In a response to Jim Knapp, SacPress 11/30/2009 “Opponents say strong mayor initiative faces lawsuit” I asked Jim the following question: “Which City Planning Com. Nominee & family contributed the most to both SAG and the council person who nominated them? B) How much collectively did they contribute to both committees? Here’s 2 hints-watch last week’s city council meeting at the end…then pull out those campaign contribution statements-It’s more than $10,000.00...& More than $20,000.00 It could also be a harbinger of this city under the proposed SMI” I guess others are now asking the same question. BTW that CC meeting was 11/24/09 and the nominations came just before Council Comments & Questions at the end of the meeting. Thankfully we have a City Clerk’s office, under the authority of City Council, that makes the availability of campaign contribution info a basic principle, unlike our County Sups. In fact SacBee just had an excellent editorial on that very subject. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/10/2595394/supervisors-need-to-join-computer.html So who were in the pool of candidates that submitted their applications to the city clerk’s office. How do their list of backgrounds and experiences compare? To see the entire list and their applications, resumes & qualifications- here is the link from the 11/10/2009 City Council Agenda: http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=2139&meta_id=187074 How many were involved in developing the GPAC 2030, you know…our new General Plan? Some pretty stellar resumes there…along with a few less so. Here’s one for Tom Runge, one FPPC watchdog: Tom, you were at the forefront of demanding an FPPC number on the SAVE website, which appeared within 15 days of their qualifying as a committee, unlike SAG which took over a month. So is KevinJohnsonformayor.com subject to your same scrutiny? As of 1:30PM 3-19-10 …it still wasn’t there, 2+years. The website does have a “donate” link attached to it…and I’m not talking "time" donations…you can’t put that on a credit card! Now we're back to where this story started Campaign Contribution$, Rewards and the $-greening-$ of Sacramento City Hall Access. You might also find “Bites” interesting in today’s SNR, RE: use of discretionary funds by the Mayor’s office for the "Year 1" pamphlet that had too many campaign literature overtones for Cosmo. I wonder if that pamphlet has the FPPC # on it, since it “contains a prominent link to the website”? Not his official city website...but his campaign committee website. The mayor's staff initially said there was no problem with using the discretionary funds... "Well, a couple of days after Bites started asking questions about the booklet, McPeek called back to say that the mayor and his staff had done some thinking, and that Johnson has now decided to pay for the booklet out of his own pocket, “just to be on the safe side.” http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1388221

Two additional item's I find interesting and possibly telling. 1) If you go to the Sacbee site, Click" our region " Scroll down to right below the community box where it says Ongoing Coverage- Arena Issue- Click on it...There's Breton's & Voisin's OP ED pieces displayed as relevant to the discussion...Where's Walter"s article?? Where's O'Connell or Foon Rhee's?...aren't they op ed pieces just like Breton and Voisins's? Somebody doesn't like the message? I wonder what Ms Sills has to say. 2)Failed auction by the state of the Orange County Fair Grounds-56 mill was the highest bidder- 100 to 400% less than the state was hoping for "March 18, 2010|By Tony Barboza The state has rejected all seven bids for the Orange County Fairgrounds in its first attempt to sell off state property and landmarks to help reduce California's budget shortfall. Bids for the 150-acre Costa Mesa site came in far below expectations. The state auctioned off the property in January but the winning bid, $56.5 million from Newport Beach-based outlet mall developer Craig Realty and partner Dwight Manley, a former sports agent, came in far short of the $96-million to $180-million price range officials had expected." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/18/local/la-me-oc-fairgrounds18-2010mar18 Add that to the arbitration hearing on that 55 mil city portion of the rail yard.

Similar story in the business journal: http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/01/daily34.html however the artificial turf cost is stated as $1.04 mil of which the team/league will pay $300K.. Who is correct ? ...and if there is a disparity....who is making up the difference...especially with the university's current budget problems affecting student cost and curriculum retention? I seem to recall that most of the NFL teams were going back to actual turf. Increase of injuries, ambient temperatures on warm days, maintenance etc were all cited as reasons for this reversal. Appreciating the "mud bowl" aspect of football on rain drenched turf...is that a primary reason for the switch...usability of the field for both practice and games, even in inclement weather?

Thanks Kathleen!!

To William's point, what rules do "volunteers" working for a particular member of the 9 person city council fall under? Is the interpretation to be one of any member of Council, or the staff and/or volunteers working for that council member's, going to result in substantiated violations being attributable to that council member?