Friday, April 13, 2007

Profile: Sharon Bailey (CD8)

Several readers have mentioned Sharon Bailey's husband, John. For the record, John Bailey ran for City Council in 1991, 1999, and in a special election in 2000. Scott Stocker & Gerry Valerio also wrote an article for the March 29, 2007 Rocky Mountain News regarding his work, entitled "Bailey's effort a cornerstone."

A quick Google search also revealed the article below, which references both Sharon and her husband upon the bestowal of a service award from Princeton University. Below is a short excerpt:
Sharon Bailey, who studied anthropology and teacher preparation at Princeton, volunteered at Community House as an undergraduate and became its director after graduation. Her future husband, John, a Princeton resident who attended Wagner College in New York, was mentoring local students through the Princeton Youth Center at the time.

The two collaborated to develop mentoring programs in academics and sports, focusing on youth in the predominantly African-American John Witherspoon community.

"We really appreciate the award," Sharon Bailey said. "I really felt a great grounding [in my service], and I'm still indebted to Princeton. The motto 'Princeton in the nation's service' has really stuck with me."

16 comments:

People said...

Although I feel Sharon Bailey is very intellegent I have some real problems with how she runs her campaign. She fails to accept responsibility for even minor problems associated with her campaign. When I notified her of her illegal signs and that I was removing them for her she had her husband call me and threaten me. He told me that if he catches me out there "there's going to be trouble" and "Don't let me catch you." Is this the type of representation we can look forward to? I hope that if she wins nobody has any complaints as she may send her husband out to take care of them.

Dave Burrell said...

Folks,

Please note that this allegation has already been made and publicized on Denver Politics two days ago.

The original name provided could not be identified. The fact that this post is from the deliberately-obscure "people" tag further raises suspicions.

Sounds like another campaign's dirty tricks.

Until more information is provided, I would file this allegation under "dubious."

Dave Burrell said...

UPDATE:

"Seth" (not his real name) has provided details on this allegation, as well as an MP3 file confirming the threat.

Mr Bailey specifically notes that his job is "aggressive campaigning" and tells the citizen to beware of removing any further signs.

So, this allegation is indeed true. Is it an important concern for this campaign, or a momentary diversion? That's your call.

BigSprinter said...

So Dave, given that we're apparently going to end up in a runoff between Sharon Bailey and Carla Madison in district 8, what can we do to get more coverage of this issue, or better yet, get that MP3 in the hands of the media?

If it in fact exists, and if in fact Ms. Bailey's husband was threatening as suggested, I want to do anything I can to prevent that type of mentality from being the face of District 8.

BigSprinter said...

Let me also say that I'm not afraid of Mr. Bailey (though maybe I should be). If "Seth" is concerned about being the guy that releases this info, I'm glad to be the fall guy if it keeps Ms. Bailey and her strong-armed husband out of District 8.

All, again, contingent that we in fact do have proof that he made these comments.

BigSprinter said...

Just noticed that you, at least prior to these allegations, supported Bailey.

Do you still support her? If so, please share your reasons why this issue was just a "momentary diversion" as you put it.

Thanks in advance,

Dave Burrell said...

The media does know about this and has had the information since the allegations were first made. They have chosen not to publicize the matter, presumably because of what I'm going to say next.

This isn't what you'd call "a big deal." An overprotective husband told someone not to screw with his wife's campaign signs.

The idea that people should decide against supporting a candidate because of that is silly.

I know that you dislike Dr Sharon Bailey as much as the recently-departed Elbra Wedgeworth (and perhaps for the same reasons), but I believe you are simply "making hay" from this incident to oppose her election rather than seriously considering the matter as presented.

Again, I don't know Dr Bailey and have never communicated with her or her husband in any way, but playing "gotcha" politics to avoid discussing substantive campaign ideas and real issues facing the city is, to me, odious.

BigSprinter said...

Thanks for your comments, Dave, but I continue to disagree.

If her husband truly runs his "business" this way, what does that suggest about how she does hers? Why would I think that Ms. Bailey would be responsive to constructive criticism or an alternative point of view if this is indicative of the way discussions are handled over their dinner table?

If you don't consider character and trustworthiness when voting, I don't know how to respond, as to me you're living in some bizarre parallel universe.

The post of City Council member is all about good communication, active commuinity involvement, and being approachable and responsive.

None of which, in my book, Ms. Bailey has demonstrated.

Dave Burrell said...

The allegation has been laid against Mr Bailey, not Dr Bailey.

To somehow turn that around and attack HER character, openness, trustworthiness, and communication style is really a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Seth said...

I am the origianal poster and Dave know's who I am. I am trying to deicide today if I will let the Denver Post publish my name with this story about Johns Baileys voice mail.
One problem with the whole thing that could have been resolved is the way Sharon has handled this. I called HER and asked for her to acknowledge that she is having signs placed illegally. She never called me back but had her husband call and threaten me. He tried to acuse me of breaking the law even though I was legally collecting litter left there illegally by him. I left her 3 messages and never got a reply. Finally when I did reach her she yelled at me for wasting her time and hinted that I was the one removing legal signs. She told me not to make something out of nothing. She said that since everyone one was doing it (placing signs illegally) that it is okay. I asked her about her hubands threat to me and she said he meant nothing by it. A call to Denise, her campaign manager exposed more of the arogant attituted displayed by this campaign. Denise did not acknowledge any wrong doing and said it is legal to place signs wherever you want. Every candidate knows this is not true and the electin commision made sure they know it.
The Baileys I believe are not in the game to make the city a better place. They want the power. It is obvious to anyone who challengers them that they are going to do what makes them happy.

BigSprinter said...

Hi Dave,

Surprising given the political climate in the United States, where so many people don't trust the government, that you are so unconcerned about the red flags that keep popping up around Sharon Bailey. Regardless, it's important for me to trust the individual that I will likely be working with over the next several years to improve District 8.

Long before "sign-gate" I didn't have a good feeling about Ms. Bailey. She certainly talks the talk when in front of a camera, but everyone I know that has dealt with her outside a public venue has found her evasive, non-responsive, and if they're fortunate enough to actually reach her, downright rude. These accounts, along with sign-gate, paint a picture that supports my initial misgivings about Ms. Bailey rather than discount them.

If you want to vote into office someone that even before being elected whose actions (and those of her campaign staff) suggest she could be a potentially unaccountable, argumentative nut-job, you're certainly entitled.

Additionally, I hate to break it to you, but even assuming Ms. Bailey is an angel married to a devil, if she gets elected, Mr. Bailey comes with the package, apparent emotional baggage included. I for one don't want to receive a threatening phone call one day because I complained about Ms. Bailey's handling of a zoning issue, for example.

You're clearly a supporter of Ms. Bailey, which of course is just fine--Maybe we're making too much of this--But at this point please don't continue to present yourself as neutral on the issue. At least I am open about my desire to prevent Ms. Bailey from continuing the history of neglect that District 8 endured under Elbra Wedgeworth.

Finally, it sounds like in fact the media IS potentially interested in this story, it's just that "Seth" has been reluctant to release his identity for fear of retribution from the Bailey camp (which is increasingly seeming a reasonable concern given the way they as a whole do business). I'll assume you were unaware of that fact, rather than jump to the conclusion that you "spun" it (claiming the media was uninterested) to better support your assertion that it was a non-issue for anyone not interested in "gotcha" politics.

Dave Burrell said...

BigSprinter,

For as much as you dislike Sharon Bailey, I am beginning to tire of your increasingly careless repetition of this issue.

You speak of "all the red flags" around Bailey's campaign, and then point to just one (1) real-world incident. Oh sure, you know thousands of people who have "evasive, unresponsive... and downright rude." Nice that none of those charges are either objective or verifiable.

Though the facts have remained the same, the charges are growing even more more reckless. A week ago, you worried about "the way discussions are handled over their dinner table." Now you pile on the idea of Dr Bailey carrying around "apparent emotional baggage" - with no evidence of any such thing.

Do you think that your presentation of this will come off as anything but meanspirited campaigning?

As for my reporting on this incident being "biased," did you even notice that I publicized this information AFTER giving Bailey an endorsement?

Shortly thereafter, I explicitly noted that Sharon Bailey had come in dead last in a posting entitled "Candidate responsiveness in Council District 8." I believe I called her and Lynn Smith the "losers."

Then I offered a long snippet of your own article in favor of the OTHER candidates in the race in "Cole Neighborhood blog urges you to vote for...". And I quote: "BigSprinter was troubled by the candidacies of Darrell Watson, Greg Rasheed, and Sharon Bailey, for some well-considered reasons."

Yes, it's clearly. I'm a toady. Completely in the pockets of the big Bailey machine.

Did you notice that she's the only candidate who come out on top despite raising LESS money than her rivals?

That's called grassroots campaigning. The comments from Carol Campbell's campaign in "Who got the money in 2007?" make clear how difficult (and yet important) that is.

You can continue this thread as long as you want, but because I'm the only person here willing to say my name, my reputation is involved. I promised a comprehensive and analytical look at Denver elections, and will continue to do so even as you and Seth lurk in the shadows on this incident spinning increasingly tendentious and unsupportable attacks.

Seth said...

I agree in part with Dave that this is a waste of time. There is no point trying to prove to him that Sharon is the worst candidate for City Council. It does not matter that people in her campaign threaten others. It does not matter that her campaign breaks the law. It does not matter that she is unresponsive to the voters. I may not even matter that her husband lost all his bids for City Council so now she runs (as his puppet?). The fact that we have terrible schools yet she uses her School Board Position as a reason to vote for her should not be given any attention. None of these things will change his mind.
Dave, I sent you the voicemail, please post it so others can hear what type of family the Baileys are. That "unsupported attack" is proven in his message.

Dave Burrell said...

I'm going to decline to your offer.

While I was willing - even eager - to publicize these accusations at the start, I was then naive. I believed that this was a small bit of information which a concerned voter thought others should know.

Now, however, I see your far less public-spirited guise. The comments expressed here reveals truly dishonorable tactics. Personal attacks on the candidate's husband, twisted arguments about the candidate's emotional state, and nonsequiters about puppetry by you and others are worse than laughable. They're piteous, seeking to drag this election to its lowest common denominator.

I won't play any further part in that. I want our politics to be about serious issues and plans for the city, not the emotional attacks and mud that regularly define our elections.

There are bad things people do, including candidates. I know that, and I will not hestitate to speak out against it. I also continue to encourage comments about news and candidates, whether I agree with them or not.

I have done so for you and several other "concerned citizens" already... and I will do it for others.

What I will not do is fling baseless accusations or provide a platform for shouting inanities. I put too much time and energy into our municipal elections to abide the meanspirited trashing of candidates and politics.

You are of course free to shop this elsewhere, riding the wave of this "grave matter" across the media outlets. Just not here, not anymore.

Seth said...

Okay. No point in wasitng anymore time here. There is always an excuse to not do the right thing and Dave has found many.

Dave Burrell said...

Thanks. I believe that ending this conversation is exactly the right thing to do.