City Council Candidate Weninger responds to Precinct 134

This morning I received three emails from Jeff Weninger, candidate for Chandler City Council. In his correspondence, Jeff took exception to some of the comments I'd made on this blog and elsewhere in recent weeks, related to his candidacy. As my readers know, I haven't endorsed Mr. Weninger in this race - not really because of any major negatives, but because I haven't been impressed with the positives. Jeff wanted to respond to some of the concerns I'd expressed and clarify his views.

After receiving his emails, I wrote Jeff a lengthy response. In it, I elaborated on some of my concerns, noted that a couple of his comments didn't actually address views I'd held or espoused, and offered to post our corrspondence on this blog (or to post any other response he would prefer). Jeff replied with a final email today agreeing to my posting our emails, providing a final-polished review of his first email. Our correspondence is below.

Because Jeff's final draft is substantially the same as the first one he sent (only a few typos corrected), I will present it in the place of the first email I received. It presents the material issues mentioned by Jeff in his first three messages. I'll then include my reply and follow with Jeff's last letter to me, today. And beyond this introduction, I'll let the letters speak for themselves.

First, the final draft of Jeff's first letter to me:

Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: Jeff weninger's response

Geo,

I have been reading your blog regularly. I Find it very informative and well done.
It is obvious that we are on different sides of the political spectrum, but I respect what you have to say. I have decided to respond to a few of your observations.
On the question about when I decided to run for office. I was asked when was the first time that I thought about running for CITY COUNCIL, not office in general. I am not trying to be cute. I do think there is a distinct difference there. I honestly first thought about it in Sept. of last year. It was a severe disadvantage to myself to jump in that late. All of the others had decided 6 months before that and they had locked up police and fire support.
Yes, I am an active Republican, but I would hope you would admire that I have not worn that on my sleeve. It is true that I have numerous Rep. endorsements, but I have no control as to who Chandler residents elect. I am proud of these endorsements. My opponent sent out a mailer that had an elephant on it and she specifically identified herself as a Rep. I have not done this. During the debate I brought up my experience as a PC. I purposely left out the party affiliation.
We will have to agree to disagree on my community service. Is there some inherent bonus to giving free meals away? Yes. Is that why I do it? NO!! I might agree with you, if when I donated 1000 sandwiches ($6,000 retail) and worked the event for MDA , I sent out a press release. But I didn't. I wanted to help out Joe Jackson's family, so I decided to donate $100 for every birdie that Phil Mickelson made at the Phoenix Open. I have never even spoken to his family. I brought it up for the first time the other night. Like I said it is not in my nature to discuss these things, but I feel that I have no choice.
Seriously, when did community service become only serving on a board or commission? Do you really believe someone is effective serving on 20 boards at the same time? I am proud of the fact that my company has spent over $300,000 since the year 2000 on health insurance for employees. Let me tell you, providing health insurance in a industry with very high turnover is rare. It is even rarer for smaller, locally owned companies like mine. This is not something that we have to do. Whenever we have become more successful we have passed on increased benefits to our employees.
I do not think you can discount the amount of jobs that we have provided to Chandler residents ( mostly teens). The restaurant industry is a great training ground for the real world. It is not easy work. It helps develop a much needed work ethic for later in life. I often counsel different employees on everything from abstaining from underage drinking of alcohol to girlfriend troubles. We truly act as a family.
Let me now cover my answer to my qualifications as a candidate for city council. That was my worst answer of the night. I fully intended to say almost exactly what JAKE said, but this is live television. I blew that one, no doubt about it. Just keep in mind that I spoke for a minimum of 30 minutes while rarely using notes. I am not the most polished speaker in the world, but I am honest and have faith in my ideas. I do believe I come off as a genuine and regular guy. I am truly a humble person. If you come into my restaurants you will see me bussing tables and talking to customers and taking suggestions to heart. I will work just as hard as a councilperson and listen just as much. My opinion can be changed occasionally. If someone has a better idea then I will change or tweak my position.
Like I said before, I respect your perspective. I believe that Jake and yourself are providing a great tool for dialogue. There is another blogger that I haven't responded to. I don't plan on doing so at this time. He said some pretty inflammatory things about me. I am a big boy and I can take it, but I am not going to respond to hyperbole. I have had numerous disagreements with Slade Mead over the years, but I believe if you ask him if I have ever been rude or mean spirited he will say no. Disagreement is great, but it can be done in a respectful way.

Thank you,

Jeff Weninger

I responded to Jeff's email today (Sunday) with this reply:

Dear Jeff,

I’d like to thank you for your emails and the depth of response to some of the questions and concerns I’ve raised in my earlier commentary. I think my readers would like to see your comments, as well, and I’d be very happy to post our correspondence on my blog unedited – would that be acceptable to you?

Also, just so we’re clear, though I’ve voiced some rather pointed questions and concerns about your candidacy, I have nothing but respect for you personally. As I’ve noted, that you are a successful entrepreneur is very commendable and your gifts to various people have indeed been generous. I simply raise the logical question of what might be described as “political inurement” from such acts, intentional or unintentional. I appreciate your comments that your motives are sterling, however. As I’ve said on other blogs, I’m sure you and the other candidates are good people.

Also, to clarify, I’ve never suggested that Board service is the epitome of public service. Quite the contrary: while I acknowledge that it is helpful to our community, as I’ve explicitly said (when critiquing Becky Jackson’s resumé) I don’t see a passive, one-meeting-per-month activity really providing a definitive public service. What’s more, when I see someone serving on four or five such boards, but not actively involved in operational, community-level outreach - getting your hands dirty actually working with the people in the community - it strikes me as being a bit imbalanced as a kind of public service. But I tend to think we generally agree on this.

I appreciate your clarification on your views about when you decided to run for City Council. The distinction you make is a fine one, but I believe it’s fair and I accept that. It raises the question, though, of what other political office you may be considering in the future! ;)

For what it’s worth, my own prediction is that you and Trinity Donovan will be elected in November.* Despite the Chamber of Commerce connections, I don’t see Becky Jackson pulling it off, unless something changes between now and then. I’m personally opposed to the Recall effort, but expect that if one or more Councilmen is recalled, then Jackson will likely soon be on the Council as well.

Speaking of the race, I do, indeed, appreciate that you haven’t worn your political affiliation on your sleeve as she has. My concern with Jackson in this regard is that it is clear that, even in a non-partisan race, she seems to be taking every opportunity to play on the Republican voter registration advantage in Chandler. Jackson’s party affiliation is on her website, in her mailers and in her statements. That seems to me to be defeating the very spirit of non-partisanship in the City Council race.

As you may know from my posts, until very recently I was a life-long Republican, myself. I still hold some conservative positions, including a fairly firm fiscal conservatism. I chose to switch to the Democratic party because I believe that the values I hold dear, especially those that derive from my faith in Jesus Christ, are being ill-served by the GOP in the past decade and particularly in the most recent few years. I believe the best progress to be made in promoting what I see to be Christian values in coming years is with the Democrats. In fact, I tend to be a rather pragmatic moderate on most other issues. So I wouldn’t assume that you and I differ radically in all our views, though there are surely some in which we believe the ideology and approach of one party and its candidates are better suited to what our community needs in the coming years.

Regarding your character, I hope nothing I have ever said has in any way suggested I question it. It’s a fine line to draw in politics, but I try to reserve such castigation for people who I believe are clearly over-the-line. There are some such folks in our state - and I do not pull my punches for them - but I have never sensed, nor intended to convey that I think, that you are such a person. I may be ambivalent about endorsing you as a candidate for office, but I have no hesitancy about embracing you as a neighbor and friend. I say this recognizing that we will likely be on opposite sides of the trenches as the campaign season heats up and want it to be explicit that I respect and appreciate your advocacy for what you believe in, even as I may disagree with it at various points.

Thank you again for your letters, Jeff. I look forward to seeing you when I return to my home in Chandler this August. Please let me know if it will be acceptable to post our correspondence and I’ll be happy to do so without modification. Alternately, if you wish to send a statement you’d prefer to be posted in general response, I’m happy to post that instead.

Looking forward to your response.

Your neighbor,

George Gregg
Editor, The Precinct 134 Blog
http://precinct134.blogspot.com

*This May, actually.

Jeff responded to my email this afternoon with the following reply:

Geo,

Thanks for your response. You may post this cleaner version below. Thanks again for the dialogue.

Jeff Weninger

Below this text was the final draft of the initial letter he sent, which I've presented above.

I'm responding to Jeff one more time to let him know I've posted this correspondence and encouraging him to add any thoughts he may wish to the comments, as well.

Thank you very much, again, Jeff, for taking the time to share and clarify your views with the readers of the Precinct 134 blog.

[Update: Because Mr. Weninger has linked to this post from his website, I feel it is important to note that I do not endorse him for City Council. Instead, I am endorsing Donovan and Jackson, for reasons which I elaborate upon, here.]