Galvin's wife stands by her husband's candidacy in email to Pinellas commissioner
ST. PETERSBURG - District 8 City Council candidate Steve Galvin’s wife is rallying to his defense, following a Times' story that revealed Galvin lied to the newspaper about being sued and fathering a child.
After the story ran on Saturday, Galvin’s campaign manager quit, and the candidate took to the comments section to defend himself. But it didn’t end there – on Monday, Galvin's wife, Pamela Cichon, an assistant attorney for the city of St. Petersburg, sent an email from her work address to Pinellas County Commissioner Janet Long, giving her version of events and claiming that this reporter conspired with Galvin’s opponent, Amy Foster, to “dig up dirt” on her husband.
(In reality, any reporter covering a political campaign searches the candidates' names in the county's court system. When Galvin's name turned up, I read the case files.)
"Stephen is still in the race to win it," Cichon wrote, "and the calls of support we have received --even from some elected officials--have been really great and give him the energy to push on."
Her email to Long came at the end of a longer conversation about a group called Democratic Women on the Move, which hosts occasional meet-ups. Cichon was pushing for a meeting in August or September. "It would be nice to take a break and talk to others who are 'suffering' on the campaign trail and share stories and advice," she wrote. Long replied that she was too busy and was sorry about the article.
Cichon's email is below. (Full disclosure: I do live a few blocks away from Foster. Sometimes I even walk my dog by her house.)
From: Pamela Cichon <Pamela.Cichon@stpete.org>
To: "Long, Janet C" <JanetCLong@co.pinellas.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:35:13 -0400
Subject: Public Service
Janet: I certainly understand how busy you must be. Get togethers must wait.
Thanks for your sentiment on the article. Anna Phillips is Amy Foster's neighbor, so one must consider the source. We understand the Amy camp's efforts to discredit her most difficult opponent in any way they can, but what was truly reprehensible about the article is that the mother's name was published. That was irresponsible and unnecessary to the story. She is a completely private person in this regard, and since we know that Internet postings never go away, someday the child will be googling either his or his mother's name and find that useless article. It will hurt him much more than it does Steve. Phillips had already downplayed Foster's poor voting record: Stephen registered here in 2007 and voted 7 times in 6 years compared to Foster's 3 times since 2004, yet Phillips wrote that his record was only "slightly better." Fortunately, someone else wrote a less biased version. Foster's camp was angry about that and so Phillips set off to dig up dirt. Stephen is still in the race to win it and the calls of support we have received --even from some elected officials--have been really great and give him the energy to push on. He does not feel the Times should be privy to every irrelevant issue in his past and all the article showed that was relevant was that he has faithfully paid his child support which was reached by agreement. He was never served with any lawsuit and that is why the FL court refused to enforce any order from CA. The article fails to make that clear and instead claims he lied. The mother had no interest in allowing visitation and he did try, but to have fought that in CA family court, which makes our court here in FL seem like a day at Disney by comparison, would have been a very long and expensive fight. He gave up and does not feel as though he has any child in his life, nor does he in fact, so he stands by his answer to the Times.
Stephen certainly did not get in this race because of the salary or any lofty political ambitions. This is the very first time he has ever run for anything. He saw that our district had no worthwhile candidates and that is when he got involved to try to make things better here, just has he has been doing in our neighborhood for years. It was his so-called campaign manager who was the real disappointment here and who told him that this was not a big deal and would pass, but then resigned publically on his Facebook page without even telling Steve first. I am learning that there is no such thing as campaign manager ethics.
Have a good Monday.