Thursday, October 14, 2010
Perata Refuses to List Job Title on Ballot
Politics / People Robert Gammon — Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Oakland mayoral candidate Don Perata is apparently too embarrassed about his job as a highly paid consultant for the California prison guard’s union to list it on the November ballot. Indeed, the ex-state senator has taken the unusual step of listing no job title at all. As a result, his ballot designation just says, “Don Perata.”
A candidate not listing his job title directly under his name on the ballot is rare. Perata is the only candidate — statewide or in Oakland — not to have done so on the local ballot. His main competitors, Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan, list their jobs as Oakland city councilmembers, and Joe Tuman lists his as “professor/political analyst.”
“I think it shows what he really ‘believes’ about Oakland voters,” Kaplan said. “It shows that he ‘believes’ they won’t vote for him if they know he works for the prison lobby.”
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association hired Perata in early 2009 as a “political consultant” just after he was termed out of the state senate. The union is Perata’s only publicly known employer and it has paid him at least $469,000, records show. The high pay also has raised numerous questions about what Perata is doing currently for the union — or whether it’s merely about payback. During his time in the senate, Perata helped protect the union from state budget cuts. The union also financed two hit-piece mailers against Quan and Kaplan earlier this year.
So why didn’t Perata just list his job title as “former senator?” Presumably because it would have been illegal. Under election law, a candidate must list his or her current job title on the ballot — not one from two years ago, Kaplan noted.
As a result, Perata’s only option would have been to reveal his current job to voters. And it’s a no-brainer that calling attention to your work for the prison guard’s union wouldn’t be a smart political move in a progressive town like Oakland.
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
Tim Anderson,
Actually, Arnie Field's use of "visionary" is clearly illegal, but no one cares because he can't get elected.
The rules on ballot job titles are actually pretty strict. Just ask ex-Senator Liz Figueroa. She was slapped down by a judge earlier this year for trying to call herself a "job developer" or "employment specialist," when she is neither:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/liz-figueroa-lies-about-her-residence/Content?oid=1854300
like
dislike
Yawn.... How seriously are we to take this job title thing? Arnie Fields is listed as "Visionary". Real strict criteria.
Read what the San Francisco Chronicle, a REAL newspaper, has to say about Don Perata: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?…
the problem with perata is that there seems to be nothing positive about the guy. even the "good" things he has done such as gun buy-backs or local clean-ups are either total failures or come off as cynical ploys to get elected. people complain about Gammon and the negative slant to these perata articles, but perata has been in office for years and has apparently done nothing to warrant positive or even so-called fair coverage from this newspaper or others.
Hey Gammon isn't wacko. I noticed the very same thing when I looked on the Ballot. My first reaction was why didn't Perata list his current job? We all know he is doing political consulting work for the Peace Officer's Association. If he does the work he should be proud of it and list it. It isn't as though it's a secret. Perata is being low key in some areas and really there is no need -- we all know about Don Perata.
Gammon, you need serious psychiatric help. I've lost count on how many "articles" (wacko rants) you've put up about Perata. It's gone past pathetic and now entered stalker/slander territory. You have clearly got a personal vendetta about this guy. Over the past 4 years that I've gone back and looked at the hatchet jobs you've written, at least 75% of your "work" (haha, that's a good one) are aimed at Perata. Out of that you've said he'd be (a) indicted, (b) lose his office, (c) never get elected, and (d) just generally burn in hell. If you think he hasn't got a chance of winning, why do you spend so much time on him? Why do you go to the extreme of shoving a nobody, done-nothing like Rebecca Kaplan down Oakland's throat? There is something really wrong with you. (Here's where you jump in and post under a fake name and pretend you're a concerned citizen who thinks I'M nuts. Tell it to the hookers coming in to pay cash for your ad space)
Author Archives
-
Jerry Brown’s Optimism Has Been Costly
- May 18, 2012
-
A’s Planned Move to San Jose Looks Dead
- May 17, 2012
- More»
