Burbank’s future mayor sent MyBurbank a letter

It graces the pages right here.

To the Editor:

I found it ironic David Gordon and Juan Guillen reported receiving campaign donations from developer Michael Cusumano. The irony was that that Gordon repeatedly predicted the other candidates (other than his slate-mates would likely take cash from Cusumano, and he’d be alone in staying pure. But here was Gordon reporting quite the opposite.

I don’t object to developer contributions in general. The decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. And it’s NOT unusual for candidates to receive cash they didn’t solicit and don’t want. But standard practice has them reporting the revenue, then on the same forms, reporting the cash was returned. Gordon reported the receipt, but 10 days later still had the donation.

In response to my teasing in a Facebook post, Gordon “issued a statement.” Others of us say stuff. Gordon “issues statements.” Anyway, he confirmed receiving the cash, then offered a convoluted explanation of the simple “Paypal” system. The implication was that somehow Paypal kept the cash inaccessible, which of course is exactly contrary to one of two reasons Paypal exists.

Indeed, Gordon went on to claim that what mattered was his “intent” with the money. Of course, actions speak louder than words, which is why forthright people don’t have to convince anyone of their intent 10 days after the fact. Instead – whether running for council, Assembly or Senate, or any other office – others just return unwanted donations as soon as it’s realized they came in. But ten days after Gordon’s own statement acknowledges he learned he had Cusumano’s money, he was still holding the cash.

What made this a true Gordon experience was the next section of his “statement.” He had the money, it came in through Paypal, and he somehow held it because it’s his intent to eventually send it back – certainly now that we all know about it, eh? But in closing, Gordon offered more explanation.

“… certain members of the community, including Vice Mayor Will Rogers and Council Candidate Sharon Springer, have pounced upon the reporting out of this entirely legal contribution…”

Gordon’s woes are partly my fault because I noted how his publicly-filed report contradicted his frequent claims and his implicit smears of others? It’s Springer’s fault that his public report prompted her to recall Gordon’s repeated claims that he and his slate-mates would probably be the only candidates NOT to receive developer donations,

Gordon then closed by declaring his confidence that Cusumano meant well, and he of course cleared himself. So, the only miscreants named were Will Rogers and Sharon Springer, though we had absolutely no control over the cash, Gordon’s reports, or his bank account. And to ,think, people keep wondering why I see so many points in common between David Gordon and Donald Trump.

The proof of hypocrisy is already clear. The usual handful of well-known Gordon promoters are congratulating Gordon and Guillen for returning the cash, as if 10 days after-the-fact they wouldn’t have seen them assembling the cross to hoist any other candidate who did precisely and exactly the same.

I hope Ms. Springer has learned her lesson. Speech isn’t so free in Burbank that one is permitted to question David Gordon. His supporters will teach her that lesson during public comments at an upcoming council meeting.

Will Rogers

No one’s “congratulating Gordon and Guillen for returning the cash…” For one thing, no one has to. So on that point alone your future mayor is lying through his teeth in order to lodge his phony point. He also has a very odd idea about “free speech” — and it’s a quite Trumpian one. Springer’s free speech right doesn’t mean that no one’s free to respond.

What a duplicitous asshole, eh? It’s been that way for years with this guy. He also extends his “teasing” here to a full-fledged public statement that repeats the exact same points he made earlier. Which means that it wasn’t just teasing.  It was a clear political attack. So he can’t even be straight about that one, either.

These Springer-over-Gordon fans are more than frustrated by the outcome of the primary vote. They know that it’s not going to be so easy a haul for them now. So expect much more of this crap during the next six weeks.

Keep in mind too that Rogers fails to mention that Cusumano apparently didn’t donate to any other candidates but the two classic reform guys. Which not only raises serious questions on its own, but also denied Gordon the so called “prediction” that he would criticize the other opponents for agreeing to “take cash from Cusumano.”

If in fact he would — contrary to Rogers’ constant wetdream fantasies about the people who don’t like him and how they’re going to act. As we pointed out yesterday, the Cusumanos are small potatoes now as compared to other more ambitious outside commercial interests, and no one we know has been making a serious issue of their campaign money, if any issue at all. Rogers is stuck somewhere back in 2003 with his same old crowd of red herrings and council-crazy “nutballs” — the last year btw that he had a real job.

This contribution stunt all sounds pretty hamfistedly deliberate on the part of Cusumano and his fellow Gordon haters, doesn’t it? A question which again Rogers ignores. Like Trump, it’s whatever works with this guy.



Filed under Uncategorized

27 responses to “Burbank’s future mayor sent MyBurbank a letter

  1. Anonymous

    Rogers also can’t explain a big contradiction, if Gordon has been going around criticizing Cusamano campaign donations then why in the world would he accept one. He would have to be crazy or really dumb.

    • semichorus

      You’re right. Good point. In order to believe Rogers here, you’d have to also believe that Gordon isn’t just a hypocrite and stupid, he’s also INSANE.

      No one in their right mind would go around railing against Cusumano donations and then turn around and immediately accept one. The suspension of disbelief required here for ROGERS to sound sane is beyond the capacity of most people. Or at least most reasonable people.

      Will ain’t too bright, is he? His target audience of cheerleaders is obviously even dumber than he is to be buying his crap. Or as I said, desperate.

      • E.C.

        The only one Rogers proves is insane is Rogers himself. Rumors abound in Burbank that Rogers is sick in the head and heavily medicated. Sad to read and hear the ramblings of an insane man like Rogers.

    • Anonymous

      Then why did it take Gordon 10 days to return the money?

      And don’t blame pay pal. That won’t wash.

      • semichorus

        It didn’t. He never credited nor accepted it. Because he never had it.

        Keep trying guys. The rest of us can smell your desperation. Too bad for you that all the votes were counted this time — I well remember how Burbank used to try to weed out all those flakier stragglers– who have also been historically much more anti-establishment in nature. The more motivated Company Boys always vote earlier.

        The Springer crowd must have shit over the final ballot results. Which well explains this inanely conceived Gordon pile-on after Will’s little “teasing.”

        Btw … is that “City of Burbank” Facebook page actually ALLOWING anti-Gordon comments?


        • Anonymous

          Springer picked up several hundred votes in the last count. Gordon did not improve as a measured in percentage.

          Why? Because there is so much to criticize.

  2. Roy wiegand

    All the while, the stench of the $50,000 of taxpayer funds to the Yes on Measure B gets even stronger.
    It seems, after weeks of waiting, that Dr. Gordon is still the lone CC member calling for a public hearing.
    Very embarrassing for this city. I urge the others to have the courage to join Gordon.

  3. Anonymous

    Dignity. Decorum. Diplomacy. All hallmarks of Rogers’ stunning political acumen. A born leader, even-keeled, scrupulously measured and preternaturally wise — in all ways and all things. We are so lucky to have him.

  4. DixieFlyer

    We’ve had time now to view the follower election “coverage”.

    Today they not only used the stale info from Rogers and Springer, but they even ran a letter from Rogers–with no stuttering.

    Until now, they chose NOT to cover the City Council Election.

    No issues were printed on their pages.

    The “local community news” gets lost between LA & Orange County.

    Has anyone ever met Mark Kellam?

    • Norm

      So true why isn’t Rogers using his great investigative skills on the 50,000 of public funds thrown into that Measure B election ? Or is that one ok due to the fact Rogers own name was attached to supporting Measure B. Investigative reporter sure Will.

    • semichorus

      Kellam does kind of make Dan Evans look like Jules Kimmett, doesn’t he?

  5. chad

    “Gordon ‘issues statements.’ Anyway, he confirmed receiving the cash, then offered a convoluted explanation of the simple ‘Paypal’ system.” Please note the use of the pejorative term “convoluted.” Jayzuz.

    • semichorus

      And it wasn’t convoluted. So that’s another lie.

      No one can control unsolicited PayPal contributions. And as I said, in order to give Rogers’ claims any creedence you’d have to believe that Gordon is nuts. Way beyond hypocritical.

      About just $400!

      That’s a stretch even for Rogers’ dissembling nature. So this is all about their desperation to grasp at anything which might work against Gordon, no matter how moldy. The new state election law screwed up the prospects for his major hoped for replacement, which is delightful.

      • Anonymous

        Which of course begs the question, prior to the new law, how many legit votes have been trashed by the clerk in the years we’ve used the ‘all mail’ system? Talk about vote suppression….

        • semichorus


          Oh, but these city clerks were all positively defiant about how well all-mail works in Burbank, and they were absolutely NOT going to allow election day postmarks to count. Or even those ballots that were postmarked earlier but just didn’t happen to arrive by Tuesday.

          Can you imagine such a thing? Glendale’s rules on absentee ballots DID allow late receipt. Thank god then for that Dem legislature to override Burbank, eh?

          I tell ya, you can never run out of good material in this town– there’s such a gloriously high asshole quotient that you get to deal with.

  6. Al in SoCal

    I see the Trump fanatics have their tin-foil hats on – check. This guy made the donation around the 15th .. it wasn’t returned until the 25th – you have to ACTUALLY push “accept payment” on Paypal. ACCEPT PAYMENT – do you understand that – do you fully comprehend what that means.

    When you get caught with your hand IN the cookie jar it’s soooo much easier to simply admit you made a mistake and apologize – done. Instead of the various excuses and rationalizations of “we didn’t know” or the zinger “paypal forces us to accept it” – omg only the stupid will accept it … ah .. well – it speaks VOLUMES who accepts this truckload of BS. JUST ADMIT it and move on.

    And for anyone who STILL has their tin-foil hats on SEE the picture – this is how you deny a payment BEFORE it hits your account (BEFORE IT TOUCHES YOUR ACCT – do you UNDERSTAND????):

    • semichorus

      There’s a difference between your PayPal account and your credited bank account. Savvy?

      And who cares about Cusumano money anyway? You guys think it’s still 2003. Or 2013.

      Your whole premise falls apart. There are much bigger fish to fry now. So you’ve really got to replace your stale old constructs about “the nutballs” with something more up to date.

      That means ALL of you boosters out there (and face it, that’s what you really are. My targets by contrast are timeless!)

      I fully expect campaign references soon to “The Berlins.” Or maybe Jules Kimmett. Cause that’s all ya’ got.

      • Anonymous

        Yep the mindless boosters are locked in a bygone age. Time has just passed them by and they have gotten old and perhapa a bit senile

        • semichorus

          They need to find a new set of phony targets to bounce off of.

          There’s also a big difference between Cusumano money and Cusumano backing. No one’s going to be swayed by $400, but a Cusumano endorsement absolutely indicates more favorable treatment to their cause. Or at least a friendlier ear.

          They obviously think so! That’s why they want them in. It’s not Gordon signs they have up.

          • Irwin Fletcher

            Meanwhile the Cusumano entrance to Memorial Field looks derelict,, drab, boring. Why doesn’t that corner even mention the Burrough’s name, or use the school colors? I wouldn’t want that guys endorsement.

      • Anonymous

        Who cares about Cusumano money? You do. You have spent how many years trashing Cusumano? Gordon does. He has trashed all of Cusumano’s projects since joining the council. Dave Spell cares. Save Burbank Neighborhoods care.

        All you anit “booster” crowd care. It just right now is inconvenient to you to admit it. Keep shoveling the shit.

        • semichorus

          I don’t care about their money. I care about their influence, and their fans. The people they support. And as I said earlier, compared to these out-of-state combines now, they’re small potatoes.

          I don’t think they know how to spend their money, honestly.

    • semichorus

      Good find.

      Yeah, there is an inherent inconsistency there. He’s trying to have it about three different ways with his “teasing” of Gordon. If developer money isn’t bad, and you’re taking it yourself, then who cares how supposedly hypocritical someone else is to be taking it as well. It’s ridiculous to make some kind of moral issue about it, in any regard.

      Worse for this guy, Gordon has neither railed about Cusumano money recently nor gotten high and mighty about their donation. Rogers is just making that up in order to continue to follow his moldy script about “nutball” council critics and what they’re up to. And their mental/moral states.

      I say take the money! The problem isn’t campaign donations and the possibility of nefarious influence, which is really marginal with $400 at stake. It’s who they actually endorse and actively support. We know who the Cusumanos think will best serve their interests, and it ain’t Gordon and Guillen.

      Interesting about Gangi. What they got in the future pipeline?

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s