EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Monday, May 21, 2012

The Pick To Replace Nadia Lockyer Comes With Hayashi In Mind

ALAMEDA COUNTY//REPLACING NADIA LOCKYER
May 21, 2012 | When news of Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi’s interest in replacing Nadia Lockyer at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors was leaked, it was interpreted as a method of embarrassing the larcenous legislator, instead, it may have actually been a warning.

On Tuesday, the remaining supervisors will begin the task of picking over the strengths and liabilities of eight applicants—four legitimate, four of who are not much more than window-dressing. Whoever, the board ultimately chooses next month, the process will be all about Mary and likely drive every major storyline for the next six months of the year. Here’s what each applicant’s candidacy might mean come November:

Supervisor Keith Carson has advocated returning former supervisor Gail Steele to the dais as a way of clearing a surely hard-fought campaign season without a candidate possessing the perceived advantage of the incumbency. Ironically, according to many observers of the process, the choice of Steele would be, by far, the most advantageous pick for a future run for supervisor by Hayashi, who is conveniently termed out of her seat in the assembly at the end of the year.

How the hard-nosed Hayashi could still be in the running for the most sought after and comfortable post in Alameda County politics despite a thin legislative record and a well-known shoplifting incident last year, makes little sense to the electorate, but all the sense to the political community. There continues to be a growing feeling the district, outside of political junkies, simply does not know about Hayashi’s past. At worse, they may vaguely recall a politician stealing clothes from Neiman Marcus, but will not be able to consistently link it personally to Hayashi. Even with a substantial campaign war chest sitting in the bank, in some ways, the failing memory of voters and persistent apathy is Hayashi’s most potent weapon.

In the meantime, there will be constant reading of tea leaves and parsing over which way each supervisor will lean in the coming weeks. Aside from Steele, the front runners include former Union City councilman Richard Valle, Newark Councilwoman Ana Apodaca and longtime Union City Mayor Mark Green, who is also an assembly candidate in the 20th District.

Choosing any of these three would signal the board intends to set up a roadblock for Hayashi for November and possibly beyond. One astute East Bay insider believes Hayashi’s reported $800,000 in campaign fundraising represent s a zero-sum game. If the board appoints a legitimate competitor to go up against Hayashi in November it, hurts her in two ways—both entailing she use a significant portion of her war chest to compete. The rationale being that it forces Hayashi to expend precious resources that would be better spent for the seat she really covets in the near future--the House of Representatives.

So, if not Steele, which among Valle, Green and Apodaca poses the biggest threat to Hayashi? Like Green, Valle is also running for another office, in this case, mayor of Union City. Many in the area vouch for Valle’s progressive credentials and point to his near upset a few years back of Steele in District 2. During a Board of Supervisor’s meeting two weeks ago, the overwhelming number of public speakers appeared to be supporting Valle, although none specifically named him. Valle also speaks Spanish which helps him with many groups in the district who want a Latino named to the seat. District 2 represents the highest concentration of Latinos in the county. Valle’s candidacy, though, may be hurt by a perception he is being backed by the Lockyers.

Green’s bold foray into the board of supervisor’s appointment concurrently with a very competitive race for the assembly may complicate his chances. A recent poll showed Green’s chances of advancing in his assembly race to the November general election are very good, yet he may have destabilize his chance for either post with his application last week. Based on his experience leading several regional boards, there is no question Green is easily the most viable candidate for the board of supervisors. However, there is a worry that his volume of experience may actually pose a threat to the egos of some current members, who may not feel comfortable ceding their expertise on certain subjects to an appointee. In terms of facing Hayashi in November and her ravenous reputation for dirty politics, Green could be formidable. As in every race he has ever run, Green is always the most engaging and humorous of the lot. He can also trash talk, too. While Hayashi is harsh, she is also not the sweetest or funniest politician around, by any means.

The most interesting appointee, then, would be Apodaca. The community wants a Latino. Check, Apodaca. There is also word one of the supervisors desires another female colleague on the board. Check, Apodaca. You would also be hard pressed to find someone in the East Bay that has something negative to say about her. The only question for her viability afterwards is she was not able to win her run for mayor of Newark last year. Despite the presence of a discernible old boy’s network still alive in Newark, her defeat, nonetheless, surprised quite a few. Her potential appointment would also fall under the category of “Karma is a bitch.” Apodaca, you see, was chief of staff for former state Sen. Liz Figueroa, the woman who lost out to Nadia Lockyer and Bill Lockyer’s $1.8 million in the 2010 race for supervisor. Apodaca and Figueroa are still very tight.

In a story teeming with lies, betrayal and immorality involving a politician buying a seat for his drug-addled wife, don’t think for a moment Figueroa wouldn't relish sitting in her Half Moon Bay home with a glass of wine knowing her protégé walked away with Nadia’s Lockyer’s old seat on the Board of Supervisors. That’s vindication of the highest order and possibly the only way to end this most emabarrasing and awful period in Alameda County politics.

18 comments :

C'mon Steve - tell us how you really feel! ;-)

If Valle appointed I believe it takes Hayashi out of the picture cause labor is swinging from Valle's you know whats. I don't believe labor would stand in the way of Hayashi going after Apodaca, but would stop her from going after Valle. Just my 2 cents

Google Mary Hayashi, the hit "news".

Event after event, proclamation after proclamation.
A steady stream of PR Wire releases all aimed at papering over her crimes and shame.
Let us not forget, this office holder is on 3 years probation after being arrested for a felony.

Look at some of her latest stuff, May 9th.

PORAC Legislative Day and Reception

Assemblymember Mary Hayashi attended the reception for the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Legislative Day.

There she is, having her photo taken with Jon Rudolph, president of the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Association.

Good image there Mr. Rudolph, you with a fat smile on your face next to a woman on 3 years probation.

Also, Mary next to Ron Cottingham, President of the Police Officers Research Association of California.

Next, smiling next to Cottingham and Daryl Steinberg, Speaker of the Assembly.

Whats up with these law enforcement officers?
I find it disgusting they should sit there beaming big smiles, only 4 months after the person next to them copped a plea to reduce her felony to a misdemeanor, as a first time offender.

Can we conclude that organization is going to be supporting here in November.
How about the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs.
Will they find it possible to support for Supervisor a candidate still with over 2 more years of probation?

How sick is all this?

Time to start marching around Castro Valley with large signs featuring Mary in her booking photo.
A preemptive strike against her effort to sweep this under the rug.

In the six months since her arrest, she has yet to face the people and answer questions.
Ditto for the press. Not one interview granted.

She needs someone to poke a pin her trial balloon.

Hayashi will try and run a campaign similar to Nadia's. She will rally the Democratic Party who will bow to her wishes just like they did to Bill when he came to pressure them. Then she will work her labor connections to get them on her side or block endorsements of others. She will then pressure big money donors not to donate to any of her opponents. Finally, her campaign consultants will flood voter's mailboxes with glossy pieces of her accomplishments. Despite her many shortcomings, Mary poses a definite threat to anyone else in the race.

It will be up to us to spread the word that we want shoplifting power hungry Mary to go away!

Great article and posts! Stop Hayashi in 2012! By the way, is Chris Parman following his husband to Palm Springs? Best weapon that Mary has.

If you have any doubt that Mary has plans for future office NOW, take a look at her private website.

Not the Assembly sponsored site, but her own.

http://www.maryhayashi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=11

Look at all the people who seem to be happy in Mary's company. All those photos are from 2012, after Mary was sentenced.

Pete Stark, Mike Honda, Ellen Corbett,
Police chief of Hayard, Vice Mayor of Alameda Bonta, city council members from Fremont, Alameda, Hayard. Plus nearly every labor organization.

She has a wheelbarrow full of money and she ain't going away!
I think the public remained silent because they thought, "Oh well, she'll be out of office in at the end of the year"...
How mistaken they were.

And yet, she is still afraid to face the general public, the voters, in a normal public forum or town hall meeting.

The simple solution and nothing is easy in politics, appoint Steele and let everyone else fight it out in November. People's choice> Tony Santos

Can only transfer 20k to supervisor race.

Who says, or where do you get the info that only $20,000 can be transfered to the supervisor race?

If that is what you mean regarding Hayashi.

county ordinance passed in late 2010 says so

Sorry, but you do not understand that county ordinance.

(a)
No person or entity shall make to any candidate for County office or elective County officer nor a candidate's or elective County officer's controlled committee a contribution or contributions totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for each election. No candidate's or elective County officer's controlled committee shall accept from any person or entity a contribution or contributions totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for each election.

(c)
The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to a candidate's contributions of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign or controlled committee.

So the $800,000 Mary Hayashi is said to have in her own campaign or controlled committee is not controlled by this limitation.

Mary is releasing PR newswire item every other day.
She is appearing at safe functions and having her photographer showing her next to every person, labor group and other organization she can.
All in controlled circumstances.
At the same time, she has not appeared before a open public forum or town hall in the six months since her arrest.
During that time she has not given one interview to a professional journalist.

She only slipped up once when some journalism students from Castro Valley HS got in to see her.
She was unaware they might ask questions or take notes. She fended them off, and soon slipped away.
That event was reported in the school newspaper and on some Patch sites.

Everything suggests she is quietly planning on running for something soon.
Given the nature of a special election, with no majority needed, she very well may try to gain the supervisor seat in November.
She might win with 30% of the vote unless the newly appointed person is strong, can raise money, and can limit it to a two person race (meaning herself/himself, Mary, and no other substantial candidate)
On the other hand if several serious candidates run, that would play into Mary's hand, and money advantage.

Personal funds do not include campaign accounts ask the registrar

After reflecting on my above post, done after my inital quick reading of the ordinance---

Upon further reading of sections a) and c) I could see how you could read it several ways or specifically how you stated it originally.

In general, I don't think there is a limition on how Mary Hayashi's existing campaign fund can spend their money.
That existing committee can do what it wants.
I believe it can promote Mary Hayashi or anyone else it chooses. I believe if Joe Smith was running for Supervisor, that perhaps the Mary Hayashi existing fund could do promotions for Joe Smith totaling $50,000, BUT that might only be if Joe Smith didn't have any control over it.

However, the more I read this, you could be correct.
I would like to hear more opinions/discussion of this.

Of course, Mary could always dole out her $800,000 to other "non-controlled" entities, then with a wink-and-nod, those same entities might just happen to contribute $20,000 to Mary Supervisorial campaign.
A form of campaign money laundering.

Someone said she is having a fundraising event at her home for Speaker Perez.
She could give him xxxx thousands from her campaign fund, the he, and his followers, could turn around and send a equal or greater amount of money back to Mary's supervisorial fund.
Not sure what the limitation is on how much money she could pass to Perez.

I remember Don Perata used one of his committees to spend about a million for some Cancer Prop. that never took off.

Of course there is/was the 1.5 million to Nadia that probably prompted this ordinance.
Is this ordinance legal?...with regard to the individuals OWN existing campaign funds? Which by the way, was probably gathered in increments of less than $20,000 each?

After my second post, I just read your reply and read further into the ordinance.
I guess I spoke/posted too soon without reading all the definitions in later provisions.

Having said that, I still can't believe that Mary Hayashi can't find a way in one door, around the corner, and back in a side door, to essentially use the majority of the $800,000 herself.
Campaign money flows in mysterious ways regardless of how many ordinances are passed.

As they said during Watergate, "follow the money".

If Mary runs for Supervisor in November, she will use this money to further her prospects.
Even if she has to promise to repay it later in some convaluded method later.
I mean, its not like she is known for respecting the letter or spirit of the law.

I remember back in the 90's, Pete Stark's son was running for Supervisor.
Each of Petes children loaned the son's campaign about $25,000.
He lost the election.
Then after the election, Pete Stark's campaign fund donated $75,000 to the son's still existing campaign fund.
A day or two later, the son's campaign fund promptly paid off the loans back to siblings.

In effect, the money went directly from Pete Starks congessional fund, into the hands of his other children.
Or more appropriately, directly from various PACs into the hands of his children.
Clearly when they loaned money to their brother's campaign, they understood that all the money would be returned after the election was over.
Wink, wink, PACs to Pete to pay back the childrens loans.
Now, the PACs didn't give it to Pete with this in mind. NO, they just give and give to gain access.
They do it every year and don't care how Pete spends it.
But within the family the children had to know that their loans were made without risk.
An effective flow through of funds from Washington to a county supervisor race.

By the way, did this $20,000 ordinance cover loans?
I'll have to read it again.

I just wanted to clarify some things mentioned in the above comment regarding Pete Stark use of campaign funds back in the 90's.

Everything done in the loans by the children to to their brother in Petes son's supervisorial campaign was above board, reported, and legal, though not well known.
As also was the later donation to the still active son's campaign fund, after the election, by Pete Starks congressional fund.
And the money that was later used to pay off the loans legally went into the son's campaign fund after the election.
It resided there for a day or two as I remember.
Then, as I remember, it was used to pay off the loans previously made by the siblings to their brother's campaign.

So all steps were "legal" and violated no campaign laws.
No money was given to, or received by Pete Stark's campaign fund with the understanding it would later be used to pay off loans made to his son's supervisorial campaign.

OK. All legal actions. All the money in Petes campaign fund was given in the normal course of events and was probably already existing in Petes fund prior to his son running for supervisor.
Pete had large surpluses in those days and little competition.
So I am not implying that there was a connection between a PAC giving funds to later pay off those loans.

However, wouldn't we all like to loan $25,000 to a campaign knowing there was a very excellent chance all our money would be returned in full after the election, regardless of whether the candidate won or had any funds left.

I guess that is but one more privilage enjoyed by those who are well connected to those in power.
In effect, their own version of the ONE PERCENT.

BTW, his son has gone on to a excellent career in his own field.
Probably got shoved into running for Supervisor when he really wasn't ready.

Who knows, he might still run for some office.

Back on Mary's cash.
Is everyone, reporters and Nate Miley, clueless or what? Seems regardless of the ordinance that there must be some loop-hole.
Certainly Miley must know its provisions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/BAI31OM17G.DTL
==========================================
"Supervisor Nate Miley said appointing a lame-duck candidate like Steele would not make the November election a neutral race among equals.

He raised concerns about a rumored candidate, Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi of Hayward. State campaign finance data show that Hayashi has roughly $583,000 in her various campaign accounts. That would dwarf the amount of money typically spent in a county supervisor's race. Lockyer spent over $1.6 million. By contrast, Steele said she never spent more than $40,000 on a county supervisor's race.

"Her presence looms out there," said Miley, noting Hayashi's war chest as well as her political connections in Sacramento, which could bring her more. "I don't know if you can start out with a fair competition if Mary runs."
=============================================

I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out the irony of the above comments regarding Stark's son's supervisor's race and the Lockyer's

On the other side of that particular supervisors race, was Bill Lockyer political power, which played a big role in defeating Jeff Stark while supporting the winner, Bob Knox. Bob Knox and Bill Lockyer were close well before that race, going back to the days when Knox was County Treasurer. Irony is, Knox recently played a role in helping Nadia win her seat and Knox's investment banking firm was recently approved by Bill Lockyer's Treasurer's Office to invest funds for the State of California.

Oh what a web they weave.

Keep digging Tavares...the smoking gun(s) are there.

By MW:

Mary Hayashi would be the "perfect" replacement for Nadia Lockyer on the AC Board of Supervisors. And the reason I say that is since Hayashi and Nadia have similar "standards" in regard to "truth."

Post a Comment