Missing: Council candidate Peggy Thomsen’s campaign signs
A yard sign of City Council candidate Peggy Thomsen on Jackson Street, Albany. Photo by Linda (Linjun) Fan.
Unlike the previous two elections during which lawsuits were filed, no disputes have popped up into the current City Council race in Albany — except for eight yard signs of candidate Peggy Thomsen that went missing recently.
Thomsen didn’t take it seriously when one of her campaign signs disappeared on Peralta Avenue two weeks ago, since more than 100 residents in town have put up her signs to show support. But she got upset when she found five other signs gone Thursday morning, including one in her own yard on Pierce Street, leaving behind only bare wires.
“It bothers me because many of the people who contributed to my campaign live on fixed salary. They made a sacrifice to give me money, ” said Thomsen.
About a third of her campaign money was spent on printing the signs, which cost $5 each.
And it’s not just about the money. Thomsen believed the signs were taken away purposely by supporters of some other candidates. She filed a police report and wrote an email to all the five other candidates.
“We have now recovered one of the signs, and probably it can be dusted for fingerprints, ” she wrote. “We are asking you to rein in your more rambunctious campaign supporters so we may have a fair election. “
That didn’t work, however. Another sign in the yard of her next-door neighbor’s was gone by Saturday morning, and one on Ramona Avenue disappeared a few hours after she delivered it Sunday.
From a recycle bin, Thomsen recovered two of the signs. To deter the ardent thieves, she placed one sign on a cactus.
“I am making it a little harder, ” Thomsen said.
Another council candidate Nick Pilch encountered the same problem. He found his sign in his own yard was uprooted Friday morning. It didn’t affect him much — he just put the sign back into the wire. Pilch was reluctant to blame other candidates for the sign attack.
“I have no idea who did it, ” he said. ” I am not accusing anyone. “
He also noticed that another sign of his on Marin Avenue was missing. But he was not sure whether the homeowner had taken it down or somebody else did it.
Candidate Ellen Toomey said it could be done by some “rambunctious kids”.
“I think it’s very unlikely that other council candidates or their supporters took the signs, because there’s no gain for anyone to do this, and the liability is very great, ” said Toomey.
Candidate Farid Javandel, a current councilmember, said “it’s disappointing to hear of such behavior in Albany “.
“The implication is that since the thief clearly has poor ethics they may not value high ethics in the candidates they support, ” he added.
Candidate Robert Lieber, current mayor of Albany, said he didn’t think the sign incident was an issue worth talking about.
He said he suspected that the issue was made up by Thomsen as a campaign strategy, and he was upset that it was brought up to what he regarded as a “refreshing” election.
“I personally feel saddened that that this issue gets injected to the election at the last minute, ” Lieber said.
Lieber and Thomsen stood on different sides on a few major city issues including the waterfront planning process.
Another of Thomsen’s signs on Pierce Street, Albany. Photo by Linda (Linjun) Fan.
I find it truly shocking that Mr. Lieber believes Peggy Thomsen’s signs being stolen are a campaign strategy. He is in essence saying that she is lying about the incident and it’s not really that big of a deal.
Is it possible that Peggy Thomsen, who has served 8 years on city council, 2 years as mayor, 17 years on the Albany Board of Education four as President, has served not only on countless city committees but also county and state committees. Is it possible that Peggy absconded with her own signs, reporting to the Albany Police Department, thus commiting a misdemeanor under California Penal Code section 148.5 (a) filing a false police report? Is it possible that this devised in the War Room of the Thomsen Campaign HQ?
PROBABLY NOT! What is more likely, like Peggy states, is some rambunctious campaign supporters got a little out of hand.
I can’t help but think that if there were Lieber signs disappearing the Mayor might be a little more concerned.
The signs gone missing from Pierce were more likely launched into the air by the gale force winds that in the afternoon come whipping in off the bay–and are now flapping around in Walnut Creek somewhere.
Isn’t it a giant leap to conclude that the signs were stolen by the opposition, when there is in fact no such evidence? Couldn’t vandals just as likely have knocked them over? Or a aluminum can recycler have jumped the gun and picked them up before their time?
IMHO, Ms Thomsen is jumping to conclusions. In these troubled times, a voter should ask if quickness to blame others is a quality that speaks well of a candidacy .
I would agree with Mr. Dann if some of these signs had not been found in a recycling bin on pick up day.
I suppose it’s not out of the realm of possiblity that these gale force winds may have plucked up these signs and placed them neatly in an enclosed recycling bin or that roving bands vandals are targeting just Thomsen and Pilch signs.
As for Ms. Thomsen jumping to conclusions, I’m sure Mr. Dann knows very well that this is not the first time that election materials have gone missing in our little burg.
I agree with Mr. Dann on one point though, a voter should ask if quickness to blame others IS a quality that speaks well of a candidacy, and Mr. Lieber stated in the article that he suspected the issue was made up by Ms. Thomsen as a campaign strategy.
Now that’s jumping to a big conclusion isn’t it?
Given the refusal to consider other possibilities than theft (how neat of the thieves to recycle!), makes the rashness of the accusors even more explicit.
On a sign on Dartmouth I noticed this weekend that someone has drawn a black moustache on Ms Thomsen’s face.
Quick. Blame the Lieber campaign, which undoubtedly has at least one black magic marker in their possession.
Mr. Dann is there a reason to assume that anyone thought the Lieber campaign was involved?
I don’t believe I nor Ms. Thomsen mentioned that any one candidate’s campaign could be involved in the possilbe theft of election material.
In fact I believe in the article Ms. Thomsen states that she sent a email to ALL the candidates asking them to rein in their more rambunctious supporters.
I only brought up Mr. Lieber’s statement in the article because of his infurence that Ms. Thomsen was lying about the possible theft.
I would hate to see any candidate or organization have their signs or campaign materials stolen or defaced. I agree it does take away from the true substance of this election.
I hope whether we agree or disagree with one another that we can at least have some level of decorum as citizens in this election, if not, then we have already lost.
Presuming guilt by omission.
Consider the Journal front page article this last Friday on the “theft” of signs. First, no one knows if the signs were actually “stolen”; rather than vandalized, prematurely recycled, blown away. But the strong inference is that they were stolen–when there is no such proof of that.
In fairness to Mr Pilch, in the Albany Today article he mentions that he doesn’t know if the signs were taken down by the property owner, for example. But that nuance does not make it into the Journal article.
Inside, the Journal endorses the slate of Thomsen, Farandel, and Pilch. That leaves only the other three candidates as the culprits, if in fact the signs were stolen–which is only one of many possibilities.
Maybe there should be a retraction to clear the air and set the record straight.
Bill Dann says, “Inside, the Journal endorses the slate of Thomsen, Farandel, and Pilch. That leaves only the other three candidates as the culprits…” Buh?? Firstly, Farid Javendel, not Farandel, is the endorsee. Second, why would the Journal’s endorsement of those three say anything about who might have stolen Thomsen and Pilch’s signs, if indeed they were stolen? And I don’t see that anyone has charged that any of the candidates encouraged any theft, let alone did any thieving personally… there was a request that candidates rein in any overzealous supporters. That a bunch of signs were found neatly gray-canned is circumstantial evidence of electoral mischief, but yes, just circumstantial.