Dear Editor,
Staff writer Serdar Tumgoren ($5K Spent to Protect Arbitration)
writes:
”
The local fire union spent $5,357 in the November council race
to support two candidates who pledged to protect binding
arbitration.
”
Dear Editor,
Staff writer Serdar Tumgoren ($5K Spent to Protect Arbitration) writes: “The local fire union spent $5,357 in the November council race to support two candidates who pledged to protect binding arbitration.”
That’s misleading – it creates the false image of two candidates – Dion Bracco and Craig Gartman – “pledged to protect binding arbitration” in exchange for union money. Tumgoren should stick to the facts – as he revealed paragraphs later!
He wrote: “Bracco said … during closed-door endorsement interviews … he did not promise to oppose efforts to uproot binding arbitration through a ballot measure. Gartman said … the union ‘knew what my position was all along – that I wouldn’t support a council-effort to repeal binding arbitration.’ ” These two “sinful” candidates had, beforehand, expressed their positions on binding arbitration.
Yet the Dispatch editorial, Cheers and Jeers, give the same false impression to imply wrongdoing. It says: “Three Jeers for Councilman Dion Bracco and the Gilroy Firefighter’s union. The union paid $3,942 for a Bracco campaign mailer and also financed a join Craig Gartman-Bracco mailer with $1,415. It’s no wonder the opposition to binding arbitration has evaporated – bought and paid for with good union cash.”
What a cheap, erroneous opinion. Two mailers do not “buy” honorable men. Might the Dispatch’s slant toward Bracco/Gartman be because they don’t agree with your simplistic solution?
James Brescoll, Gilroy
