Grover Less Than Truthful In Her Paid Mailing

Submitted by Kevin OConnor on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 23:47

Jane Grover, like her political sponsor Ald. Tisdahl, still doesn't get it. Honesty matters, at least it should. As the only candidate to not take donations in the 7th Ward race and I believe citywide, let's compare Jane's latest mailing to her public record during the 7th ward campaign. 
On the front of her mailer lists her endorsements, however curiously absent is her accepted endorsement from the firefighters union. One has to give Ms. Grover credit for continually trying to make voters forget that she was endorsed by the firefighters union, accepted the endorsement, put it on her website, put it on her campaign literature, received $500.00 from the union and manpower from the union for help in this election. Of course, this is an absolute conflict of interest, even though the human resource  manager negotiates the contract, the alderman must vote to approve it. I have called for Ald. Tisdahl, Ms. Grover's political sponsor, and Jane Grover to release the questions received from the firefighters union and most importantly, their answers to them. If there is nothing to hide, why the reluctance? I would also remind all voters that I was never interviewed for the firefighters endorsement, even though the union falsely claimed that all candidates were interviewed and the best candidate was chosen. Obviously, the FIX was in for the Evanston Machine. Ald. Tisdahl was always their candidate and naturally her political understudy, Jane Grover was appointed without a full vetting of all 7th Ward candidates. So much for another of Jane's claims for a: "Transparent and Accountable Government- Make all information accessible to residents, so they can understand the hard decisions". Well, Jane if you really believe that, why not release the questions from the union and your answers before the election? Finally, one more thing on Jane and her newly alleged ghost endorsement from the union, all voters should watch the LWVE tape of Jane trying to stop the moderator from allowing John Zbesko and myself from commenting on Jane's ill advised acceptance of the endorsement. It should be noted that Ald. Tisdahl sees no problem with the endorsement, but neither Jane nor Ald. Tisdahl will ever admit to making a mistake publicly, ever. "New Leadership For Evanston", Jane? No only more of the same.
 
Jane will "Conduct a line-by-line analysis of the City's budget and progarms to ensure cost-effectiveness, best practices, and increased revenue potential." Well, Jane the voters are still waiting for your analysis! You never once spoke up during the budget workshops or at any Council meeting during citizen comment on the budget or any other matter before the Council. What are you waiting for Jane, the City is broke? I hope your not similar to your sponsor Ald. Tisdahl who ( ie: rarely speaks at the Council or committee meetings, is unable to commit early on to any issue, by being spineless until there is enough political cover and of course will never admit to her own accountability for the horrible state of the City, both organizationally and financially).
 
Jane will " Build partnerships to promote business development and job creation that will expand Evanston's economy and tax base". Once again, Jane, what have you done towards this end during the campaign?  
 
Well, Jane these are more hollow promises for you. Ald. Tisdahl and you are expending great resources in manpower and money in this campaign to control the "spin" and make sure "no reality" leaks out to the voters. At the NUPIC(K)S forum last week, Jane you still weren't able to admit to any real problems the COE faces currently and in the future. Your inability to publicly define Evanston's problems and more importantly assign responsibility to Ald. Tisdahl for her part in them is shameful. As you said to me during the forum and I quote: " I'm not here to look back, I'm here to look forward."  By your own admission Jane, you don't realize you can't go forward without an honest evaluation of the past. New Leadership? No more of the same (see Tisdahl)! We can't afford 4 more years of Tisdahl! Nor should we elect her silent partner, Jane Grover!
Kevin OConnor
ww.rebootev.com

Comments

jeffpsmith

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 14:51

Kevin, in your attack on the IVI-IPO endorsement session you call former township committeeman Larry Suffredin "the big enchilada of the 'Evanston Machine' " and associate him with Todd Stroger.
 
Yet in your atack on Jane Grover for accepting the endorsement and support of the firefighters' political committee, you claim that "the fix was in for the Evanston Machine" and try to tie Jane Grover to that.
 
This doesn't make any sense. Larry Suffredin is supporting John Zbesko. John himself has supported the firefighters' making endorsements, and only expressed that he had gotten it, and that the process was more transparent.
 
You suggest Steve Bernstein represents Schakowsky. But Bernstein voted for Zbesko at IVI-IPO, as did Bernstein's wife, Judge Cleveland Bernstein, and Suffredin.
 
If an "Evanston Democratic Machine" is supporting Jane Grover, how come three former Democratic township committeemen supported Zbesko -- who was appointed to the North Shore Mosquito Abatement District by then-president John Stroger? How come the DPOE sent out an e-mail to its members supporting Zbesko?
 
If the decision is partisan, why are  some prominent Evanston Republicans supporting Liz. Tisdahl?
 
And if there is some sort of unified Democratic machine in this election, why are Julie Hamos and Debra Shore supporting Grover, while Suffredin and Bernstein and others affiliated with DPOE supporting Zbesko -- and Schakowsky and Jeff Schoenberg (the current township committeeman) apparently staying out of the race?
 
Reality:  the Democrats of Evanston, including the elected officials, do not always act as a united group. DPOE membership made no endorsements in these races. Both Grover and Zbesko have some support from some Democratic sectors, Zbesko arguably more than Grover -- but also from people who are completely unaffiliated with the party. I've known Jane Grover for some years and John Zbesko for many more. Neither can fairly be characterized as a machine politician!
 
Was the firefighters' endorsement process any less transparent than, say, EvanstonNow's? Has any candidate been asked, or disclosed, what questions they were asked, and what their answers were, in the Evanston Review endorsement interview?
 
Having been through, personally, scores of endorsement sessions in my past life, and been involved peripherally in many, many others, I can tell you that some are extremely informal, consisting of little more than the opinion or a small group, or even one person; some are extremely formal and relatively public processes; and most are in-between. Some groups or individuals issue enforsements without any process at all, and it comes a surprise even to the candidate who receives the endorsement.
 
There is no "conflict of interest" for a union if it supports candidates it feels will be good for the City or for the union membership. And certainly you can't bar a union from makng endorsements. Neither the firefighters nor Jane Grover have made any secret of it, it's prominent on their websites.
 
Your allegation that Jane Grover is "hiding" the endorsement is just not true. Her website list of supporters leads with "Endorsed by Evanston Firefighters Local 742." I believe most candidates are happy to have Local 742's backing.
 
Whether a union that will be affected by government decisions should be prohibited from campaign contributions to an official or potential official of that government is a different question, and a legitimate one, but under current law it's not only legal, but extremely common. If they were barred, presumably they'd make independent expenditures.
 
Whether endorsement and support skews the decisionmaking of a mayor and Council is up to the voters to determine.  I think the voters of Evanston are capable of putting a $500 contribution and a few hours of flyering into context. Like the support of the local itself, it is a factor to be weighed, but only one of many.  Ultimately I doubt most Evanston voters make their decisions based on endorsements. Our survey of our members showed the opposite.
 
You are free to downplay an endorsement, but it's wrong to give it undue weight, or hurl allegations or insinuations, without any backing.