It’s understandable. Human nature is what it is. We are all flawed one way or another. But the temptations involved with big public bucks make our failings even more at risk.
Examples of this unfortunate tendency tend to come home as the court case focused on the disgraced former chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District proceeds in Redwood City.
The charges against Ron Galatolo are many and varied but, for the most part, they deal with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer-approved construction bond money and the companies connected with a laundry list of alluring district projects.
Testimony has been ongoing, with key figures associated with Galatolo giving their versions of the ins and outs of his alleged machinations.
One of the more revealing morsels that has come into play is a reference to a related aspect of the overall case: The illicit use of public funds/personnel to help to pass a public school bond package.
Jose Nuñez, the college district’s ex-assistant chancellor, has stated under oath that such illegal behavior occurred in his district on his (and Galatolo’s) watch.
He has agreed to provide evidence against his former boss, not to mention his own involvement, in return for an eventual lighter sentence for himself. But the information, assuming what he is alleging is the truth, is telling. And it’s not entirely a surprise.
Since the turn of the century, county public school districts have been able to pass bond measures worth billions (including interest and fees). Generous taxpayers have assumed that the campaigns to get those levies approved are entirely kosher. Nuñez’s testimony has put the lie to that assumption.
If nothing else, perhaps his admission of impermissible direct district involvement in the bond effort in question will give the citizenry justifiable pause the next time well-meaning folks are asked to vote yes on yet another tax. And 2026 figures to see a mini-tsunami of such measures. Brace yourself.
Recommended for you
IS THERE REALLY A MRS. CLAUS?: It’s a holiday poser, a riddle of sorts. It has confused young and old alike for generations. The question: Does Santa Claus have a spouse, a partner, a significant other, a loved one with whom he shares his frosty life in the far reaches of the North Pole?
Speculation has been ongoing. Securing proof of a relationship has proven to be a vexing endeavor. Our in-depth research has generated only further uncertainty. There have been reports that Santa does indeed have a wife. But the situation is rather sketchy. She remains a mystery.
Her supposed name? “Mrs. Claus.” Bland. Vanilla. Vague. Unsatisfactory. She does not have an official first name. Or a maiden name for that matter.
It’s rather odd. Weird even. As my perceptive niece, Christine Harkin, pointed out last week during a Thanksgiving Day family soiree in Sebastopol, “Even the reindeer have names.” Well said.
On occasion, Yuletide promoters will advertise available photographic opportunities with the supposedly happy holiday couple. Children of all ages are invited to have their photos taken with the pair. But it’s not the norm.
Millbrae, however, has gone the extra mile, touting a free photo shoot with Old St. Nick and his purported life partner on Facebook. The date is Dec. 6 from 2-4 p.m. at the town’s gazebo, located near the Civic Center library.
Say hi to Mrs. Claus. And try to catch her first name if you can. Good luck.
TRANSCRANIAL STIMULATION: The rich, especially the elite 0.1%, aren’t like the rest of us. Not even close. They live at an entirely different level of budget-be-gone bounty. The Wall Street Journal recently did a deep dive into the world of the uber-wealthy and found an astounding range of wretched excess. One example involved aspects of a very personal health experience that featured “blood cleansing, cell rejuvenation and transcranial magnetic stimulation.” Say what? Let’s see if your Blue Cross HMO plan covers that regimen which is designed to produce vim, vigor and vitality. Doubtful.
IS NOTHING SACRED THESE DAYS?: As 2025 staggers to a close within a few weeks, persistent investigations (with soiled bib at the ready) by your tireless scribbler can confirm an unfortunate culinary worry. Yes, the Burger King Whopper is somewhat smaller now. Even the bun has been changed and slightly reduced in size, though a tad fluffier in the bargain. Is nothing sacred?

(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.