter for your response. By now, I hope you know my slow response was due to my going off-line in Glen Ellen for a big anniversary. I purposely ignored the Voice for a week.

Now that I am back, I can only disagree with your twisted view of campaign fund reporting. I have no "inaccuracies" in my reporting. You have graciously provided a link that shows contribution limits that your favored candidate has ignored--by thousands of dollars. You have also conveniently ignored the fact that this whole ordinance is optional or voluntary. So he skates.

Note that there are no penalties associated with violating the ordinance as your favored candidate has done. So he is sort-of-legal and no one but me will call him on it. But that is OK, since I am fine with him spending his own money. I just reject the notion that it is a "contribution".

Now it's your turn for an apology. But I am not really expecting one since you like to twist the facts.

Joe

p.s. Scooter: Your little opening that says "I'm not sure of your campaign finance background" is basically B.S. You are clearly an insider and you therefore know exactly what my campaign finance background is. Nice try.

Scooter

Joe,
Sorry, I was likewise out of town for a couple of days. I'm not sure what apology you are expecting, I believe you have inaccurately reported Mr. Peceimer's contribution vs. donation and the "matter of fact" nature in which your original post was stated sure comes across as accusatory. But frankly your most recent comment notes "nothing illegal" and as we both have better things to do that will suffice for now. And no, I did not know you were traveling and don't consider myself an insider, but have dealt with this type of campaign finance, respectfully though no I don't know exactly what your experience is. Welcome back and enjoy your week.

Scooter

One PS from me Joe... to be clear, yes I like Peceimer. But as you have been clear of your support for Cohen I would say he earns strong support from me too. The HSR issue is certainly a plus as I don't feel he has given up on beating it like Peceimer. My only real experience with him was from the debate as I don't have the council elections institutional knowledge that you seem to have but from the debate, I would consider him one of my 3 votes. I felt as you did about Duncan and think Kent and Shinagl have something to offer too. I didn't take away too much from Ortiz and Nirmala and find the existing council less than satisfactory, though would have preferred to see Baylock stay around and someone else to drop. I actually see Cohen and Peceimer as having some reasonably similar positions and find their energy something that would benefit our city if somehow they both won, though its hard to imagine at least once incumbent not winning, probably two.

Joe

Fair enough, sir. My experience comes from filing these various forms for 12 years and tracking them all here even in years when I wasn't the filer, but as I think we both agree there appears to be some grey areas. When I have some time, I want to look into the ramification of one making "contributions" to oneself above the voluntary limits listed in the ordinance.

resident

Thank you. This site was helpful in explaining Michael Brownrigg's email. He talked about someone spending a lot of money, but now I know it was Peicmer.

Holyroller

Why does Mr. Piecemeyer want to become a City of Burlingame Elder?
Really.
I do not recall if he had been invovlved in COB Civic affairs. I never heard of Mr. Piecemeyer until a few weeks ago. I am not voting for Mr.Peicemeyer because his camnpaign seems mean spirted, and egocentic.
People like that only care about themselves, and facilitate drama to bring attension to themselves.
Negitive or Positive Attension is Good for Business
"Might even ge a free round of golf at The Burlingame Country Club."
Good Luck,
Holy

jennifer

Yesterday I received what was probably my 5th or maybe 6th full sized glossy from him. There is one item on there where I completely agree with him, and that is High Speed Rail.

But I get really nervous when someone wants to toss out our carefully crafted zoning ordinances; it almost sounds as if he wants business zoning everywhere--the opposite tack of what has made this city work well for close to a century.

When I see that he is a commercial realtor, I'm wondering if that is self-serving (?)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.