Some union endorsements may come with a pledge that the endorsee must sign before they are even interviewed. A recent "labor pledge" demanded: "I, (candidate), pledge to do the following if elected: I will unflinchingly support organized labor, collective bargaining and workers' rights. I will not support the subcontracting of public services...... I will not support any AUTOMATION that eliminates jobs......"

Walkers who knock at your door may be from public employee unions, who may be interested in lining their pockets with pay raises, pension spikes and perks that will be voted on by their favored candidate . Never mind that when we have City budget meetings, it's always a "crisis." Never mind that unfunded liabilities (due to previous irresponsible pension giveaways) have undermined public safety with repeated cuts to personnel and facilities and compromised our parks, libraries and other services.

And, speaking of draining the City coffers, let's not forget the "donning/doffing" lawsuit slammed against Long Beach by the vast majority of police officers. Some of the activities for which they sought compensation were dressing, shaving, exercising, getting their hair cut, shining boots, studying for promotional exams, feeding and watering their dogs, and assisting with the Explorer Program. Voters should never forget this ludicrous and mercenary grab for money that cost the City taxpayers millions in attorney fees and other costs. While this suit was settled in 2010, in Jan 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that donning/doffing of safety gear was not subject to compensation.

A dead give-away that large amounts of money are being thrown at a campaign by "special interests" are the proverbial deluge of slick expensive campaign mailers. PACs (Political Action Committees) often mail independent literature that avoids City voter-approved City campaign contribution to the candidates themselves. Recipients of these advertisements should check carefully on exactly who is sending them and whether there might be a possible conflict of interest. As well, contributions from entities connected to City projects need to be scrutinized.

Other endorsements by political party clubs/organizations are equally problematic in my view. A number of the candidates "packed" groups with paid memberships just to try and capture the endorsement vote. Win at any cost seemed to be the theme.

Another very important consideration is a candidate's plans for the future. Will they be just using their elected office as a stepping stone? Do they have their sights set on elected positions outside of this City? Will they be making "feel-good" decisions that might garner votes in the short run but harm the citizens of Long Beach for generations to come?

The educated and responsible voter will consider a person's public service, decisions they have made and their effects on the City, their commitment to transparency, and future plans. Equally important is analysis of endorsements -- are they tied to monetary rewards, did they originate inside or outside of Long Beach? And, what of contributions -- are there conflicts of interest, will the candidate be voting on matters that involve the entity? The entirety of a candidate's proven record must be scrutinized thoroughly -- the end vote should be cast accordingly. In the long run, it will facilitate us all in building a much more viable, economically-sound and vibrant City.