To the Editor:
I found it ironic David Gordon and Juan Guillen reported receiving campaign donations from developer Michael Cusumano. The irony was that that Gordon repeatedly predicted the other candidates (other than his slate-mates would likely take cash from Cusumano, and he’d be alone in staying pure. But here was Gordon reporting quite the opposite.
I don’t object to developer contributions in general. The decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. And it’s NOT unusual for candidates to receive cash they didn’t solicit and don’t want. But standard practice has them reporting the revenue, then on the same forms, reporting the cash was returned. Gordon reported the receipt, but 10 days later still had the donation.
In response to my teasing in a Facebook post, Gordon “issued a statement.” Others of us say stuff. Gordon “issues statements.” Anyway, he confirmed receiving the cash, then offered a convoluted explanation of the simple “Paypal” system. The implication was that somehow Paypal kept the cash inaccessible, which of course is exactly contrary to one of two reasons Paypal exists.
Indeed, Gordon went on to claim that what mattered was his “intent” with the money. Of course, actions speak louder than words, which is why forthright people don’t have to convince anyone of their intent 10 days after the fact. Instead – whether running for council, Assembly or Senate, or any other office – others just return unwanted donations as soon as it’s realized they came in. But ten days after Gordon’s own statement acknowledges he learned he had Cusumano’s money, he was still holding the cash.
What made this a true Gordon experience was the next section of his “statement.” He had the money, it came in through Paypal, and he somehow held it because it’s his intent to eventually send it back – certainly now that we all know about it, eh? But in closing, Gordon offered more explanation.
“… certain members of the community, including Vice Mayor Will Rogers and Council Candidate Sharon Springer, have pounced upon the reporting out of this entirely legal contribution…”
Gordon’s woes are partly my fault because I noted how his publicly-filed report contradicted his frequent claims and his implicit smears of others? It’s Springer’s fault that his public report prompted her to recall Gordon’s repeated claims that he and his slate-mates would probably be the only candidates NOT to receive developer donations,
Gordon then closed by declaring his confidence that Cusumano meant well, and he of course cleared himself. So, the only miscreants named were Will Rogers and Sharon Springer, though we had absolutely no control over the cash, Gordon’s reports, or his bank account. And to ,think, people keep wondering why I see so many points in common between David Gordon and Donald Trump.
The proof of hypocrisy is already clear. The usual handful of well-known Gordon promoters are congratulating Gordon and Guillen for returning the cash, as if 10 days after-the-fact they wouldn’t have seen them assembling the cross to hoist any other candidate who did precisely and exactly the same.
I hope Ms. Springer has learned her lesson. Speech isn’t so free in Burbank that one is permitted to question David Gordon. His supporters will teach her that lesson during public comments at an upcoming council meeting.
Mr. Rogers- where might like-minded or not-so-like-minded voters read your witty Facebook teasing of a fellow councilman? Would that be on the Mayor’s closed “City of Burbank” Facebook GROUP ?
Thank you, Councilman Rogers, for saying what I and so many others feel. You said it much better than I could.
I was surprised by the revelation that Gordon and Guillen had accepted these contributions, but especially by Gordon, who is always so aggressive about his anti development stand. Yet he’s the guy that voted for IKEA without adding any of the conditions so many Burbank citizens asked for. He’s the one who jmped on a bulldozer like a kid. He’s the one who took money from Cusumano’s development group and kept it, and then made excuses that ring hollow to all of us who have not drunk his VERY Trump-like kool-aid.
Ms. Springer asked a question about this. Did not level any accusations or make any threatening remarks at all, and suddenly a few Trumpettes…um, sorry, Gordonistas started spreading lies and slander about her intentions. Of course she wants to beat him in the election, but she has been a fair candidate all along, and I – for one – admire the fact that she has the guts to respectfully call in to question the contradiction of his financial dealings. I want my council members to ask the hard questions. Gordon did not answer wit hthe same integrity or respectfulness, and I’m not surprised. He’s a sexist, mysoginistic, bombastic bully, who has done nothing for our city during his long tenure on City Council. He even had the audacity to say in his official video, “Hi, I’m David Gordon, and I am on CIty COuncil…and I believe the Status Quo is not good enough”. He’s right. Let’s get rid of that awful offensive Gordon, and elect Springer, who has “proven” she cares about more than her self-agrandizement.
Who’s lying now, Charlie? I think you are. Dr. Gordon did not keep the unsolicited Cusumano contribution as you stated.
“I want my council members to ask the hard questions. ” Oh that’s rich. Frutos is unable to string together a cogent sentence. Jess is completely disinterested in any discourse and too busy “thanking staff” to shed his go-along-to-get-along sloth. Luddy rambles interminably just for the sheer joy of hearing her own electrifying, if slightly slurred, elocution. And Rogers, stammering boob that he is, is more interested in belittling his constituents than making any positive contribution–as the above ridiculous rambling spew of thinly veiled invective makes painfully clear (“teasing?” Oh, Will, you are SO cute!). Springer would make a stunning non-addition to the See No, Hear No, Speak No, Think No menagerie of corrupt simians infecting the dais. She could make a huge difference by re-using and recycling the stale dogma that’s quickly running this once great town right into its very toxic soil. Gordon, love him or hate him, is a critical thinker and a reliable Voice in the Wilderness. Democracy without dissent is, I am sure we all agree, a sham.
Comments are closed.