Hold on tight!
We're in for a wild ride!
Election Update: Following yesterday's post, "KLOG/Chamber endorse candidates," USC has learned that among the Chamber of Commerce interviewers were the father and campaign treasurer of one of the candidates.
Mike Buck, father of Joe Buck, and Karen Jacobsen, treasurer for Joe Buck's campaign (see ORESTAR), were both involved in interviewing candidates who are running against Joe.
Since the Chamber of Commerce is a private organization, it can do what it wants, but people should know what goes on behind the curtain before they give consideration to the group's endorsements.
While it is the Chamber's organization that orchestrated this endorsement process, it casts serious questions on how independent Joe is without his support team. This is what I would have liked to have seen a lot more of during this campaign process.
How can anyone call it fair to have candidates relatives and supporters on a committee to interview candidates? Just lousy to do that. Bad Chamber. Bad KLOG. But then I guess we knew that.
ReplyDeleteWHO ELSE PARTICIPATED IN THE KLOG INTERVIEW? WAS ROBERT LECHEVALLIER INVOLVED? HE'S STILL DIRECTOR OF KLOG. HE ALSO WAS THE ORGANIZER (ATTORNEY) FOR JOE'S BABICA HEN - DUNDEE RESTAURANT (HARVEST HEN LLC). ISN'T THAT A VESTED INTEREST?
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of any others connected to Joe Buck's or other candidates' campaigns that may have participated in candidate interviews.
DeleteMr. LeChevellier is involved in Joe's campaign and as an attorney assisted Joe in forming his companies. As far as I can see, who better to be involved in a political campaign than one's personal attorney.
There gets to be a credibility gap when one's supporters and campaign backers are involved with public endorsements that purport to come from an objective source that looks at all candidates equally and fairly before making a decision which one to support. The ethical question is whether or not the public believes the endorsement was done in a fair and objective manner. If they are led to believe that it was, but there were people who were obviously biased doing the I terriers, then credibility is lost. This doesn't do the candidate or the organization any good in the long run.
Sure the parties mentioned have an interest in the outcome of the race. But their ndorwements are not illegal as far as I can tell, but I am not an attorney. Joe's backers didn't need to give him such a boost - not if they truly believe he would make a good councilor on his own merits.