Archive for November, 2009

Go Vote People

November 12, 2009

Why an Anonymous Blog?

November 11, 2009

The truth is, no one who lives in District 5 has asked this question of us, because they understand.  The question has been asked, however, and deserves an answer.  The simple answer is concerns about retaliation.

Why?  Well, if you have been paying attention, you will note that there have been allegations of harassment against Ms. Murray, even prior to the beginning of this recall election.  CM Karen Bennett had concerns for her safety after she stepped up to assist District 5 residents that were not getting adequate representation from Ms. Murray and filed a police report.  Additionally, as tempers flared during the rezoning debate about Cleveland Street, a rash of cars parked in and around the condominiums where her opponent lives came up with broken windows.  Meeting participants that challenge Ms. Murray have found R-rated comments written in the dust on their vehicles when they exited to the parking lot.  As juvenile as this seems, it does send a profound message about the personal level to which Ms. Murray takes disagreements and raises concerns about how rational future responses may or may not be.

Ms. Murray has, of course, filed counter claims.  One of her claims is that a constituent called her employer in Detroit about her.  Nevermind that a constituent has little other option than to call Detroit if they want to try to reach Ms. Murray.

Interestingly, Ms. Murray has actually engaged in the very behavior she accused others of.  One constituent reports that both the boss and the Board of Directors at that individual’s employer have been contacted by Ms. Murray to discourage the constituent from speaking out against the Council Member.

These intimidation tactics can be effective.  It is our hope that anonymous blogging can be, too.  We’ll see…

More Questions about Murray’s Campaign Disclosure Docs

November 11, 2009

Please note that the previous blog post has been updated to include links to Pam Murray’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement.

Now, we don’t claim to be experts in the world of campaign finance rules and regs, but we’ve got to ask: Aren’t there some things missing from these forms?  Where is the expenditure for the commercials running on WVOL accusing her opponent of hanging out with drug dealers?  Even if the station comp’ed her the time, wouldn’t she have to report that as an in-kind donation?

In addition, while being interviewed on WVOL, Council Member Murray claimed that her campaign office was located at 625 Main Street, home to Pride Publishing, a bastion of literary excellence that puts out quality journalism such as described in a recent City Paper article:

 Underscoring the cultural and racial demarcation in the district was an Aug. 28 story about the political contest in Nashville Pride newspaper. “Carpet (bagger) bugs invade Metro District 5,” the headline read. “There has been an infestation of Carpet (bagger) bugs (CBB) in the 5th Council District,” the story began.

“This infestation was spotted by Councilor Pam Murray who mentioned that these bugs may be ‘coming from the rotting remains of opponents she defeated in the last two Council elections,’ ” it continued.

She later reported in her Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement that her campaign office is her home address.  Which is it?  If it is Pride Publishing, there should be some expense there, right?  If not, why did she say something different on the radio?

Pam Murray Supporters and Public Safety

November 11, 2009

As you may remember, a prior post, The Beer Board Story, referenced the BP located at 701 Dickerson. In that post, the owner enlisted Ms. Murray to assist him to restore his beer license after selling crack pipe craft kits. The owner also indicated to neighbors that he had given her money for her previous campaign, though he did not appear in her campaign financial disclosures that year.

This time 701 Dickerson is back along with some other businesses. Council Member Murray filed her campaign financial disclosure statement on Monday (why, yes, wise reader, that IS after the deadline). It turns out, many of her supporters are owners of businesses that have a less than stellar record when it comes to maintaining a safe neighborhood. For each property, we took a look at the calls for service to the East Precinct police for the period of her tenure, 2003 to now.

Here is a sample:

Donor Address: 701 Dickerson Rd.
Amount Given: $500 (She also got an additional $500 from the FORMER owner of 701 Dickerson Rd).
Calls for Service: 1,477

Donor Address: 803 Dickerson Rd.
Amount Given: $250
Calls for Service: 1,984

Donor Address: 2202 Dickerson Rd.
Amount Given: $250
Calls for Service: 578

Meanwhile, how’s she doing on grassroots support? Out of the $3075 she reported in campaign contributions this period, only one donor gave less than or equal to $100. The rest of her contributors are all from gas station and hotel owners that don’t live in the district (except the $475 Ms. Murray gave herself). Her competitor reports $2720 in contributions that were $100 or less.

Which candidate do you think is more focused on supporting the actual constituents in District 5, the constituents that are improving this community?

UPDATE
Her official Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22412220/Pam-Murray-Campaign-Financial-Disclosure-Statement-11-09-09
The incomplete form the election commission accepted on Friday: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22412341/Pam-Murray-Incomplete-Financial-Disclosure-Statement-11-06-09