Frankly, I’m always a bit suspect of the ‘not so nice’ news articles that appear in the news media right before an election… At the beginning of a campaign season, everyone vows to run a ‘clean campaign’ but as one side starts losing in the polls, the mud-slinging always starts… So I’m not that surprised about the Ventura Star article… More campaign contributions send the message (at least to me) that the candidate is out and about, meeting people, showing their willingness to discuss matters and actually do something… The ‘proof of the pudding’ is the voting record which you have in regards to incumbents – not challengers… I’d be more concerned if that article was about one of the challengers to the council seats…

As for Happy Face Hill, what a mess the developers have made of our community’s ‘first impression’ to visitors… And total lack of respect to the citizens of our city – it’s what all of us look for and cause an inward smile that triggers the “I’m home� warm, fuzzy feeling inside…

I’m SICK of developers – were this my city to run, I’d force every developer interested in our community to run a renovation project in parallel (in scope and financial investment) to any development project they wanted to start here in Simi Valley…

Every resident knows Simi Valley stands for “valley of the winds� in Chumash and there’s not ONE wind energy generation source here! You have to drive out to Vegas to see other communities harnessing the power of natural wind resources to generate energy and here we sit in our valley, refusing to do this and fighting ugly muglies who want to triple the size of the landfill as a dumping ground for Los Angeles’ trash… I find it amazing the ridges of our valley aren’t lined with energy-generation wind machines, but the citizens aren’t up in arms about that, nor fighting developers who consistently rape our hillsides and stop in the middle of their projects when the going gets tough…

I can’t be the ONLY one that loves Happy Face Hill or the beauty of our hillsides and valley, right?????

Frankly, I’m always a bit suspect of the ‘not so nice’ news articles that appear in the news media right before an election… At the beginning of a campaign season, everyone vows to run a ‘clean campaign’ but as one side starts losing in the polls, the mud-slinging always starts… So I’m not that surprised about the Ventura Star article… More campaign contributions send the message (at least to me) that the candidate is out and about, meeting people, showing their willingness to discuss matters and actually do something… The ‘proof of the pudding’ is the voting record which you have in regards to incumbents – not challengers… I’d be more concerned if that article was about one of the challengers to the council seats…

As for Happy Face Hill, what a mess the developers have made of our community’s ‘first impression’ to visitors… And total lack of respect to the citizens of our city – it’s what all of us look for and cause an inward smile that triggers the “I’m home� warm, fuzzy feeling inside…

I’m SICK of developers – were this my city to run, I’d force every developer interested in our community to run a renovation project in parallel (in scope and financial investment) to any development project they wanted to start here in Simi Valley…

Every resident knows Simi Valley stands for “valley of the winds� in Chumash and there’s not ONE wind energy generation source here! You have to drive out to Vegas to see other communities harnessing the power of natural wind resources to generate energy and here we sit in our valley, refusing to do this and fighting ugly muglies who want to triple the size of the landfill as a dumping ground for Los Angeles’ trash… I find it amazing the ridges of our valley aren’t lined with energy-generation wind machines, but the citizens aren’t up in arms about that, nor fighting developers who consistently rape our hillsides and stop in the middle of their projects when the going gets tough…

I can’t be the ONLY one that loves Happy Face Hill or the beauty of our hillsides and valley, right?????

The Star would be best served to hire some educated reporters who can read a City Code. The Star should have used yellow paper if this level of journalism is let to continue. Pure garbage.

Maybe, it's just more "nit-picking".

Before all the Dennert blog regulars trip over themselves to give Barbra a free pass on this one, how about asking her to provide some specific answers to the allegations made in the Star article. Folks around here seem to jump all over other candidates over there mere insinuation of ethical issues surrounding campaign finances, so why brush this one aside without asking the tough questions?

BTW Brian, I had a recent conversation with another regular Dennert blog contributor who commented that have a tendency to quickly add new stories when you want a particular thread to roll off (i.e. go away). I only mention this because just yesterday I asked if you would be creating a thread for this story and you indicated that it was coming soon. Today I check and it is already #5 on the list the moment it appeared. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I also noticed that you open the story with a favorable video link that has no connection to the story, and you mix in the Hummingbird Ranch issue instead of sticking only to the issue of the campaign finance controversy. It certainly gives the impression that you are trying to assist Barbra moving past this issue before any real questions can be asked. It's kind of similar to how newspapers bury inconvenient stories on page 23. I can understand how you appreciate her contributions on your blog, but this is an important issue, and with just a few days before the election people have a right to know if there was an ethical violation of campaign finance rules. Given the past threads I have seen on your blog I don't think you would treat other politicians with such kid gloves on a similar issue.

Barbara, is the article in the Star factually correct? If not, please clarify for us what information was omitted or incorrect. Did you find it odd that several restaurant workers working for businesses owned by Glen Gerson contributed $1,000 each to your campaign? Do restaurant workers normally contribute this kind of money to City Council campaigns? The Star article suggests that several of these individuals are phantom employees who never actually existed, which means that this was a clear attempt by a business owner to circumvent contribution limits. City law says that you are responsible for tracking contributions and returning excess contributions within 15 days. Did you track the source of these contributions when you received them back in July? Does the Council have any items on its agenda related to action on businesses owned by Gerson?

It seems that Barbra isn't the only candidate getting contributions from Saperstein (not sure of his relationship with Glen Gerson). What's up with that? Why is Chris Valenzano here in Camarillo getting contributions from him? Did the other city council members that ran last election get funded by Saperstein or by Gerson?

By the way, the Ethics in Government on the Tony Strickland mailers has the same phone number as a very agressive Republican law firm. The same law firm that defended the Ventura County Republican Central Committee and that wrote the cease and desist letter to Vote Blue for their voter registration drive.

Bubba,

Nice theories but here are reasons to explain why I do what I do.

1. I try to get a picture of video for most entries. I do this so that when you return to my page looking for the same entry you can look for the picture or video quickly. Youtube videos are better than pictures because I don't need to upload them, I only need to cut and paste the embed code. I have used all of my videos of Barbra Williamson before and this video from Mike Chandler was the most recent video I know of her.

2. This is the last few days before an election. There are going to be many entries that bump earlier entries. I would think most of my regulars read at least the start of most entries unless it is a subject that they are not interested in. You found this entry, and I expect others will too. Do you, like many readers use the recent comment feature? If you do, every time you leave a question or comment on this entry you will put this story back on top. You have control over it too.

3. I mentioned the Hummingbird ranch story because I noticed donations from them on Barbra Williamson's report in large amounts. Doesn't that seem worthy of discussion to you? They also contributed to other incumbents.

Now that I have answered your questions, keep looking at all the campaign finance reports and tell us what you find.

I want to know what policies the restaurant and the ranch want from local government.

It looks like the Sapersteing family gave seperate $4,000 donations to Williamson, Miller and Sojka. But I don't see anything that looks illegal or particularly suspicious about those donations.

The Gerson donations trouble me because there are donations from individuals who were listed as his employees but cannot be confirmed to actually exist. Plus donations from employees of a political supporter brings up the question of whether he is pressuring employees to make contributions, or whether there is some sort of arrangement to reimburse employees who make political contributions to a particular candidate, which would be illegal. Gerson also appears to be trying to use his different businesses in an attempt to circumvent local contribution limits. I certainly hope that there is another side to this story because it doesn't look very good so far.

Bubba Kidd,

You raise serious questions, but are you not even curious what policies have made the Hummingbird ranch people want to get involved in local politics with some large, last minute donations?

I just want to know what the policies they are supporting in our city include, and I haven't seen that addressed by a newspaper, a candidate, or bloggers here.

It isn't wrong to help elect people you agree with, but we should know what they are agreeing with our elected officials about if they want to donate large amounts of money.

All of the large donations should be looked at critically and before we vote.

I spoke with a City insider and asked why Saperstein is still trying to influence city politics. Apparently he has not been able to sell the ranch and wants to continue to keep influence over the city council to help him with zoning changes for the potential buyer. I've heard rumors of anywhere from a resort to a Chumash Casino being proposed. Honestly I can't imagine our City Council even considering a Casino I think that is just a wild rumor to stir up controversy for negative politics, but you never know? I wonder what others think of a Casino there?

I talked to the owners of the Vineyards and they also have big plans for their facility including growing a vineyard on the west side of the hill. They certainly have a lot of land that is underutilized that could be rezoned for a more profitable venture.

Hopefully these two sites will contribute to the economic vitality of Simi Valley, they could potentialy complement each other or compete. I wish both of them success in developing something that will help the community and bolster our economy, I actually believe Barbra will look out for us and make sure it is good for all concerned especially keeping the best interest of the citizens first.

I won't comment yet on the campaign contributions but will wait and see what the discovery reveals. If Barbra unknowingly accepted contributions that were laundered by facitious "employees" I am sure she will do the right thing and return the money. All candidates should ask what their donors motivation is and if it reflects their values and those of the community.

I believe the diamond in the rough in this community is the East side of Simi including Corriganville and the Santa Susana Pass, the Railroad Museum and the rich history of Simi Valley in the movie industry, we could do more to revitalize the area and draw tourists. There is a lot more to Simi than the Reagan Library.

The long awaited "Press Release" has been(or will be shortly) posted on my website.
www.barbrawilliamson.com

It is disappointing to see that Barbra accepted money from Saperstein and Gerson, not because they were legal or illegal, but because they now connect her to Kunicki/Osborn/Strickland.
Barbra is very independent and will say that donations don't affect her vote.
But the appearance of her getting so much money from them makes one wonder if Osborn told her that the VCRCC wouldn't endorse her (or might even campaign against her) unless she endorsed Strickland and maybe even promised the donations if she bought in. Was she afraid the Republicans would campaign against her? Was it too tempting to play with these guys and make her campaign easier? Did that compromise her independence?

I went to Barbra's website and reviewed her press release with regard to the campaign contribution controversy. So that we can all see her response to the article in the Star I cut and pasted the content of the press release below:

PRESS RELEASE OF NOVEMBER 1, 2008

SIMI VALLEY COUNCILMEMBER BARBRA WILLIAMSON

The Ventura County Star has erroneously insinuated in its article of November 1, 2008 that certain campaign contributions to City Councilmember Barbra Williamson may have been in violation of campaign financing regulations of the City. This article is without factual support.

Campaign financing regulations within the City of Simi Valley, as they apply to its local elections, are codified in the Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5 “City Election Campaign Finances�. The specific Section of the Chapter which addresses the allegations made by The Ventura County Star, is 2-5.08(d) “Miscellaneous Regulations Relating to Contributions�. This Section clearly states “nothing herein shall prohibit a person who directs or controls contributions of any entity from making a separate contribution from his or her own personal fund, and such contributions shall not be aggregated for purposes of the contribution limits of this chapter�. Although this governing provision of the Code was specifically pointed out to the reporter drafting the story that appeared in the newspaper, the reporter failed to understand its application to the reported facts.

In the case of the highlighted corporate contributions received by Councilmember Williamson, all were made by independent and unrelated California Corporations which operate with their own respective shareholders and Boards of Directors. Each independently contributed within the amount allowed by the Code.

The Ventura County Star article further questioned personal contributions by individuals employed by a Simi Valley business. This business, of note, has no interests before the City and neither is any anticipated. These personal contributions are legal. The employees verified that they made the contributions, individually, and from their personal checking accounts, as permitted by the Code.

The purpose of the City’s campaign finance regulation is to prevent fraud. Councilmember Williamson fully and timely reported her contributions. Her intent was clear; to comply with the law and make her campaign transparent.

The press release doesn't seem to address one of the central issues, which is the claim by the Star that several contributors who were listed as employees of Gerson's businesses could not be confirmed to actually be employed at any of his restaurants. Barbra, have you actually verified that the contributors that were listed as employees of these businesses were in fact employed by Gerson, or that they even exist? I still find it odd that so many restaurant employees from a single businesses would be giving the maximum $1,000 contribution to a city council candidate. Didn't that strike you as odd Barbra? BTW, are you planning on returning any of these contributions, or do you believe that each of these individual contributions are legitimate?

I'll have to research the SV campaign finance regulations to try and understand for myself why Barbra and the Star seem to have two different interpretations of local campaign finance rules.

Call me Disappointed........You are going to believe whatever you want, so my telling you that I am not under the "thumb" of anyone will fall on deaf ears. Glen Gersen is a personal friend. I have known David Saperstein since he purchase the ranch and have been a guest of his there many times. I have met Mike Oborn once in my life,I take that back, I've met him twice. So believe what you want...I am still me and will ALWAYS VOTE MY CONSCIENCE which is what I believe the residents of Simi valley want. They don't care if I am a Republican, Democrat or Irish...they want someone who will fight for them and standup to the Waste Managements of the world.(You knew I would get them in there somewhere huh?)
And for you, Bubba, I can personally tell you that I HAVE met the employees at The Vineyards. These aren't waiters/waitress....the employees who contributed to my campaign are part of the management team and I have met them at different times when I've been there for dinner or other events. One of them being a Class reunion with my graduating class of 19something....from the State of Washington. They came here to visit the Reagan Library and afterwards we went to The Vineyards for dinner and livations.
As I stated my press release, my campaign is totally transparant and above board. We beleive we have complied with the law and are not in violation. If you don't like the fact that I have received donations from Mr. Saperstein or Mr. Gersen, don't vote for me...its really that simple.
I've answered these questions because I have been very vocal on this blog, and I believe you have a right to hear from me first hand. To do anything else would go against my very belief in open government.
This does, however, make the case why other councilmembers don't participate.

Barbra, I believe you've been the victim of a last-minute smear campaign. But you're in great company along with other female candidates who've been smeared recently and who I count as great friends.

I am sure if I knew you well I would also count you among them as I have admired your guts, honesty and forthright behavior here.

The best revenge is winning, which I am sure you will have no problem doing.

Good luck. You're a classy lady.

Barbra, I never said that I had a problem with you taking contributions from Saperstein or Gersen. In fact, I stated quite clearly in a previous post that the Saperstein donations looked fine. My issue was with regard to the specific claims made by the Star that there was an attempt by Gersen to circumvent campaign contribution limits and to possibly donate funds to your campaign through the use of phantom employees.

Based on your response it sounds like you are claiming that the Star was wrong in their interpretation of the finance regulations and wrong on the fundamental facts. It would be shocking to me that the Star would run such a story days before an election if the basic facts were completely wrong, especially if those facts could be easily verified. It sounds to me like you are claiming that the Star did just that. If true then I would expect that you will be asking them for a full retraction and apology, assuming that you should be able to easily prove your version of the events.

At this point it is hard to know what to believe. Hopefully the Star will follow up on their report and either provide more supporting information to back up their article, or make a full retraction and apology. If the Star has it wrong then this is a cheap shot, and I'll be the first one to call and cancel my subscription. I guess I'll reserve judgment on both sides until this plays itself out.

Bubba,
I can't account for the Star.....only myself.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Marie, I appreciate your kind words.

Barbra has my strong support for a number of reasons. Here are just a few:

1. Opposition to landfill expansion
2. Opposition to Happy-face hill project
3. Ability to stand alone even when pressure from her council and party colleagues have publicly criticized for having an opinion of her own.
4. Always accessible to the public
5. Bubba Kidd is using her usual victimization and conspiracy theories to criticize Barbra and Brian.

Thank you/ Please know I will always put the residents first!

If The Star is suggesting that Barbra is trying to sneak anything under the radar, then the Star is most definitely wrong. It's all right there on the published docs. I saw it weeks ago! Item number 3 in Go Barbra's list above is the most compelling point indicating that she isn't easily influenced. Now let's change the subject...

How does Steve Sojka's smile look so perfect in his PR photos? Does he use Crest whitening strips? Is his photo touched up? Or are his teeth really that pearly white? And do the challengers feel that his glimmery smile gives him a greater advantage? Discuss...

maybe they're false........*grin*

How exactly am I using "victimization and conspiracy theories" to attack Barbra? I'm simply responding to a front page article from our local paper. I have not added or insinuated anything that wasn't already presented in the Star article. I think that every citizen has a right to be concerned when this type of charge is made and to demand that the truth come out, one way or the other. I'm not prepared to give Barbra a free pass since, at this point, the public doesn't really have all the facts. Hopefully the truth will come out and the Star will either provide information to support their claims, or they will retract the article and apologize.

I would also add that the Star endorsed Williamson, which means that there is no obvious motives for the editors of the paper to ambush Barbra on the eve of the election. I noticed that Barbra responded in a letter to the editor, but the Star, apparently, still stands by its story. So for the moment it seems that both sides are not budging, but I'm sure that the facts of this case should be fairly easy to verify. In the meantime, you can attack me all you want, but I'm not the one who wrote the story.