Busted! It turns out that Supervisor Janet Nguyen had even more conflicts of interest when she voted against a pair of proposals to rate O.C. restaurants. I went to the O.C. Registrar of Voter’s office today and pulled Nguyen’s campaign finance records for her most recent Supervisorial race. Nguyen raked in over $12,000 from over 20 restaurants and food companies. Many of these businesses have been cited for health violations.
Some of Nguyen’s restaurant/food company donors (and their violations) include:
- Azteca Restaurant. $2,000 donated on 4/1/08. One major County health violation and nine minor violations on 11/3/08.
- Wynndow Cafe. $200 donated on 4/1/08. Five minor County health violations on 8/19/08. Three major violations and nine minor violations on 7/22/08.
- Bleu Restaurant & Dancing. $1,500 donated on 4/17/08. One major and nine minor County health violations on 7/9/08. Ten minor and two major violations on 6/26/08.
- Royal Restaurant & Banquet. $600 donated on 3/24/08. Three major County health violations and six minor violations on 9/4/08. One major violation and nine minor violations on 4/7/08.
- Furiwa Chinese Seafood Restaurant. $1,000 donated on 4/1/08. Three major County health violations and four minor violations on 7/18/08. One major and eight minor violations on 2/5/08.
- Dragon Phoenix Restaurant. $200 donated on 3/24/08. One major County Health violation and four minor violations on 11/24/08. Six major and six minor violations on 11/10/08.
- Yogurt Passion. $1,600 donated on 3/24/08. Four minor violations on 7/22/08.
- Tony Lam, Dong Phong Tofu. $500 donated on 3/24/08.
- Doug’s Downtown Grill. $300 donated on 5/15/08. Four minor County health violations on 8/1/08. Six minor violations on 1/23/08.
- Banh Mi Bakery. $1,600 donated on 3/17/08.
- Good Water. $2,000 donated on 5/23/08.
- Anheuser Busch. $500 dontaed on 6/2/08.
Let’s see Red County’s Matt/Jubal Cunningham argue now that Nguyen had no conflict of interest when she voted against rating O.C. restaurants! Clearly she should have recused herself.
Good job, Art. Clearly, the Supervisor with the three vote margin has some ‘splainin to do.
Art, like I’ve said, I understand you’re turning on Janet because you’re upset she didn’t endorse you for council.
A woman scorned, so to speak…
But “Anheuser Busch”? Man, you are really reaching here.
First, accepting a campaign donation does not make an elected official culpable in whatever legal infractions or violations have incurred by the the donor. By that logic, a legislator who has received a donation from someone with a speeding ticket or suspended license would have a “conflict” when voting on traffic laws.
And I hate to break it you, but you didn’t have to go to the ROV to get the reports. They have Janet’s campaign reports online, going back to Jan. 1, 2006.
I was laughing at that too – thinking why did he not just look online at the reports LOL!
Matt/Flowerszzz,
How convenient! Now I can look up Campbell’s records and Norby’s too and see how much money they took from restaurants with violations…
“I understand you’re turning on Janet because you’re upset she didn’t endorse you for council.”
Jubal,
My answer to this comment is “so what”.
Regardless of why Art is doing this what he is reporting is the truth, is it not?
While what Janet did may not have been illegal, it certainly raises questions about her integrity and lack of ethical standards.
Methinks it’s time for a recall petition drive!
Jubal’s right…having contributed more to Janet than most of those restaurants in Pedroza’s list, I’ve gotten screwed pretty good by her and her staff.
Art have at it and Welcome to the 21st century! The county electeds have been online for many years.
Never Again,
Yes – we all got screwed when Janet voted against the proposed restaurant rating system. Now it is very clear, despite Jubal’s shilling and spinning, that Janet voted in that manner to protect all of her donors who run shoddy, unsafe and unsanitary restaurants. How many of them would be rated “C” restaurants in Los Angeles?
And of course she was trying to cover for her husband and chief of staff, whose restaurant also has received numerous violations from the County Health department.
It appears that Janet is as corrupt as the Trannies who oppose her.
Had she recused herself in this, I suspect it would have been one post with few comments. Any controversy would have passed quickly. Her minions should have caught this and advised her to stay away from it as it appears not to have been a close vote.
Even with the Register is a death spiral, they do post restaurant warnings weekly. It’s always a contest at our house to call off those we know and have eaten at (and probably won’t ever again which speak to why there is some importance to all this).
I’d be curious as far as trends. Are more of these places, over time, in the 1st District than others? Seems the Register’s list don’t often tag them in Irvine.
I’d like to see Solario’s restaurant donor list. He always has the BEST food donated for his phone banks. Gracias, gracias, gracias, I give you all A++.
My answer to this comment is “so what”.
Regardless of why Art is doing this what he is reporting is the truth, is it not?
That’s certainly a convenient standard. Art routinely impugns other people’s motives.
But now, Art’s motives are suddenly irrelevant.
As for truth, what Art has done is presents a collection of facts — donation amounts.
Fact and truth are different things. A person can write something factual without being truthful, this post being a good example of that.
Now it is very clear, despite Jubal’s shilling and spinning…
Too much! At least OJ as good to laugh at.
Not too long ago, Art would get angry and accuse me of picking on Janet. Now I am “shilling and spinning” for her! I decline the honor. Besides, no one could ever match Art’s Oscar-winning performance in Janet-shilling.
Even so, I’m not surprised to read Art reaching for that worn out lawn dart. It’s indicative of a weak argument.
In Art’s mind, anyone who disagrees with him about a politician cannot be anything other than a shill for that politician.
Matt/Jubal,
It is not unreasonable to surmise that Nguyen voted against the restaurant ratings in order to prevent her husband’s restaurant and those belonging to many of her contributors from ending up with “B” or “C” ratings. In so doing Nguyen failed to look after the public good. Instead she engaged in the same kind of cronyism that Van Tran has been up to for years.
And yes Matt, now that Trung has lost again and Janet is in power for four years you are most definitely shilling for her. Why can’t you just admit that? You are one of the few people trying to explain her actions – and cover for them. That speaks for itself.
We are stuck with Janet for four years but rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on her every vote. I have a feeling this won’t be the last time she acts against the public good.
It is not unreasonable to surmise…
To “surmise” is to “to think or infer without certain or strong evidence; conjecture; guess.”
You had been adamant that Janet “clearly” had a conflict of interest. Now you’re admitting it’s just conjecture on your part.
And yes Matt, now that Trung has lost again and Janet is in power for four years you are most definitely shilling for her.
You really are a lunático. Like I said before, “shilling” in your fantasy world simply means disagreeing with your assessment of a politician. I can’t help if you are pushing a very weak case held together with wishful thinking.