As if the first mailer of the San Diego mayor’s race didn’t result in enough reaction, including today’s U-T San Diego story, “‘No-show job’ ad irks Fletcher,” there’s more.
Hitting mailboxes today, it appears, is a second piece from the Lincoln Club, claiming that Nathan Fletcher “Doesn’t show up to work” and depicting a vacant parking space.
The buzz will now further abound.
(Click the images for a larger view.)
Qualcomm letter to Lincoln Club
The Lincoln Club made it clear with their first hit piece that alienating one of San Diego’s largest private employers doesn’t bother them and now they have made it clear that they also won’t let facts stand in the way of their political agenda.
Faulconer shows up for work; Fletcher collected his full salary during the last mayoral election yet he missed 74 percent of his Assembly meetings
SAN DIEGO (Oct. 10, 2013): Nathan Fletcher’s campaign has suggested to reporters that Kevin Faulconer and David Alvarez should cut their pay in half while running for mayor. What follows is a response from Faulconer’s campaign:
“San Diego voters should be more concerned about Nathan’s own attendance record as a state Assemblyman when he ran for mayor,” said Tony Manolatos, spokesman for Faulconer’s campaign. “It’s well-documented that Nathan collected his full salary during the last mayoral election yet he missed 74 percent of his Assembly meetings. He missed hundreds of votes on a wide range of important issues, including public safety, education and the budget. You have to show up for work – even when you’re running for office.
“Nathan went on to miss nearly 60 percent of his Assembly meetings throughout 2012 yet still collected a $95,000 taxpayer funded paycheck.
“Kevin Faulconer hasn’t missed any City Council meetings while running for mayor, and won’t. He also Chairs the city’s Audit Committee.
“It’s shocking that a candidate who has such a documented history of not showing up to work would raise this issue. Since Nathan suddenly feels so strongly about this, we challenge him to return the $56,000 to the taxpayers he took while not showing up to work in 2012 and still taking his full taxpayer-funded salary.”
Background: (59% of $95k = $56,050)
What a tool. Who in their right mind would vote for this guy?
More than likely a plurality in the Primary and a majority in the General Election.
So you are ok with Fletcher missing 75% of his assembly meetings along with having major questions related to his qualcomm job?
Who has major questions about his Qualcomm job?
Now that Fletcher has proved that his salary is not close to $400K, will the Lincoln Club mail out a retraction? I doubt Mr. Zane has that kind of integrity.
HQ, IF Fletcher had been forthcoming about his STILL HIGH salary for phantom Qualcomm work when the story came up couple of months ago, an apology would be in order. He did not. He hoped it would go away.
It didn’t. His choice.
And BTW, what we don’t know is what other perks he got — especially stock options (which can be more lucrative than pay!). Still not disclosed.
Personally I wonder why it took sooooo long to get proof from Qualcomm. Most of us who work(ed) for a salary could provide such proof in an afternoon. Did this long delay involve — well — “properly” documenting this lower salary?
Answer to your question: Who has major questions about his Qualcomm job?
Me, Channel 10, the UT, the Lincoln Club, David Alvarez, the New Majority, GOP, Chamber of commerce and many others.
And the answer to who doesn’t have any questions about Fletcher’s job is his boss, Paul Jacobs, the CEO of San Diego’s most successful homegrown business.
Since when did you or the majority of contributors to this site start criticizing what private business pays their employees? Answer, when that company is owned by a Democrat and that employee has the nerve to run for public office as a Democrat. Never has my pseudonym been more appropriate.
Watch “NBC7: Nathan Fletcher’s No Show Hypocrisy” on YouTube
Being a successful business does not shield you from critique and questions regarding a seemingly shady way of hiring an employee, who has no relative degree, just so that he can run for office at a later date. It may not be illegal, but it stinks to high heaven…successful business or not.
Wait a minute, I thought the Dems didn’t like big corporate companies manipulating elections.
HQ, if the Koch brothers hired Carl DeMaio, paid him $200,000+, and didn’t want or expect him to do any work for their company, would you have a problem with that?
Add to that…the Koch brothers hired Carl DeMaio and only hired him so that he could get some actual business experience to run for office?..gave him a cush job with a huge paycheck so that he could sit on boards, make speeches and fly around the world?
Actually Red, it appears that Fletcher drew a salary WHILE he ran for office — reducing the salary only when he OFFICIALLY was a declared candidate — which was months later. Seems to me Fletcher was paid a salary to cover his expenses (and then some!) while he spent his time running for office — a tax deductible method of subsidizing a candidate far in excess of the allowed contribution limits. And yes, it allows Fletcher to CLAIM he now has corporate business experience — which he most certainly does not.
Legal? Perhaps. Ethical? That’s another matter.
Of course, my conjecture is just a matter of opinion. Well-founded opinion, but just an opinion nevertheless.
BTW, now that Fletcher is running full time for mayor, why is he drawing ANY Qualcomm salary — reduced or not? It’s a mystery.
It all comes back to Ethics….and haven’t we had enough of ethics challenged candidates?
Oh by the way…news outlets…ask Fletcher this question:
What policies have you disagreed with Filner on? Fletcher is Filner with a prettier (yes much prettier) face.
From Admin: The point was made without the last sentence. We’ve removed it. It was pretty much in poor form.
The problem with Filner had nothing to do with his policies.
HQ: Relating to your last sentence:
“The problem with Filner had nothing to do with his policies.”
Really? His policies were great? Really?
Oh..and another person who has questioned Fletcher’s job is…Qualcomm’s employees.
The Filner/Female policy in action was somewhat lacking in the eyes of most people.
As I’ve mentioned previously, I am a Qualcomm investor, and I am troubled by the amount Fletcher is being paid, and his apparent job description. If this were a true position, then I believe the company can find many much more qualified candidates to perform the functions of global business development.
Additionally, I am also concerned by how strongly Paul Jacobs is defending Fletcher, including the letter he wrote to the Lincoln Club demanding a retraction. Frankly, this is not the type of activity that the CEO of a global Fortune 500 company should be focused on.
D7 Voter and others,
I am not sure you understand what the position of Business Development entails. Hint: you don’t need to understand the technical aspects of the business you are promoting.
And by the way, top business development professionals easily earn $200K+.
Having been an executive in technology for over 30 years I can without reservation state that you are out to lunch with your statement.
People with that title at a company of the technical stature of Qualcomm have a BSEE, MBA as a minimum with 10 years of experience in the related field. Many would have an MSEE as well. Fletcher has none of the above minimum requirements and his resume would find the dustbin. See him for the opportunist he is.
HP: So Fletcher, who was a sergeant in the military and has been a political hack the rest of his adult life is a “top business development professional”???????? Oh my!!
I wish we could have seen the smirk on your face when you wrote that.
Even scarier, maybe you WEREN’T smirking, and actually BELIEVE what you write!
I spent over 30 years in technology and find your comment to be out to lunch.
That level of job at a worldwide, respected technology company would require 10 years of related experience, a BSEE/MSEE and probably an MBA. In addition, it would require, several rounds of internal interviews with other stakeholders at Qualcomm. Can you find out who interviewed Fletcher for the job other than Jacobs,
See Fletcher for the opportunist that he is.
John is absolutely correct. Giving this job to no show Fletcher is a slap in the face to candidates who have real technology business development experience. Qualcomm employees must but furious.
Here is a question I haven’t heard answered:
Was the Sr Director position at Qualcomm ever posted online?
I bet we all know the answer to that question.
I am very familiar with what business development positions of this type entail.
As noted in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Fletcher)
“In November 2012 Fletcher announced that he will become the Senior Director of Corporate Development at Qualcomm after his legislative term ends on December 2. He said in a statement that his position will include developing global strategies for wireless health initiatives, mobile education and the protection of intellectual property but will not involve lobbying or government relations.”
Global strategies? I can absolutely guarantee you there are many much more qualified individuals with years of direct experience in global business development that should have been interviewed / hired over Fletcher for this position. That actually raises an interesting question — were any other candidates even considered?