Saturday, January 20, 2007

Questions, questions

Craig has an update on the flyer flap. Initially, Craig's issue was the placement of Ginderske flyers in the Red Eye, and then he questioned the campaign manager's explanation.

Today the report is that Julie Seagraves learned from the store owner, Mr. Ukonga, that Ginderske solicited the event at the furniture store, vs being an invited guest as stated by the campaign. The event led to the publicity flyers that were missing the union bug, which wound up in the Red Eye, and in a few cases onto the street. By the way, sudokuist mentioned the flyer being in his (her?) Red Eye and that Jim was passing out the same bugless flyer at the Dev Corp. meeting at the No Exit. I managed to miss that the first time around (reading too fast I guess), so more than one Red Eye had a flyer.

1 - Was Ginderske invited by the owner or soliciting sponsorship for an event? We don't know. Mr. Ukonga has one explanation, Mr. Scudalleri has a different explanation. My take: absent a smoking gun this becomes a "he said/he said," so let's call it a tie and move on.

Net impact - 0, except as input to Number 3.

2 - Bugless flyers for a political event. Is that kosher? I am sufficiently untutored in the law, rule and regulation surrounding political campaigns and flyers to know what is allowed. If the campaign did their own in house, off the campaign computer, printing does it matter? Anyone? Jim? Thomas? Francis?

Net impact - undetermined until I know what the rules allow.

3 - Flyers in the Red Eye. We can conclude from Mr. Scudalleri's comments that the Ginderske campaign did not intend to place flyers in the Red Eye. Craig inferred that the campaign was holding Mr. Ukonga responible for the flyers, based on this statement from Mr. Scudalleri: and took it upon himself to publicize it. Mr. Ukonga told Ms. Seagraves he wasn't responsible for the flyers in the Red Eye. Mr. Scudalleri did not say Mr. Ukonga placed the flyers in the paper, and I did not conclude that he intended to say that, however it appears others have reached that conclusion. The actual perp remains at large, so no confessions forthcoming and we don't know who placed flyers in the paper.

Net impact - One smear with the tar brush because people will draw conclusions based on the foregoing, even if unwarranted, and the dust-up in Item 1 is a contributing factor.

My $0.02 -

Craig sums it all up by describing this as a huge, unethical campaign blunder. Blundering there may be, but whether it rises to the level of huge and unethical remains to be seen. The lack of information about Ginderske's take on what happened is intriguing since it appears Ms. Seagraves has acquired at least one version of the events. Has she gotten Jim's version? If she did, it would be useful to know what he said. It is a crucial missing link.

The Ginderske campaign is hardly on the ropes over this, however appearances can work for or against you. I don't know the dynamics behind the contradictory account of how the DCI store event was organized, however, it led to the bugless flyer advertising the event, copies of which found their way into the Red Eye. Taken individually there isn't much here, but taken as a whole we have a potential cascade effect. It's fodder for the creation of an appearance Jim cannot afford.

Word of the day - transparency. It applies equally to Craig and to the aldermanic challengers.

No comments: