Dina wants Supervisor job; can’t pay property taxes on time.

The Bolsavik is reporting that apparently while Dina Nguyen has no problem loaning her campaign $25,000 she cannot seem to pay her property taxes on time. For the record, the total year to date amount of contributions reported on Dina’s May 17th report is understated by $500. I’m sure it’s just an error in addition. Also, while the 25,000 loan to her campaign is included in the report, it disappeared from the report total sheet.

In her amendments from the first reporting period, it appears that all she did was change the reported received dates for the contributions that were received before her declaration date. The problem is that since this matter was not discovered until after she filed the initial return and therefore after the reporting period closed, how could she have returned checks and gotten new checks after the fact? Smells fishy to me. The only way to correct the error would be to have refund checks issued from the campaign and then collect new checks and report those in the subsequent period.

So let’s see if I’ve got this right. Dina can’t make sure her web address is spelled correctly on a mailer, cannot follow the rules for accepting contributions or correct the problem ethically, and can’t make sure her campaign report add up correctly. And she wants to be one of five people that oversee a $5 billion budget?

This raises a few questions that have been bugging me for a while. What business does Dina exactly have? How does she derive her income? Why didn’t she report an in-kind contribution from Van Tran’s campaign in the amount of Truong Diep’s salary paid by his campaign while he is working for Dina Nguyen’s campaign? And while not really a violation of any law, other than truth in advertising

Are there pictures of the same person?

   

  16 comments for “Dina wants Supervisor job; can’t pay property taxes on time.

  1. May 24, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Maybe her impound account was messed up? I know I don’t pay my taxes directly it comes from my impound account. Just a thought.

  2. Kudos Kate
    May 24, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Chris,

    Who are you supporting? You’ve been criticial of Janet. Hoa Van “vato” Nguyen? All that is left is Dina. I don’t know anything about this issue. But she seems to be the only normal candidate.

  3. May 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Kate.

    In this race I am supporting no one. Dina and Hoa are not even up to the job of dog catcher, much less Supervisor. Janet is nothing more than a pawn of the Lincoln Club and cannot even live within her district budget without dipping into the Health Care Agency to support her district staffing needs.

    If I were voting in this race, I would write in Darrell Nolta, the BOS gadfly who speaks on everything. If we are going to have a village idiot up there, I would at least want to have an idiot who will drive Norby and Moorlach crazy.

  4. speak for yourself
    May 24, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Chris, why don’t you “write in” your own name? oh wait…you CAN’T because you don’t even LIVE in the First District! so why don’t you just blog about something more relevant to you and leave the First Supervisorial race to those of us who actually CAN VOTE and AFFECT the RESULTS.

  5. May 25, 2008 at 1:38 am

    Dear Speak for Yourself,

    I only recently moved to Long Beach after having lived in the first district for more than 10 consecutive years. I think I know what I am talking about. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you really have no clue.

  6. Kudos Kate
    May 25, 2008 at 7:22 am

    Nolta is admittedly eccentric. But he is no idiot. He knows environmental issues and is genuine.

  7. May 25, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Kate,
    Okay, maybe idiot is a little extreme. But I still think he is probably better than the lot voters have to chose from for the First District on June 3rd.

  8. FLowerszzz
    May 25, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Chris her loan is on both pages correctly so what are you talking about ALSO where is it that you see she is off $500?

  9. May 25, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Flowerszzz,

    You are correct on the loan, I read from the wrong line on that one. I have amended the original post on that matter.

    However, on the contribution piece, I am correct.

    In the previous amended report Dina reported $75,800 in contributions for the period. In this report period she reports $39,039 in contributions. That adds up to $114,849 in contributions. Her report states $114,349 in contributions. There is your $500 difference.

    In her amendments from the first reporting period, it appears that all she did was change the reported received dates for the contributions that were received before her declaration date. The problem is that since this problem was not discovered until after she filed the initial return and therefore after the reporting period closed, how could she have returned checks and gotten new ones, after the fact?

    Smells fishy to me. The only way to correct the error would be to have refund checks issued from the campaign. (sometime after March 22nd) and then collect new checks for the most recent period. That simply did not happen.

  10. FLowerszzz
    May 25, 2008 at 11:46 am

    yes it appears she did – isnt that what the negative contributions are all about on her sch A. I believe the proper way to report contributions refunded is as a negative on sch. A. And when you refund contributions it takes away from the total of contributions received. Perhaps she has not gotten replacement checks from all of her refunded donors as of yet.

  11. May 25, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Flowerszzz,

    Again, you are correct that DIna did post negative contributions. The problem is that this is not the way to report returned contributions. A returned contribution needs to be clearly indicated in the expenditures as a returned contribuion “RFD.” While reporting a negative contribution shows the same thing, I do not believe it is the correct way of doing things. Also, The amended return changed the reported origninal contribution dates to fall within the legal period. If that is the case, then why would they need to refund?

  12. May 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Flowerszzz,

    At any rate, the math on this makes one’s head expload. Indeed her contributions and expenditures would be higher because of the replacement checks and refunds. Yes she reported the correction in the contributions in this period. But there is no way to be sure they actually refunded and collected new checks the way it is reported.

    Why couldn’t she have just done things correctly in the first place? It isn’t like this is the first time she has run for office.

  13. FLowerszzz
    May 25, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    I believe if they were reported BOTH on A & E they would be subtracted 2x which would really screw up the math. And if they were not reported on A the cumulative amounts for the donors would be inaccurate. The refunds to me appear to be reported correctly.

  14. May 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Okay Flowerszzz,

    I yield on this point. None of it makes any sense.

  15. inquisitve mind
    May 25, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Even though I’ve never supported Janet before, out of the 3 she’s probably the best choice right now. 2 years after that I hope to see more qualified people run for that position. But for now, we need to make sure Dina is no going any where after June 3rd, same with Hoa… These 2 will be a liability to our county.

  16. Not Dems/Not Reeps
    May 27, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Thanks for sharing this fact with us Chris, although it’s not a really big deal, I think it’s interesting to see since Dina always out there criticizing and bashing Janet for every little thing…

Comments are closed.