Monday, April 12, 2010

You've Got Mail From Nadia Lockyer


After a long days work, I came home to the usual boring junk in the mail; bills, advertisements, bills, greeting card, Proposition 16 literature and a GIANT envelope from the Nadia Lockyer campaign.

Wowza! Someone’s got some cash to spend. Move over Mary Hayashi, Nadia Lockyer is on her way!

To date, I am not sure the exact amount of money Mrs. Lockyer has raised; it’s not that I’m too lazy to look it up, I think sharing the number doesn’t matter. Why? Because if I said the number it would only turn into an argument that she can raise how much she wants; neglecting the other candidates. Someone will then argue, she’s the popular one and I’ll end it there with, “Why the hell is this a popularity contest, because your candidate has a famous last name?”

This envelope contained a letter opening with “Dear Neighbor” and went on to talk about her announcement for county supervisor and that she’s going to tell me more about who she is. First off, Mrs. Lockyer, you’re not my neighbor. As your material points out, you live on Oakes Drive in Hayward…the nice part of Hayward, the part that’s hidden from the problems you think you’ll fix. Perhaps you were referring to your campaign headquarters on A Street. Question: Why does a candidate for county supervisor have a campaign headquarters, let alone, need one?

Nadia goes on to talk about the three other candidates who are looking for a job because of term limits; I think I need to do research.

Hayward City Councilman Kevin Dowling has served on the council since 1998. In fact, Hayward City Councilman Olden Henson has been serving since 1994. Mr. Dowling has served the City of Hayward for 12 years and thinks he’s ready to serve at the county level; that’s admirable, not because of “term limits.” According to an email response from the Hayward city clerk, there are no term limits on councilmember’s; so, Mrs. Lockyer’s literature is not completely true about Mr. Dowling, one of three other choices.

As for the other two candidates, well, I think they probably fall under the same category. Liz Figueroa is on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (appointed by Don Perata); perhaps Mrs. Lockyer is playing cheap in saying she can no longer run for Senate or Assembly. BUT, Mrs. Figueroa only served two terms in the assembly, so there’s hope there.

Perhaps Mrs. Lockyer is referring to Mrs. Figueroa as one of the many California politicians that jumps from office to office. Politicians like Jerry Brown, Art Torres…or…Bill Lockyer. (And for fun and not bitterness, let me speculate that Mary Hayashi will soon become one of those lifers we’re stuck with.)

Next, Nadia talks about how people ask her if she’s married to Bill Lockyer. She tells them yes, her husband is the “California State Treasurer.” They were married in 2003, had a kid in 2003 and are both committed to serving and improving their community. Oh, and she’s running with her own ideas in mind, not Bill’s, not Art’s, not Mary’s. A former Santa Ana (Orange County) School Board member that studied law in Los Angeles is somehow more qualified to serve this county then a veteran (and passionate) councilman, or a former State Senator/Assembly Member or Mayor. Yet, so many will think she’s ready, and that her name doesn’t hurt her, nor do her friends that stand in-front and on the side of her.

We’re left to believe in her “proven track record of delivering government services to those most in need.” However, I question her track record since she’s never been elected to public office, outside of a school board in Orange County. She is not a regular Jane, as her campaign tries to spin it; complete with a play room for children at campaign headquarters. She is married to a powerful man, a former Attorney General, now Treasurer with a war chest bigger than many out there. Jerry Brown calls her a “county manager” in his endorsement; is county manager a loose term these days? Mary Hayashi says she’s a “great new voice for our community.” Mary knows a thing or two about being new to a community; she moved to Castro Valley (or is she in Hayward, or Sacramento five days a week) not so long ago. Mary also talks about Nadia being an adult caregiver; I admire that a lot, but it seems to really exploit the care she gave. And Hayward City Councilman Bill Quirk, supporting an outside and not a fellow member of the council to probably gain powerful support, calls her a “county manager” as well. He says she’s a “new voice for improving education, bringing jobs to the community and preventing violence.”

Then there is a one-page glossy print of three photographs; one of Nadia and her husband, California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, one of their son and one of her with her son. Now, I will not go on about her family, however, I will point out that good money must have been spent for us to know that she has a picture-perfect family. We’re also left to believe that she believes “county government can do more for children and families,” more than, I guess city, state or federal government, “especially in these tough economic times.” One could probably argue if she knows how hard times are for families, living up on Oakes Drive.

And just in case you want to show you support for Mrs. Lockyer and believe in her “track record of delivering government services efficiently while saving taxpayers money” (still waiting on more details of that statement), she’s graciously included a big red and black campaign sign for you to stick in your window. The sign is to “help remind others to vote.” If that’s the case, I’ll just remind them of the election in June, and let them pick the candidate they think is best for the district and county.

All that said…Nadia sure has a lot to live up to.

Nicholas Terry is a resident of Hayward and a former Alameda County Consumer Affairs Commissioner and Hayward Citizens Advisory Commissioner.

JOIN THE REVOLUTION! Got something say? Send in your commentary to The Citizen to have your voice heard. 


Nadia's proven track record of delivering government services to those most in need is shown by her Executive Directorship of the Alameda County Family Justice Center. From the Center's website:

The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:

•Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy

•Legal assistance services

•Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence

•Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services

•Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders

In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services. Victims had to travel to several different places to get help, often with children, tell their stories many times to various people, causing frustration and exacerbating their trauma. Many gave up and never actually received the full range of services they need. The cost in suffering and lost human potential to our community was staggering. In response, ACFJC was created and now serves as a one-stop center based on a simple premise: if all services for victims are located in one place, survivors will more readily access and receive the critical help they need and in a timely fashion.

WOWZA is right. That is about a $1.45 per piece, maybe higher. If she mailed to 30,000 residents it could be amost 45k....wowza

Thanks, Anonymous...I assume you're saying Mrs. Lockyer has been responsible for doing all these things listed? I understand she's the Director, but I am not sure if you're saying that she's is responsible for the success of all these things listed? I don't think she'll take sole credit, but you're quoting a web site, suggesting that because of her (and many, many others), this stuff happens.

Anonymous #2...I am uncertain if your post was sarcasm, but either way, I doubt that mailing cost $1.45 per piece. The postage alone could have cost that much (unless she got a discount).

I think Liz Figueroa and Kevin Dowling have campaign headquarters, too. So nice try.

And I love the effort to downplay Nadia's service on the School Board. When was the last time you got elected as a progressive Democrat to a position in Orange County?

Would be nice if we had a commercial media system that could cover political races a little more and crime news and celebrity scandals a little less.They're in it to make money not cover local democracy, so I guess that's why the reliance on mailers.


Another Airhead, trying to impress the gullible.

Anonymous #1 (I'll have to address them as numbers because you can't use your name, even a fake one, so excuse me if I don't take you very serious): Where are these headquarters that you think exist? A home doesn't really count. And, are you saying Nadia Lockyer is an admitted progressive Democrat? Remember, her elected office partisan. Oh, I've never been elected to anything as anything, except in high school when I was class Treasurer twice and on the School Board as a Student Board Member; my mind wasn't ready to be Progressive, Moderate, Conservative, Liberal or, anything. Oh, I like saying oh, Santa Ana isn't really too conservative, but it's easy to label something when you live hours away from it.

Craig...I agree about the mailers but, the MAIN point is, she spent a ton of money on a few slick pages of material, a lot of reading and fluff. Am I to gather that she's capable of spending money or just REALLY wants the job so wow them with glossy paper?

Anonymous #2...well, I have nothing to say to you. Well, yes, I do...prepare to be labeled a sexist, racist tea bagging bigot by some local dunderhead that probably can't vote for Mrs. Lockyer.

Hmm, after reading several different article's and the many comments here and elsewhere, I am pretty much not voting for Nadia.

Sexist, racist tea bagging bigot??? Such big words you pychopath. Can't argue anything on the merits so you immediately bring out the Leftists mantra. And why do you Leftists have such an afixation with "tea bagging"??? Do you even shave?

Um. Anonymous. I check often to see if I'm a psychopath (correct spelling) and all signs point to no.

Now. If you read correctly, you'll see that I'm applying sarcasm because Anonymous #2's point of view was one I could agree with. I am not calling him any names, I'm saying that many on here, will call him names. Such as the ones I used, that you assume I'm calling him. I am not a leftist, nor do I use anyones mantra, just my own. And yes, I shave.

So, sir, or madam (no clue what you are)...I am warning the writer in a humorous tone that some on her (they use names and don't use their names) will attack him for calling Mrs. Lockyer an air head.

In our money grubbing system , politics is about organizing money.If we had campaign finance reform, people wouldn't need slick mailers. If Republicans were not bankrupt politically they might not always vote against campaign finance reform. So Democrats need to do what they need to do to get elected.
When Clinton was being impeached,corporations were drowning Republicans in contributions. They were so appalled by his behavior and laughing all the way to pick up their checks from the corporations.Morally addicted to contributions. Same thing during health care, tons of money from the industry, even though the Democrats control the committees. Vote "no" and we'll contribute. Not much more than a bribe.

Those voters who care about those who sit on a dias and govern seldom take the time...or have the time to look deep into a candidate's political history. Who has given of them self to improve their county, who's staff repeatedly have reached beyond their "duties".

I'd be careful to include those who "buy their election"; or try to regardless of their employment history. When millions go into a campaign...and then millions more invested by one person I stongly question the *real* intent of that candidate. Glossy PR does not impress, the person's KNOWLEDGE of governing is far more important to me as a voter. The person's history of commitment to their Party...even tho this election is not a partisan race...should speak volumes--The Democratic Party has lost its way, this race is clearly evidence of that! I changed Parties because the Dems have lost their value and purpose as money speaks louder, it seems, that the value of the person. I want to know voting records, who has steadfastly been a Party "loyal". Liz is the ONLY candidate that a true Dem could vote for!


I am curious in your opinion how the three other candidates have not been loyal to their party? Just because someone is "endorsed" by heavy party hitters, doesn't mean they are loyal, does it? That really concerns me, party loyalty...as if to say the only person right for the job is the one that is a true "Dem" or true republican; even though you mentioned that this is partisan...there's no excuse for voting for someone just because they are a certain party. I can't address your first paragraph because I am not sure what you're saying really. All four candidates have given to their community in one way or another; one of them just has a lot of money and that doesn't make them the best candidate; they just have the means to reach a wider audience. The other ones need to bang on doors more.

According to Mrs. Lockyer's twitter page, she won the endorsement of the Alameda County Democratic Party. Won? I guess I'm the ONLY person who sees winning an endorsement from a political party for a non-partisan race to be ridiculous. Using the word "won" makes it sound like a high school class President election...whats next, ice cream machines and cotton candy at lunch? Obviously she cares less about the Republicans and Independents in her possible district, because the majority Dems choose her.

Courage and boldness is long gone in politics.

Since Republicans and conservative independents comprise about 30% of voters in the County's 2nd District, it wouldn't take courage and boldness to do their bidding. It would require ill thinking and a willingness to disrespect the will of the voters who elected them.

Perhaps if Republicans and those in the American Independent Party wish to see their candidates elected in Alameda County, they need to bang on doors more.

Steve (last name left out for some reason)-

I am not running for office, you need to maybe, I dont know, stay focused on these candidates and not attack the author of an opinion piece because he once was a candidate for public office.

Just saying. Fact remains, Dems out number any party in this area, so the actuality of one winning (in a partisan race, of course) is not very good. Boldness and Courage MUST be in the make-up of ANYONE who becomes a selfless servant of the people; many people in all parties lack this these days.

If you are hurt and think I am disrespecting any candidate or voter, ok, but I think I'm doing what most people do, voice their opinion knowing someone may disagree or get bent out of shape. Your coincidences on calling out certain parties is pithy and boorish and of course, typical.

The other candidates MOST likely will knock on as many doors as possible, themselves, not just groups of supporters armed with (bloviated) literature on who their loyal candidate is.

I am more likely to vote for a candidate based on their character and working background, in a non-partisan race, over someone that says they "won" the endorsement of the majority party. And. I'm not alone.

Mr. Dowling...thanks for sharing that with those who make up lies saying you do have a campaign headquarters.

The "Anonymous" postings in favor of Lockyer certainly appear to be made by his campaign workers. It would be nice to know. I am not afraid of giving my name, Steve White.

I researched the hiring of Nadia Lockyer to head of the ACFJC which Anonymous talks about.

The hiring was engineered, in probably violation of both state and federal law, by the then Asst. DA, Nancy O'Malley. State law forbids an Attorney General, which Bill Lockyer was at the time, from using his position to benefit his wife. Federal law, which ACFJC is subject to because it receives large grants from the US DOJ, forbids those who decide how money is to be spent from being close than "arm's length" from those who receive the money.

So, O'Malley wanted to hire Lockyer, but she had a problem, under the CA constitution, Bill Lockyer was her boss at the time, and therefore the violation of state law would be far too obvious. So, she set up a phony selection process to decide who got the job, with two committees of four people each, but stacked each committe with two DA staffers. By this method, she was able to get ties votes to keep Lockyer in consideration, and block others. Even with the process totally corrupted, (and insider told me O'Malley rigged it, I am not merely making inferences of that) it was still apparently quite a fight to get her the job.

These actions were illegal, but who was to stop O'Malley? Her boss approved it, and the only other California law enforcement offical with jurisdiction was Bill Lockyer himself. Very neat little package.

The ACFJC is largely a boondoogle, go there sometime, virtually no one uses their services.

I wrote a blog post today regarding Ms. Lockyer's (and others') unethical decision to illegally post her campaign signs on public property.


Post a Comment