A few commenters to this post have suggested that, among other sins, I have libeled Marc Norman by suggesting that the food workers union is COGs sugar daddy. A commenter “Gimme” took issue with my questioning of Marc on this topic. They wrote:
“As a private citizen, he doesn't owe you or any of the disgruntled developers and lawyers you parrot for an answer.
His statement (May 28, 11:32am) that COG had "not accepted ANY funding from organizations with a financial interest in the Turf Valley referendum" was verified by the Board of Elections financial filing you copied on this post (just above your link to the picture of the naked couple).”
I’m afraid that is not quite correct. The only publicly available financial information for COG was filed before the union became heavily involved. COG was not required to file a subsequent financial statement because the petition effort did not succeed. This “publicly available information" does not answer anything because at that point in time they were just getting started.
This is the document that Marc Norman suggests confirms that COG has “not accepted ANY funding from organizations with a financial interest in the Turf Valley referendum.”
I realize I first needed to ask Marc if he believes that the food workers union has a “financial interest” in keeping a non union grocer out of the Turf Valley development. That would be key to understanding his answer and that is probably the best I can expect.
As for the link to the naked couple from the Burning Man festival, well let’s just say that they are certainly more open than COG has been so far.
More of the Same?
14 hours ago